Nobel Prize winner, Francis Crick ,advanced civilisation transported seeds of life in a spacecraft

Keep this in mind...He's JUST a Nobel prize winner.

I'm sure that our far more reputable and intelligent staff of ATS debunkers who have never contributed anything in life will be able to find a way to discredit him and attempt to make him look unqualified to make such a statement.

However, this finding seems like a very intelligent assessment to me.


[edit on 30-1-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

www.fasebj.org...
(click on the "begin manual download" link if the pdf doesn't do so automatically)

Thanks. I didn't expect to smile reading something like that but I did when I read the line:

"How much influence did our speculation have on the subsequent development of the subject?

Very little."

Again, I'm not saying that just because life could have arisen on Earth more easily than Crick originally thought, or that life could have hitched a ride in a comet more easily than Crick originally thought makes Crick's directed panspermia idea "wrong" -- it just makes it less necessary.

I must admit, I don't really see that article as "recanting". They acknowledged certain discoveries but the degree to which they changed their views (as they relate to the OP) didn't appear to be radical. I'd say it appeared to soften their stance rather than radically change it. But then I'm no scientist so perhaps such an admission - if there was one - was lost in jargon.

Consequently, I'm not yet convinced that this really invalidates the OP. Although it's good that Cricks later slightly amended view has also been clarified.


[edit on 30-1-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Again, I'm not saying that just because life could have arisen on Earth more easily than Crick originally thought, or that life could have hitched a ride in a comet more easily than Crick originally thought makes Crick's directed panspermia idea "wrong" -- it just makes it less necessary.

I must admit, I don't really see that article as "recanting". They acknowledged certain discoveries but the degree to which they changed their views didn't appear to be radical. I'd say it appeared to soften their stance rather than radically change it. But then I'm no scientist so perhaps such an admission - if there was one - was lost in jargon.

Consequently, I'm not yet convinced that this really invalidates the OP. Although it's good that Cricks later slightly amended view has also been clarified.

Who said anything about invalidating the OP?

As I said repeatedly on this thread, I think the OP and Crick's original directed panspermia arguments to be thought-provoking and interesting.

The article I linked above is not meant to be Crick and Orgel recanting direct panspermia -- that idea is still very valid. The article is a recantation of a specific paspect of why Crick and Orgel thought that direct panspermia may have been necessary. Specifically:

Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Crick and Orgel thought that is was very, very, very rare for life to arise spontaneously from non-living matter (or abiogenesis), so they thought that it was unlikely life started on Earth. This article is the recanting of that idea -- in the article they said that they were to pessimistic about the spontaneous arising of life from the primordial soup. They sai this was much more possible than they originally thought when they formulated their idea of directed panspermia.

I'll say it again, because you seemed to miss what I'm saying -- I'm not saying that this article makes Crick's original directed panspermia idea "wrong" -- it just makes it less necessary.

Crick based his 1970s idea of direct panspermia on the idea that the other alternatives (life starting on Earth being seeded by a comet) were so unlikely that direct panspermia perhaps is the only way Earth could have got it's life. However, based on what Crick learned later in life, direct panspermia is not the most likely way Earth got life -- its just "a" way.


[edit on 1/30/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Malcram

Well, the only sentence that really comes close to a refutation or a recantation would be this one.

We recognized that a complementary system based, for example, on the interaction of positively and negatively charged amino acids might be possible: however, we did not consider it likely that such a system ever existed on the primitive earth. Nowadays we would have a more open mind about the nature of the first replicating system. It may have been RNA, but a number of alternative polymers are possible including polypeptides.

But personally, this statement still seems shrouded in a cloud of "I don't know what I'm really talking about," therefore, I would have to conclude that such a supposed "recantation's" nature is dubious at best.

If this is what the skeptics are basing the entirety of their argument on, then, it seems that they have little or no case against the Nobel Prize Winner.

Alternately though, given the simple fact that scientists still have come up with nothing conclusive to base their original opinion off of, I will have to step back and simply wait until there's a reason to get excited. This guy knows more than I do, therefore, his assessment is enough to at least get me interested in the rest of his theories.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Who said anything about invalidating the OP?

If nobody is implying that Crick's later comments invalidate the OP, then I'm very pleased, because I don't think they do either. But I certainly got the impression that was what some were implying. I didn't specifically have you in mind when I said it.

And after our misunderstanding - which is what I suspect it was - centered on the import of the word "credence" it seems clear to me that you have a pretty open-minded and balanced approach to the subject.




[edit on 30-1-2010 by Malcram]

I, for one, absolutely love the direction this thread has taken.
Others will most likely disagree.
But I see this as a chance to look at how well these folks, and everyone knows who they are, handle logic.

I, for one, have grown tired of blind debunking and appeals to authority.

I have some catching up to do, I missed the last couple of hours.

BRB.

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Who said anything about invalidating the OP?

If nobody is implying that Crick's later comments invalidate the OP, that then I'm very pleased, because I don't think they do either. But I certainly got the impression that was what some were implying. I didn't specifically have you in mind.


[edit on 30-1-2010 by Malcram]

No Malcram, You are correct. There isn't anything whatsoever in this article that serves as a recantation...at all. If anything, they are entertaining more "earthly" possibilities considering newer updates in knowledge and technology. However, they didn't say anything definitive in a reversal of their opinions.

reply to post by gortex


I cannot understand why Crick is shooting his own "Primeval soup" theory on the foot with his latest claim.
The primeval soup theory initially was a good start in order for us to believe that life might exist everywhere in the Cosmos, but with his latest claim that might have arrived here by extraterrestrials limits the chances of life happening everywhere but in just some selected places which an alien civilization has supposedly chosen.

I cannot accept this claim, or are we supposed to just be happy because some scientist decided to put the words "alien" and "civilization" both in the same sentence on his latest attempt for attention?
Alien civilizations transporting genetic material anywhere should be working under an agenda. Does he care to explain what he believes about that issue, or shall it always remain just a vague notion only useful for as a future building block for some new age religion? God knows we have enough of that already.


[edit on 30-1-2010 by spacebot]

reply to post by spacebot

He wasn't shooting it in the foot. As a matter of fact, they are simply trying to entertain all possibilities as opposed to narrowing it down to one. There is no recantation in this article, just a possible revision. I have read this article thoroughly, and ultimately, there isn't much that is changed.

If possible, maybe it would be a good idea to test the DNA of the worm like fossils discovered on mars, (if we have the fossil on earth) to see if it is made up the same as organisms on Earth.
If it is similar, it is more likely to be un-naturally made and mars didnt suit for the organisms.
Or if it isnt then the aliens made different kinds of organisms

Fair enough, but I believe that scientific research or even a training of ideas in the same department addressed by this claim are long overdue and I hope the timing of similar claims from the mouths of respected scientists are not agenda driven.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SyphonX

 

How about "making it up"?

Phage, I would not have thought that you would fall for the mistake that speculation is the same as "making it up." While it could technically be so in a very limited sense, the term "making it up" implies a fanciful product of a silly imagination.

Unless you didn't read the posts earlier in the thread, there must be some reason why you are failing to recognize that there are well-informed speculations and there are non-so-informed speculations.

All existing scientific theories begin with a speculation, based on what is known and observed. The speculation then proposes explanations for what is yet to be proven with facts. In short, there is nothing wrong with speculating, for that is the beginning of the inventive process. The key is to do it with as much intelligence and information as possible.

reply to post by spacebot


"I cannot understand why Crick is shooting his own "Primeval soup" theory on the foot with his latest claim. "

The guy has been dead for six years.
Also, as Phage pointed out earlier, he actually changed his mind about this particular theory. But that is sorta' not what the thread is about.

Ask him about central dogma, though.

reply to post by downisreallyup


This is becoming a reoccuring theme, I'm afraid.
It is a bit odd.



[edit on 30-1-2010 by JayinAR]

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Argument from incredulity!
Another "logic guy"...
You need to go back and reread the thread.
Or perhaps reread the definition of incredulity.

There is nothing lacking about the speculation in the theory proposed.
Nice try, though.

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

 

So why wouldn't an Extra-Terrestrial civilization want to seed life to other planets ? ,we are making the first steps already , and we are a relatively young civilization .

..............

Science is made up of theories , just because this one involves the existence of Extra-Terrestrial civilizations makes it no less worthy of investigation .

Say that we accept the fact that an alien civilization for whatever reasons seeded a whole cluster of star systems with a specific type of dna, then another civilization much later "resets" these conditions, for their own reasons.
For instance an asteroid hit the earth and dinosaurs died, probably allowing humans to evolve. Lets say the act was deliberate from another civilization with different motives.

To which we should pay homage? To the ones creating life in the first place or to the ones that destroyed large percent of life on the planet at the time being but allowed us to evolve?
It's an extension of Crick's claim.
Which action should we deem an action of God, or of evolution and which one not? Can we remove God from the equation? What if both those civilizations actually believe in the existence of a God and were just furthering the agenda, or what if one believed and one didn't, but which one?
Last who decides what a scientific claim should be and how much scientific thought will expand to accompany also science fiction? Where science stops and where fiction begins?

reply to post by downisreallyup

Did you notice the winky thingie?
I don't often use those things, when I do it's for a reason.


[edit on 1/30/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by spacebot


There is no need to bring god into it or pay homage to anyone.
The claim is that biogenesis was driven.
Nothing more.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by downisreallyup
A man who has studied the very essence of life for HIS entire life MAY... just MAY... have some insights into the subject... insights that you lack, and yet because of arrogance, you assume that he must be wrong, instead of the MORE LIKELY case, which is that you are wrong for making such a strong and uninformed conclusion.

At no point did I say Crick was wrong. Nor did I say he was an ignorant fool. All I said was in this case, he is speculating and we need to recognize it for speculation. Nothing more. Like Dragonmusic, you are reading things that are not there. I've said nothing different than what Soylent has said; but for some reason, some here have decided to make it a personal argument.


[edit on 30-1-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

If you had merely commented on the OP's premise as being speculation you would not have incurred anyone's rebuttal.

But that is not all that you did. You then went forth and assumed that just because it was speculative, that meant is was "non existent." You indeed went beyond where any scientist would go by making your "a priori" assumptions. You spoke in absolutes, not even saying something more qualified like "it probably is non-existent." Even that would have a false assumption, since as it was pointed out, there was not any evidence to make a conclusion on the probability. The word "probably" implies statistical likelihood, and that has nothing to do with how you feel about something.

That is what I took exception to.... not your comment on speculation, but your absolute words of biased speculation, posing as knowledge.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by downisreallyup

 

Did you notice the winky thingie?
I don't often use those things, when I do it's for a reason.


[edit on 1/30/2010 by Phage]

Ah, okay then... sarcasm duly noted