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

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by downisreallyup

 

Did you notice the winky thingie?

Personally, I try to ignore your winkie.

I don't often use those things, when I do it's for a reason.

We really don't need to know about your private life Phage. Too much information

(Sorry, it's very late/early here and I'm in the silly zone).

So, you were only joking when you likened Cricks informed speculation to "making it up". Fair enough.


[edit on 30-1-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
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.

I beg to differ.

It was well known in the 1970s that Crick and Orgel did not have any faith in the idea of abiogenesis -- that is they did not think that it was probable at all that life could spontaneous spring up out of non-living chemicals.

After the discovery of Ribozymes and the further understanding of how they worked, Crick revised his position in that 1993 article. This recantation seems pretty clear to me...They first thought that abiogenesis was highly unlikely, but then they revised their thinking and reversed their position -- they now (in 1993) thought that abiogenesis was likely:

Was RNA the first genetic material? Twenty five years ago a system based on polypeptide replication seemed to be the only reasonable alternative. 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.

We did not seriously consider the possibility that there was a midwife, a replicating pre-RNA world of quite different chemistry based, for example, on clays, as suggested by Cairns-Smith, or an alternative organic polymer.
Such a pre-RNA world would have possessed the catalytic activity necessary to start the RNA world but it may not have needed to transfer its genetic information directly to that of the new (RNA) replication system. We now find this idea attractive. Whether molecular relics of a pre-RNA world still
exist remains to be seen.

This is most definitely a recantation of the idea that life arising from non-living matter was highly improbable. The new information regarding other biological catlysts changed his mind.

And let me say this again -- I'm not saying that directed panspermia is not possible. I'm just saying that Crick's original reasons why he thought is was the best scenario is no longer valid -- and Crick realized this within his lifetime.


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

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Yeah, as I said a few posts back, he didn't hold to this idea ultimately.
But it really doesn't matter.
Remember, we aren't arguing from authority.

I am not attacking the claim, on the contrary it is interesting, I am trying to push the envelope a bit. If I should be attacking something that should be our limited understanding of what surrounds us and not just how little we know but how little we try to make sense out of it all.
Why should someone not bring God to the equation, just because is the norm? Should the process of thought answer to the norm or be free to explore whatever possibility? Evolution, could be driven, I accept that, but also murders too. Does this make it something good or bad relative to circumstances, we also know nothing about?

By the way, he should have been telling us more than just that, not that just alien spaceships pased by and rained down some microbes. He should be telling us what sparked this idea, and I don't believe that this:

Coming full circle to his groundbreaking discovery of DNA's structure, Crick wondered, if life began in the great "primeval soup" suggested by the Miller/Urey experiment, why there wouldn't be a multitude of genetic materials among the different life forms. Instead, all life on Earth shares the same basic DNA structure.

explanation is enough.

JayinAR I didn't know he died, God rest his soul, at least he dared to speak about intelligent life before us, unlike some other respected scientists of his field who avoid this idea at all costs.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by spacebot]

Soylent Green Is People thank you for that clarification. This deserves further study from my part.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by spacebot]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Saying something is "possible" is not the same as saying something "happened". And the fact that this was said by Crick does not add any additional credence to this idea.

I'm with Crick in saying that it is possible that life was deliberately transported here, but believing this without any evidence whatsoever makes it pure speculation -- no matter who is doing the speculating.

Crick hit on the idea that it would be unlikely that microorganisms could accidentally arrive on Earth from across space, but as long as you are engaging in pure speculation, you may as well say that life did come here accidentally -- or for that matter you might as well say life started here spontaneously and independently.

It's all pure speculation anyway, although it may be an interesting idea and fun to think about.

And, the fact that it is a Nobel Laureate that mentioned this is meaningless in the absence of evidence. Many people on ATS and even many science fiction writers have mentioned this possibility before. Crick has no supporting evidence, so his speculation is just as equal as anyone else who has hypothesized about this.



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

Didnt you know everything on Earth was created in 7 days?... and Earth is 6,000 years old?!
god...you people ...
lol (Joke)

reply to post by kaskade


Yes, and while they can say "possibly happened" vs. "probably happened"... they can realize that the argument works both ways!

And once you wrap your head around that one, all sorts of stuff opens up that certain folks would have you believe just isn't so... under no circumstances.

You see, for a lot of folks, arguments like these are pointless. But I disagree.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
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."

That was regarding a very specific part of the OP, explained in my original post. That was not to say there is evidence to the contrary or any other comment on panspermia. Any confusion on that is my fault; it was poor sentence construction.

I have a feeling you may disagree. That is fine. However, I think you can agree this disagreement is ultimately pointless and a distraction from the conversation.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

Originally posted by spacebot
JayinAR I didn't know he died, God rest his soul, at least he dared to speak about intelligent life before us, unlike some other respected scientists of his field who avoid this idea at all costs.

Discussion of extraterrestrials is not as rare as you may think. Nor are aliens something science is just now warming up to. That scientists are is antagonistic to the idea of aliens is misconception born from popular culture rather than the real attitude of science.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

It's quite interesting to find people on this thread saying, "well, it's an interesting theory, but the evidence for it is not only insufficient, but completely nonexistent. And what about this, that and the other? Did Crick consider these possibilities?" Some people here seem to believe for some reason that their understanding of this issue is on par with that of a man who won a nobel prize for his study of the complexity of the DNA molecule.

Does it seem likely that anyone frequenting this site is going to read this thread and in five minutes come up with some aspect of the problem that this man hasn't considered? Has anyone here even done any research on DNA (scientific research that is, not the Net surfing and YouTube viewing that people on ATS like to refer to as "research")? Is anyone here a professional scientist of any kind? How about a bachelor's degree in biology? Anything?

I have no idea how well-founded Crick's ideas regarding directed panspermia are, but I am almost certain that they are much closer to the mark than the relatively uninformed opinions of anyone reading this post.

reply to post by Orkojoker


Yes, that is a very nicely illustrated argument from authority.
There, it finally happened.
No, actually, it has happened a few times now.

But goddangit Rex, it didn't happen until WELL AFTER you were accusing folks of it.

GO TO heck.

reply to post by Orkojoker


Well said.

What I find even more interesting is the inconsistency with which some people treat the comments of scientists, depending on the context.

If arguments are made against the ETH, then references to the comments of scientists are unquestioningly deemed to be decisive and hugely weighty.

If the comments of scientists serve to support the ETH and related theories, then suddenly the scientist's comments are automatically deemed to be virtually worthless, and countless reasons are found to 'justify' this.

This tell-tale inconsistency is a fairly accurate indicator of bias and agenda, IMO.

It's amusing to observe.


[edit on 30-1-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by spacebot
JayinAR I didn't know he died, God rest his soul, at least he dared to speak about intelligent life before us, unlike some other respected scientists of his field who avoid this idea at all costs.

Discussion of extraterrestrials is not as rare as you may think. Nor are aliens something science is just now warming up to. That scientists are is antagonistic to the idea of aliens is misconception born from popular culture rather than the real attitude of science.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

Indeed. Most scientists do believe in the possibility of intelligent aliens.

In fact, you would be hard-pressed NOT to find a scientist who doesn't believe intelligent alien life may exist in the galaxy/universe. I'm sure some dinosaur-like scientists DO exist who don't believe in the possibility of intelligent aliens, but they are few and far between.

I hope the excitement over this thread isn't because --*gasp* -- a main-stream scientist dared talk about intelligent aliens. I would be very disappointed if that is the reason this thread got the attention of ATSers. I think Crick was a remarkable scientist who did great things, but the message about directed panspermia -- no matter who it was delivering that message -- is far more exciting than the identity of the messenger himself.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Oh, I wholeheartedly agree.
Isn't that a fascinating concept? Heck, we can do it ourselves. Right now. On Mars.

reply to post by Orkojoker

Well stated and I will have to agree with you on that. There are too many people on these boards who are "self proclaimed experts" on everything. When I see "certain members" who consistently attack "certain boards" touting superior knowledge against anyone who disagrees with them, I have to come to the suspicion that they have specific motives for doing so. And as it seems, they're running in packs now. However, that is neither here nor there.

The fact that this man has dedicated a lifetime to the observance of DNA and the origins of life while receiving a well respected prize for his efforts elevates him/her above any of the jokers that run these boards without a shred of credibility to their names.

Although I cannot pretend to understand all of the implications of this scientist, I will certainly believe his theory on the origins of life far above some of the whack jobs that seem to think their opinion and understanding of science is greater than his. Consequently, there's one name that comes into mind in particular, but, for the sake of keeping this thread viable, I choose to omit any further references.

On the flip side...I must admit, it is really encouraging to see such a radical view gain the visibility and acceptance that this scientist's work has brought. Let's hope that others continue the fight and work towards understanding our possible extraterrestrial origins.


[edit on 30-1-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


They aren't running in packs.

You know what I notice a lot?
People feeling paranoid because others are shooting down their arguments.

But just occasionally, you'll get a chance to voice your opinions in a way that comes across as genuine.

Odd thing is that most of those occasions, infact all of them, come in a thread for which there can be no definative proof.

Doesn't it suck?

Good lord, this God guy *IS* pretty mysterious.


[edit on 30-1-2010 by JayinAR]

Originally posted by Orkojoker
It's quite interesting to find people on this thread saying, "well, it's an interesting theory, but the evidence for it is not only insufficient, but completely nonexistent. And what about this, that and the other? Did Crick consider these possibilities?" Some people here seem to believe for some reason that their understanding of this issue is on par with that of a man who won a nobel prize for his study of the complexity of the DNA molecule...

...I have no idea how well-founded Crick's ideas regarding directed panspermia are, but I am almost certain that they are much closer to the mark than the relatively uninformed opinions of anyone reading this post.

I'll say it again:

People on this thread are NOT casting doubt on the idea that directed panspermia is possible. We all agree that Crick is right -- directed panspermia could have been the way Life started on Earth.

...And the only reason I brought up the "other possibilities" you mention is because those other possibilities were central to Crick and Orgel's original ideas in the late 1973 (i.e., I didn't bring them up; Crick and Orgel did).

I never said "Did Crick consider these possibilities?" because I know the Crick did in fact consider the possibilities of:
1. Life arising on Earth, and
2. Life being seeded in earth via a comet (non-directed panspermia).

However, the problem is that in the 1970s, Crick discounted these two possibilities as being "unlikely". But Crick was not entirely right about these being unlikely. I'm not saying he was a bad scientist; on the contrary -- he was a great scientist. I'm just saying that science progressed and learned new things -- just like science always does -- and Crick's original 1970s ideas supporting the necessity of directed panspermia were no longer valid.

The new things that science learned since Crick's original directed panspermia idea were that:
1. Ribozymes are another biological catalyst that makes it much more likely that life could arise independently on Earth, and
2. New findings about extremophiles makes it more possible that perhaps a simple microorganism survived the trip to Earth in a comet (i.e. non-directed panspermia)

These are the things that Crick found to be unlikely, but new scientific findings make these things a little more likely

Crick's directed panspermia idea is still a valid one -- however, science has progressed a bit since Crick first formulated the idea, and Crick's original statements supporting the necessity of directed panspermia don't all apply.

...and, no, I don't think my understanding on this issue is better than Crick's. I simply have the advantage of knowing things in 2010 that neither Crick (nor science itself) knew in the 1970s. I know Jupiter has more than four moons -- that doesn't mean that I think I'm better than Galileo.

Science evolves. Crick's core idea about directed panspermia is a valid one, but the full idea needs a little revising based on new science. I don't think we can say today that it is highly improbable for life to survive in a comet. Crick said it was highly improbable because his information was based on 1970s science.


[edit on 1/31/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Of course I would say that his statements DO apply.
2nd line.

Alright, now I'm just messing around.
Nevermind that last remark.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

I'll say it again:

People on this thread are NOT casting doubt on the idea that directed panspermia is possible. We all agree that Crick is right -- directed panspermia could have been the way Life started on Earth.

First of all, defending a group - "People are not..." - tends to validate the idea somebody mentioned a few posts back, regarding members "running in packs" LOL

Secondly, I'm slightly at a loss to work out exactly what you and others are doing, if not trying to "cast doubt on the idea" of directed panspermia, and reading again through the thread I'm sensing some are being less than honest about their motivations in posting.

The OP was perfectly accurate and made no unfounded claims. Nor did those who followed who expressed appreciation for the OP.

Yet you and and few others immediately began.....well, what would you call it exactly? You were opposing and disagreeing with something, so what was it? Something was getting yours and Rex's (and a few others) panties in a bunch and compelled you to post in resistance.

Rex complained that it was "Pure speculation...His claimed evidence is so weak as to be stillborn."

You followed up with: "Saying something is "possible" is not the same as saying something "happened".

Well, nobody said it did, so what was your problem? You then said "And the fact that this was said by Crick does not add any additional credence to this idea." So clearly you had a problem with this idea being seen as having any credence. Actually, as we discussed, Cricks comments did lend credence to the idea.

And so the debate rumbled on. So why did you and others feel compelled to resist the OP, if not to "cast doubt on the idea" of directed panspermia?



[edit on 31-1-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram


Well, nobody said it did, so what was your problem? You then said "And the fact that this was said by Crick does not add any additional credence to this idea." So clearly you had a problem with this idea being seen as having any credence. Actually, as we discussed, Cricks comments did lend credence to the idea.

Well, "somebody" did. The OP to be precise.

The late Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner, co-discoverer of the shape of the DNA molecule and author of Life Itself, made the astounding claim ‘that an advanced civilisation transported the seeds of life in a spacecraft.