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

reply to post by JayinAR

It's been covered more that once on ATS.
The "Russian scientists" seem to be a bit elusive.


[edit on 1/31/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by JayinAR

Think about what was said about DNA, how it is, and how it should be if all life came from the "primordial soup," as we were all taught was the most likely origin of all the rest.

If I read this correctly, he said that it should be more diverse, and that is why he felt deliberate seeding made more sense.

The DNA evidence is what he was trying to understand. The seeding is a theory that would explain it.

Why did he need an additional theory? How to overlook this?

Wouldn't he be able to prove the origins of life by DNA otherwise?

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
It is pure speculation on his part. As it says above: ...the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. I would go so far as to say it is non-existent. His claimed evidence is so weak as to be stillborn. That all life on Earth shares the same basic DNA structure doesn't tell us anything other all life on Earth shares the same DNA structure.

i love the armchair experts on this forum who consider themselves well qualified to disagree with nobel prize winning scientists...

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
It is pure speculation on his part. As it says above: ...the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. I would go so far as to say it is non-existent. His claimed evidence is so weak as to be stillborn. That all life on Earth shares the same basic DNA structure doesn't tell us anything other all life on Earth shares the same DNA structure.

i love the armchair experts on this forum who consider themselves well qualified to disagree with nobel prize winning scientists...

reply to post by gortex


And this is news? Check out this Oxhorn video spoofing this years ago
Funny video, relevant part is exactly 3:50 but watch rest of video for context.


www.youtube.com...



[edit on 31-1-2010 by pianopraze]

reply to post by Phage

Life found anywhere in the universe could be based on DNA, but because all life on Earth is, it does not mean it was "seeded".

I would have to agree there. Look at it this way - life is an extremely rare thing as far as we can tell, and I'd be willing to guess the first complex arrangement of chemicals that just so happened to form the basis of life and evolution isn't something that takes place every 10 minutes. Therefore we see an obvious trend where all life appears to have evolved from a single organism and all life on Earth shares the same basic DNA structure.

Having said that, I still believe ET's greatly intervened at one point in human history, possibly several points. Historical texts suggest they did intervene, and modern accounts of Aliens and UFO's suggest they still pop around and keep an eye on things. I wouldn't find it surprising if an advanced civilization had some interest in our planet and species, keeping tabs on us, whilst we remain none the wiser (or at least most of us).

[edit on 31/1/10 by CHA0S]

Its an interesting theory, and we may never know for sure.

I do like looking at things from the past with the view of modern technology though, and the concept of "Noah's Ark" suddenly takes on a new meaning with DNA stores, and interstellar travel - don't you think?

reply to post by JayinAR

Oh, I don't have a problem with people attempting to shoot down my arguments. As it were though, i don't argue unless I feel I have a case. In this particular scenario, I am out of my league, so I don't even try to pretend to understand something I have not researched. Unfortunately, many of the so-called skeptics or "debunkers" do the exact opposite. They speak without merit, and that is exactly what ATS is supposedly against.

Regardless though, I would love to see much more in the way of the research that was presented by the OP. And consequently, I will "study it" so that the next time this subject comes up, I will have a ground to stand on. But even then, I would not pretend to know more than someone who received the nobel prize for his work. Lets hope that others do the same.

Originally posted by Phage
The OP's quote says that Crick claimed extraterrestrial origins. Yes, for some reason I thought that was the OP's opinion. Silly me.

Tut, tut. Remember the context. Context is key. The immediate context makes clear that it was a possibility Crick considered rather than a definite claim. Why ignore the context?

It might have been helpful if an original opinion had actually been offered to state his specific thoughts.

That's true.

Mean attitude? Have you actually read my posts on this thread? If you have, it would seem that you have a rather large chip on your shoulder to take offense.

I was referring to your apparent determination that the OP be accused of something, anything, negative. Including the relatively minor faux pas of a short unattributed quote, as well as your original charge being based on ignoring the context of the entire OP. That seems a bit like the attitude of a grump determined to point score somehow.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Now that's something I might be "mean" about.

I found a different source for the quote we were discussing

66.102.9.132...

But in any case, I think discussion of the source is a distraction. As I asked previously, what does it matter what the source is if the text quoted in the OP was basically accurate? Again, it seems churlish to complain about the source if that's not actually relevant to the OP.


[edit on 31-1-2010 by Malcram]

reply to post by Copperflower


Yes, but at the time his only base of reference WAS DNA here on earth.
Since then, the basic components for it have been found elsewhere.
And all that is being said is that with more of a reference to go by, calculations, or probabilities, should be re-ran.
Or more specifically, CAN be ran.



This was an amusing thread.

reply to post by gortex


I completely disagree with this alien theory. It presumes the answer to abiogenesis is alien life. Highly illogical. What created that alien life and then what created that life etc. In the end you still get the same answer that abiogenesis had to start naturally at some point.

Which concludes that if you're going to say that alien life was created naturally then why not just assume life here was created naturally and not a dreamt up ridiculous alien alternative?

[edit on 31-1-2010 by andre18]

reply to post by andre18


I don't think the conclusions were "dreamt up" at all.
But you are right. The problem with this discipline is that you will only ever push back the "genesis" part of the equation.

You can apply the same arguments to god. Thing is, there are some things that we simply have no way of answering fully.
But we can still try.

Originally posted by rapunzel222

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
It is pure speculation on his part. As it says above: ...the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. I would go so far as to say it is non-existent. His claimed evidence is so weak as to be stillborn. That all life on Earth shares the same basic DNA structure doesn't tell us anything other all life on Earth shares the same DNA structure.

i love the armchair experts on this forum who consider themselves well qualified to disagree with nobel prize winning scientists...

You do realize that directed panspermia was never seriously proposed as an alternative to Abiogenesis right? That Crick, while exploring the topic, also sharply noted it's own shortcomings? It's a feasible scenario, though unfalsifiable and unevidenced. It's not science. It's like the Drake Equation, essentially.

You realize that, even were it evidenced and substantiated, that it changes nothing. The problem of Abiogenesis still remains. Unless you want to evoke a creator god, at which point you're waving bye-bye to Crick's work. As pointed out by another Nobel Prize winning scientist... "You don't need something more, to get something more.". ~ Murray Gell-Mann. Further, as Richard Dawkins put it:

...life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen.

Furthermore, stromatolite formations confirm that simple micro-organisms were present on Earth at least 2.7 billion years ago. Whether or not those first single celled organisms were the result of abiogenesis or alien creation, that would not have changed the course of evolution - only the starting point. It would only represent a similar branch between species at a common ancestor to which we already share at one point or another with all life on Earth.

The idea of "humanity" being the intended end result is just wishful thinking. There's no evidence to suggest that our evolution is being guided, either specifically or in general archetypes, by a pre-programmed genetic executable program. Especially when you consider that the corruption of that original genetic code, via random mutation, is a vital component to the evolutionary process itself. To suggest that an alien species could foresee the exact path of those billions of years of mutations checked against an alien environment within a competitive biosphere which didn't even exist at the time is absurd. That would pretty much require absolute causal knowledge of the universe... a whole civilization full of Laplace's Demons. You're right back to claiming "Goddidit". Because any small error in the prediction would have ripple effects down the line of ancestry.

How the hell any of this ties into Sitchin or anthropology is beyond me. Crick's proposition of directed panspermia is irreconcilable with Sitchin's pseudoscience.


Crick was brilliant, don't get me wrong... but Science kept advancing beyond Crick's work... and I think that proponents of the idea of life on Earth originating from synthesized life forms may want to pay a bit more attention to the guys who are actually starting to do it.





[edit on 31-1-2010 by Lasheic]

Originally posted by Malcram
...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.

I'm not casting doubt on directed panspermia. The general idea of directed panspernia is just as valid now as it was when it was first proposed.

The only thing I'm pointing out is that Crick's original ideas of why directed panspermia may have been a necessity are now known to be no longer true.

Two things Crick said in the 1970s is now known today to be a little inaccurate because of new scientific research. Crick said two things:

1. Abiogenesis is unlikely to produce life, and
2. It is highly improbable that Earth could have been accidentally seeded with life.

Both of these ideas are now known to be inaccurate. That's not Crick's fault...he could not have foreseen what science would discover in 20 years time.

Both of these "unlikely" scenarios for life on earth were Cited by Crick in the 1970s as the reason for thinking that directed panspermia was necessary. Today we know better.

Does that mean I doubt directed panspermia any more than I would have in the 1970s? Not at all -- it's still just as valid an idea as it ever was.

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

I have no problem with the person who posted the OP. The only issue I have is with Crick's reasoning, which as I mentioned above are now a bit obselete.

I have no problem with the OP nor do I have a problem in general with the idea of directed panspermia.

Frankly, I'm surprised at how many people on this thread are defending Crick's idea that the Earth most likely could NOT have been accidentally seeded with life by a passing comet or asteroid.

I would think that the possible accidental seeding would be an idea that ATS members would agree with -- I never thought I'd have a tough time promoting the idea of accidental panspermia with most ATS members.


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

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by QtheQ

 

Beliefs often have little to do with evidence and some do not require evidence for their beliefs. This is when belief becomes faith and faith has little to do with science.

Very often one person believes X based on evidence that some person who refers to himself as a scientist, rejects because he does not believe the same evidence is of sufficient quality to also believe X. The scientist may refer to such evidence as merely circumstantial, but it still would be evidence.

What I'm trying to get at is there are many different levels or shades of support for any given position. While many in the skeptical set like to think of knowledge in very black and white terms where any statement is either proven absolutely true or there is no reason whatsoever for believing to be true or false, I would contend, rather, that the history of science to demonstrate that all knowledge about the natural world has been built on the foundation of varying qualities of evidence.

And yet I continually read statements by members of the skeptical set uncritically revering science itself as though it were a magical truth machine that somehow always spits out the right answer. It is as though, for some, science is their faith.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by QtheQ]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
An applicable example would be the word "loser". It used to mean "someone who lost something" but is now used in a very different context . It could be used to apply to someone who thinks that speculation has no place at all in the forming of a theory.
Example, "That loser thinks that speculation has no part in the formation of scientific theory. "

I never said speculation did not have a place in the formation of a theory; you are reading what you want to.

And your desperation is proven by your need to resort to ad hominems.

What you said was intelligently torn to pieces by a number of posters on this thread. Who's the one with subjective perception here?

And "my desperation" exists only in your own mind.
Nice attempt at using the word pairing "ad hominems"
Once again your linguistic selection is NA. I had no reason to attack you personally. That statement is a perfect use of the etymological fallacy you thought you were going to make a point with. I'm just showing you how it would be used.
So sensitive all of a sudden Doomsday Rex? What happened to the king of doomsday?

reply to post by TheCoffinman


I like your avatar Coffinman!

But on this topic, how would it be necessary that aliens bring life here when it already can develop by itself in the likely conditions we had here for millions of years???

I too believe that advanced "intelligent" beings such as humans might be a artificial upgrade from monkeys, it would explain what pushed us through using our brains to develop complex ways to organize living, and sustain ourselves, instead of just staying in the jungle and accepting death when conditions gets really bad. But aside from that, there's no reason why ALL life on Earth would come from somewhere else.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Uh yeah...because in the far reaches of the Universe,( you know that place of within that the earth orbits), its such a stretch to believe that life could exist and have evolved elsewhere first. Us silly ATS members are so ridiculous to consider the idea that there's more to this whole system than meets the eye, or that our GENIUS scientists have figured out. By the way...what's in the bottom of the ocean again??? OH NEVERMIND...WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE OUR TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T REACH THAT FAR.

But thank God we have geniuses like you that can positively verify that life has only evolved here and to consider anything else would be simply a slap in the face of God, science and democracy. Thanks for keeping us in the same box that you've been in since birth!!!

By the way Soylent, didn't mean to reply to you. Something went wrong when I hit the button. Apologies, this comment was meant for a different member.


[edit on 31-1-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by dragonsmusic

I wouldn't even pay attention to DoomsdayRex. His favorite two words to use are Ad Hom and usually resorts to them when his argument has been eaten alive.

Regardless, he's a natural skeptic who is probably even teeter tottering on the validity of his own existence. You can't change someone like that and nor should you try.