Did ET Create Earth Life?

[smcder]

Conclusion: I hope I have been successful in demonstrating the simple fact that neither Darwin nor Wallace originated the theory of natural selection. In my opinion, there can no longer be any excuse for us to marginalise the contributions of scientists like Hutton, Wells and Matthew. Surely, we can marvel at the work of Darwin and Wallace without exaggerating their contributions to the history of the development of evolution.

Not surprisingly, I am not alone in thinking that, for expediency’s sake, we have allowed a big lie regarding the history of the theory of natural selection to continue in the face of all of the evidence (See in particular Dempster, 1996). The mathematicians and astronomers, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have commented on the way in which

Darwin and Wallace have been falsely given priority on natural selection (in relation to Edward Blyth’s claim for priority) as follows:
The failure of biologists to insist on this matter being set right is somewhat surprising….It would seem to us that that a sin of omission remains to be redeemed by the world of professional biology.

Although we can be certain that neither Darwin nor Wallace originated the theory of natural selection, it is less certain who should be awarded the accolade. I have concentrated here on the contribution of Patrick Matthew, but of course we know that, amongst others, Edward Blyth (Blyth, 1835), Hutton (Pearson, 2003) and the Reverend Baden Powell (Baden Powell, 1856), J.C. Prichard (Prichard, 1813) and Charles Wells (Wells, 1818; Wells, 1973), originated earlier versions of the natural selection; the notorious book by Robert Chambers, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (Chambers, 1844) also did much to expose the Victorian public to the idea of evolution, or transmutation, prior to the appearance of On the Origin of Species. I suppose we could follow Darwin’s lead and allocate priority to Matthew (he excludes Wells because he concentrated only on the development of Man). However, while natural selection cannot be credited to either Darwin or Wallace, arguments will continue about who deserves priority on this, one of the most important and influential of all scientific ideas.

Of course, the fact that Darwin and Wallace do not have priority on natural selection does not in any way reduce their contribution to the theory. Nor, to the chagrin of the creationists, does it in any way impact on the theory of evolution.

Finally, it is noteworthy that I sent an article, similar to this in most details, to four leading journals devoted to the history of biology and medicine; all four journals rejected the paper without supplying any editorial criticism whatsoever; such is the power of Darwinist censorship in biology, even today!

 

[smcder]

Skip down (about 3/4) to this part:

After being summarily rejected by there journals, without having been sent out to referees or subjected to editorial comment, the following paper was finally published in the Saudi Journal of Biological Science 15, 1-8, 2008, just below an article on the reproductive habits of the jinn.

NATURAL SELECTION: IT’S NOT DARWIN’S (OR WALLACE’S) THEORY
Milton Wainwright
Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK

Abstract-For nearly 150 years, since soon after the appearance of the On the Origin of Species, we have known that neither Charles Darwin nor Alfred Russel Wallace originated the theory of natural selection. This certainty is based on the fact that both of these great naturalists admitted that they were beaten to the theory by at least two other naturalists. Since Darwin and Wallace readily accepted that they did not originate natural selection why the do we insist on crediting them with this seminal discovery? Here, I will show how Darwin and Wallace’s lack of priority on natural selection has been kept from both the scientific community as well as the general public.
Introduction

The English naturalist, Charles Darwin is universally regarded as the originator of the theory natural selection, the mechanism by which evolution is, in the main, thought to operate. It will therefore come as a surprise to many to discover that a number of other scientists originated the theory of natural selection long before Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace announced their versions in 1858. As we shall see, both of these great scientists openly admitted that they were not the originators of natural selection; this much at least is beyond argument. Here, I will highlight the story of how a Scottish arboriculturist, Patrick Matthew beat both Darwin and Wallace to natural selection.

Matthew’s ideas are given in the Appendix of his book On Naval Timbers and Arboriculture, published in 1831. My aim here is not to show that Matthew was the first to come up with the theory but merely that, by publishing his ideas in 1831, he has priority on the idea over both Darwin and Wallace. As we shall also see, Matthew was himself beaten to the theory by at least three other scientists; clearly, if Matthew was not the first to originate the theory, then neither Darwin nor Wallace can possibly deserve the accolade.

Although mentioned in passing by some historians, Matthew’s contribution, like that of the other pre-Darwin-Wallace originators of natural selection, has been effectively marginalised for more than a century and a half. As a result, I conclude by suggesting that it is now time for the biological community to accept the simple fact that neither Darwin nor Wallace originated the theory of natural selection.

A bolt from the blue

On April 10th, 1860, Charles Darwin wrote to a letter to Charles Lyell in which he mentions a depressing fact, one that he almost certainly hoped he would never have to admit-he had learned that someone had beaten him to the theory of natural selection and there was simply no way of getting around the fact; that someone was a Scottish tree expert, or arboriculturist, called Patrick Matthew.

 

[smcder]

Don't know anything about this site, but this article provides an overview of precursors and influences:

Darwin's precursors and influences: 4. Naturalselection

And this interesting on the phrase "survival of the fittest":

"Darwin's terminology for natural selection was based on an analogy with the breeding practices of animal husbandry, artificial selection. Wallace, whose view did not derive from a similar analogy, was uncomfortable with the voluntarist implications of the term and proposed instead Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest" which Spencer had developed in a purely philosophical manner. Darwin later bemoaned this choice, but he adopted it in later editions of the Origin. However, he wrote that it was a metaphorical use similar to those expressions astronomers use describing God keeping things in their orbit and of no direct importance, but wished instead he had used the term "natural preservation" to avoid confusion12.
In sum, while there were precursors, it can be fairly concluded that Darwin was not either plagiarising or directly influenced by anyone who had proposed natural selection as an explanation of adaptation in living organisms. And Wallace's discovery was truly independent, though based on many of the same influences, and he deserves the title co-discoverer, although for the rest of his life he cheerfully gave priority and credit to Darwin, even after the latter's death."

 

[smcder]

The Hitler/penicillin paper doesn't seem too far-fetched, the timeline seems to match up and there is a University of Sheffield connection (Nobel prize) from what I can tell it doesn't seem to have caused a big controversy at publication (or subsequently)

As to suppressing the publication of his ideas, that could be a lot of things but he wouldn't be the first to complain about the conservative nature of scientific publications or the myth making process of Great Men - if he's saying more than this in the article ( it is hard to read it on my little phone screen) I didn't see it.

Is he making larger claims for this or the Hitler/penicillin? Tying them into panspermia or other theories? That would make sense with Hoyle reference, haven't read the bacteria/cancer connection and it's been a while since I read about the rain but so far he doesn't seem to be too completely out there ... but perhaps he is.

 

[Azz7092]

I do think there is a strong possibility it's true but , why would they do this in the first place I think maybe as far back as we were still kinda apes we were Prob walking up rite (maybe) they might have noticed us and thought lets mix some DNA with there's and see what happens . But I could be wrong maybe Darwins theory is correct but some things don't add up for me on that scenario.
It's only a theory

 

[Azz7092]

I had read something somewhere about a rival of Darwins writing about "forbidden evolution " not sure the dudes name but Prob worth a good researching .

 

[Burnt State]

The Hitler/penicillin paper doesn't seem too far-fetched, the timeline seems to match up and there is a University of Sheffield connection (Nobel prize) from what I can tell it doesn't seem to have caused a big controversy at publication (or subsequently)

As to suppressing the publication of his ideas, that could be a lot of things but he wouldn't be the first to complain about the conservative nature of scientific publications or the myth making process of Great Men - if he's saying more than this in the article ( it is hard to read it on my little phone screen) I didn't see it.

Is he making larger claims for this or the Hitler/penicillin? Tying them into panspermia or other theories? That would make sense with Hoyle reference, haven't read the bacteria/cancer connection and it's been a while since I read about the rain but so far he doesn't seem to be too completely out there ... but perhaps he is.

I don't want to directly label panspermia as a paranormal idea but in the realms of paranormal discourse you always hear about the need for peer reviewed science to be given primacy and it seems that the peers have reviewed Wainwright's ideas and they've concluded it's out of context. There is also that problem of putting the cart before the horse where he is looking for evidence to suit the theory instead of seeing what the evidence leads towards. He keeps taking swings at that ball but support appears to be quite limited.

Algae as a collectively sentient life form certainly is an interesting possibility that is aptly rooted in some paranormal notions, but we have not seen proof yet, so for now it's just algae, even when it's red, and such rain should not be considered blood. It also does not explain at all those incidents of raw flesh raining down from the sky unless you've settle on vulture vomit as the likely cause of that mystery.

Life evolving on earth is richly abundant and has been quite suitable to produce many an interesting and diverse set of cycles of lifeforms from era to era. If Panspermia is an up and running event, the microbial life would be the blood and guts of such an event and then we should be finding life all over, on moons, other planets etc. as anything surviving the rigors of interstellar travel should be able to set up shop anywhere and we should have found evidence of it all over the place. One could argue that we might not know where to look but after 4.5 billion years of planetary existence we should see evidence of such life grooving along and displacing current life forms and their seeds should be scattered across the solar system as well. But no, there's earth, and earth's history of life as we know it (Darwin), until someone with better evidence can displace this theory.

So if the bet hedging is along the lines of the long island psychic where: he could be right or he could be out there I'm all in on, 'he's out there.'

 

[smcder]

I don't want to directly label panspermia as a paranormal idea but in the realms of paranormal discourse you always hear about the need for peer reviewed science to be given primacy and it seems that the peers have reviewed Wainwright's ideas and they've concluded it's out of context. There is also that problem of putting the cart before the horse where he is looking for evidence to suit the theory instead of seeing what the evidence leads towards. He keeps taking swings at that ball but support appears to be quite limited. Algae as a collectively sentient life form certainly is an interesting possibility at is aptly rooted in some paranormal notions but we have not seen proof yet, so for now it's just algae, even when it's red, and such rain should not be considered blood. It also does not explain at all those incidents of raw flesh raining down from the sky unless you've settle on vulture vomit as the likely cause of that mystery.

Life evolving on earth is richly abundant and has been quite suitable to produce many an interesting and diverse set of cycles of lifeforms from era to era. If Panspermia is an up and running event, the microbial life would be the blood and guts of such an event and then we should be finding life all over, on moons, other planets etc. as anything surviving the rigors of interstellar travel should be able to set up shop anywhere and we should have found evidence of it all over the place. One could argue that we might not know where to look but after 4.5 billion years of planetary existence we should see evidence of such life grooving along and displacing current life forms and their seeds should be scattered across the solar system as well. But no, there's earth, and earth's history of life as we know it (Darwin), until someone with better evidence can displace this theory.

So if the bet hedging is along the lines of the long island psychic where: he could be right or he could be out there I'm all in on, 'he's out there.'

Life evolving on earth is richly abundant and has been quite suitable to produce many an interesting and diverse set of cycles of lifeforms from era to era.

I know this is my tired, old thing about "richly abundant" but bear with me as I ask compared to what? To where? We forget we are working from an n of 1 ... on some planet somewhere there might be a civilization of mid-sized apes with a brain about the size of ours that has really accomplished something big and is in company with a cornucopia of abundance (at the risk of being operatic) ...

In the meantime we can only sit and compare our apples. ;-)

If Panspermia is an up and running event, the microbial life would be the blood and guts of such an event and then we should be finding life all over, on moons, other planets etc. as anything surviving the rigors of interstellar travel should be able to set up shop anywhere and we should have found evidence of it all over the place. One could argue that we might not know where to look but after 4.5 billion years of planetary existence we should see evidence of such life grooving along and displacing current life forms and their seeds should be scattered across the solar system as well.

It seems to me that here are a lot of assumptions about how a space seeding event would work ... could you elaborate on them? The assumptions, I mean.

But no, there's earth, and earth's history of life as we know it (Darwin), until someone with better evidence can displace this theory.

Darwin and Wallace, et al ... and I agree with this, I do ... and I'm not looking for his theory to be displaced, but it is boring to just keep throwing Darwin at things (although I suppose someone has to) and I am busy gathering more and more evidence that our sense of boredom is reliable. I'm not that attached to panspermia because then where did that come from(?) ... but we don't have an origin of life story yet.

I saw something the other day about a complex organic molecule being found out in deep space.

Ok, so the Hitler-thing appears to be possible, I haven't looked at the bacteria-cancer thing ... but Milton is employed by a major university - Krebbs of the cycle was there and the nobel for contributions to penicilin went to his dept back in the day (2 nobels then for that dept), so there is some clout maybe if he keeps his job - and there is a connection for him to be researching penicillin, Fred Hoyle had an interest in panspermia and rejected the BB theory ... Linus Pauling took massive doses of C and nobody let Fermi in their lab when critical experiments were going on, I can't even figure out where to begin with Tesla on eccentricities, so while this guy doesn't seem to be in that category, I am going to defend him for the time being against a label of "out there" and in context,

did you read his paper?

his claims for the Darwin-thing are relatively modest, I don't see the conspiracy angle played up and he says it doesn't have implications for creationism.

 

[smcder]

I don't want to directly label panspermia as a paranormal idea but in the realms of paranormal discourse you always hear about the need for peer reviewed science to be given primacy and it seems that the peers have reviewed Wainwright's ideas and they've concluded it's out of context. There is also that problem of putting the cart before the horse where he is looking for evidence to suit the theory instead of seeing what the evidence leads towards. He keeps taking swings at that ball but support appears to be quite limited.

Algae as a collectively sentient life form certainly is an interesting possibility that is aptly rooted in some paranormal notions, but we have not seen proof yet, so for now it's just algae, even when it's red, and such rain should not be considered blood. It also does not explain at all those incidents of raw flesh raining down from the sky unless you've settle on vulture vomit as the likely cause of that mystery.

Life evolving on earth is richly abundant and has been quite suitable to produce many an interesting and diverse set of cycles of lifeforms from era to era. If Panspermia is an up and running event, the microbial life would be the blood and guts of such an event and then we should be finding life all over, on moons, other planets etc. as anything surviving the rigors of interstellar travel should be able to set up shop anywhere and we should have found evidence of it all over the place. One could argue that we might not know where to look but after 4.5 billion years of planetary existence we should see evidence of such life grooving along and displacing current life forms and their seeds should be scattered across the solar system as well. But no, there's earth, and earth's history of life as we know it (Darwin), until someone with better evidence can displace this theory.

So if the bet hedging is along the lines of the long island psychic where: he could be right or he could be out there I'm all in on, 'he's out there.'

If Panspermia is an up and running event, the microbial life would be the blood and guts of such an event and then we should be finding life all over, on moons, other planets etc. as anything surviving the rigors of interstellar travel should be able to set up shop anywhere and we should have found evidence of it all over the place. One could argue that we might not know where to look but after 4.5 billion years of planetary existence we should see evidence of such life grooving along and displacing current life forms and their seeds should be scattered across the solar system as well.

I count five shoulds, a could and a would in those two sentences. If only the shoulds are even 9o% probable, five of them leave you just under %60 certainty.

We've missed so many predictions on even mundane consequences of innovation - so that when I think about something novel, even alien like space seeding - and I am totally raw here, you may be pulling this from out of decades of panspermic discussion - it is to me likely we probably wouldn't get it right as to how it goes.

If it were a sci-fi story, a space opera, I'd send it back - the publiction would go to the clever author who figures out the simple-in-hindsight reason why we would not have found evidence of it all over the place - why it could be very narrowly targeted and controlled ... in fact, there is a website that collects all the sci-fi technologies, like the Ansible in OS Cards books ... maybe there is a panspermic control system already catalogued over there.

 

[smcder]

In terms of panspermic feats of imagination that did get published, I refer you to this the dirtiest story Kurt Vonnegut ever wrote ... (caution, mature themes appear in this story as early as the title)

Kurt Vonnegut: "The Big Space Fuck"

sorry, the link originally appears as:

//pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/wf041307.htm

but then resolves to the above title in the forum software

 

[Tyger]

It's a few days old, according to this report:
Microscopic metal sphere may contain microorganisms from aliens, claims astrobiologist | Daily Mail Online

The ideas are wildly speculative. The speculations fit with current ideas floating about regarding ET's and what-not but there is absolutely no scientific basis for making these leaps - and even Wainwright concedes that. [Very reminiscent of astrology, actually, in it's decadent phase.] It's a case of interpreting what one sees to fit pre-conceptions.

TEXT: "However, [Wainwright] has conceded it is virtually impossible to prove that the tiny sphere was sent by aliens from outer space. [...] he added: 'Unless of course we can find details of the civilisation that is supposed to have sent it, in this respect it is probably an unprovable theory.' "

Elsewhere in the article: "Dr Wainwright and his colleagues have published their findings in the Journal of Cosmology but their conclusions have yet to be corroborated by other scientists. The journal often publishes papers on astrobiology but is highly controversial among scientists as it has been criticized for its peer review process and for publishing papers of a fringe variety."

 

[smcder]

Here's that site:

Glossary of Science Fiction Ideas and Inventions

 

[Tyger]

When it comes to the idea of evolution, it was in the occult literature long before Darwin. Most scientists back then were involved in esoteric schools of thought, so the idea would not have been outside the realm of their thinking. Esoteric cosmology presumes evolution right through into the spiritual realms, where there are 'hierarchies' of spirit. All myths presume a ladder of evolving spirit - the very idea of a godhead presumes it. What was unique about Darwin was that he brought the idea into physical immediacy and obvious demonstration by showing the mechanism at the physical level in his study of the species of the Galapagos Islands.

In fact, in stories of the fabled Atlantis, the story has come down that the reason for the destruction of Atlantis had to do with the corruption of the Atlantean Mysteries - and the Initiates thereof - having gone decadent. (Mysteries - think in terms of modern day science, Initiates - think in terms of modern day scientists - though the Mystery Centers and the Initiates were working with spirit as well as with earth). The initiates of the time had begun playing with the life forces, creating hybrids, between animals and humans (so the story goes). There was a great warping of the life forces that then caused the earth itself to convulse, and the great flood resulted (in waves - not just one inundation). This explains somewhat the curious prohibitions - in the Bible, for example - regarding consorting with beasts - as though this was a problem back then. Well, it was, in a way, but that itself is but a reflection of the mighty 'magic' engaged in by the Atlantean Initiate Priests even further back.

 

[smcder]

When it comes to the idea of evolution, it was in the occult literature long before Darwin. Most scientists back then were involved in esoteric schools of thought, so the idea would not have been outside the realm of their thinking. Esoteric cosmology presumes evolution right through into the spiritual realms, where there are 'hierarchies' of spirit. All myths presume a ladder of evolving spirit - the very idea of a godhead presumes it. What was unique about Darwin was that he brought the idea into physical immediacy and obvious demonstration by showing the mechanism at the physical level in his study of the species of the Galapagos Islands.

In fact, in stories of the fabled Atlantis, the story has come down that the reason for the destruction of Atlantis had to do with the corruption of the Atlantean Mysteries - and the Initiates thereof - having gone decadent. (Mysteries - think in terms of modern day science, Initiates - think in terms of modern day scientists - though the Mystery Centers and the Initiates were working with spirit as well as with earth). The initiates of the time had begun playing with the life forces, creating hybrids, between animals and humans (so the story goes). There was a great warping of the life forces that then caused the earth itself to convulse, and the great flood resulted (in waves - not just one inundation). This explains somewhat the curious prohibitions - in the Bible, for example - regarding consorting with beasts - as though this was a problem back then. Well, it was, in a way, but that itself is but a reflection of the mighty 'magic' engaged in by the Atlantean Initiate Priests even further back.

Such consortion is still a problem here in my beloved home state ...

Miscegenation (with implications to bestiality) was a theme in Lovecraft's fiction ... I hadn't thought to put it in terms of the Great Chain of Being. Science basically reverses the Great Chain and flips our orientation to the world on its head. The greater now flows from the lesser.

 

[Burnt State]

I know this is my tired, old thing about "richly abundant" but bear with me as I ask compared to what? To where? We forget we are working from an n of 1 ... on some planet somewhere there might be a civilization of mid-sized apes with a brain about the size of ours that has really accomplished something big and is in company with a cornucopia of abundance (at the risk of being operatic) ...

In the meantime we can only sit and compare our apples. ;-)

i'm going to really try to watch my coulds, woulds, and shoulds, and say simply, we have a lot of apples, countless decades of varieties, that all descended from a mother crab apple I tried to grow in my backyard and failed. But I've seen them growing next door and know that this tree is tied to the history of all the many other apples that we've got. Abundance is everywhere on this planet, at least the parts we haven't killed off yet and that's not a suggestion, but a fact of biodiversity, and the only visible one we've got. So, compared to Mars, we're richly abundant, and compared to the other planets nearby, or that we can see a piece of, we've got the greenery in many shades and they all have dust that's usually the same color.

It seems to me that here are a lot of assumptions about how a space seeding event would work ... could you elaborate on them? The assumptions, I mean.

I thought my assumptions were slightly clear, given that the most we've seen in space is a complex carbon branched molecule but no real microbes or complex life forms flying about that would land here and take root. And if complex lifeforms could survive interstellar space then certainly they can survive anywhere; consequently, we should see evidence of them everywhere on nearby space rocks but we don't, so either we don't know how to look for them or they don't exist. Say the most that can survive is microbial life, then where is it as it ain't on the moon and it ain't on mars or meteorites so is it anywhere? (apologies for the shoulds and coulds here, but they do suit the points I'm making: which makes Panspermia an unlikely event, hence my uncertain language)

Darwin and Wallace, et al ... and I agree with this, I do ... and I'm not looking for his theory to be displaced, but it is boring to just keep throwing Darwin at things (although I suppose someone has to) and I am busy gathering more and more evidence that our sense of boredom is reliable. I'm not that attached to panspermia because then where did that come from(?) ... but we don't have an origin of life story yet.

I celebrate your response to Darwin/Wallace etc. and agree that science builds upon or displaces itself with better ideas, an evolution of thought, and that it's open to change. However I thought boredom was the malaise of life in the modern era and that when left to our own devices in the woods there is no time to be bored as we are too busy trying to survive. Maybe you've been listening too much to early Talking Heads' albums?

Why is our boredom reliable and does it work as a chain of human experience going back to early and pre-civilization?

I saw something the other day about a complex organic molecule being found out in deep space.

It was iso-propyl cyanide, a branched carbon molecule and the first thing we've detected in the interstellar dust that is close to the building blocks for amino acids. So again we're caught by the thought that life could be ubiquitous in the universe and just so far apart that we can't detect each other. In this way the lifes story of earth is a goldilocks story that begins once upon a time, 4.54 billion years ago, there was this third rock from the sun whose conditions were just right...and then the magic interstellar dust settled in the mucky soup of that rock and they combined. That's the best possible story. Space seeds seems to be relegated to science fiction.

Ok, so the Hitler-thing appears to be possible, I haven't looked at the bacteria-cancer thing ... but Milton is employed by a major university - Krebbs of the cycle was there and the nobel for contributions to penicilin went to his dept back in the day (2 nobels then for that dept), so there is some clout maybe if he keeps his job - and there is a connection for him to be researching penicillin, Fred Hoyle had an interest in panspermia and rejected the BB theory ... Linus Pauling took massive doses of C and nobody let Fermi in their lab when critical experiments were going on, I can't even figure out where to begin with Tesla on eccentricities, so while this guy doesn't seem to be in that category, I am going to defend him for the time being against a label of "out there" and in context,

what's most admirable about how you chase down thoughts and look for new ones is your ability to support the odds and ends of scientific investigation. Tesla, a great thinker, was relegated to being an old man in an apartment feeding pigeons after he was dismissed for thinking the aliens from mars were coming to get us. So yes, very smart people can fall down through the rabbit holes. Is Wainwright very smart in your opinion? You seem to be givng him support in that area. Is he consistent or is he now consistently off in the way Tesla went wonky?

did you read his paper?

nope, I shoveled the driveway instead waiting to sift through your report back on his validity. I hope you don't see this as unfair or as some have pointed out that I'm merely a rhetorician. I prefer to be seen as a synthesizer, Moog if you are asking.

his claims for the Darwin-thing are relatively modest, I don't see the conspiracy angle played up and he says it doesn't have implications for creationism.

so, is he consistent, or consistently barking up trees that have no cats in them?

 

[smcder]

i'm going to really try to watch my coulds, woulds, and shoulds, and say simply, we have a lot of apples, countless decades of varieties, that all descended from a mother crab apple I tried to grow in my backyard and failed. But I've seen them growing next door and know that this tree is tied to the history of all the many other apples that we've got. Abundance is everywhere on this planet, at least the parts we haven't killed off yet and that's not a suggestion, but a fact of biodiversity, and the only visible one we've got. So, compared to Mars, we're richly abundant, and compared to the other planets nearby, or that we can see a piece of, we've got the greenery in many shades and they all have dust that's usually the same color.

I thought my assumptions were slightly clear, given that the most we've seen in space is a complex carbon branched molecule but no real microbes or complex life forms flying about that would land here and take root. And if complex lifeforms could survive interstellar space then certainly they can survive anywhere; consequently, we should see evidence of them everywhere on nearby space rocks but we don't, so either we don't know how to look for them or they don't exist. Say the most that can survive is microbial life, then where is it as it ain't on the moon and it ain't on mars or meteorites so is it anywhere?

I celebrate your response to Darwin/Wallace etc. and agree that science builds upon or displaces itself with better ideas, an evolution of thought, and that it's open to change. However I thought boredom was the malaise of
life in the modern era and that when left to our own devices in the woods there is no time to be bored as we are too busy trying to survive. Maybe you've been listening too much to early Talking Heads' albums? Why is our boredom reliable and does it work as a chain of human experience going back to early and pre-civilization?


It was iso-propyl cyanide, a branched carbon molecule and the first thing we've detected in the interstellar dust that is close to the building blocks for amino acids. So again we're caught by the thought that life culd be ubiquitous in the universe and just so far apart that we can't detect each other. In this way the lifesstory of earth is a goldilocks story that begins once upon a time, 4.54 billion years ago, there was his third rock from the sun whose conditions were just right...and then the magic interstellar dust settled in the mucky soup of that rock and they combined. That's the best possible story. Space seeds seems to be relegated to science fiction.

what's most admirable about how you chase down thoughts and look for new ones is your ability to support the odds and ends of scientific investigation. Tesla, a great thinker,mwas relegated to being an old man I apartment feeding pigeons after he was dismissed for thinking the aliens from mars were coming to get us. So yes, very smart people can fall down through the rabbit holes. Is Wainwright very smart in your opinion? You seem to be going him support in that area. Is he consistent or is he now consistently off in the way Tesla went wonky?

nope, I shoveled the driveway instead waiting to sift through your report back on his validity. I hope you don't see this as unfair or as some have pointed out that I'm merely a rhetorician. I prefer to be seen as a synthesizer, moog if you are asking.

so, is he consistent, or consistently barking up trees that have no cats in them?

Hmmm, now that I know you see me as a valid source of validity ...

I thought my assumptions were slightly clear, given that the most we've seen in space is a complex carbon branched molecule but no real microbes or complex life forms flying about that would land here and take root. And if complex lifeforms could survive interstellar space then certainly they can survive anywhere; consequently, we should see evidence of them everywhere on nearby space rocks but we don't, so either we don't know how to look for them or they don't exist. Say the most that can survive is microbial life, then where is it as it ain't on the moon and it ain't on mars or meteorites so is it anywhere?

Mmmm ... how much space have we seen? Assumptions at "how much" and "seen" both ... where are we on "dark matter" for exmple? I heard a podcast that talked about limits to what we can see, had something to do with gravity or space-time curvature and probably more exotic ideas (geometry?) - but basically it put hard limits on what we could see (I guess by any kind of EM) and also on the locality of physics, we couldn't assume it all works the same way everywhere, not even to get into adjoining or adjacent multiverses ... anyway Big Ideas or something like that. Do you want me to find it?

I have a kind of kooky hunch that the paradigm of space as a cold, black emptiness will be overthrown ... we will have some other way to look at space and time and things will become much cozier and more crowded ... and Clooney's movie will be seen as quaint and naive. So that's one assumption, then this chain of reasoning:

And if complex lifeforms could survive interstellar space then certainly they can survive anywhere; consequently, we should see evidence of them everywhere on nearby space rocks but we don't, so either we don't know how to look for them or they don't exist. Say the most that can survive is microbial life, then where is it as it ain't on the moon and it ain't on mars or meteorites so is it anywhere?

We can pull apart at several places:

1. that survival in intersteller space means they can survice anywhere ... ok, so George Clooney goes out to spread the human race (along with Bill Shatner) and the aliens think "wow, with that hard exterior skin they can survive anywhere" and pop them out of the can and put them on an arctic planet ... roll credits ... same way that seeds have coatings but may still need a particular environment to take root ...

2. and then if they can, that we should see them everywhere, (see#1) but also precludes a more specific form of life or control system or programming that only allows them to take root on say earth or earth like planets - (for exactly the reason to keep the invasion secret or other reasons, some which may be "alien" to us)

so now your either/or breaks down because we have many other possibilities - at the least that the seeding was targeted and controlled. I mean, if we are going to entertain panspermia as an alien directed action, why is it far fetched to think it could be a very controlled process? that it has to be a big messy Space F-ck? That, my friend, is not only an anthropo- but a maculino- morphization. (did I spell all that right?)

And the very last sentence I think could be answered that it's all over the place or here in us, maybe waiting for some specific development, the right "platform" to activate (maybe a few iterations past man ...) or directing our evolution.

 

[smcder]

i'm going to really try to watch my coulds, woulds, and shoulds, and say simply, we have a lot of apples, countless decades of varieties, that all descended from a mother crab apple I tried to grow in my backyard and failed. But I've seen them growing next door and know that this tree is tied to the history of all the many other apples that we've got. Abundance is everywhere on this planet, at least the parts we haven't killed off yet and that's not a suggestion, but a fact of biodiversity, and the only visible one we've got. So, compared to Mars, we're richly abundant, and compared to the other planets nearby, or that we can see a piece of, we've got the greenery in many shades and they all have dust that's usually the same color.

I thought my assumptions were slightly clear, given that the most we've seen in space is a complex carbon branched molecule but no real microbes or complex life forms flying about that would land here and take root. And if complex lifeforms could survive interstellar space then certainly they can survive anywhere; consequently, we should see evidence of them everywhere on nearby space rocks but we don't, so either we don't know how to look for them or they don't exist. Say the most that can survive is microbial life, then where is it as it ain't on the moon and it ain't on mars or meteorites so is it anywhere? (apologies for the shoulds and coulds here, but they do suit the points I'm making: which makes Panspermia an unlikely event, hence my uncertain language)

I celebrate your response to Darwin/Wallace etc. and agree that science builds upon or displaces itself with better ideas, an evolution of thought, and that it's open to change. However I thought boredom was the malaise of life in the modern era and that when left to our own devices in the woods there is no time to be bored as we are too busy trying to survive. Maybe you've been listening too much to early Talking Heads' albums?

Why is our boredom reliable and does it work as a chain of human experience going back to early and pre-civilization?


It was iso-propyl cyanide, a branched carbon molecule and the first thing we've detected in the interstellar dust that is close to the building blocks for amino acids. So again we're caught by the thought that life could be ubiquitous in the universe and just so far apart that we can't detect each other. In this way the lifes story of earth is a goldilocks story that begins once upon a time, 4.54 billion years ago, there was this third rock from the sun whose conditions were just right...and then the magic interstellar dust settled in the mucky soup of that rock and they combined. That's the best possible story. Space seeds seems to be relegated to science fiction.

what's most admirable about how you chase down thoughts and look for new ones is your ability to support the odds and ends of scientific investigation. Tesla, a great thinker, was relegated to being an old man in an apartment feeding pigeons after he was dismissed for thinking the aliens from mars were coming to get us. So yes, very smart people can fall down through the rabbit holes. Is Wainwright very smart in your opinion? You seem to be givng him support in that area. Is he consistent or is he now consistently off in the way Tesla went wonky?

nope, I shoveled the driveway instead waiting to sift through your report back on his validity. I hope you don't see this as unfair or as some have pointed out that I'm merely a rhetorician. I prefer to be seen as a synthesizer, Moog if you are asking.

so, is he consistent, or consistently barking up trees that have no cats in them?

i'm going to really try to watch my coulds, woulds, and shoulds, and say simply, we have a lot of apples, countless decades of varieties, that all descended from a mother crab apple I tried to grow in my backyard and failed. But I've seen them growing next door and know that this tree is tied to the history of all the many other apples that we've got. Abundance is everywhere on this planet, at least the parts we haven't killed off yet and that's not a suggestion, but a fact of biodiversity, and the only visible one we've got. So, compared to Mars, we're richly abundant, and compared to the other planets nearby, or that we can see a piece of, we've got the greenery in many shades and they all have dust that's usually the same color.

You miss the point of n=1.

I celebrate your response to Darwin/Wallace etc. and agree that science builds upon or displaces itself with better ideas, an evolution of thought, and that it's open to change. However I thought boredom was the malaise of life in the modern era and that when left to our own devices in the woods there is no time to be bored as we are too busy trying to survive. Maybe you've been listening too much to early Talking Heads' albums?

Talking Who? Have you read Kuhn and Feyerband? I validate. I don't know about surviving in the woods, I haven't really been in that situation but I think boredom has long been with us.

Why is our boredom reliable and does it work as a chain of human experience going back to early and pre-civilization? It's reliable because it's a product of evolution, I refer you to @Soupie or Kipling for details.

It was iso-propyl cyanide, a branched carbon molecule and the first thing we've detected in the interstellar dust that is close to the building blocks for amino acids. So again we're caught by the thought that life could be ubiquitous in the universe and just so far apart that we can't detect each other. In this way the lifes story of earth is a goldilocks story that begins once upon a time, 4.54 billion years ago, there was this third rock from the sun whose conditions were just right...and then the magic interstellar dust settled in the mucky soup of that rock and they combined. That's the best possible story. Space seeds seems to be relegated to science fiction

I'll bet you that story will change. See also my exposition on assumptions in previous post.

 

[smcder]

i'm going to really try to watch my coulds, woulds, and shoulds, and say simply, we have a lot of apples, countless decades of varieties, that all descended from a mother crab apple I tried to grow in my backyard and failed. But I've seen them growing next door and know that this tree is tied to the history of all the many other apples that we've got. Abundance is everywhere on this planet, at least the parts we haven't killed off yet and that's not a suggestion, but a fact of biodiversity, and the only visible one we've got. So, compared to Mars, we're richly abundant, and compared to the other planets nearby, or that we can see a piece of, we've got the greenery in many shades and they all have dust that's usually the same color.

I thought my assumptions were slightly clear, given that the most we've seen in space is a complex carbon branched molecule but no real microbes or complex life forms flying about that would land here and take root. And if complex lifeforms could survive interstellar space then certainly they can survive anywhere; consequently, we should see evidence of them everywhere on nearby space rocks but we don't, so either we don't know how to look for them or they don't exist. Say the most that can survive is microbial life, then where is it as it ain't on the moon and it ain't on mars or meteorites so is it anywhere? (apologies for the shoulds and coulds here, but they do suit the points I'm making: which makes Panspermia an unlikely event, hence my uncertain language)

I celebrate your response to Darwin/Wallace etc. and agree that science builds upon or displaces itself with better ideas, an evolution of thought, and that it's open to change. However I thought boredom was the malaise of life in the modern era and that when left to our own devices in the woods there is no time to be bored as we are too busy trying to survive. Maybe you've been listening too much to early Talking Heads' albums?

Why is our boredom reliable and does it work as a chain of human experience going back to early and pre-civilization?


It was iso-propyl cyanide, a branched carbon molecule and the first thing we've detected in the interstellar dust that is close to the building blocks for amino acids. So again we're caught by the thought that life could be ubiquitous in the universe and just so far apart that we can't detect each other. In this way the lifes story of earth is a goldilocks story that begins once upon a time, 4.54 billion years ago, there was this third rock from the sun whose conditions were just right...and then the magic interstellar dust settled in the mucky soup of that rock and they combined. That's the best possible story. Space seeds seems to be relegated to science fiction.

what's most admirable about how you chase down thoughts and look for new ones is your ability to support the odds and ends of scientific investigation. Tesla, a great thinker, was relegated to being an old man in an apartment feeding pigeons after he was dismissed for thinking the aliens from mars were coming to get us. So yes, very smart people can fall down through the rabbit holes. Is Wainwright very smart in your opinion? You seem to be givng him support in that area. Is he consistent or is he now consistently off in the way Tesla went wonky?

nope, I shoveled the driveway instead waiting to sift through your report back on his validity. I hope you don't see this as unfair or as some have pointed out that I'm merely a rhetorician. I prefer to be seen as a synthesizer, Moog if you are asking.

so, is he consistent, or consistently barking up trees that have no cats in them?

He is barking at cats that have strayed away from street lamps.

what's most admirable about how you chase down thoughts and look for new ones is your ability to support the odds and ends of scientific investigation. Tesla, a great thinker, was relegated to being an old man in an apartment feeding pigeons after he was dismissed for thinking the aliens from mars were coming to get us. So yes, very smart people can fall down through the rabbit holes. Is Wainwright very smart in your opinion? You seem to be givng him support in that area. Is he consistent or is he now consistently off in the way Tesla went wonky?

Yes, I am the St Patrick of the fringe set. Peer review, status quo, conservative and skeptical forces only function when challenged - left alone, they become lazy and facist (see Kuhn, Feyerabend, etc etc yadda yadda yawn) We must use good arguments against even dubious claims. I'm in no position to judge Wainwright's intelligence - not at third remove through the media notorious for getting sciencey stuff wrong.

 

[smcder]

i'm going to really try to watch my coulds, woulds, and shoulds, and say simply, we have a lot of apples, countless decades of varieties, that all descended from a mother crab apple I tried to grow in my backyard and failed. But I've seen them growing next door and know that this tree is tied to the history of all the many other apples that we've got. Abundance is everywhere on this planet, at least the parts we haven't killed off yet and that's not a suggestion, but a fact of biodiversity, and the only visible one we've got. So, compared to Mars, we're richly abundant, and compared to the other planets nearby, or that we can see a piece of, we've got the greenery in many shades and they all have dust that's usually the same color.

I thought my assumptions were slightly clear, given that the most we've seen in space is a complex carbon branched molecule but no real microbes or complex life forms flying about that would land here and take root. And if complex lifeforms could survive interstellar space then certainly they can survive anywhere; consequently, we should see evidence of them everywhere on nearby space rocks but we don't, so either we don't know how to look for them or they don't exist. Say the most that can survive is microbial life, then where is it as it ain't on the moon and it ain't on mars or meteorites so is it anywhere? (apologies for the shoulds and coulds here, but they do suit the points I'm making: which makes Panspermia an unlikely event, hence my uncertain language)

I celebrate your response to Darwin/Wallace etc. and agree that science builds upon or displaces itself with better ideas, an evolution of thought, and that it's open to change. However I thought boredom was the malaise of life in the modern era and that when left to our own devices in the woods there is no time to be bored as we are too busy trying to survive. Maybe you've been listening too much to early Talking Heads' albums?

Why is our boredom reliable and does it work as a chain of human experience going back to early and pre-civilization?


It was iso-propyl cyanide, a branched carbon molecule and the first thing we've detected in the interstellar dust that is close to the building blocks for amino acids. So again we're caught by the thought that life could be ubiquitous in the universe and just so far apart that we can't detect each other. In this way the lifes story of earth is a goldilocks story that begins once upon a time, 4.54 billion years ago, there was this third rock from the sun whose conditions were just right...and then the magic interstellar dust settled in the mucky soup of that rock and they combined. That's the best possible story. Space seeds seems to be relegated to science fiction.

what's most admirable about how you chase down thoughts and look for new ones is your ability to support the odds and ends of scientific investigation. Tesla, a great thinker, was relegated to being an old man in an apartment feeding pigeons after he was dismissed for thinking the aliens from mars were coming to get us. So yes, very smart people can fall down through the rabbit holes. Is Wainwright very smart in your opinion? You seem to be givng him support in that area. Is he consistent or is he now consistently off in the way Tesla went wonky?

nope, I shoveled the driveway instead waiting to sift through your report back on his validity. I hope you don't see this as unfair or as some have pointed out that I'm merely a rhetorician. I prefer to be seen as a synthesizer, Moog if you are asking.

so, is he consistent, or consistently barking up trees that have no cats in them?

I don't know about "merely" but your verbal facility may work against you at times. And I don't see the synthesizer but, I do see a trend toward more and more skepticism and I see you as taking that on as other skeptical voices have disappeared. I also see more rhetoric and fluorish since your guest spot on the show.

You gotta read the material if you want to discuss - that's a basic rule. In this case, I'm no historian but his claims on Darwin, as I said, don't sound excessive or kooky at first reading, I don't yet see if he is using them to make some larger argument - he says it's no knock on the validity of the theory or that Wallace and Darwin didn't make major contributions, just that the idea was there before them and that we overemphasize them.

Also, his argument on Hitler/Penicillin seems fairly reasonable. Don't know about bacteria/cancer and combined with @Tyger's info on Wainwright admitting it's speculative, and wildly, I just don't think he deserves labelling quite yet. I'm glad we've got scientists at major universities with the cajones to push the peer review system -and that doesn't depend on their being right.

 

[Burnt State]

I don't know about "merely" but your verbal facility may work against you at times. And I don't see the synthesizer but, I do see a trend toward more and more skepticism and I see you as taking that on as other skeptical voices have disappeared. I also see more rhetoric and fluorish since your guest spot on the show.

You gotta read the material if you want to discuss - that's a basic rule. In this case, I'm no historian but his claims on Darwin, as I said, don't sound excessive or kooky at first reading, I don't yet see if he is using them to make some larger argument - he says it's no knock on the validity of the theory or that Wallace and Darwin didn't make major contributions, just that the idea was there before them and that we overemphasize them.

Also, his argument on Hitler/Penicillin seems fairly reasonable. Don't know about bacteria/cancer and combined with @Tyger's info on Wainwright admitting it's speculative, and wildly, I just don't think he deserves labelling quite yet. I'm glad we've got scientists at major universities with the cajones to push the peer review system -and that doesn't depend on their being right.

In reading through the material I see tat there is nothing unique there except his own misplaced criticism of Darwin as synthesizer. The other evident point is that Wainwright is an excellent researcher himself and was able to deconstruct Darwin's work by point out the arouse strains of thought of the time that led to Darwin's obvious next move which was to synthesize this collective thought into a theory, what science usually does, folks standing on the shoulders of their peers. So I don't see anything exacting there nor do I see how his sour grapes of Darwin being championed that there is any real great contribution to biology there at all.

If anything, following the read, I got a little more connected to boredom. Is the Hitler paper any more interesting or is it going to be more historical supposition? Because if so then I'll save my time for critiquing him and building igloos.