• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

RNA Editing of Octopus Linked to Alien Life!

Are you convinced panspermia is a proven theory?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • No

    Votes: 21 95.5%

  • Total voters
    22

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
No they do not remotely make a "compelling" case, as is evidenced by the derision with which this paper has been greeted by most other scientists in the field.

The huge problem with this idea is that it is a lot more far-fetched than a standard panspermia hypothesis. If this idea were true, then we would have to believe that life first arose on Earth, with all its characteristic biochemistry that so strongly implies a single common ancestor for everything, and then, alien life was suddenly added to the mix, without altering any of this biochemistry! If you look at the cellular machinery of an octopus cell, it is just the same as that of other eukaryotes.

How likely is it that alien life would just happen to utilise exactly he same biochemistry as terrestrial life that had arisen independently, several billion years previously?

Nearly all life forms share the same genetic code which is invented from beyond Earth as evident in the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code which I did surmise and summarized in detail. See post #23, 28-29,31. “There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code”

“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

"The place-value decimal system represented through digital symmetry of the numbers divisible by prime number (PN 037). This arithmetical syntactic feature is an innate attribute of the genetic code. The PN 037 notation with a leading zero emphasizes zero's equal participation in the digital symmetry. Numbers written by identical digits are devised by PN 037*3=111 and 1+1+1=3 and appear regularly [from the figure: 037*6 =222 and 2+2+2=6, 037*9=333 and 3+3+3 =9, 037*4=444 and 4+4+4=12, 037*15=555 and 5+5+5=15, 037*18=666 and 6+6+6=18, 037*21=777 and 7+7+7 =21. 037*24 =888 and 8+8+8=24, 037*27=999 and 9+9+9=27.)"

"There is a complete set of information symbols utilizing the decimal syntax 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999 in the genetic code. Each of these symbols consists uniformly of a carrier (balanced nucleons) and a meaning (the decimal syntax)."

This informational and artificial characteristic of the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code demonstrates intelligent design.
See post #23, 28-29,31. Also Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Nearly all life forms share the same genetic code which is invented from beyond Earth as evident in the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code which I did surmise and summarized in detail. See post #23, 28-29,31. “There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code”

“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

"The place-value decimal system represented through digital symmetry of the numbers divisible by prime number (PN 037). This arithmetical syntactic feature is an innate attribute of the genetic code. The PN 037 notation with a leading zero emphasizes zero's equal participation in the digital symmetry. Numbers written by identical digits are devised by PN 037*3=111 and 1+1+1=3 and appear regularly [from the figure: 037*6 =222 and 2+2+2=6, 037*9=333 and 3+3+3 =9, 037*4=444 and 4+4+4=12, 037*15=555 and 5+5+5=15, 037*18=666 and 6+6+6=18, 037*21=777 and 7+7+7 =21. 037*24 =888 and 8+8+8=24, 037*27=999 and 9+9+9=27.)"

"There is a complete set of information symbols utilizing the decimal syntax 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999 in the genetic code. Each of these symbols consists uniformly of a carrier (balanced nucleons) and a meaning (the decimal syntax)."

This informational and artificial characteristic of the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code demonstrates intelligent design.
See post #23, 28-29,31. Also Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code

The WOW signal is hokus bogus.

Yes, all life form share the same evolved genetic code, but no the stretch of assertions by these scientists, mostly arguing from ignorance therefore . . ., does not demonstrate extraterrestrial origins.

IT is known that Virus RNA contributes to the formation of DNA. There are very likely numerous forms of virus in the Pre-Cambrian and possibly earlier extinct now that contributed to the DNA evolution of the Cambrian.

The references smack of 'arguing from ignorance' that these scientists claim that somethings lack a present explanation based on the current evidence, therefore 'pansspermia.' Many Creationist dishonestly try the same foolishness.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
A group of 33 scientists and authors, who've authored the journal article "Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic" published in the March issue of the scientific peer-reviewed journal "Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, suggests octopuses are likely of extraterrestrial origin. Their conclusion that octopuses likely have an extraterrestrial origin is reached in part on the basis of the octopuses' particular ability to routinely edit their RNA sequences for adapting to their environment.


According to these 33 scientists and authors of the "Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic",

Occam's Razor:

1. God loves diversity, having clearly designed as such

2. Scientists don't know all about octopus processes--since they only relatively recently repented of junk DNA having uses
 
Like robed Grand Inquisitors? "Stamp out heresy and heretics" wherever you suspect it exists? Now while this may seem like a good idea in the light of the pseudosciences, those protectors of the faith in the general population to stand up for the science that scientists do, the problem is we aren't all scientists and qualified to do so. And while some ideas are clearly nutty, others may also appear nutty too when they aren't, because they don't fit the prevailing orthodoxy. Progress gets halted in understanding by the "poo pooing" of the orthodox. Be suspicious. Be critical. But also be open. Controversial, even outlandish claims, can be doorways into radically new territory.

The above comment has nothing to do with the "Octopus Controversy", which is likely just a popular distortion of the actual science because it sounds sensational. It's about the whole "orthodox thinking" problem in all areas of human knowledge. We become far too attached to our models as if they are reality themselves, and it can become a trap for the mind. Yes, we know the earth isn't flat. But once upon a time, the idea it was round was completely rubbish in the minds of those who saw it as flat, who sought to stamp out such nonsense as their perceived duty to the truth too. Despite advances in our knowledge, our humanness remains largely the same. Deny first, later accept when it's perceived safe to when everyone else is.

Windwalker I take your point but when an argument is wrapped with lies I cannot accept it. I fight. If we allow every crackpot to steer life on this planet, based on lies, I'm sad to say "We're doomed Cap'n". Yup I accept possibly it is already too late.

I'm not against the possibility Octopuses have been invaded by alien genes, but to present the possibility as very likely (more likely than alternatives), is dishonest.

Maybe my word "crushed" was a little strong but certainly "strongly and publicly questioned without fear". I do not support the death penalty or even imprisonment without parole. I do support free speech. So I certainly hope I'm a long way from the Spanish inquisition, even if I live in Spain :cool:
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Nearly all life forms share the same genetic code which is invented from beyond Earth as evident in the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code which I did surmise and summarized in detail. See post #23, 28-29,31. “There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code”

“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

"The place-value decimal system represented through digital symmetry of the numbers divisible by prime number (PN 037). This arithmetical syntactic feature is an innate attribute of the genetic code. The PN 037 notation with a leading zero emphasizes zero's equal participation in the digital symmetry. Numbers written by identical digits are devised by PN 037*3=111 and 1+1+1=3 and appear regularly [from the figure: 037*6 =222 and 2+2+2=6, 037*9=333 and 3+3+3 =9, 037*4=444 and 4+4+4=12, 037*15=555 and 5+5+5=15, 037*18=666 and 6+6+6=18, 037*21=777 and 7+7+7 =21. 037*24 =888 and 8+8+8=24, 037*27=999 and 9+9+9=27.)"

"There is a complete set of information symbols utilizing the decimal syntax 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999 in the genetic code. Each of these symbols consists uniformly of a carrier (balanced nucleons) and a meaning (the decimal syntax)."

This informational and artificial characteristic of the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code demonstrates intelligent design.
See post #23, 28-29,31. Also Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code
I see. What you seem to mean is that you find this extraterrestrial stuff about the octopus compelling because you, personally, have bought into not only the panspermia hypothesis but also a highly contentious interpretation of the "wow" radio signal in 1977.

For the rest of us however, this is not compelling at all, as we do not share your assumptions.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
A group of 33 scientists and authors, who've authored the journal article "Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic" published in the March issue of the scientific peer-reviewed journal "Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, suggests octopuses are likely of extraterrestrial origin. Their conclusion that octopuses likely have an extraterrestrial origin is reached in part on the basis of the octopuses' particular ability to routinely edit their RNA sequences for adapting to their environment.


According to these 33 scientists and authors of the "Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic",

"Evidence of the role of extraterrestrial viruses in affecting terrestrial evolution has recently been plausibly implied in the gene and transciptome sequencing of Cephalopods. The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes more than is present in Homo Sapiens.

Octopus belongs to the coleoid sub-class of molluscs (Cephalopods) that have an evolutionary history that stretches back over 500 million years, although Cephalopod phylogenetics is highly inconsistent and confusing.


Dibujo20180501-evolution-squid-to-octopus-compatible-genes-inserted-extraterrestrial-viruses-doi-10-1016-j-pbiomolbio-2018-03-004.png


Fig. 5. The evolution from squid to octopus is compatible with a suite of genes inserted by extraterrestrial viruses. An alternative extraterrestrial scenario discuused is that a population of cryopreserved octopus embryos soft-landed en mass from space 275 million years ago.

However consistent with this conclusion are the recent RNA editing data on the somatic RNA diversification mechanisms in the behaviourally sophisticated Cephalopods such as Octopus. These data demonstrate extensive evolutionary conserved adenosine to inosine (A-to-I) mRNA editing sites in almost every single protein-coding gene in the behaviorally complex coleoid Cephalopods (Octopus in particular), but not in nautilus.
This enormous qualitative difference in Cephalopod protein recoding A-to-I mRNA editing compared to nautilus and other invertebrate and vertebrate animals is striking. Thus in transcriptome-wide screens only 1–3% of Drosophila and human protein coding mRNAs harbour an A-to-I recoding site; and there only about 25 human mRNA messages which contain a conserved A-to-I recoding site across mammals. In Drosophila lineages there are about 65 conserved A-sites in protein coding genes and only a few identified in C. elegans which support the hypothesis that A-to-I RNA editing recoding is mostly either neutral, detrimental, or rarely adaptive,
Yet in Squid and particularly Octopus it is the norm, with almost every protein coding gene having an evolutionary conserved A-to-I mRNA editing site isoform, resulting in a nonsynonymous amino acid change.

This is a virtual qualitative jump in molecular genetic strategy in a supposed smooth and incremental evolutionary lineage - a type of sudden “great leap forward”. Unless all the new genes expressed in the squid/octopus lineages arose from simple mutations of existing genes in either the squid or in other organisms sharing the same habitat, there is surely no way by which this large qualitative transition in A-to-I mRNA editing can be explained by conventional neo-Darwinian processes, even if horizontal gene transfer is allowed. One plausible explanation, in our view, is that the new genes are likely new extraterrestrial imports to Earth - most plausibly as an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized Octopus eggs.

Thus the possibility that cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago should not be discounted (below) as that would be a parsimonious cosmic explanation for the Octopus' sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago. Indeed this principle applies to the sudden appearance in the fossil record of pretty well all major life forms, covered in the prescient concept of “punctuated equilibrium” by Eldridge and Gould advanced in the early 1970s; and see the conceptual cartoon of Fig. 6. Therefore, similar living features like this “as if the genes were derived from some type of pre-existence" apply to many other biological ensembles when closely examined. One little known yet cogent example is the response and resistance of the eye structures of the Drosophila fruit fly to normally lethally damaging UV radiation at 2537 Å, given that this wavelength does not penetrate the ozone layer and is thus not evident as a Darwinian selective factor at the surface of the Earth. Many of these “unearthly” properties of organisms can be plausibly explained if we admit the enlarged cosmic biosphere that is indicated by modern astronomical research – discoveries of exoplanets already discussed. The average distance between habitable planets in our galaxy now to be reckoned in light years – typically 5 light years Virion/gene exchanges thus appear to be inevitable over such short cosmic distances. The many features of biology that are not optimised to local conditions on the Earth may be readily understood in this wider perspective.

1-s2.0-S0079610718300798-gr6_lrg.jpg





Given that the complex sets of new genes in the Octopus may have not come solely from horizontal gene transfers or simple random mutations of existing genes or by simple duplicative expansions, it is then logical to surmise, given our current knowledge of the biology of comets and their debris, the new genes and their viral drivers most likely came from space. However, it is also clear that to accept such a proposition also requires that we diminish the role for highly localised Darwinian evolution on Earth which is likely to be strongly resisted by traditional biologists. That should not, of course, be of concern as the focus of our attention, for general evolutionary molecular processes, now shifts to the Cosmos and beyond our immediate solar system. This evidence provides for, and allows the study of, Cosmic Gene Pools – and these are capable of driving, and, dare we say, controlling and thus steering biological evolution here on Earth (via Darwinian and non-Darwinian adaptation mechanisms). The main effect of terrestrial Darwinian evolution is to act on these new cosmic-derived genes and fine-tune them by further somatic and germline Lamarckian gene feedback and haplotype-block shuffling mechanisms to fit the environment and also the recipient organism. Indeed it has been shown that viral footprints are evident in human brain tissue which seem to mark important steps that led up to the present human condition."

It sounds like an interesting hypothesis, but it's a LONG way from becoming anything close to an accepted theory.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
The WOW signal is hokus bogus.

Yes, all life form share the same evolved genetic code, but no the stretch of assertions by these scientists, mostly arguing from ignorance therefore . . ., does not demonstrate extraterrestrial origins.

IT is known that Virus RNA contributes to the formation of DNA. There are very likely numerous forms of virus in the Pre-Cambrian and possibly earlier extinct now that contributed to the DNA evolution of the Cambrian.

The references smack of 'arguing from ignorance' that these scientists claim that somethings lack a present explanation based on the current evidence, therefore 'pansspermia.' Many Creationist dishonestly try the same foolishness.

I see 3 possibilities of how/why the editing of RNA ability in octopuses and shCherbak's PQN 037 numeric pattern in genetic coding had occurred.

Possibility A ) Panspermia B. ) Evolutionary mechanism(s) C.) Unknown mechanism(s)

Possibility B seems to have been ruled out by many scientists. Thereby, leaving either panspermia or some unknown mechanism as the possible causes. Saying the cause is unknown, is unacceptable to me, because a better answer.is possible than merely shrugging one's shoulders and exclaiming "We don't know why!". So then, this leaves panspermia as the best remaining answer and reason. .

We don't know why! is the most ignorant possible sounding answer.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
I see. What you seem to mean is that you find this extraterrestrial stuff about the octopus compelling because you, personally, have bought into not only the panspermia hypothesis but also a highly contentious interpretation of the "wow" radio signal in 1977.

For the rest of us however, this is not compelling at all, as we do not share your assumptions.

The radio signal from possible extraterrestrial intelligence detected by SETI in 1977 and dubbed as the WOW signal! isn't the same extraterrestrial phenomenon as the WOW! signal of the terrestrial genetic code discovered by Vladimir shCherbak and Maxim Makukov in 2013.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I see 3 possibilities of how/why the editing of RNA ability in octopuses and shCherbak's PQN 037 numeric pattern in genetic coding had occurred.

Possibility A ) Panspermia B. ) Evolutionary mechanism(s) C.) Unknown mechanism(s)

Possibility B seems to have been ruled out by many scientists. Thereby, leaving either panspermia or some unknown mechanism as the possible causes. Saying the cause is unknown, is unacceptable to me, because a better answer.is possible than merely shrugging one's shoulders and exclaiming "We don't know why!". So then, this leaves panspermia as the best remaining answer and reason. .

We don't know why! is the most ignorant possible sounding answer.

I believe it super pretentious and arrogant to make the assumption of the above bold considering the unknowns of the science abiogenesis and early evolution. I believe the Genetic mechanisms are known the problem is the source of the RNA material. In fact based the total lack of evidence of panspermia material from outside our solar system it is the last possible explanation. Not an impossibility, but close.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The radio signal from possible extraterrestrial intelligence detected by SETI in 1977 and dubbed as the WOW signal! isn't the same extraterrestrial phenomenon as the WOW! signal of the terrestrial genetic code discovered by Vladimir shCherbak and Maxim Makukov in 2013.

I do not believe that this is a competent piece of evidence in fact charlatan incompetent. I am being very harsh on this, because it is truely phony science. The following reference goes into in detail:

From: The Genetic Code is not a synonym for the Bible Code

The Genetic Code is not a synonym for the Bible Code


Oh, boy. The Intelligent Design creationists are all excited about a new paper that purports to have identified an intelligent signal in the genetic code.


Here’s a new paper that can be added to the growing stack of intelligent-design articles in peer-reviewed journals. Even though the authors do not use the phrase “intelligent design,” their reasoning centers on the detection of an intelligent signal embedded in the genetic code — a mathematical and semantic message that cannot be accounted for by a natural cause, “be it Darwinian, Lamarckian,” chemical affinities or energetics, or any other.

I’ve read the paper by ShCherbak and Makukov, and by golly, the Discovery Institute flack really has accurately summarized the paper: it does explicitly and clearly claim to have identified evidence of design in the genetic code! That’s newsworthy in itself, that the creationists can accurately summarize a scientific paper…as long as the results conform to their ideological expectations.

Unfortunately, what they’ve so honestly described is good old honest garbage.

Here’s the short summary of what they do: they jigger the identities of the amino acids coded for by each codon into a number, a nucleon sum. What is that, you might ask? It’s determined by adding up the number of protons and neutrons in the amino acid, which is simply the mass number of the compound. Further, you can distinguish the amino acid into it’s R group, and the atoms that make up the peptide chain proper, which he calls the B group, for standard block. The mass number of the B group is always 74, except for proline, so he transfers a hydrogen from the R group to the proline B group to bring it up to 74, and by the way, did you notice that 74 is two times 37, which is a prime number? Now if you take all the three-digit decimals with identical digits (111, 222, 333…999), and sum their digits (111=3, 222=6, 333=9, etc.) you get the quotient of the number divided by…37!!!1!!

Are you impressed yet? This is simply numerology, juggling highly derived quantities that have little to do with functional properties of the molecules to come up with arbitrary numerical relationships, and then claiming that they’re somehow significant. They also play games with the sums of the mass numbers of just the R groups for certain codons, adding or subtracting the B number, finagling things until they get numbers that are evenly divisible by their magic prime number of 37, etc. It’s pure nonsense through and through.

But every once in a while, something sensible emerges out of the murk. Here’s the logic of their argument:

To be considered unambiguously as an intelligent signal, any patterns in the code must satisfy the following two criteria: (1) they must be highly significant statistically and (2) not only must they possess intelligent-like features, but they should be inconsistent in principle with any natural process, be it Darwinian or Lamarckian evolution, driven by amino acid biosynthesis, genomic changes, affinities between (anti)codons and amino acids, selection for the increased diversity of proteins, energetics of codon-anticodon interactions, or various pre-translational mechanisms.

(1) is simply saying that there must be a pattern of some sort — if the code were purely random assignment of arbitrary nucleotides to each amino acid, it wouldn’t be much of a sign — it would suggest that the sequence is noise, not signal. (2) is the really hard part, the one where you’d have to do a lot of work: you’d have to show that natural processes did not contribute to the pattern. They do not do that. They can’t do that. They take a different and curious tack.

They literally argue that because organizing the code by their nucleon sums makes no sense and has no reasonable functional consequences…therefore it must be an artificial and intentional feature. I’ve heard this argument before. It’s called the Chewbacca defense. Ladies and gentlemen, think about it: that does not make sense! If nucleon numbers show a mathematical pattern of any kind in their relationship to codons, you must accept the existence of a designer.

However, if we can show a natural property that leads to the organization of the genetic code, then I’m afraid their argument evaporates. Even more so than building an argument on the Chewbacca defense, that is.

There’s a very good discussion of the genetic code in Nick Lane’s book, Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution, and I’ll briefly summarize it."
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
The radio signal from possible extraterrestrial intelligence detected by SETI in 1977 and dubbed as the WOW signal! isn't the same extraterrestrial phenomenon as the WOW! signal of the terrestrial genetic code discovered by Vladimir shCherbak and Maxim Makukov in 2013.
..and neither of them has anything whatsoever to do with the biochemistry of an octopus, so let's drop the distraction, shall we?
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
I do not believe that this is a competent piece of evidence in fact charlatan incompetent. I am being very harsh on this, because it is truely phony science. The following reference goes into in detail:

From: The Genetic Code is not a synonym for the Bible Code

The Genetic Code is not a synonym for the Bible Code


Oh, boy. The Intelligent Design creationists are all excited about a new paper that purports to have identified an intelligent signal in the genetic code.


Here’s a new paper that can be added to the growing stack of intelligent-design articles in peer-reviewed journals. Even though the authors do not use the phrase “intelligent design,” their reasoning centers on the detection of an intelligent signal embedded in the genetic code — a mathematical and semantic message that cannot be accounted for by a natural cause, “be it Darwinian, Lamarckian,” chemical affinities or energetics, or any other.

I’ve read the paper by ShCherbak and Makukov, and by golly, the Discovery Institute flack really has accurately summarized the paper: it does explicitly and clearly claim to have identified evidence of design in the genetic code! That’s newsworthy in itself, that the creationists can accurately summarize a scientific paper…as long as the results conform to their ideological expectations.

Unfortunately, what they’ve so honestly described is good old honest garbage.

Here’s the short summary of what they do: they jigger the identities of the amino acids coded for by each codon into a number, a nucleon sum. What is that, you might ask? It’s determined by adding up the number of protons and neutrons in the amino acid, which is simply the mass number of the compound. Further, you can distinguish the amino acid into it’s R group, and the atoms that make up the peptide chain proper, which he calls the B group, for standard block. The mass number of the B group is always 74, except for proline, so he transfers a hydrogen from the R group to the proline B group to bring it up to 74, and by the way, did you notice that 74 is two times 37, which is a prime number? Now if you take all the three-digit decimals with identical digits (111, 222, 333…999), and sum their digits (111=3, 222=6, 333=9, etc.) you get the quotient of the number divided by…37!!!1!!

Are you impressed yet? This is simply numerology, juggling highly derived quantities that have little to do with functional properties of the molecules to come up with arbitrary numerical relationships, and then claiming that they’re somehow significant. They also play games with the sums of the mass numbers of just the R groups for certain codons, adding or subtracting the B number, finagling things until they get numbers that are evenly divisible by their magic prime number of 37, etc. It’s pure nonsense through and through.

But every once in a while, something sensible emerges out of the murk. Here’s the logic of their argument:

To be considered unambiguously as an intelligent signal, any patterns in the code must satisfy the following two criteria: (1) they must be highly significant statistically and (2) not only must they possess intelligent-like features, but they should be inconsistent in principle with any natural process, be it Darwinian or Lamarckian evolution, driven by amino acid biosynthesis, genomic changes, affinities between (anti)codons and amino acids, selection for the increased diversity of proteins, energetics of codon-anticodon interactions, or various pre-translational mechanisms.

(1) is simply saying that there must be a pattern of some sort — if the code were purely random assignment of arbitrary nucleotides to each amino acid, it wouldn’t be much of a sign — it would suggest that the sequence is noise, not signal. (2) is the really hard part, the one where you’d have to do a lot of work: you’d have to show that natural processes did not contribute to the pattern. They do not do that. They can’t do that. They take a different and curious tack.

They literally argue that because organizing the code by their nucleon sums makes no sense and has no reasonable functional consequences…therefore it must be an artificial and intentional feature. I’ve heard this argument before. It’s called the Chewbacca defense. Ladies and gentlemen, think about it: that does not make sense! If nucleon numbers show a mathematical pattern of any kind in their relationship to codons, you must accept the existence of a designer.

However, if we can show a natural property that leads to the organization of the genetic code, then I’m afraid their argument evaporates. Even more so than building an argument on the Chewbacca defense, that is.

There’s a very good discussion of the genetic code in Nick Lane’s book, Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution, and I’ll briefly summarize it."
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
".Hi, I'm one of the authors of the papers being discussed here (thanks for pointing out this discussion, Simone). Saying right off: I am not going to make war and press on changing anything in the wiki-article. I'll appreciate if the wiki-editors here will take my note into account; but if not - well, I can live with that, From the discussion here I see that the point is not whether our papers are ID or not (they are not; if that matters - I share entirely naturalistic worldview). Rather, the point is whether they are numerology or not. As I guess, this is a short way of saying that the data we described might be just the result of our arbitrary "juggling" until we found some "desired patterns". In our recent paper (mentioned here by the user Andy Shepp) we devote a good chunk of text to discussing this very point, so here I'll instead make a comparison between our study and the Bible Code (the comparison brought about by PZ Myers, I suppose). First - there is no any scientific hypothesis behind the Bible code (at least none that I've heard of. God? That's not a hypothesis, since the notion of God is notoriously ill-defined. Without such restriction, you are free to choose/invent any method you like for data analysis. In our case, we have the working hypothesis (that of Sagan and Crick & Orgel), and we attempt to develop analysis methodology appropriate for that hypothesis - the condition which greatly restricts the options (in particular, we are trying to follow similar basic logic that was used to construct Earth-made messages such as the Arecibo message, etc.). Second - the analogy with the Bible code is irrelevant simply from statistical standpoint. In one case the data (Bible) is millions of letters long - what a scope for opportunities. In another case, the data (genetic code) is only a few hundred bits. Next, the Bible is but one of many books ever written, while the genetic code is unique (with several minor variations). The Bible is written with a writing system which is itself completely arbitrary and is but one of many existing writing systems; in contrast, in our approach we do not rely in any way on arbitrary cultural codes, relying instead on the language of abstract logic and mathematics (yes, I know not everyone agrees that even mathematics might be useful for communication with another intelligent species; still, if you attempt to do that, first of all you'll most probalby resort to logic/mathematics, not Hebrew, right?). ----------- Of course, I by no means imply that our data unambiguously supports the hypothesis of Crick & Orgel. My point is that the data favors this hypothesis to the extent which makes it unreasonable to dismiss it as numerology just like the Bible code. As typically happens in such situations, the problem is that it is difficult to find an objective criterion for judging opinions and biases." - Maxim Makukov

Reference: Wikipedia Talk Panspermia Talk:Panspermia - Wikipedia
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
..and neither of them has anything whatsoever to do with the biochemistry of an octopus, so let's drop the distraction, shall we?

The WOW! signal of the terrestrial genetic code is additional evidence along with RNA editing ability of octopuses that support panspermia theory. Anyways, let's return to discussing the apparent extraterrestrial origin of octopuses if you'd like.

The late zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is alien. "In this sense, our paper, then, describes the first sequenced genome of an alien." Scientists sequenced the genome of the two spot California octopus in a study that was published in 2015 in the scientific peer reviewed journal of Nature.

Reference: The octopus genome and the evolution of cephalopod neural and morphological novelties
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
"Most"? [Citation needed]

I would question the use of [strictly?], but I have no problem with abiogenesis being the by far dominant view among scientists simply because the hypothesis of abiogenesis is that life evolved from non-life chemistry is science. The scientific research world wide is working on abiogenesis and no other hypothesis for the origin of life has a strongly competing chance. I know of no other hypothesis concerning the origins of life that scientists are devoting their research on with any significant support.

Note: The proposals of 'panspermia' do not oppose abiogenesis. They just propose that some RNA/DNA sources from extraterrestrial origins contributed to the early evolution of life. For many reasons I do not support this view as a possibility.

As far as the view of the lay public the view of abiogenesis is all over the place, and clouded by non-science beliefs.

This older thread concerning abiogenesis (2016) discusses this in detail: Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand
 
Last edited:

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I would question the use of [strictly?], but I have no problem with abiogenesis being the by far dominant view among scientists simply because the hypothesis of abiogenesis is that life evolved from none life chemistry is science. The scientific research world wide is working on abiogenesis and no other hypothesis for the origin of life. I know of no other hypothesis concerning the origins of life that scientists are devoting their research on.

As far as the view of the lay public the view of abiogenesis is all over the place, and clouded by non-science beliefs.

This older thread concerning abiogenesis (2016) discusses this in detail.
I misread the quote. I thought it was claiming most scientizts think panspermia is correct. Most scientists do indeed agree abiogenesis was a thing. Thank you for highlighting my error.
 
Top