UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Jun > Jun 24

Re: Could Aliens Have Created Life On Earth?

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:22:00 -0700
Archived: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:28:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Could Aliens Have Created Life On Earth?


>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:22:04 +0100
>Subject: Re: Could Aliens Have Created Life On Earth?

>>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:18:11 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Could Aliens Have Created Life On Earth?

>>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>>>To: <post.nul>
>>>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:25:24 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: Could Aliens Have Created Life On Earth?

>>>>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul>
>>>>To: <post.nul>
>>>>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:02:45 +0100
>>>>Subject: Re: Could Aliens Have Created Life On Earth?

>>><snip>

>>>Here's Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe, speaking to Stuart Miller:
>>>The full interview is republished, by permisssion, at
>www.perceptions.couk.com/panspermia.html

><snip>

>>My point was a very basic one: we don't settle the question of
>>how life starts by deciding that it starts somewhere other
>>than on our own planet. Where it comes from may indeed be a
>>matter of probability, and will remain so right up to the point
>>where we can be wholly certain.

><snip>

>Hello Gerald,

>Right, I agree with all your points and have done for a while,
>especially about mainstream `unease' on these matters.
>Here's the Profs Hoyle & Wickramasinghe again with in-depth
>analysis of the `origin of life'.

>[Quotation Begins]

>"The outstanding question ... 2000 or more enzymes are crucial
>across a wide spectrum of [Earth] life ... the chance of
>obtaining the necessary total of 2000 enzymes by randomly
>assembling amino acid chains is ... p to 1 against, with p
>minimally an enormous superastrononomical number equal to
>10^40,000 [1 followed by 40,000 zeros].

>The odds we have thus computed are only for the enzymes, and of
>course correct arrangements with many other important
>macromolecules - histone-4 and cytochrome-c are two such
>examples, each with exceedingly small probability of being
>obtained by chance.

>If all these other relevant molecules for life are also taken
>account of in our calculation, the situation for conventional
>biology becomes doubly worse. The odds of one in 10^40,000
>against are horrendous enough, but that would have to be
>increased to a major degree. Such a number exceeds the total
>number of fundamental particles through the observed Universe by
>very, very many orders of magnitude.

>So great are the odds against life being produced in a purely
>mechanistic way that the difficulties for an Earthbound,
>mechanistic biology are in our view intrinsically insuperable."
>Quotation ends Prof. Sir Fred Hoyle & Prof. Chandra
>Wickramasinghe in `Cosmic Life-Force'

>However, as you hint, mainstream science seems unwilling to
>examine the question objectively (or is `warned-off - see
>footnote).

>So I've collected opinions from some notable scientists -
>including Francis Crick, Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, S.J. Gould
>etc. - who were willing to stick their necks out, at
>www.perceptions.couk.com/creation.html (the page name is irony)

>Their views raise some serious questions about Life on Earth,
>Life Origins Anywhere, and even the structure of the (local?)
>Universe.

>All maybe summed up by James P Hogan:

>[Quotation Begins]

>"Either these programs which defy human comprehension in their
>effectiveness and complexity wrote themselves accidentally out
>of mindless matter acting randomly; or something wrote them for
>a reason. There is no third alternative."

>[Quotation Ends]

>James P. Hogan - `Kicking The Sacred Cow' - 2004

>So maybe we should be careful where we express doubts on these
>matters - there seems to be some toxic cans of worms hidden
>under the `science consensus'.

The odds against Ray Dickenson existing are so staggering that
either he does not exist or he is a product of some divine
intelligent design. Consider:

The odds against a RD having parents who would live in the same
time frame in the hundreds of thousands of years of modern human
existence and would ever meet each other amongst all the
millions to billions of other people of Earth: conservatively 1
in 10^13.

The odds that even with his given parents that he would end up
with his unique combination of 46 chromosomes, 23 from each
parent: 1 in 2^23 = 1 in 8,388,604 = ~1/10^7.

Therefore the odds against RD existing are about 1 in 10^20.
Further, the odds of any of these genetically unique 7 billion
other humans existing concurrently with RD are 1 in
10^20^7billion.

You can keep going with these type of simplistic probability
arguments to "disprove" Ray Dickenson exists or could ever exist
or that he co-exists with me and everybody else on this list,
either that or some intelligence decided we should concurrently
exist. But there is at least one serious logical fallacy in
these arguments. Perhaps I presume the real, existing Ray
Dickenson can tell us what it is.


David Rudiak



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com