malf
Member
So pls be very wary in trusting Varerie's input. How self-serving for nefarious ETs to imply our earliest origins were Reptilian. How utterly demoralizing.
I think it is safe to say that when the claims are especially extraordinary and profound, people will instinctively tend towards being disbelieving without sufficient supporting evidence. Not everyone will be suitably hesitant, of course, there are people open to believing very big claims on the least of evidence possible. What is our earliest origin? If it involves evolution from single celled organisms than our origin is there, or with any party that potentially engineered and seeded DNA. If evolving organisms were meddled with by ET once during the last 4.5 billion years, or perhaps various times, then we are the result of everything that happened during this huge span of time. I don't think anyone can claim any one party single-handedly created modern humans. If some people feel demoralized by this possibility, so be it, I simply care that we get to the truth of the matter - whether that involve angels, demons or any parade of strange otherworldly characters. We are more than this body and as such no beings engineered 'me' irrespective of what history my form has or the code that it is based upon. People should not 'trust' but consider exploring this information and the offered evidence. Hopefully that is a helpful answer.
Are you familiar with Bashar?
You should remember that everyone here gives their time voluntarily, and most of us do other things beyond this forum - I shall be moving on to a thorny software problem as soon as I hit the 'Post' button on this! Even though I moderate here, I couldn't possibly read everything here, and I am sure I have been asked questions to which I have not replied.Is it common for Alex to lose track? Bless his busy heart. If he does not reply to this I will delete it along with the two previous replications. A question of diminishing returns.
I think it is safe to say that when the claims are especially extraordinary and profound, people will instinctively tend towards being disbelieving without sufficient supporting evidence. Not everyone will be suitably hesitant, of course, there are people open to believing very big claims on the least of evidence possible. What is our earliest origin? If it involves evolution from single celled organisms than our origin is there, or with any party that potentially engineered and seeded DNA. If evolving organisms were meddled with by ET once during the last 4.5 billion years, or perhaps various times, then we are the result of everything that happened during this huge span of time. I don't think anyone can claim any one party single-handedly created modern humans. If some people feel demoralized by this possibility, so be it, I simply care that we get to the truth of the matter - whether that involve angels, demons or any parade of strange otherworldly characters. We are more than this body and as such no beings engineered 'me' irrespective of what history my form has or the code that it is based upon. People should not 'trust' but consider exploring this information and the offered evidence. Hopefully that is a helpful answer.
I guess you should ask LS himself. There is no copyright on these forums - except maybe for the podcasts themselves.I would like to ask permission to share post #246 of this thread written by LoneShaman on the Richard Dolan forum in the thread on that forum dedicated to Bruce Fenton's work
I guess you should ask LS himself. There is no copyright on these forums - except maybe for the podcasts themselves.
David
Thank you... and I should have been clearer as I was asking both the Skeptiko forum and LoneShaman.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103513000791It has been repeatedly proposed to expand the scope for SETI, and one of the suggested alternatives to radio is the biological media. Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store non-biological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statistically strong intelligent-like “signal” in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario. Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information.
The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin.
I agree. And furthermore there are some interesting things about the code that make it feel even more as if someone intelligent created it. In particular, there are mutations that are known as "frame shifts". These consist of the removal or addition of a number, N of DNA bases, where N is not a multiple of three. The simplest example is the removal of one DNA base. These are generally destructive to a gene's function because the coding breaks down. For example, given:Just a little on the genetic code, which is a true code btw.
In order to to transmit information requires symbols, syntax and a cipher for interpretation, both sender and receiver must have knowledge of the cipher. This is language.
What is a symbol? A symbol represents something that is not itself. It is not physics that connect a symbol with what it represents it is, in all cases this a mind. For a transfer of information at its most basic level is a semiotic triad of 1. Symbol, a physical token. 2 The representation, what that symbol represents and 3. An interpretation. All three are required.
Now we can have of course a completely automated system that does this, you are using one right now. It does however require a mind for it's conception. Codes are not physical you see, only the medium for the code. This is why the same code can be formulated in a variety of mediums.
The genetic code is no different, it is formal and not physical. While it requires physicality to transfer through time and space in the macro. Meanings are assigned by a mind. There is this gap in any system that is not truly connected by any of the physical laws of nature. Software and it's code does this in the system you are using now. It is a bunch of formalized (non physical) concepts embedded in a physical medium. A law actually, a rule, is not truly physical although it can be described in it's physical operation. The gap is connected by an abstraction, a concept. This is the domain of a mind.
It has an aboutness to it. Thoughts are about things, they are not the actual electrical discharges in synapses that represent them. This is a simplistic version of the "hard Problem".
This gap in the genetic code is traversed by yet another code, a set of enzymes specific to each amino acid. These enzymes are themselves coded by the very thing that require themselves in order to be processed! This is the ultimate conundrum in biology.
I agree. And furthermore there are some interesting things about the code that make it feel even more as if someone intelligent created it. In particular, there are mutations that are known as "frame shifts". These consist of the removal or addition of a number, N of DNA bases, where N is not a multiple of three. The simplest example is the removal of one DNA base. There are generally destructive to a gene's function because the coding breaks down. For example, given:
CAT TCG ACA CGG ............
When you remove the fourth base you get:
CAT CGA CAC GG.............
Notice how every codon (group of 3 bases) after such a mutation, is totally trashed!
I used to think (I only did one year of this stuff almost 50 years ago!) that this mistake would destroy the rest of the chromosome (maybe thousands of genes) because everything would get out of step. However,the code contains specific start and stop codons and there are short sections between DNA which cannot be confused with these special codons. This means that the decoding process can recover after encountering a frameshift mutation!
I guess something like this must have been present right from the start - even the simplest life-form is as sophisticated as hell, and yet science has to assume that it was created randomly, because before the first organism, nothing was alive to undergo natural selection!
David
neo-darwinism...there are people open to believing very big claims on the least of evidence possible.
Yes indeed. Please listen to LS's video - it is quite short and it really illustrates this amazing scientific goof.neo-darwinism