From: "Ray Dickenson"
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:11:25 -0000
Subject: Re: Not By Chance
>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:04:50 -0500
>Source: The National Post - Toronto, Canada
>Thursday, December 01, 2005
>In December 2004 New Mexico Public Television scheduled,
>advertised and then, under pressure, canceled a documentary
>explaining the scientific case for a theory of biological
>origins known as intelligent design.
>But what is this theory of intelligent design? And why does it
>arouse such passion and inspire such apparently determined
>efforts to suppress it?
just reading a good book on scientific observation of animal behavior and a phrase reminded me of this `intelligent design' controversy - "Do they mean `supernatural' when they use the word `instinct'? - Or do they just mean `an unknown mechanism'?".
In the same pragmatic way Hoyle and Wickramasinghe checked the figures and did the maths, with this result -
"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 ... are only for enzymes ... if all other relevant molecules for life are also taken account of in our calculation the situation for conventional biology becomes ... intrinsically insuperable."
They seemed forced to a maybe temporary conclusion that there's a possibility of a `cosmic intelligence' on the loose.
The full quote and a link to Stuart Miller's Wickramasinghe interview is at [ tinyURL to here ].
The direct interview link is here.
An interesting point in that interview - Stuart elicited the fact that Hoyle and Wickramasinghe came under (maybe serious) pressure to `cease & desist' not only from colleagues but apparently by some shadowy `agency'. [scroll down to last questions].
That reads very much like `government' to me - and maybe to you also.
Thing is - why?
From: Stuart Miller
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:08:21 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Not By Chance
While I am loathe to subscribe to a conspiricist slant to this, I remember talking to Professor Wickramasinghe quite clearly and I was surprised by how circumspect he became when I started asking him about what pressure he may have come under while propogating his theories. It was as much what he didn't say as what he did and he became very uneasy.
It should also be mentioned that he very obviously, at that time, found the criticism to be very painful and hurtful and now feels a great sense of personal validation as his theories have gradually become more widely and generally accepted within science.
He stated unequivocably that he believed in Intelligent Design and by that he meant in the concept of another, higher form of intelligent life. He was also emphatic about life on Mars. For such an eminent scientist, he surprised me at how far he was prepared to stick his neck out.
He was a great but under-appreciated friend of Ufology and I wish him well in his retirement.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:45:47 -0000 Subject: Re: Natural Or Supernatural?
>From: Jerome Clark
>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:49:20 -0600
>>From: Bob Shell
>>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:49:20 -0600
>>Subject: Natural Or Supernatural? [was: Is John A. Keel A "Demonologist"?]
>>>From: Nick Balaskas
>>>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:49:20 -0600
>>>Subject: Natural Or Supernatural? [was: Is John A. Keel A "Demonologist"?]
>>>The extraterrestrial hypothesis as an explanation for UFOs and
>>>their occupants is no less speculative that what Keel believes.
>>>I would argue that there is much more physical evidence,
>>>including witness testimonies by trained and credible witnesses,
>>>in support of Keel's "supernatural" beliefs than the currently
>>>accepted beliefs of mainstream ufologists.
>>Excellent post, Nick! This needed saying. And it needs saying
>>over and over again.
>I confess that remarks like the above almost make me ill, or at
>least cause me to consider joining CSICOP (perhaps comparable
>afflictions). They speak to my worst fears about the
>intellectual facilities and critical faculties of many
>individuals who would like to think of themselves as colleagues
>of ufology's more intellectually restrained representatives.
>Keel has also expressed contempt for scientists and academics,
>once remarking that the American Association for the Advancement
>of Science "seems headed by Alfred E. Neuman," the Mad magazine
>signature character. His views go well beyond the sort of good-
>humored iconoclasm associated with the pioneering anomalist
>Charles Fort and into genuine hostility to intellectuals, whom
>he characterizes as devoid of "talent or intellect... so they
>have to invent their own little world and wallow in it and
>pretend they are important."
Hello Jerry and List,
First, would recommend a second look at Fort's writings - then replacing `good-humored' with `acidic' or `vitriolic' maybe.
Second, there's a problem for you, and all of us, with what is presented to the layman as scientific `restraint' and its appeals to `common sense'; often used in a priori dismissals of evidence, but also more generally, in sweeping assumptions that even deny modern science's own results. In actuality they are prompted by fear and a desire for a cozy world of solid Newtonian, atomist matter (but needing `magic' forces to work, don't forget).
As an example of that fear, I remember the `Astronomer Royal' (Reese?) confessing, in a recentish radio interview, that `he wasn't really happy with anything that came after Newton' - and that's a guy who was once supposed to be one of the iconoclastic `young Turks' (of Oxbridge) at conferences around the world.
That monolith of establishment science is anyway a pretence and a deceit. As long ago as 1954 Einstein came to this rather startling conclusion - "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics" - which in simple terms means everything's up for grabs in physics and the real rules are unknown.
But for nearly sixty years we've been told `nothing's changed'. Does that remind you of another sixty year deception?
Several eminent people (Hynek included) have noticed (although it's often mis-quoted) that `strangeness is inversely proportional to distance from [sighting] event' - which should ring a bell for a physicist: that's a field effect.
Lastly, really intelligent scientists tend to agree that all is not well in establishment science - "Human beings cannot by pure thought alone arrive at the truth about Being - about what, if anything, is behind the appearances" (p. 197 `The Life of the Cosmos' by Lee Smolin)
And badsci.txt might tell us why. Here's a quote "The vast number of scientists ... don't want to rock the boat. --- The top people may be toppled from their perches and people may lose their jobs"
It looks like the real rules are: there are no rules - yet.
Life lives. Tautology or simple definition?
To qualify as `living' an entity must be able to use energy in some way, maybe by `metabolism', and also be theoretically able to perpetuate that ability. The whole process is called `life' and includes reproduction - that is, the `copying' of both form and ability into the future.
Earth's living entities are carbon based - made of star-matter - and use star radiation or more star materials;  that is they photo-synthesize surrounding chemicals using sunlight, or they consume other carbon based entities, or both.
(Although a small minority, under ground or water, base their metabolism solely on chemicals in their surroundings and the use - or creation - of heat-gradients. Those chemicals are always atomic structures heaver than helium and thus were also made inside stars.)
Those are the life-forms we are aware of.
Speculation on Earth-life pathways below.
Non-organic Life? Can we envisage life-forms which are not based on carbon? Or on atomic matter of any kind?
Yes. In theory all that is needed for `life' is the presence of an energy gradient. In our case it is the difference, between high-energy sunlight arriving on - and low-energy infra-red thermal leakage departing from - Earth's surface, which feeds all plant life and therefore all animal life. So life like us, carbon-based, should be expected to develop around stars, probably mostly on planets 117 - although that's not a certain-sure requirement.
Is there any other form of energy that is more widely available than `sunlight'? Yes indeed. Much of the universe is made of `Dark Energy' - vastly stronger than sunlight and distributed more or less equally everywhere. Ah, but if it's exactly `equally distributed' there won't be differences in energy levels that life can use.
Right. We can therefore expect that any life feeding off `Dark Energy' will be most happy near large dense masses, which absorb a certain percentage of the otherwise ubiquitous `dark energy'. Prime candidates would be neutron stars, galactic centers and suchlike.
Such a `resident' of a neutron star (or of a galaxy-core) might see the surrounding sky as `hot' in dark energy while the `ground' would appear much cooler. That's a usable gradient.
And there's a more interesting possibility. No matter what ideas we have about the `beginning' of the Universe (if any) or of the `rate-of-expansion' of the Universe (if any), it is apparent that at a time (and `place') things were different than now generally found. However, science doesn't know for sure if there's an `expansion rate' or not, mainly because they're still confused about the real meaning of `redshifts',118 so we're not at all sure whether that time distance was fifteen billion years, or a thousand billion years, or even an `eternity'. 119
At that time it could have been possible for life to begin as any of the initial primitive vibrations in Dark Energy itself. 1110 After all, a vibration in an energy field provides both gradient and a base pattern for possible life.
That leads to a rather scarey realization: there's a possibility that forms of life, and therefore maybe of intelligence have already existed and evolved for many billions of years, perhaps thousands of billions - which would seem pretty much like `eternity' to us.
How does carbon-based life develop? Is there an inevitable `success route' for life to take in order to survive and complexify to intelligence?
And for `intelligence' to survive and complexify - to wisdom perhaps?
If there are short-term and long-term `success' routes, that would obviously result in the survival and complexification of choosers of `long-term' routes.
Can we find, by analysis of `tactics' and / or `strategies', a way of consistently differentiating short-term from long-term success routes?
Maybe. Let's try `big dinners' as opposed to low-level `subsistence' for a contrast of feeding tactics, and for choices of strategy we'll have `specializing' and its opposite - `non-specializing' = `adaptability'.
To be able to have big dinners (quickly), it's necessary to be a top predator of some kind. Will that be a short or long route?
Tyrannosuaruses and their ilk lasted hundreds of millions of years - but they are now extinct. Catastrophes are presumed to have killed off top dinosaur predators by intermittent destruction of most vegetation, starving any surviving members of their largely herbivorous prey.
Whereas `subsistence' was the route of small omnivores and insectivores, which survived to reach their later mammalian forms.
Mind you, the selachians (sharks and rays) were very big 110 and very ancient and some smaller versions of them are still around.
That's probably because the seas protected them - a) by shielding some of them from gross physical effects of comet strikes and subsequent fire, flood, volcanics, `nuclear winters' etc; and b) by receiving corpses from the land in tidal waves and run-offs and thus acting as a larder for quite a period.
But we can see that, while their early choice of the tactic of `big dinners' was immediately successful, their `specialization' strategy has forever prevented complexification to intelligence. The selachians have hardly changed despite aeons of continual evolution.
This means that the sea - their protection - is also their prison, until seas run dry. 111
Many descendants of early mammals then radiated out into predator niches, specializing in their turn. This has been their undoing.
Huge dire-wolves and various lions and saber-toothed tigers abounded in North America only twenty thousand years ago - now all are gone, except for a few `cat and dog' descendants (like pumas and wolves).
It's pretty clear that a more recent calamity, accompanied or followed by climate shock, killed off their large herbivore prey by starvation, after the impact / fire / flood / volcanics. 112
So the evidence in animals seems to say that `big dinners' and specialization are only short-term success routes, while subsistence and adaptability have longer-term value.
And latest research indicates that Neanderthals opted for `big dinners' also - here's extracts from the published paper (two sites).
"This would have been a fragile system," the authors write. "In flush times, Neandertals would have lived high on the hog (or the red deer), but they may have lacked the kind of diversified resource base and labor network ... needed to buffer them from major population losses in lean times."
"The meat of large animals yields a rich payoff, but even the best hunters have unlucky days. The modern humans of the Upper Paleolithic, with their division of labor and diversified food sources, would have been better able to secure a continuous food supply. Nor were they putting their reproductive core - women and children - at great risk."
Can we see those `rules' applying within the short period of known human history? Even though that's also acting within a species?
It looks like it - despite the heavy camouflage of human social mythology (hero worship and wishful thinking), and the self-justifying propaganda produced by `historians' of ancient rulers.
In human terms big dinners and specialization means only one thing - Empires. The rulers are always conspicuous consumers - and their speciality is conquering, ruling and taxing other people.
On analysis we see that such rulers, for the sake of short-term wealth and power, have definitely chosen to give up `subsistence' and `adaptability'.
How do we know? If the regal myths and `histories' were even half-way truthful we would find unbroken family lines of rulers from earliest times to the present day. We don't.
Again, on analysis it seems that wealth and power diminish a lineage's abilities so much that later descendants become incompetent (and un-marriageable) well within a hundred generations. 113
In actuality no family is known to have ruled (i.e. kept power and wealth) for even twenty or thirty generations. There is more than sufficient evidence of this from the days of ancient Egypt onwards to the present - despite most rulers' claims, often made on taking power, that they are supposedly descended from legendary leaders, heroes or gods.
Do we see any identifiable `royal lineages' - of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans, or even later - around today? No.
Despite heavily sponsored historians' 114 claims that their Emperors had `divine rights', those Emperors' lines are gone, it is the descendants of their slaves who have survived.
And one apparent exception actually proves the rule: many of the followers and descendants of Genghis Khan have representatives amongst us now.
Reason? For the most part they refused to give up their culture of hardy nomadic subsistence, as many Mongolians (and others) are still refusing to do today.
That's against the wishes of various `governments' who would rather have those people made captive (and docile) by the forced accumulation of worthless possessions, and the `specializing' or domestication which follows.
Check www.perceptions.couk.com/exosci.html#nonE for the reason for all this interest.
Looking for an explanation for 60 years of lies; maybe gov't ordered military lies and scientists' lies.