Upcoming Interview: Hybrid Humans: Scientific Evidence of Our 800,000-Year-Old Alien Legacy by Daniella Fenton and Bruce R. Fenton

#21
The book references an article about this paper:

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.6739v1.pdf

The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code​
Vladimir I. shCherbaka and Maxim A. Makukovb*​
Department of Mathematics, al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan​
Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan​

It 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 nonbiological 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 way 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 store non-biological information.

I haven't studied the article I am posting it to show that when ordinary people have unconventional ideas and claim there is scientific evidence supporting their ideas there may be some actual scientific research they are referring to.
 
#22
  • We need to be careful of language - something TES alluded to. When a European and an Asian interbreed, is that a kind of hybridisation? It seems apparent that we humans can be seriously mongrel examples of various human types (commonly called races). Do we know that this is just 'random' or accidental? It could be guided by spirit - probably is. So we can talk hybridisation as if all that means is some purposeful tweaking of genetic material - or we can add in breeding freely undertaken, but under guidance - in which case all we are talking is evolution in a deeper sense than the standard materialist model.
"Hybridisation", strictly speaking, usually refers to the production of viable (though not necessarily fertile) offspring when organisms of two different species mate. One issue is that the definition of a species tends to include the stipulation that it can't interbreed with other species. Well, obviously, if two organisms from different "species" can interbreed (especially if the offspring can be fertile and successfully reproduce with others of their like/others of one of their parental types), that calls into question the usual definition of a species.

I'm intrigued by Eugene McCarthy's Website where he focuses on hybridisation and indeed proposes an alternative to Darwinism ("Stabilization Theory"). His website is a complete rabbit warren and I don't propose going into any detail -- just investigate it yourself if you've a mind -- but one point it raises is that biologists often tie themselves into definitional knots; IOW, some of their problems may be artifacts of the way terms are defined. You might also care to check out some hybrids (including the wholphin, an inter-genus example) here if you haven't a lot of time to spare.

In a way, sexual reproduction, even between members of the same species (nay, even between actual siblings of the same species), could be considered a kind of hybridisation. To understand why I say that, it's necessary to understand what meiosis is and how it occurs. Wikipedia can occasionally be a useful reference, and one example is this diagram. If you click on it and then enlarge it, you can step through the processes involved in meiosis, sometimes referred to as "reduction division" because it reduces the number of chromosomes found in the adult by half. For example, it reduces the 46 chromosomes of adult (diploid) humans to 23 in their haploid gametes. See also the excellent explanation in this Khan Academy article.

During meiosis, genetic information is swapped between chromosomal homologues (one from the father, the other from the mother). This is "sexual recombination" and accounts for the vast bulk of differences between parents and offspring: far greater than those due to occasional mutations. In a sense, then, the offspring are hybrids of the parents. You may have heard of the term "hybrid vigour" (heterosis) that is applied when individuals from different populations or races of the same species mate.

If, for example, a Chinese person and a Nordic person mate, because the two are from different populations, their genetic differences are quite likely to lead to greater variety and robustness in their offspring than if both parents were of the same race. Even between different individuals of the same race, there is sufficient disparity to allow for much variation, unless, that is, the individuals are closely related (in the worst case, when incest occurs), leading to the reverse phenomenon, namely inbreeding. Here, the offspring tend to be less vigorous than their parents. This is, among other reasons, because inbreeding makes more likely the duplication of recessive genes, leading to genetic disorders such as haemophilia.

In short, I think you're probably right that normal sexual reproduction is somewhat like hybridisation, and that between different races, it leads to "mongrels", who often have greater vigour than their parents, certainly than do the offspring of "pedigree" individuals. Pedigree dogs are often greatly inbred and have risks for characteristic diseases.

That said, I find the idea of spirit guidance a little hard to swallow, unless, that is, spirits are fully acquainted with reproductive biology in general, and genetics in particular. Substitute "ET" for "spirit" and I suppose it might seem more plausible, but I'm not sure that's more than a semantic trick.

In saying that, I'm aware that I'm adopting the materialistic mode of explanation. Makes it a little easier to express ideas, but in reality, the causality may go the other way: all these apparent machinations of cells, chromosomes and genes might not cause phenomena such as hybridisation, meiosis and so on, but be more the appearance to perception of numinous causes originating in Mind at Large.
 
Last edited:
#23
I have been following Rodwell and other star seed theorists for 15 years. I believe that Gordon White's dictum about how one must follow the data and then interpret it is AT PLAY here. The data: the gap, the jump to homo sapiens sapiens. The interpretation? Surely it is not limited to alien manipulation. And just maybe it is a mystery. To me to conclude that we are playthings of ancient aliens has become a meme that should have ended when Sitchin was outed. Alex: I am NOT saying ETs do not exist. They are another life form that emerged from Consciousness. Some are evolved beyond saying, some are nasty. But to say they are genetic engineers of the human species needs hard evidence, not urban myth.
 
Last edited:
#24
The book references an article about this paper:

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.6739v1.pdf

The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code​
Vladimir I. shCherbaka and Maxim A. Makukovb*​
Department of Mathematics, al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan​
Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan​

It 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 nonbiological 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 way 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 store non-biological information.

I haven't studied the article I am posting it to show that when ordinary people have unconventional ideas and claim there is scientific evidence supporting their ideas there may be some actual scientific research they are referring to.
This relates to Lonevoice's evidence as opposed to urban myth need. For the benefit of continuity in discussion, I will repost this post here, with apologies to forum for the duplication. :)

Thanks for this Jim. The study stipulates as it thesis that

Results
The overall structure of the signal is shown in Fig. 4, which might be used as guidance in further description. The signal is composed of arithmetical and ideographical patterns, where arithmetical units are represented by amino acid nucleons, whereas codon bases serve as ideographical entities. The pat-terns of the signal are displayed in distinct logical arrange-ments of the code, thereby increasing both the informational content of the signal and its statistical significance. Remarkably, all of the patterns bare the same general style reflected in Fig. 4 with identical symbols in each signal component (represented by boxes). Namely, distinct logical arrangements of the code and activation key produce exact equalities of nucleon sums, which furthermore display decimalism and are accompanied by Rumer’s and/or half-transformations. One of these arrangements furthermore leads to ideography and se-mantical symmetries. All elements of the code – 64 codons, 20 amino acids, Start and Stop syntactic signs – are involved in each arrangement.

Cherbaka and Makukov are providing a statistical proof of the Amino Acid Codex - relating a theoretical ideographic signal basis with the nucleon count progression inside the assigned amino acid. They cite a 1 x 10^-30 likelihood of this occurring by accident. But they missed, the next step after the algebraic basis of the statistical proof, in that the signal is derivative from the second letter base of the codon.

I have reduced this complex argument into a depiction of the relationship below (without simplifying it into a Bridgman Reduction):

Cherbaka and Makukov's nucleon count is shown on the y-axis (putative 'molecule complexity'), and the codon base ideographical entity is shown on the x-axis. This is deductive in its level of inference. Very compelling. The only option left for the faking skeptic, is to simply issue a nulla infantis argument ("nuh-uh!") or ignore this from now on.

This is a methodical benchmark codex very much similar to the 4 Band Resistor Color Codex used in electronics. As David Bailey adeptly describes it, the codex is the result of an "engineered consumption of choices" inside an ideographical standard (64 codon logical slots). The codex has falsified the notion of any option besides the principles that

1. The codex was methodical by Intent.​
2. The codex mandated a XXX codon from its very inception, and could never have logically arisen from an XX codon basis (save for a temporary theoretical one as an aspect of the entire consumption protocol). The T and A assignments in particular are deliberate.​

Both the relationship with nucleon count AND the overstep use of codon slots, are assigned logically, not chaotically. In Intelligence, this is called 'an ideographic signal'. It demonstrates Intent.
 
#25
I have been following Rodwell and other star seed theorists for 15 years. I believe that Gordon White's dictum about how one must follow the data and then interpret it is AT PLAY here. The data: the gap, the jump to homo sapiens sapiens. The interpretation? Surely it is not limited to alien manipulation. And just maybe it is a mystery. To me to conclude that we are playthings of ancient aliens has become a meme that should have ended when Sitchin was outed. Alex: I am NOT saying ETs do not exist. They are another life form that emerged from Consciousness. Some are evolved beyond saying, some are nasty. But to say they are genetic engineers of the human species needs hard evidence, not urban myth.
What would you consider hard evidence? Would you consider 30plus years of channeled information coming from ETs hard enough?
 
#28
This relates to Lonevoice's evidence as opposed to urban myth need. For the benefit of continuity in discussion, I will repost this post here, with apologies to forum for the duplication. :)

Thanks for this Jim. The study stipulates as it thesis that

Results
The overall structure of the signal is shown in Fig. 4, which might be used as guidance in further description. The signal is composed of arithmetical and ideographical patterns, where arithmetical units are represented by amino acid nucleons, whereas codon bases serve as ideographical entities. The pat-terns of the signal are displayed in distinct logical arrange-ments of the code, thereby increasing both the informational content of the signal and its statistical significance. Remarkably, all of the patterns bare the same general style reflected in Fig. 4 with identical symbols in each signal component (represented by boxes). Namely, distinct logical arrangements of the code and activation key produce exact equalities of nucleon sums, which furthermore display decimalism and are accompanied by Rumer’s and/or half-transformations. One of these arrangements furthermore leads to ideography and se-mantical symmetries. All elements of the code – 64 codons, 20 amino acids, Start and Stop syntactic signs – are involved in each arrangement.

Cherbaka and Makukov are providing a statistical proof of the Amino Acid Codex - relating a theoretical ideographic signal basis with the nucleon count progression inside the assigned amino acid. They cite a 1 x 10^-30 likelihood of this occurring by accident. But they missed, the next step after the algebraic basis of the statistical proof, in that the signal is derivative from the second letter base of the codon.

I have reduced this complex argument into a depiction of the relationship below (without simplifying it into a Bridgman Reduction):

Cherbaka and Makukov's nucleon count is shown on the y-axis (putative 'molecule complexity'), and the codon base ideographical entity is shown on the x-axis. This is deductive in its level of inference. Very compelling. The only option left for the faking skeptic, is to simply issue a nulla infantis argument ("nuh-uh!") or ignore this from now on.

This is a methodical benchmark codex very much similar to the 4 Band Resistor Color Codex used in electronics. As David Bailey adeptly describes it, the codex is the result of an "engineered consumption of choices" inside an ideographical standard (64 codon logical slots). The codex has falsified the notion of any option besides the principles that

1. The codex was methodical by Intent.​
2. The codex mandated a XXX codon from its very inception, and could never have logically arisen from an XX codon basis (save for a temporary theoretical one as an aspect of the entire consumption protocol). The T and A assignments in particular are deliberate.​

Both the relationship with nucleon count AND the overstep use of codon slots, are assigned logically, not chaotically. In Intelligence, this is called 'an ideographic signal'. It demonstrates Intent.
T.E.S. I think that diagram crams far too much information on to one graph (at least for me - and I have tried) - why not display codon 2 as a function of some reasonable measure of complexity?

Here are all the amino acids used to make proteins, and the only point I want to make is that they do vary in complexity quite a lot - glycine is the simplest, and depending on how you measure it, maybe tryptophan is the most complicated.

1566209033662.png

Here are the corresponding three letter codes - the genetic code!

1566209610533.png

I think T.E.S. is arguing that the various possible codes were used up in a logical order - that perhaps the codes for glycine came first because it is the simplest, and then The Designer, found the need for more complex amino acids and systematically used up code positions later. If you look at these amino acids - just thinking about their relative complexity - and compare them with the corresponding code, there is some evidence, I guess that The Designer switched from a 2-base code to a 3-base code as he built the table. Note that it would have been excruciatingly hard to make that change after life had begun - so I guess this is a design time process!

It is also perhaps sobering to look at that code table and remember that the materialists need to be able to argue that that whole scheme came into being by some random process!

David
 
#29
That said, I find the idea of spirit guidance a little hard to swallow, unless, that is, spirits are fully acquainted with reproductive biology in general, and genetics in particular. Substitute "ET" for "spirit" and I suppose it might seem more plausible, but I'm not sure that's more than a semantic trick.
I agree that whether ET might also be spirit is problematic - because we don't have convincing 'proof'. I am looking at a substantial body of evidence and argument that says there is an equivalence. So the intent is not semantic trickery.

I base my arguments on the presumption that our reality is 'full of spirit'. This is not only an historic proposition that seems to be embraced by al, but materialists, but is persistently affirmed in contemporary spirit communication. The other basis of my argument is that understanding that our reality is essentially dual - the physical and the metaphysical, and that the latter is the realm cause and the former the realm of effect.

So there is a metaphysical counterpart to our physical DNA - which is fundamentally grounded in intelligent agency. So manipulation is by focused intent, rather than by what we regard as surgical or scientific manipulation. Tweaking [intelligent] 'design' is different to modifying the organism itself.

So to your point, spirits don't need to know reproductive biology or genetics - just whatever the equivalent is on a metaphysical level. This could be highly disciplined willed imagination embodying an intent - in conformity to which the elements of the metaphysical design arrange themselves.

When we stop thinking like materialists [physicalists] and start thinking like metaphysicalists [which we gotta do if we are serious about 'extended consciousness realms'] we have to reframe our thinking - into clumsy and crude ways for the moment. I guess don't mistake the clunkiness of expression for clunkiness of thought.
 
#30
the interview is a couple weeks out. I'll be interested to hear yr take on the book. BTW I think I will just be talking with Bruce.

I've read about half of the book. I'm not sure how much more I'm going to read. The writing style is not grabbing me and the subject matter is not either. I think what they are saying is possible, I thought in general terms it might be possible before I heard about their work so it is not an exciting new revelation to me. And while I have nothing against the author personally, in general there is so much misinformation published, in the mainstream news, in science journalism, in science journals, and books etc that I am reluctant to believe anything unless I dig into the details myself. I tried to look for some of the books they reference hoping they might be on kindle unlimited but I didn't find any and many were out of print entirely.

I did find he article they referenced on signs of intelligent design in the genetic code which was interesting and makes reading as much as I did worth while.

I was hoping it would be an entertaining story but I am not finding it to be one.
 
Last edited:
#31
T.E.S. I think that diagram crams far too much information on to one graph (at least for me - and I have tried) - why not display codon 2 as a function of some reasonable measure of complexity?
The graph sums up the the entire issue, yes. But that is the task at hand, as tables do not get the issue to jump off the page and make it manifest to the reader. Yes, complexity is measured by the number of nucleons in the amino acid, as listed in PubChem (y-axis).

I cannot Bridgman Reduce the issue/graphic any further without sacrificing the integrity of the signal, and rendering it vulnerable to wave-of-the-hand dismissal by faking skeptics. It is the viewer's task to up their game and understand the graphic. It is dense, but every element on it is easily understandable, and critical to the signal itself.
 
#32
I think T.E.S. is arguing that the various possible codes were used up in a logical order - that perhaps the codes for glycine came first because it is the simplest, and then The Designer, found the need for more complex amino acids and systematically used up code positions later. If you look at these amino acids - just thinking about their relative complexity - and compare them with the corresponding code, there is some evidence, I guess that The Designer switched from a 2-base code to a 3-base code as he built the table. Note that it would have been excruciatingly hard to make that change after life had begun - so I guess this is a design time process!

It is also perhaps sobering to look at that code table and remember that the materialists need to be able to argue that that whole scheme came into being by some random process!

David
Yes, glycine came first because it held the fewest nucleons, then alanine, and so forth. While the benchmark developer used a two XXX code (G and C only) for the first 24 bases, there were bases (29 and 43 - 64) which were absolutely essential for even the first life, two-digit or no. The 'archaea flag' is denoted by a '1' (Yes) in that last field. There is no bias inside archaea genomes, to the lesser complex amino acids (two nucleotide basis of XXX). So, no life could have possibly operated on a two nucleotide XXX codon basis (G and C only). They had to use four (G, C, T and A) as variables inside the second digit from the very start. Heck, even the start code ATG depends upon the four bit-basis.

One must also note that Crick was wrong - there was not 'ample time' for this to evolve - as this code is required before evolution can even happen.​
One must also note that the 'Stop' codes are 'amino acid silence'. How does one evolve by employing a silence mechanism? This is a logical impossibility because silence (null) is a pervasive external default state and not a logical operand (Yes No, 1,2,3, A/B etc). Evolution occurs on a logical operand basis only.​
So there was ZERO time available for this code to emerge, regardless of when or where it came into being. In other words, it is not a case of 'irreducible complexity', rather one of unprecedentable advantageous ergodicity of a 1 x 10^-30 likelihood. An ergodicity which 'knew' how to come into being without evolution, and also 'knew' that thereafter it should never attempt to change again - despite evolution. I use the term 'knew' because knowledge had to exist in order for this code to appear in the below structure.

This is falsifying in its inference. Here is the table behind the graph.

 
Last edited:
#33
Dear Alex,

Could I please request that this interview be focussed on the newest book:

Exogenesis: Hybrid Humans: A Scientific History of Extraterrestrial Genetic Manipulation Paperback – June 1, 2020
by Bruce R. Fenton (Author), Daniella Fenton (Author), Erich von Daniken (Foreword),

This is important because I would be talking about additional material that is not in the older and slightly more esoteric, shorter, and less than perfectly edited book 'Hybrid Humans: Scientific Evidence of Our 800,000-Year-Old Alien Legacy'.

Hybrid Humans is certainly extremely relevant and useful for listeners to read, but it is not the whole story and missed some of the important evidence that later became available. I can send you an unedited pdf of the new book as the manuscript is currently under edit with the publisher.

I am certainly happy to discuss some of the points raised here in the forum:

DNA as technology and/or intelligence & container vs content
Some details on the ETI as I understand it/them
The motivation for such a project as is suggested
Specific markers that I identify as being fingerprints of manipulation
Evolutionary theory from my perspective and how it is changing today (epigenetics, transposable elements, horizontal gene transfer etc.)
The esoteric and consciousness elements of my research and/or 'beliefs'
Clarification on what I mean by hybrid humans and how my position is different to some other ET human hybridization models

Of course, I am happy to discuss any elements that fit the show and will do my best to answer on anything relevant. Not sure I would want to go much into the TTSA topic as it is well covered everywhere and would sap time from the show better spent on my evidence. I will say here I am on the fence about Tom's TTSA project and this is well established by my comments both on Twitter and in a couple of radio interviews. I think I have been fair in criticising where appropriate but recognised seemingly beneficial successes when they occur. I am neither a fan or a hater.

Nice to connect, please excuse my writing here as I am both Aspergers and dyslexic. My sentence structure and grammar suffer but these neurological configurations have given me ways of thinking and mapping data that seem to be relatively unique to people of my disposition. There is a reason why various code-breaking agencies like to recruit a few folks with autism, dyslexia and Aspergers. We may suck a bit at social skills and emotional intelligence, plus writing, but we see the world differently and sometimes can read patterns in evidence that others miss.

All the best

Bruce
 
#34
Perhaps not surprisingly, Cherbak and Makukov came under a good bit of criticism for their paper. They did not cave and went deeper into the data to create a second paper in response which added a good deal more evidence. I reference this new offering in my upcoming book.

SETI in vivo: testing the we-are-them hypothesis

"Though ∼200 bits is not a particularly large volume to allow a full-fledged “message”, it certainly suffices for a signature whose sole purpose is to provide indication of intelligent intervention, a kind of “to whom it may concern: we were here” message.6 Just for comparison – equivalent amount of bits allows to encode the first 35 prime numbers, or value of a mathematical constant like π or e with an accuracy of 10−60. In fact, this capacity is even comparable to the selfinformation of some Earth-made SETI-messages, such as the experimental 551-bit pictogram composed by Frank Drake (Sagan et al. 1978). "
 
#35
Of course, I am happy to discuss any elements that fit the show and will do my best to answer on anything relevant. Not sure I would want to go much into the TTSA topic as it is well covered everywhere and would sap time from the show better spent on my evidence.
Agreed, let's not have the topic at hand be diluted by focus on a topic which is saturating the news elsewhere. Just as with the Kevin Day show, don't encourage people who come in simply to disrupt the topic, pick a fight with people who are focusing on critical path issues, and then disappear - pretending to be a sincere forum member.
 
#36
Perhaps not surprisingly, Cherbak and Makukov came under a good bit of criticism for their paper. They did not cave and went deeper into the data to create a second paper in response which added a good deal more evidence. I reference this new offering in my upcoming book.

SETI in vivo: testing the we-are-them hypothesis

"Though ∼200 bits is not a particularly large volume to allow a full-fledged “message”, it certainly suffices for a signature whose sole purpose is to provide indication of intelligent intervention, a kind of “to whom it may concern: we were here” message.6 Just for comparison – equivalent amount of bits allows to encode the first 35 prime numbers, or value of a mathematical constant like π or e with an accuracy of 10−60. In fact, this capacity is even comparable to the selfinformation of some Earth-made SETI-messages, such as the experimental 551-bit pictogram composed by Frank Drake (Sagan et al. 1978). "
Excellent! Thanks for this Bruce,

Key quotes from the study -

The seeded-Earth hypothesis has been criticized for not solving the problem of life’s origin but “merely shifting it to another place”, which is entirely irrelevant as it was neversupposed to tackle that problem.
Understanding this is a fortiori to an understanding the scientific method. We are not tasked with solving abiogenesis. We only need falsify it for Earth.

evidence that life inhabited Earth already at final stages of its formation (Bell et al. 2015) is expected rather than surprising.
all things being equal, the efficacy of [directed] seeding is higher compared to panspermia
As the motivation behind seeding is ethical (valuing life), it is appropriate to consider other potential issues related to ethics. One is that seeding may interfere with indigenous life,but, as mentioned earlier, it is effectively avoided with targeting star-forming regions. There is another ethical issue.Delivering microbial seeds to other habitats, the senders hope(at least implicitly) that some of them might ultimately leadto evolution of an intelligent species. But if that happens – would it be “good” of the senders to leave those intelligentspecies without any clue about their descendant origin?
Clearly, a signature cannot be embedded into amino acids or codons – these are just sets of physically predefined molecular structures. Useful information might be encoded into how these sets are mapped to each other, because the mapping of the code is not physically predefined (exactly this fact makes reassignment of codons possible, as now routinely practiced in labs).
See the below mapping graph we discussed.

So, at our disposal are the set of 64 codons on the one side, and the set of 20 canonical amino acids and two punctuation signs (start and stop) on the other side. Neither set is allowed to be modified (to avoid formidable task of redesigning the entireproteome and/or entire translational machinery), but the mapping between the two sets is editable, subject to functional requirements
For the same reason, codons with informationally inequivalent third symbols are kept apart, so 4-,3-, 2- and 1-degenerate codons are aligned within four distinct groups. The four groups themselves are arranged by their degeneracy number increasing in the direction opposite to that of nucleon numbers inside them.
The essence of what Makukov and Churbak have suggested is, that the linearity of the blue line below, the four XXX groupings by color, and the displacement of the oversteps to the end of the codogram - surpass the necessary tests for both non-randomness and Intent by several orders of magnitude, no matter how you look at the data. There was no feedback loop, nor evolution present, which could allow this to possibly have occurred naturally.

It is one miracle in itself to have the constituent chemicals of the primordial soup come together into a working codex supportive of life. I am willing to grant that miracle per hoc aditum.
It is another miracle entirely for that codex to ex-nihilo (from nothing) exhibit an external logical standard which bore no underpinning natural mechanism for its derivation.

I have re-expressed the codon chart from earlier, in the terminology used by Makukov and Churbak here - so hopefully the principle they are testing jumps off the page at the reader:

Codon 2nd Digit to Amino Match 2.png
 
Last edited:
#37
We should keep in mind that the latest studies of geology and evolutionary biology indicate a high likelihood that the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) lived approximately 4.5 billion years ago. That is just 100 million years after the formation of our planet and while the environment was still quite hostile for life, which is shocking many scientists. While we could argue that it was these volatile conditions in the very early period which gave rise to life, it is also reasonable to suspect such a sudden emergence of extreme biological complexity is more readily explained by the arrival from space. That arrival might be natural processes of exogensis, but it is perhaps equally well explained by directed panspermia. Even when the proposed dates for LUCA were at around 3.6 billion years many academics thought this improbably fast development for such a complex molecule and coding system. What then now that we maybe all the way back at 4.5 billion years?
 
#39
We should keep in mind that the latest studies of geology and evolutionary biology indicate a high likelihood that the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) lived approximately 4.5 billion years ago. That is just 100 million years after the formation of our planet and while the environment was still quite hostile for life, which is shocking many scientists. While we could argue that it was these volatile conditions in the very early period which gave rise to life, it is also reasonable to suspect such a sudden emergence of extreme biological complexity is more readily explained by the arrival from space. That arrival might be natural processes of exogensis, but it is perhaps equally well explained by directed panspermia. Even when the proposed dates for LUCA were at around 3.6 billion years many academics thought this improbably fast development for such a complex molecule and coding system. What then now that we maybe all the way back at 4.5 billion years?
Folks like Crick think the explanation is something we don't know and some day we'll figure it out. But the more we learn the less likely (not more likely) it seems life arose naturally on the earth. Promissory materialism isn't even plausible, it is contradicted by the history of science.
 
Last edited:
#40
questions / suggestions?
I think it would be interesting to ask Bruce to specifically discuss the spiritual aspect of his research. What is the spiritual purpose for creating humans? Because this is something that is relevant to everyone today - it touches on who we are and why we are here. Why we are here on the earth is a big problem for may people because there is so much suffering we wonder what is going on in the spirit realms that we think should be supervising the physical realms.
 
Last edited:
Top