I can't personally vouch for this article, but they are reporting on it at Reality Sandwich. The RS article is derived from this original one:

http://www.agoracosmopol...e/2007/01/08/01288.html

The first few paragraphs are VERY illuminating. Unfortunately, the latter part of the article devolves into an agenda-driven soliloquy.

Here are some teaser quotes by the the researcher, Dr. Chang at the Human Genome Project:

"Our hypothesis is that a higher extraterrestrial life form was engaged in creating new life and planting it on various planets. Earth is just one of them. Perhaps, after programming, our creators grow us the same way we grow bacteria in Petri dishes. We can't know their motives - whether it was a scientific experiment, or a way of preparing new planets for colonization, or is it long time ongoing business of seedling life in the universe."

and

"If we think about it in our human terms, the apparent "extraterrestrial programmers" were most probably working on "one big code" consisting of several projects, and the projects should have produced various life forms for various planets. They have been also trying various solutions. They wrote "the big code", executed it, did not like some function, changed them or added new one, executed again, made more improvements, tried again and again."

and

Professor Chang further indicates that "What we see in our DNA is a program consisting of two versions, a big code and basic code." Mr. Chang then affirms that the "First fact is, the complete 'program' was positively not written on Earth; that is now a verified fact. The second fact is, that genes by themselves are not enough to explain evolution; there must be something more in 'the game'."

"Soon or later", Professor Chang says "we have to come to grips with the unbelievable notion that every life on Earth carries genetic code for his extraterrestrial cousin and that evolution is not what we think it is."

Dr. Chang, you say? hmmmm....

Read New Scientist instead of that webpage if you're interested in science! I hear our DNA is half virus, and I think the third of it that was referred to as 'junk' is now thought to be virus code that has corrupted over time. A lot of our bodily functions originate from virus code.

I wish for our ancestors' sakes that we had been programmed, evolution sounds like a very painful process.

Interesting poll. I cannot vote for one of them, because there are multiple that apply at the same time. If fact for me, there are Seven there that apply.

Mom and Dad
Advanced Extra-terresterials (arch-angels, Annunaki)
God
God
Biocosm

Arch-angels would be advanced extra-terresterials.
The Annunaki are advanced extra-terrestrials.

I can't rule out the Matrix either, as there is no way to disprove it.

Also your two definitions of God along with Biocosm are not mutually exclusive, you are essentially saying the same thing.

this guy made the building blocks for primordial soup in his lab in the late 50's. he's the godfather of biochemistry


"In 2008, researchers found the apparatus that Miller used in his early experiments and analyzed the material using more sensitive later techniques. The experiments included previously unreported simulations of other environments, such as gases released in volcanic eruptions. The later analysis turned up more amino acids and other compounds of interest.[3][4]"

the order of creation is amino acids --> proteins--> nucleotides --> RNA/DNA

I find this model much more plausible than theories which lean towards scientology

It's much more appealing to me that we are the result of a natural process that has been taking place on our planet than the result of an Alien science experiment.



Orthodox Darwinism is obviously not how modern scientists view evolution. This is a common assumption I hear from Fundamentalists who line up on the side of any major religion. So they are basically saying "Darwin couldn't figure it out" therefore aliens did it.

Ancient Myths from thousands of years ago are obviously nothing to place belief on, hopefully we can all agree on that.

I think the 'Stoned Ape' theory is much more likely. I see a lot more evidence that these 'extraterrestrials' were products of a blooming imagination in early humans, likely catalyzed by mushrooms.

Obviously we're missing some piece of the puzzle and I am most definitely not ruling out the possibility that Earth was seeded by Aliens.

So eating mushrooms caused physical evolution, both of the mind and body?



In every myth there is a hint of truth. They are not something to places ones whole belief upon, but the commonalities across thousands of years, from opposite sides of he globe with no possible contact between cultures, has to make one ponder what truths contained therein may have been forgotten to time.

Shouldn't that be Nucleotides ----> DNA/RNA ------> Amino Acids -----> Proteins?? Unless I'm missing something here...

Where does Panspermia fit in? Not necessarily that earth life originated due to some form of extra-terrestrial experiment or what have you, but that live on earth evolved from extra-terrestrial starting material?

Methtical

you are missing something here: amino acids aggregate to form the primary structure, which are the building blocks for secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures.
as the theory goes, our atmosphere, originally devoid of oxygen gas, was composed of methane and nitrogenous gasses like ammonia. lightning catalyzed the electrochemical reaction which formed amino acids. the oceans, formed from volcanic activity, served as the aqueous medium to cause this hydrophobic aggregation of amino acids into peptides and so forth.

I think the issue your having is chicken or the egg. you cant have dna without proteins figgadeal me?

VERY interesting discussion.

there is this fish, a blowfish.
this blowfish has a unique ability
this fish, continually comb's over its dna, snipping out the "junk" and removing it.
this blowfish has pure blowfish dna.
how cool?1

Ill try to find a link or something for those interested

edit: From wikipedia on fugu:
" Fugu rubripes is a commonly used genetic model organism, particularly useful to bioinformaticians. The Fugu genome is unusually small for an organism of its complexity, and contains very little junk DNA. This compactness makes its genome sequence very useful for identifying conserved functional elements.[13]
Furthermore, the sodium channel blocking properties of tetrodotoxin mean that it is widely used in the study of ion channels in neuropharmacology."

the poor blowfish may have highly conserved DNA, but it's an endangered species fwiu

Ok so peptides were formed and then there was somekind of evolutionary occurence that prompted those proteins/peptides to replicate themselves via the building blocks of nucleotides and thus subsequent DNA/RNA??

Methtical

hydrophobicity and bond formation caused said peptides to fold into RNA and ssDNA. it's all about entropy/enthalpy

the replication occurred once the DNA evolved the ability to replicate. the egg (amino acids) was first.

benz I know you don't care, but I love you

Let us not forget that RNA is also catalytic. See the ribosome, the machinery in the cells for making proteins; it's catalytic cantres are made from ribonucleic acids, not amino acids.

That is to say that RNA enzymes evolved first and from them proteins started forming. RNA is pretty neat for being both the encoder and the end-product. Slowly the primitive RNA world shifted towards the nucleotides->proteins model.

Ah, and both the cited article in the OP, the title of this thread and the poll are utter rubbish! Especially the cited article, it is full of misinformation, misconceptions, forced conclusions, biased opinions and not not not not scientific at all.


"Pizdiets" is the only thing that comes to my mind

but where did the enzymes come from initially?
most likely a folded primary sequence of amino acids


this really is a chicken vs. egg scenario

i think not - the first enzymes were RNAs with an appropriate tertiary structure. Oligopeptides were incorporated in the beginning that appeared to improve enzymatic efficiency, and this is seen in todays' ribosomes. Ribosomes are made of RNA and proteins but the catalytic residues are composed exclusively of nucleotides. The proteins only fine-tune peptide bond synthesis.

In most of the RNA anzumes of the past the peptide parts slowly took over and the catalytic RNAs withered. The emergence of RNAs that could catalyse the synthesis of oligo- to polypeptides increased the abundance of proteins and it was a essential step in their take-over. Which is good since amino acids side chains are much more diverse and provide enormous possibilities for designs and functionality in comparison to ribonucleotides.

This all is part of the RNA World theory that aims to explain the chichen-egg scenario. People have also been designing and selecting for RNAs with specific catalytic activities, e.g. ATP hydrolysis or binding of the x. y. z ligand.

Indeed, but I can understand in a way why people look to say "a creator" or the categories in the pole or whathaveyou when you appreciate the complexity and sophistication of it all - the fact that there are DNA repair enzymes in place to double check the intial encodings as well, the intricacies of the immune system.....it is hard to believe at times that it all evolved through chance.

Methtical

There's nothing really magical in DNA repair enzymes, neither in DNA proofreading enzymes.

Same goes on for the immune system. It is complicated, yes but not magical. Certainly not enough to justify a designer.

I was under the impression that Abiogenesis (Primordial Soup) was out of favor due to recent discoveries that support a Panspermia interpretation of how life arose on the planet.