Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

[steve_bank]

Ever see the old British scifi movie Quatermass and the Pit also called 5 million Years To Earth?

Quatermass and the Pit (film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quatermass and the Pit (US title: Five Million Years to Earth) is a 1967 British science fiction horror film from Hammer Film Productions.[2] It is a sequel to the earlier Hammer films The Quatermass Xperiment and Quatermass 2. Like its predecessors, it is based on a BBC Television serial, in this case Quatermass and the Pit, written by Nigel Kneale.[3] The storyline, largely faithful to the original television production, centres on the discovery of ancient human remains buried at the site of an extension to the London Underground called Hobbs End. More shocking discoveries lead to the involvement of the space scientist Bernard Quatermass.

Insect like space faring creatures. Why not?

 

[excreationist]

Insect like space faring creatures. Why not?

That's the plot of Starship Troopers... (one of my favourite movies)

 

[pood]

Experimental Lamarckism, an intriguing article not intended for people who claim I think “magic fairies” could be responsible for life on other planets, and whose recent posts I have not yet read. Maybe I will, or maybe I can no longer be arsed to deal with such nonsense. I prefer good-faith discussions.

 

[pood]

Note from the linked article:

Wouldn't natural selection favour a physiological mechanism that allowed learned characteristics to be passed genetically to offspring?"

These are good questions. One way of answering them is to note that the molecular pathways needed for Lamarckian inheritance just don't exist. Within the context of life-as-we-know-it, there's no way for the elephant's nose to talk to the elephant's genes—especially the germ-line genes. The "central dogma" of molecular biology says that information flows from DNA to RNA to protein, not the other way around. A Lamarckian feedback loop would seem to require some mechanism by which the proteins of the phenotype could alter the DNA of the genotype.

The trouble with such an answer is that it invites a further annoying question: Why is it that such feedback loops have never evolved? Given all that has evolved in the way of genetic detours and shortcuts—plasmids, transposons, retroviruses, prions—it seems a bit arbitrary to declare this one pathway out of bounds. The case of retroviruses is particularly provocative, since they produce an enzyme (reverse transcriptase) that violates the central dogma, copying information from RNA back into DNA.

Note the bold part by me for These are good questions.

Not the same as advocating for magical fairies, to set the record straight.

Now, as noted, we don’t how such things would work out on other planets. Given a limited form of Lamarckism here, who can say that some form of Lamarckism could not dominate on other worlds?

No one, that’s who.

 

[excreationist]

Experimental Lamarckism, an intriguing article not intended for people who claim I think “magic fairies” could be responsible for life on other planets, and whose recent posts I have not yet read.

I thought a discussion on a discussion board typically involves reading people's posts before you reply to them.

Maybe I will, or maybe I can no longer be arsed to deal with such nonsense. I prefer good-faith discussions.

 

[steve_bank]

Well yea, there is inheritance.

Non human species know how to mate and procreate. The old adage is how much is nature versus nurture.

Dogs bred for specific traits and behaviors.

 

[Swammerdami]

Note from the linked article:

... The "central dogma" of molecular biology says that information flows from DNA to RNA to protein, not the other way around. A Lamarckian feedback loop would seem to require some mechanism by which the proteins of the phenotype could alter the DNA of the genotype.

The trouble with such an answer is that it invites a further annoying question: Why is it that such feedback loops have never evolved? Given all that has evolved in the way of genetic detours and shortcuts—plasmids, transposons, retroviruses, prions—it seems a bit arbitrary to declare this one pathway out of bounds. The case of retroviruses is particularly provocative, since they produce an enzyme (reverse transcriptase) that violates the central dogma, copying information from RNA back into DNA.

Obviously, "reverse transcription" arose BEFORE DNA-->RNA transcription in the earliest life.

But set that aside: Reverse transcrtion DOES occur, even in humans! I was shocked to read this, and still don't understand it.
Just now I asked ChatGPT "What creatures have a mechanism to transcribe RNA into DNA?" Here is an excerpt from its answer:

2. Eukaryotes (including humans)​

Surprise: you do it too, but quietly and indirectly.

a. Retrotransposons​

These are mobile genetic elements, essentially domesticated viruses.


Examples

• LINE-1 elements in humans
• Ty elements in yeast

What they do
RNA → DNA → reintegration elsewhere in the genome


About 40–45% of the human genome traces back to such events.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If ET has the technology to get here then they probably have advanced weapons.

Any space propulsion system is an advanced weapon, if you choose to use it as such.

The famous 'Kzinti Lesson'.

Yeah, although some realms use pseudovelocity drives which by themselves are not weapons. Lensman series is the first that I'm aware of--but note that even there the driver is weaponized by grabbing asteroids and planets, putting a drive on them and maneuvering them so their base velocity will cause them to hit whatever you really want destroyed. Likewise, the Starfire universe and the Armageddon Inheritance use have pseudovelocity drives, but in both of them reaction drives are mounted on sub-planetary bodies to weaponize them.

Any system capable of accelerating mass can be a weapon.

A propulsion system that can't accelerate mass is not a propulsion system.

Where you are going wrong is in assuming accelerating mass is required. The objective is getting from point A to point B. Accelerating mass is a means of doing so, so far the only known means of doing so. That doesn't prove there are not other techniques. You just referred to the Kzinti Lesson--but note the reason the Kzinti lost is that they had the hyperdrive. The hyperdrive is an example of going from point A to point B by means other than a reaction drive. Thus the Kzinti had no reason to develop reaction drives as good as the humans who were using reaction drives for interstellar travel. The humans mounted gunsights on their drives and had weapons superior to everything the Kzinti had.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you confused as to my gender?

Tell me, what's my name?

Do you think that's a boy name or do you think that's a girl name?

I don't recall ever hearing it as a name before. Personally, I had figured it was a character from somewhere and thus said nothing about gender. And you didn't put anything in the gender field.

 

[ZiprHead]

They're here.



Biden signed legislation to allow the government to disclose their UFO files. This is a trailer for a movie documentary about the result.

 

[excreationist]

Are you confused as to my gender?

Tell me, what's my name?

Do you think that's a boy name or do you think that's a girl name?

I don't recall ever hearing it as a name before. Personally, I had figured it was a character from somewhere and thus said nothing about gender. And you didn't put anything in the gender field.

In Australia there was a famous singer called Kylie Minogue... also Kylie has a cartoon of a girl for her avatar.

 

[bilby]

...also Kylie has a cartoon of a girl for her avatar.

Thereby proving that I am a dog. QED.

 

[pood]

Experimental Lamarckism, an intriguing article not intended for people who claim I think “magic fairies” could be responsible for life on other planets, and whose recent posts I have not yet read.

I thought a discussion on a discussion board typically involves reading people's posts before you reply to them.

I have read enough of his/her/their posts to realize I am not going to waste any more time on him/her/them.

I don’t owe anyone discussion.

 

[pood]

Experimental Lamarckism, an intriguing article not intended for people who claim I think “magic fairies” could be responsible for life on other planets, and whose recent posts I have not yet read.

I thought a discussion on a discussion board typically involves reading people's posts before you reply to them.

Maybe I will, or maybe I can no longer be arsed to deal with such nonsense. I prefer good-faith discussions.

Speaking of discussion, were you going to finally discuss why you think not only that the universe is a simulation, but also that you are the only one conscious in it?

Because so far, I’ve seen no evidence for these claims.

 

[excreationist]

...also Kylie has a cartoon of a girl for her avatar.

Thereby proving that I am a dog. QED.

The female avatar had glasses and looked like a portrait rather than something from a TV show, etc. It sounds like you're defending pood who is still saying "his/her/their" in respect to Kylie.

 

[excreationist]

Speaking of discussion, were you going to finally discuss why you think not only that the universe is a simulation, but also that you are the only one conscious in it?

Because so far, I’ve seen no evidence for these claims.

I'll repeat post #996 because you may not have seen it:

Also finding no evidence for the idea that we live in a simulation AND that only one person in the simulation is conscious.

Like I've just been saying, from the point of view of a skeptic there is no evidence. My main argument is that it would be likely that in the future there would be billions of simulations that are indistinguishable from reality. In order for there to be billions of simulations costs would need to be kept as low as possible.
Say you were in a VR game and this is what you were seeing:


Do you think it would be cheaper for AI to generate the visuals and their voices and script or for those characters to be truly conscious? The characters were absurd but it shows AI can be very creative (based on absurd inputs).

That is related to what you are looking for evidence of so please answer the question in bold...

 

[excreationist]

Experimental Lamarckism, an intriguing article not intended for people who claim I think “magic fairies” could be responsible for life on other planets, and whose recent posts I have not yet read.

I thought a discussion on a discussion board typically involves reading people's posts before you reply to them.

I have read enough of his/her/their posts to realize I am not going to waste any more time on him/her/them.

I don’t owe anyone discussion.

So that post wasn't a waste of your time? I guess it achieved the important purpose of annoying people.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Are you confused as to my gender?

Tell me, what's my name?

Do you think that's a boy name or do you think that's a girl name?

I don't recall ever hearing it as a name before. Personally, I had figured it was a character from somewhere and thus said nothing about gender. And you didn't put anything in the gender field.

You have never hear of Kylie Minogue? Not only is she an internationally famous singer (including doing a song with Nick Cave), but also an actress. Admittedly not as well known as an actress as a singer.
What about Kylie Jenner, a somewhat controversial person?

 

[pood]

Speaking of discussion, were you going to finally discuss why you think not only that the universe is a simulation, but also that you are the only one conscious in it?

Because so far, I’ve seen no evidence for these claims.

I'll repeat post #996 because you may not have seen it:

Also finding no evidence for the idea that we live in a simulation AND that only one person in the simulation is conscious.

Like I've just been saying, from the point of view of a skeptic there is no evidence. My main argument is that it would be likely that in the future there would be billions of simulations that are indistinguishable from reality. In order for there to be billions of simulations costs would need to be kept as low as possible.
Say you were in a VR game and this is what you were seeing:


Do you think it would be cheaper for AI to generate the visuals and their voices and script or for those characters to be truly conscious? The characters were absurd but it shows AI can be very creative (based on absurd inputs).

That is related to what you are looking for evidence of so please answer the question in bold...

Let me repeat:

What makes you think we live in a simulation and only YOU are conscious in it?

Since I know that I am conscious, your claim is refuted.

 

[pood]

You have, of course, also provided zero evidence that ANY characters in a simulation could be conscious.