COSMIC ANCESTRY | Quick Guide | 2012 - Replies Index - 2010 | by Brig Klyce | All Rights Reserved
Life only descends — Brig Klyce, 1996

Replies to Cosmic Ancestry, 2011

4:41PM: Dear Brig Klyce, Thank you so much for your excellent work on the Cosmic Ancestry web site, which I have been reading continuously for quite a few years now to keep up with developments that support the panspermia / cosmic ancestry hypotheses. Your viewpoints make a lot of sense to me and seem to be well-supported by much evidence. I'm currently working on a book on the "cosmic questions," which includes a discussion of panspermia. I've found the resources you provide on the Cosmic Ancestry site particularly valuable in my research. Sincerely, Gordon Hogenson

Seventh graders in Sweden ask NASA scientist Richard Hoover this question, and he replies thoughtfully.
Richard Hoover, "Dear Kasper...." [
transcript.doc], 15 Nov 2011.
More Evidence for Indigenous Microfossils in Carbonaceous Meteorites is coauthored by Hoover.

'Junk DNA' Defines Differences Between Humans and Chimps, Georgia Institute of Technology (also ScienceDaily), 25 Oct 2011.
Viruses and Other Gene Transfer Mechanisms is a related local webpage.

11:03 PM: Thank you for your research. I pondered this theory prior to discovering you and see that you have eloborated on it a bit more than I had (lol). I will propose my theory that i have had on my heart for a long time. I know it may sound like some internet wacko but this theory was truely conceived in my mind as I began searching for answer. As you read you will find out that the peices of my puzzle are being studied indiviually by others but I have yet to hear my theory. With the way thing are. it becomes more and more evident as we venture further into solar exploration. Here I go (dont laugh)

The hunt is on for life on other planets and in other galaxies. Sadly this search has yielded no results. However, among our searches we include the search for planets that are "Earth-Like". As if we could ever put everyone on a giant bus and lift off to safety in the event of catastrophe. No way would this happen because we wouldnt survive the trip but primitive cells could. Its almost like since we cant get there ourselves we have to propel "life in a bottle" to the desired location to ensure that the species can live on and life would thrive elsewhere. I think we could eventually develop the technology that would adapt to the environment. for example a cell that would eventually thrive on methane rather than oxygen but still require basic life support (water).

Obviously, by the time this DNA begins to form life, it is likely that we will be gone. Leaving our off-spring wondering where they came from and eventually conducting the same tests to find their origin in a never-ending cycle of cluelessness among civilizations. The only way to break this cycle is to have two civilizations discover each others existance. But Im sure that by the time a species could become civilized enough to search for the "parent planet" it would with be too far away or destroyed. And in space when things are destroyed even forensics gets difficult. Also this would mean that two species who have to be close enough to reach each other and likelyhood that two earthlike planets will be within a lifespan of existance length from one another it is unlikely. Also, if a civilizatiion avoided cosmic demolition long enough to become supreme universe explorers, there is no gurantee that life on the destination planet is at a communicable level. Also the randomness of precambrian type events further complicates things if a species doesnt take off like we did. Unless we "aid" them to a precambrian type event. Now we are getting into ancient alien theory. I always though this was "possible" and now I see that people have developed theories of ancient aliens and panspermia seperately but unknown to me.

In conclusion, I know that we are not here by accident. Its too random. And the evidence is pointing to an intelligent designer. What would you think if I claim that the itelligent designer is mankind of 400 billion years ago. I am proposing that rather than aliens planting life, I make the argument that it is merely "US" (humans) of the past that had the science and technology to send and plant life in an appropriate environment. I think we are smart and I see civilization headed that way. Let me know what you think. Thanks for your time. -- Bruce

How Is It Possible? is a related local webpage.

4:23 PM: I imagine you've read this already, and it's probably extratopical. But I wonder what Hoyle would have said.
Archaeopteryx no longer first bird by Matt Kaplan, doi:10.1038/news.2011.443, Nature News, online 27 Jul 2011.

7:09 PM: Hello. My name is Samuel McIntyre and I reside in Peoria, Illinois. I don't consider myself much of a scholar. In fact, I couldn't stand college and dropped out...twice. I do consider myself quite the independent researcher. That is, someone who couldn't be bothered to get a higher education because he was too busy playing video games and chasing girls. I came across your website by accident. Actually, there was an episode of X-Files where Dana Scully mentions panspermia. I looked it up the day after and have been going hard on researching this subject ever since. Let me tell you, your website has completely changed my way of thinking. Consider yourself quite the mentor, Mr. Klyce.

Panspermia/Exogenesis isn't a theory to me. It isn't an idea. It seems to me that it's undeniable. Let me share with you really quickly a post on a forum where I asked the members to help me sort out all these crazy panspermic ideas flitting about my head. My initial post was as follows:

"I've recently been giving a ton of thought and research time towards panspermia and exogenesis. I don't understand how this isn't an extremely well accepted "theory". Let's just say I give you that the big bang happened. If it did happen it happened out there in "space". By that fact alone, life HAD to have come from space just by virtue of the fact that the BB happened in "space". I don't see any other option.

My pedestrian question is: If the Murchison Meteorite was absolutely rich in organic compounds, what other proof do you need? We know that after the Earth calmed down a bit, and the atmosphere and climate were finally ripe for production, all those organic compounds that had been colliding into Earth for years and years on the backs of comets started to produce "life as we know it". I see no other workable theory. It's so goddamn obvious to me now I feel as if I've reawakened. We know that organic compounds can survive radiation, solar winds and other harsh extremes. Why is this not accepted as definitive proof?

I don't want to hear that "Life as we know it requires the elements hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, phosphorus and sulfur (H, C, N, O, Fe, P, and S respectively) to exist". We're talking about space. It would be ridiculous to posit that what WE know to work is the ONLY way for it to work."

I'm entirely out of my league here talking to a graduate of Princeton, but I must tell you again, your site has done wonders for me! I'm officially a fan. Thanks so much, Samuel

19 Apr / 9:48 AM: Thanks for your kind words. In fact, I was unhappy at Princeton and dropped out (only once.) I like it better in retrospect. Thanks again for the endorsement. Best regards, Brig

...Elof Carlson traces how the idea of mutation has changed in 6 generations, Medical Xpress by, 8 Jun 2011.

6:58 PM: Brig: I read your posting. I think you misunderstand one point in our study. You stated that "logically, nothing in the study indicates that the genes originated, but only that they existed, before multicellularity evolved on Earth." But we show that Ca channels existed before and that Na channels evolved from Calcium channels. Other studies trace the origin of Calcium channels in eukaryotes back to potassium channels in prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea).

This brings us back to the key question that you pose: Did the oldest life forms on earth, bacteria and archaea, evolve on earth or come from elsewhere in the universe? I certainly cannot say one way or another but there are at least plausible scenarios for the evolution of RNA life etc on this planet. I have yet to see convincing evidence that life evolved elsewhere in the universe and ended up here. Even if that were so, it would have been extremely simple life forms because the reasonable fossil record etc goes way, way, way back.

Good luck with your studies, Harold

"Our phylogenies show..." is the related What'sNEW article, 18 May 2011.

8:11PM: Hey Brig! I'm working on a video which will cover some of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's work on astronomical cycles and virus particles. It will be a follow-up to this video, which I think you'll enjoy --Sky
What is Life? A Non-Particle View: Oyang Teng and Laurence Hecht discuss Luc Montagnier's experiments demonstrating electromagnetic emission from bacterial and viral DNA, 21 Mar 2011.
What Is Life? is a local webpage related to the subject of the linked video.

9:40PM: Mr. Klyce: I have followed your website with much interest for several years. I find your site well organized, informative, and scientific. I would like to present to you a few observations and questions concerning the recent report from Dr. Hoover involving carbonaceous meteorites:

If the apparent biological features at issue are the result of post-depositional contamination, I find it difficult to understand why said contaminating organisms should happen to be cyanobacteria. That is, are cyanobacteria more disposed than other protists to contaminate carbonaceous meteorites? And if so, do said organisms exhibit equal vigor in their contamination of the other classes of meteorites, or rocks of any kind? This seems geologically unlikely. Cyanobacteria exist in a system that is a particularly narrow boundary zone consisting of the interface between a body of liquid water and a rock surface where said system is subject to routine bombardment by visible-wavelength solar radiation. The thickness of the water column must be narrow enough to allow transmission of sufficient light to support photosynthesis. On Earth, environments of this type are most notably observed at the boundary between land masses and seas. That is, on Earth, fossil stromatolite beds record in space and time the positions of ancient shorelines and/or shallow water shelf areas associated with shorelines.

Also, from a geological standpoint, I find it difficult to understand how a marine phototrophic organism can ordinarily contaminate the interstitial spaces of a terrestrial rock consisting of particles cemented together with water soluble compounds. However, I can more easily understand how said organisms, or their remains, could exist residually in a mass of material that was separated from its original environmental setting and placed in a hypobaric, anhydrous, cryogenic environment.

To conclude, I will offer an unscientific observation: The apparent biological features looking like they might be cyanobacteria has a certain "natural feel" to it that is impossible to quantify, obviously. But, it just seems not unexpected. There has existed in geology an often unspoken, certain weighty implication to the appearance of stromatolites in the geologic record. It has been one of those things that some geologists seemed to sense held more than average significance. Perhaps we were right. Thank you for the work you are doing. ...Sincerely, Robert Dyer, Geologist, Holland, Indiana

...No question... is the latest related What'sNEW posting, 11 Mar 2011.

Scientists offer new insights into early eye evolution, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1 Mar 2011.
Eye evolution questioned by Amy Maxmen, TheScientist, 1 Mar 2011.
Yale J Passamaneck et al., "Ciliary photoreceptors in the cerebral eyes of a protostome larva" [abstract], doi:10.1186/2041-9139-2-6, v2 n6, EvoDevo, online 1 Mar 2011.

10:56 AM: Dear Brig, Regarding the article "Rapid evolutionary innovation during an Archaean genetic expansion", you wrote:

"If life descends from a single Earthly ancestor, one would expect the red graph of gene births to descend from a single point, broadening as life spreads over the planet, then becoming more-or-less constant as life continues to evolve."

However, the relevant figure shows only "birth rate" (Events per genome per 10 Myr), for which the assumption that it was high at the beginning is not unreasonable, even if we take into account a single type of genome (i.e. that of the common ancestor). Could you please explain your assertion that it should "descend from a single point"?

Thanks, Doron | Dr. Doron Goldberg | Mellitor Ltd. | Katzrin, Israel

6:25 PM, 11 Feb: Dear Doron -- If life originates as commonly believed, the first genome would be small, maybe two- or three-hundred genes. This species would multiply by doubling, with new genes created at a rate proportional to the small genome size. As the population grows, variations introduced by gene mutation would increase, even if there were still only one species (genome). Also, later, as genome sizes grow, mutations per genome would grow. Finally, after many species have proliferated, inter-genome interactions should increase the rate again. These processes -- increased population, increased genome size, and increased opportunity for inter-species interaction -- should all cause the rate of gene "birth" per genome to increase, under darwinian logic as I understand it.

The authors might reply that all of the above would happen before their analysis begins, so the red graph might indeed have a narrow origin, above the broad front they illustrate. OK. (And in a Supplement they comment, "...ancient genomes may have been smaller (or larger) than modern day genomes....") Thanks for your continuing interest. Answering your question was a helpful exercise. My original text could have been more precise. By a copy of this I will also solicit feedback from David and Alm.... Best regards, Brig

Genes Older Than Earth? is the referenced webpage.

5:14 AM: Your speculations about the water flea are worthy of comparison with Hoyle's best intuitions, I would say.

Which is saying a lot.
Hoyle's _worst_ intuition was probably his suspicion that fossils of Archaeoptyrex had been "forged" to show feathers. Most paleontology students who heard this annecdote dismissed his opinions ever after. But it's worth remembering that, with this his _worst_ mad speculation, he was anticipating falsified Chinese "feathered" dinosaur fossils in which the feathers had been detailed and possibly entirely falsified by means of the use of stiff sable brushes in specimens clobbered together out of various animals. Ernst Mayr was challenged and he seems to have done a pretty good job of falsifying Hoyle's speculations about the original fossils, which is all to the good. Challenges like Hoyle's are part of the process.

When Fred Hoyle offered his best speculations he began the terrible slow process of turning the scientific world single-handedly on the axis of his considerable original genius. I'm a lifelong fan of Fred Hoyle, and I would compare the work that you and Wickramasinghe are doing to the careers of Plato or Carl Jung. For what it's worth coming from this ardent layman artist you have my highest respect and admiration.

10:10 AM: Many thanks....

One-third of the water flea's nearly 31,000 genes are unique contains the mentioned speculations, What'sNEW, 6 Feb 2011.
Fred Hoyle... Interviewed 5 July 1996 is a related local webpage.

COSMIC ANCESTRY | Quick Guide | 2012 - Replies Index - 2010 | by Brig Klyce | All Rights Reserved