Sure, but there is an insurmountable logical chasm between the rational assessment that other forms of life are likely to have evolved on other planets, somewhere and at some time and the presumption that highly intelligent life exists currently and has the technological capability and desire to visit our planet (apparently for the sole purpose of briefly buzzing the occasional aircraft
Please provide a primary source for an official statement from the Human Genome Project team using the phrase “extra-terrestrial DNA”. There are highly speculative ideas based on gaps in our knowledge and understanding of DNA and how it developed, but yet again, it is a massive logical leap to go form that to definitively asserting the intervention of some kind of intelligent alien species.
There is no reason that “different” has to be “extra-terrestrial”. Throughout human history, we’ve encountered all sorts of things that appeared “alien” to our understanding at the time but subsequently turned out to be perfectly explainable within the context of this planet.
There is nothing open minded in presuming such a specific conclusion on the basis so little paper-thin evidence. I don’t see it being anything more than one of countless different possibilities, and one which would raise as many questions as it answers.
I did a quick Google which only came up with various kook sites. If the Human Genome Project team had actually made anything like the statement you suggested, I have no doubt it would have been splashed all over the front pages and we’d all be well aware of it. I stand by my suspicion that the HGP only reported gaps in knowledge and it was other people who leapt on the idea of “extra-terrestrial DNA” to support their own preconceived conclusions (or to sell things to people with those preconceived conclusions).
Well that’s already several steps away from your initial statement about the HGP reaching a conclusion that there are high odds of "extra-terrestrial DNA”. This is a major problem in this kind of discussion, where half-remembered quotes and statements are presented as evidence. If you don’t have any kind of original source available, I don’t think it’s legitimate to make the statement in the context you did (nothing personal, this kind of thing is far too common and far to easy to slip in to).
eace
You’ve still not established what I’m meant to be denying though. You’ve made generic comments about aliens but you’ve not described any kind of meaningful hypothesis to explain any and/or all UFO sightings (and all of the related abduction claims, claims about DNA etc.). Saying “It’s aliens!” is no more an answer than “It’s the government!”, “It’s Russia!” or “It’s natural!” would be.
I disagree with you that there is a "high probability" because you've presented literally nothing to back up any probability, let alone a high one. For example, when you claimed the HGP concluded that we have extra-terrestrial DNA, it turned out you just have vague memories of other people talking about the idea at some point. If you believe that kind of thing can support an assertion of "high probability", I'm sorry but I'm not sure there is any helping you.
Indistinct grey blobs moving around. I've no idea what might have caused them but I see no need to jump to any particular conclusion. I'd be nice to know but I can cope with the fact that we don't, though I recognise that ignorance is a naturally frightening prospect to human beings (and probably any other intelligence species that might be out there
).
I disagree with you that there is a "high probability" because you've presented literally nothing to back up any probability, let alone a high one. For example, when you claimed the HGP concluded that we have extra-terrestrial DNA, it turned out you just have vague memories of other people talking about the idea at some point. If you believe that kind of thing can support an assertion of "high probability", I'm sorry but I'm not sure there is any helping you.
Indistinct grey blobs moving around. I've no idea what might have caused them but I see no need to jump to any particular conclusion. I'd be nice to know but I can cope with the fact that we don't, though I recognise that ignorance is a naturally frightening prospect to human beings (and probably any other intelligence species that might be out there
You're still relying on your partial memories to make definitive statements though. What you describe is a complete misunderstanding (or possibly misrepresentation you've been given) of what so-called "junk DNA" actually is and probably of what the HGP actually reported at the time you're describing. Regardless, all of that information will be available in the public domain, with plenty of explanations for the layman, so you have no good reason to rely on your memory.
I still don't know. I see no reason to assume they're not. Given that we've literally no idea of any of the key information, such as scale, mass or propulsion, I don't see how we could reach any conclusion. Remember there is a massive leap between appear to move in a way no know aircraft is capable of and not being bound by the laws of physics. And, of course, none of that would get us any closer to a specific hypothesis of extra-terrestrial aliens anyway. Speculation makes for poor foundations.
How can you learn anything if you've already decided what the answers are? Learning starts with admitting that you don't know.
You don't seem to clearly remember what you learned from the HGP though, so your recollections from 1965 are open to question too. Nothing you've said has given me any confidence that you have evidence supporting any kind of specific "extra-terrestrial" factor in anything we've discussed.
I said I don’t know but have no reason to assume they're not. If there is specific evidence to support a hypothesis that those videos depict physical craft breaking particular laws of aerodynamics that would be different, but nothing like that has been presented yet.
If we knew everything, we’d know we knew everything so we obviously don’t know everything.
That’s why we can’t make definitive statements about a particular answer being the only likely source of an unexplained phenomena.Nobody understood “junk DNA” in 1965, the whole concept had only just been established at the time. A lot of work since then has continued to significantly shift what is understood about it so even if there were things you accurately recall from back then, it probably wouldn’t be valid today anyway. That’s why I posted the Wikipedia link earlier.
You’ve still not established any statement from anyone involved with the HGP referring to “extra-terrestrial DNA” though. That is your core claim that I questioned. Everything else is just distraction.
How is rolling on an axis during flight a breach of the laws of aerodynamics? Note that is a bigger claim than just that “no know aircraft is capable of the manoeuvre”. I don’t know whether heat would have been detected on whatever camera equipment was used but undetected heat doesn’t mean no heat and certainly doesn’t mean no energy and so again, doesn’t prove any breach of the laws of aerodynamics.
That is a lie! I’ve never even suggested that any of their observations or reports are false. I am only challenging your interpretation of the actual evidence and your firm conclusion that spacecraft flown by intelligent beings from another planet is the explanation for the phenomena.
If we knew everything, we’d know we knew everything so we obviously don’t know everything.
Nobody understood “junk DNA” in 1965, the whole concept had only just been established at the time. A lot of work since then has continued to significantly shift what is understood about it so even if there were things you accurately recall from back then, it probably wouldn’t be valid today anyway. That’s why I posted the Wikipedia link earlier.
You’ve still not established any statement from anyone involved with the HGP referring to “extra-terrestrial DNA” though. That is your core claim that I questioned. Everything else is just distraction.
How is rolling on an axis during flight a breach of the laws of aerodynamics? Note that is a bigger claim than just that “no know aircraft is capable of the manoeuvre”. I don’t know whether heat would have been detected on whatever camera equipment was used but undetected heat doesn’t mean no heat and certainly doesn’t mean no energy and so again, doesn’t prove any breach of the laws of aerodynamics.
That is a lie! I’ve never even suggested that any of their observations or reports are false. I am only challenging your interpretation of the actual evidence and your firm conclusion that spacecraft flown by intelligent beings from another planet is the explanation for the phenomena.