Edg, Can I post your very good comments to the Synthetic Life group at Yahoo!? I want to respond, but I would like to include some of them with this quality skepticism first. I can respond to all you asked, but I just want to make sure others there (they few that are joining) can hear what you have to say as well...in addition to my response.
Thanks, Jeff --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I watched all the videos. If you have what you say you have, you > should be able to use microscopy to begin to show us evidence -- > photos of the cells, etc. That, and if you get a local community > college professor of biochemistry to try to "fool proof" and "de- germ" > your experiment, it could possibly open some doors for you, but, even > then, probably not. > > Billions of dollars in research have been spent, billions are being > spent now, and billions more are slated for the near term projects to > understand life. Your "proposal" is such an extraordinary claim that, > trite as it is to repeat, extraordinary proof is required. > > Right now, a space ship is heading to Mars where it will land and dig > into the soil to see if it can scrounge up any evidence of life there. > That's hundreds of millions of dollars spent right there, and you say > you have an astounding miracle in a cup which would stand the > scientific world on its ear in such a way that no headline generated > by the Mars rovers, the Hubble Telescope, the manned landing on the > moon, etc. could possibly match. "Brand New Life Generated In Minutes > Before Your Very Eyes" would be the most exquisite discovery -- true > bombast. Your claim is hardly less in importance than, say, if you'd > claimed that a space ship had landed on your lawn and that the > advanced beings were ready to tell us the secrets of the universe. > > Your watery solution could contain any number of impurities -- > including extremophile life forms that can survive boiling and other > measures to disinfect your lab equipment. That and other > possibilities, such as "you've put dried up sea monkeys in your > solutions when 'no one was looking'" are serious concerns to be > addressed. There are, after all, every manner of hucksters out there > who put secret batteries inside of cleverly made "perpetual motion > machines" etc. You cannot be "seen" as legitimate until you provide > scientific, repeatable proofs. Until then, well, your "discovery" is > no more amazing than a magician who levitates using a camera trick. > > I like the idea of life spontaneously forming, and I fully encourage > you to try to package your claims with scientific controls. > > Seriously, if you do not have a PhD in Biochemistry PLUS other > credentials of experience, you do not have much of a chance of getting > a "fair display" of your concepts before the community of minds that > would be able to fully inspect and challenge them. > > Gregor Mendal after much effort and rejection was able to finally get > his pea plant findings published in an obscure journal, but because he > was a monk, most of the scientists (natural philosophers as they were > then called) didn't get exposed to his ideas, and the few that were > lucky enough to have Mendal's findings put right in front of them, > rejected the ideas out of hand because of Mendal's lack of credentials > -- he was just a monk. In fact, THE most famous scientist of the day > DID read Mendal's paper, and he abused and derisively dismissed the > paper. > > For 30 years his paper just sat there, and then, funnily enough, three > different scientists, working apart and unbeknownst to themselves, > came to Mendal's same conclusions and went to publish their results. > But, they THEN took the time (should have done it first) to look up > the previous research in the field, and TO A MAN, they all found > Mendal's paper, and TO A MAN, they all faithfully reported Mendal as > being the "father of the science of heredity." Those guys' names are > not famous, because they had integrity. > > You have to show the world this same integrity. You cannot count on > folks like us here to rally around you and help gather the scientific > world's attention because you have a "rabble reverently chanting your > name." Either get the credentials, or be prepared to give all your > "secrets" to someone who has the credentials and hope that he/she will > carry forward your discovery into the scientific world. Remember that > even then, famous scientists with WOW WOW WOW credentials are > routinely blasted by their peers. It takes a huge amount of effort to > swing the group consciousness. > > I am an inventor with tons of ideas "under my belt." I've done what > you must do -- go to others "who know better" and have your hat in > your hand and be prepared to have your ass handed to you. You of > course have something far more important to present than anything I've > "cooked up," but that only makes it much harder for you to succeed. > > I can tell you absolutely that if you think you're going to keep this > all to yourself until you've got all the information tied down in > proprietary documents, agreements, patents, copyrights, etc., you're > kidding yourself. The big boys with the dough will get "your stuff" > from you easily -- if anything, they'd sign paperwork that they'd > later ignore and say "sue me." > > You're going to have to be BLESSED BY GOD in a way that Mendal the > Monk never was. > > If you want to try to take a shortcut, approach someone rich who you > can get to "back your play" (or marry you and hand over her/his > checkbook) enough for you to jazz up the demo enough to create at > least the semblance of authenticity. Maybe you can get enough dough > behind this to get something flamboyant going (multimedia > presentation) that would then titillate the establishment to at least > examine your data enough to try to reject it, and then, voila, if you > have the real deal, your shortcut would have worked. > > Huge gobs of good luck to you. > > By the way, Maharishi promised me "new life," and I consider your > "offer" hardly less important to humankind. If you're a fraud, look > out, you're playing with the foundation of reality itself in the minds > of many. > > Edg > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey N Cook" <jnoelcook@> > wrote: > > > > Alex, > > > > Uh, let me guess...you watched only the first video. That's some in- > > depth analysis. > > > > Jeff > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Cook <jnoelcook@> wrote: > > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > > > I have filmed my latest experiment: this one on "synthetic life." > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/jnoelcook > > > > > > You're in a kitchen, loudly coughing, wearing shorts and a t- shirt, > > > mixing two different liquids in a cup, that as far as I can see, > > > remain completely inert throughout the entire video. And, you expect > > > us to believe that this is a demonstration of you creating new > > > bacterial lifeforms? > > > > > >
