Talk:Cosmic ancestry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is clearly pseudoscience, and should be labeled as such if kept. A "body of evidence" is referenced, but not cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foobard (talk • contribs)

I see no claims to science, but a claim to philosophy. This genre of thought, "Cosmic ancestry", appears to be the result of, in the words of Karl Popper, "a metaphysical research programme". Keep insults to yourself.Kmarinas86 06:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
From the (four paragraph) article, "Cosmic ancestry is a modern scientific alternative to both neo-Darwinism and Intelligent Design theories." So yes, had you actually read it, you would have seen that it did make a claim to science. I have no objection to an article on this as philosophy (if it is notable), but the scientific aspect should either be supported with references from a credible source, or dropped. Foobard 14:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Marginal theory but still scientific

Citations are certainly needed, but I don't think a pejorative term such as "pseudoscience" is required. The theory is a combination of panspermia and Gaia, neither of which is generally regarded as pseudoscience, although both have very limited scientific acceptance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reebzz (talk • contribs)

I think it's fair to ask for references, if in fact it has any scientific acceptance at all. At the very least, can we agree that it should be labelled as a fringe theory, a la Time Cube? As far as I can tell, it's only proponent is this Brig Klyce, and he does not seem to have any relevant credentials. Surely, if this where a legitimate theory, someone in the field of biology or astronomy would have something to say on the matter. Foobard 14:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Gaia and panspermia are not linked in any fashion except by those who wish to invent a connection without any verifible empirical evidence. That constitutes pseudoscience. I'm sure James Lovelock would concur.Halogenated (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appears to be an ego page

After reviewing the edit history, it appears this Brig Klyce is the primary author of this page. Foobard 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The article has changed substantially since Brig Klyce's one and only edit to the article, assuming that User:Bklyce is that person, which is a considerable assumption. Diff showing change since that single edit; single albeit large edit by User:Bklyce. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That is true, however, those changes were made anonymously. For all we know, they've been made by the same user without logging in. Foobard 01:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think a reminder to avoid conspiracy theories and to assume good faith is good to add here. Yes, they could have been ... let's assume for a moment that User:Bklyce really is Brig Klyce. According to the deleted article Brig Klyce, he is an American, retired from the textile industry and a graduate of the University of Tennessee (mostly confirmed by consulting http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=interview10). The two anon-IP's that have made the most substantial changes are 222.155.57.246 and 203.96.113.132, both of which are in New Zealand. Do you have evidence that Klyce has moved to New Zealand or that he was traveling in New Zealand in Aug-Sep 2006 when the edits were made? If not, I think we should assume good faith and rule out this being an 'ego page', as you put it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Appearing to be an ego page does not a ego page make.Kmarinas86 04:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative theory to explain the biggest question of all time - scheduled for deletion ? ... Tragic news :(

Even though this is only a very brief description of Cosmic Ancestry and may not have any direct evidence to support it ... it is nonetheless a very important article - Science and religion BOTH require that we believe that at some point - there was nothing - then (either due to a big bang or the wave of Gods hand) there was everything ... everything which came from nowhere but dispersed to everywhere ...

This theory which is based on the premise that space and time and energy and matter have always been present and that life has always (in one form or another) been present throughout space and that life on Earth came about because the conditions were right for some of the "seeds" of life to arrive on Earth and thrive and develop ... actually has a more credible basis than either of the other two alternatives both of which require some kind of hitherto undiscovered physics in which matter can somehow be made to "magically" appear from absolutely nowhere from a non-existant place which couldn't possibly exist due to the fact that there was supposedly no time at this non-existant place where all of the components of matter were invisibly and undetectably stored.

It would be very sad if this article were to be deleted simply because it is only a very brief description of a theory ... or because it is offensive to both the scientific and religious zealots.

I don't know enough about it to edit it but to simply delete a reference to a third alternative to the biggest question that mankind can possibly ever pose would be a tragedy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.101.238 (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Conspiracy theories and deletion-fests

Thanks, Ceyockey and others, for questioning Foobard's conspiracy theory. In fact I made most of the edits to the original page. I have no connection whatsoever to Brig Klyce, apart from having read some of his published works over the last few years. I live in New Zealand as you correctly inferred.

Surely an encyclopedia which boasts pages on such luminaries as Donna Duck can tolerate an article about a serious and actively researched theory of life's origins.

I would be happy to expand the page and include some references if we can hold off on the deletion frenzy for a while. Reebzz 02:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it a seriously and actively researched theory? If that is the case, I withdraw my request for deletion. However, in my (admittedly brief) research on the topic, I did not discover any coverage of the theory from anyone in the fields of astronomy or biology. In fact, I've not seen anything not authored by Brig Klyce himself, who does not seem to hold any credentials in either field. If no peer review in either of those two fields is available, I think it is entirely reasonable to label this as a personal belief, and certainly not a scientific theory. Further, even if this article is relabelled, I think it's fair to question the notability of the topic. Is there any independent analysis at all? Is there any published material not produced by Brig Klyce? If there is not, I think it is fair to reinstate the request for deletion. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Foobard 13:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The impression that the whole theory was originated by Klyce is misleading (article changed to reflect this). It seems the term Cosmic Ancestry was first used by Chandra Wickramasinghe and the late Fred Hoyle to describe their work in "strong panspermia"[1]. These two certainly qualify as prominent astonomers. However "Cosmic Ancestry" has come to include Klyce's additions (inevitably, as he is now the most vocal advocate of strong panspermia). I would suggest a link to Cosmic Ancestry from the Panspermia page.
True, most recent direct research comes from Klyce, but this includes analysis of a large number of material by other authors over a period of 10 years [2]. But the fact that the field now has one primary advocate shouldn't disqualify it, should it? Many other marginal theories share this trait - morphic resonance for example. There are many references to Cosmic Ancestry from other established sources [3], [4]
Lastly, I don't see how my reporting on someone else's theory/hypothesis constitutes original research. I came across the theory in dicussions with others interested in life origins years ago, and eventually amended the Wikipedia article after finding it to be extremely sparse.Reebzz 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Reporting on someone else's theory isn't necessarily original research, so long as you aren't interpreting it yourself. However, Brig Klyce's work does seem to be original research itself, and as far as I can tell, it is not published in any reputable source. (He self-publishes.) His research having only one advocate does not necessarily invalidate it, though it does certainly qualify it as a fringe theory. The fact that the single proponent holds no academic credentials relating to his theory does invalidate it in my mind. Note that the standard academic response to kooks is not to rebut them, but to ignore them. Klyce appears to be ignored by the establishment of both biology and astronomy. Take from that what you will. Does Brig Klyce actually perform any research? I've not seen any, though I may have missed it. Is there a testable, falsifiable hypotheses somewhere in there? Has he gathered any data or performed any experiments, and published the results in an academic setting? Has anyone?
I think this article would be much more valuable if it covered the work of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, rather than Klyce. Foobard 12:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
In fact Klyce has authored or co-authored (with Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, Wainright, Ray, etc) numerous published papers [5]. He also published Hoyle's definitive book on the subject (as mentioned in the article you deleted). His personal lack of scientific qualifications means little I believe - it is the quality of his analysis which is more important. His website lists many tests for cosmic ancestry [6]. I finally had a look at the Time Cube article you mentioned. Wow! I have to believe your comparison was a joke or else your review of the subject at that stage was extremely cursory. By the way, I see that Wikipedia's panspermia article already has a prominent link to cosmic ancestry (added in the last few months - not by me). Its been productive to have been prompted to more critically examine the extent and origins of the theory, so thanks for that. However I'd now like to devote any time I can spare to improving the quality of the article itself.Reebzz 10:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstood what I meant when I asked for tests. Tests that would support his theory are nice, but a scientific theory also necessitates tests that would *disprove* his theory, ie, it must be falsifiable.
This is the problem. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition :
"If a definition invokes an historical event, such as having weighed an object sometime in the past, it is no longer repeatable, so it fails to qualify as operational. Similarly, a specific brick cannot be operationally defined by the process of making it, because that process is historical."
Cosmic ancestry needs an infinite age universe. How do we disprove that? What event would imply that it is finite, as in "the universe is finite in age if some event X occurs". In reality, there is no such "event" that can happen today, such as an observation of something, which makes the universe finite (or infinite) for that matter. To say that it is infinite or finite in age, without knowing why, is to say one doesn't really understand why it is infinite or finite in age. To say "this state [infinity] was established by some event" is just an opinion. Of course, if the universe is infinite, there is no such event which causes the universe to be infinite in age - it would just be. And whose to say if life has always existed that it couldn't have existed in a more intelligent form for an eternity past? Heck, if this is true, there would be ample time for intelligence to spread out from planet to planet - though in a "people are not a toasters you can just fix" kind of way. So the label "philosophy stub" is correct.
The mechanisms for transmission of life from planet to planet are plenty. Sure it is concievable. But what event would imply that this is not the case as in, "In the year 2___, there was an event of observation which caused the origin of first life on Earth to be from planet Earth." It is impossible to have an event like that.
The best one can do is to explain that life on Earth came from a primoridial soup. With regards to an origin of life, it is impossible to identify it with zero a priori knowledge.
Unlike things we can see for ourselves, in which zero a priori knowledge does not keep us from understanding and making general propositions. Proof of the origin of life (assuming there is one) must be derived from general propositions, after all, it is a requirement of deduction. Falsifying that is just of matter of having the general propositions providing a framework of deduction which makes the origin of life a no show.
The falsifiability of the notion of a first living thing implies the verifiability of life of an eternity past. The verifiability of the notion of a first living thing implies the falsifiability of a life of an eternity past. But all of this must be deduced from general proposition.14:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Klyce's lack of qualifications is an important point. what reason do we have to believe that he has the background knowledge that would be necessary to make an informed challenge of the prevailing view? Foobard 13:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
He is not qualified to disprove mainstream theory. But that's not what he is doing, even if he is trying to give credence to an alternative. The most important thing (according to me) is if he really knows what he's talking about - it's not that important that he doesn't know what he's not talking about. He's offering a challege, the Evolution Prize, but he is not going to be one who is going to win it. It's like asking a question to which you don't know the answer. He's encouraging the particpants to challenge mainstream theory for him, even if the participants themselves have a mainstream point of view.
However even if the evolution could occur in a physically closed system, it is easier to know the earth as an open system than a closed one. There are no closed systems within the vast majority of the universe. If the evolution prize is won, it proves that in an artificial closed system, such as a computer, evolution can occur.
In the meantime, I take Mike Disney's stance that computer simulations are not reality. Prof. Disney says something about computer simulations this in the documentary "Most of our Universe is Missing".Kmarinas86 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] contrary to nearly all religious views

Removed that claim since its exactly opposite to my first reaction to the idea, and Im guessing its displaying an Abrahamic bias: I never heard of this theory before, but the moment I read what it was, I thought it had very interesting similarities to traditional cosmological views of some major religions. I think Dharmic religions in general, but dont know enough to claim this; I do however think it has obvious similarities to traditional buddhist cosmology (theres an article here in wiki on that) - in short, it considers universe, life and intelligent life as non-originated phenomena, within a multiverse w many live worlds. Not to claim its the same thing, far from it in fact (eg evolution is unknowned in that cosmology, its fully static), but given a similarity of the most general concept, its just as far as from being called contrary... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.7.30 (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)