No problemo -- share a link here for us to get to it after you've done it.
Edg
--- In [email protected], "Jeffrey N Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> 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 [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> 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 [email protected], "Jeffrey N Cook" <jnoelcook@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Alex,
> > >
> > > Uh, let me guess...you watched only the first video. That's some
> in-
> > > depth analysis.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley"
> > > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], 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?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
