...the more we look, the more we find ancient viruses hiding inside our genomes, as well as those of other creatures.
— Neil Shubin, The Wall Street Journal, 14-15 Mar 2020.

Replies to Cosmic Ancestry, 2020

our message re: Coronavirus | with Ted Steele | 26 Mar 2020

Dear Ted – I would like to advocate a gentler and less strident tone for our message. We are suggesting that the virus came from space – very hard for most people to swallow. We are not denying, I hope, that people-to-people transmission is real, or that the severity of the disease looks to be dosage dependent. If so, some of the currently proposed practices make sense. We will do much better if we do not sound like fanatics. I think it is a gross tactical error, for example, [to disparage CDC]. May we please tone it down?... from Brig Klyce

from Graham Steele: ...you guys need to provide me - if we want the media to follow and report this potential alternative narrative - with a 'one page' brief that outlines in layman's terms;

  1. what is your finding.?
  2. why do your findings matter now - given that the situation is Changing so Rapidly and the United States will be an absolute shit show any moment now as the economy falls apart (pitch fork economics.!)
  3. How can your findings be beneficial to the public??? Should we be focusing on spraying bleach all over town????? 
  4. what steps, based on your findings should we be doing.??

from Chandra Wickramasinghe: This is my response on the trot...

  1. The prevailing idea is of a new virus arising from an animal and passing on to the human population, first in Wuhan, and thereafter spreading elsewhere in the world mainly along a 40-60 degree N latitude belt.  The spread is assumed to be only possible by person-to-person contact.  This model is difficult to reconcile fully with all the available data.
  2. We suggest that the virus originated in a comet a fragment which broke up in the stratosphere above Wuhan.  A fast-growing body of evidence now supports the once ridiculed idea of panspermia - that the Earth's biosphere in effect extends out to the remotest parts of the galaxy.  Furthermore,  the origin and evolution of life took place against the backdrop of a gigantic connected cosmic biosphere.  In this context a virus like COVID-19 that can interact with humans is not impossible to comprehend.
  3. A correct understanding of the origin of the new virus could have an immediate impact on how we deal with the virus.  There was certainly a catastrophic fall-out of the virus in China sometime towards the end of October 2019. Fall out appears to be the primary mode of transfer of the virus to humans, with secondary transmission occuring by close contact.  The fall out in China appears to have been followed by a sequence of other fall out events in Iran, Italy, perhaps New York.  In each case fall-out seems to have been followed by some degree of person-to-person transfer.  If this is accepted the it is obvious that social distancing strategies should be combined with monitoring suspected environments, and environmental sampling and deep cleansing could well be an additional measure that may help to prevent spread. Community spreading that has often been mentioned may well be a feature of environmental contamination by an infalling virus.
  4. In a matter of such profound importance to humanity and to the entire world economy, discovering the truest cause of this disaster should be accorded the highest priority.  Knowing where one's enemy comes from could be half the battle. ...Sincerely, Chandra

from Reg Gorczynski: I support that response Chandra....I am really concerned that everyone's response to this "social distancing" having any effect on curtailment on incidence will be presumed to reflect a validity to the prior hypothesis (person-to-person spread). It is importantly also what we would predict if you lock people up and have zero exposure to a community environment with foamite spread (after infall of virus from the stratosphere...but no-one except us has proffered that explanation!) Also the key issue (scientifically) is that there is data supporting the latter hypothesis which the former cannot, and it also offers an approach to preemptive testing for newer infections (atmospheric origin). ...Reg   

from Ted Steele: Dear Brig: Many thanks for your advice. ...In a War, as we are now in, there is no time to behave like nervous nellies.  When I joined with Chandra, you and the others in 2016 it became clear to me we were in a major War of Ideas- in a scientific war your bullets are critical thinking and raw evidence, and you  take no prisoners. ... Thus I do not think this is going to cool down anytime soon, therefore all of us have to decide whether we are going to fight or run.

If I took the second alternative - on reverse transcriptase and Lamarck in 1978 - I would have run for the hills. Science is not actually a garden party with high tea and cucumber sandwiches. It is populated by power mongers like Anthony Fauci, big egos with stupid ideas and ruthless and often wrong decision making.  If I had taken that attitude I would not have survived to continue publishing these past 40 or so years.

I am happy to debate scientific facts in the open scientific arena- but no one except Sir Peter Medawar and Sir John Maddox - has been willing to get into the ring and join the battle directly. I am happy to take on all comers, and I await someone with courage to get into the ring. While I took some lethal hits from Medawar and Maddox , I have survived and we are actually winning the War for reverse transcription and Lamarck. While we are still fighting on those fronts (reverse transcription and Lamarck) these are now mopping up operations.

....while I may be more selective in my email lists, I will not back down. ...Thanks for the advice- nice to know I am thought as a 'fanatic'. Ted

from Robert Temple: I don’t think you are a fanatic....
from Gorzinski: I can assure you your supporters do not think of you as a fanatic...
from John Schuster: ...It is critical that your network remain intact and energetic, all the more so as the trajectory of the infection, quite possibly starting to moderate in various places, is intersecting with a heating up policy debate about mitigation measures (and their modes of eventual alleviation). ...Best regards, JAS

from Steele: OK- thanks. I call as it is, not as what I might like it to be. But now is the time, as we used to say in Australia, to "Have a Bex and a good lie down".... Best and Thanks, Ted


hemolithin protein isolated from a meteorite | James Powers | 07 Mar 2020

...By the way, the article on the hemolithin protein isolated from a meteorite is interesting.  Unfortunately, the described protein is composed of only glycine amino acids.  Glycine has no chirality.  If the amino acid was alanine, for example, we could determine if the protein was due to a chemical process or a biological origin.  If it has equal numbers of left-handed and right handed amino acids, then this would indicate a chemical process.  If the protein was a result of biology, then there would be a predominance of left- or right-handed amino acids. Keep on. ...Jim Powers | Napa, CA
03 Mar 2020: our posting about the protein in a meteorite.

Brig Klyce – Good work! ...You are aware that amino acids racemize over time, probably faster if agitated, as by radiation in space.

Powers – Amino acids will racemize in time. However amino acids in proteins cannot racemize without destroying the protein.

Klyce – ...Wasn't there also alanine in this one? Was its chirality noted?

Powers – I took a closer look at this paper. They did find Alanine in some of the peptide fragments. The peptides are listed in the table.  However, they did not account for this in the structure.  They did not mention alanine in the discussion or conclusions. I looked at the structure again.  The hydroxy of hydroxyglycine in the structure is not bound to the amine nitrogen, which is how commercial Hydroxyglycine is described. The hydroxy is bound to the alpha-Carbon in the chain.  I don't know what to make of all this. Mass spec cannot determine chirality.

Corona virus and cosmic life | facebook chat with Greg Irwin | 29 Feb 2020

Greg Irwin – Does the original concentration in Wuhan work with that hypothesis? ( 27 Feb 2020)

Brig Klyce – Wuhan is right there, yes. But also noteworthy -- a meteor fell Oct 11 North of Wuhan. It would have penetrated deep into the atmosphere (see https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0118v1.pdf). Entirely possible that the meteor and cometary dust that landed higher were all fragments of the same comet and therefore encountered at the same time. [On second thought, this makes sense only if the meteor arrived after the dust had reached the jetstream.]

Irwin – ...My doubts regarding panspermic explanations are founded where they've always been. Let me paste in two excerpts from the article.

"The support for the alternative view that life is a cosmic phenomenon stems mainly from the fact that the information content of life at a genetic and molecular level is super-astronomical; and this needs at least an astronomical or cosmological setting."

And: "The panorama of life on Earth is the result of the assembly of such bacterial and viral genes that has come to be assembled like pieces of a gigantic jig-saw puzzle over some 4.2 billion years."

How is complexity developing (from scratch) over 4.2 billion years incredible ("super-astronomical"), while that complexity developing over 13.8 billion years — and shipped around the cosmos for further assembly — is credible? You know I don't see that one.

Klyce – I don't either. I thought you knew that. I will email you a paper, "Some Things Are Simply Given". I can't put it online yet, because it's to be published in a forthcoming book. Basically, I think life must have always existed (and so the standard big bang needs tweaking.) Then I run into the coalition of Darwinists and creationists, both of whom love the standard, one-time-only big bang.

Irwin – Do send it to me. I knew that Wickramasinghe and Hoyle remained skeptical about the big bang. I know that you struggled for years against just-so stories being used to fill gaps in science, but 'life must have always existed' sounds like a just-so capitulation. Where will you look for such life? Or for its seepage or transmission from that place or non-place to our cosmos?

I don't think Darwinists love the big bang; they have had to struggle to adapt to it as a given (as Christians have had to adapt (or fail to adapt) to Darwinism). It is those very Darwinian difficulties that set you out toward Panspermia, I believe.

Creationists of the inerrantist and young earth mindset can't go for the big bang either. We creationists who are more agnostic about God's how do find ourselves buoyed by the discovery that matter is not eternal — but that, as it were, came to us; we did not seek it or expect it any more than the rest of the world did. The big bang was delivered to us (all) in about 1965 as surely as the evolution of our species was in 1859.

Klyce – Dude -- you are undoubtedly my best correspondent for this (loosely specified) issue. Comments to consider with the paper --
Preface: to rephrase Goedel: mathematics has no inconsistencies, but cannot provide its own grounding. ...Anyway, likewise with science (no inconsistencies, but cannot provide its own grounding).

I think the creationists want to show that science is inconsistent for relying on material causes, because these don't work for the origin of life and evolution. I agree they don't work. But if life always existed they don't have to work. That way, science can remain fully consistent. And creationists have [everyone has] to give up only the standard, one-time-only/in-the-finite-past big bang. Can't creationists see that life from eternity is a miracle!

COSMIC ANCESTRY | Quick Guide | Site Search | Replies Index | by Brig Klyce | All Rights Reserved