1. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Hard to take seriously, seems more like a fun thought exercise than anything else.
    I don't know to what degree this is scientific - it seems to be based on the idea that we have not evolved perfectly within our environment, therefore, aliens.

    • Like Like x 1
  2. qed

    qed Active Member

    I can't fault that.

    If you have evidence to the contrary please post it!
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    The babies with big heads issue has been dealt with by evolutionary biologists for quite some time now, it's to do with us having such proportionately large brains to begin with and our move from arboreal to terrestrial environments, which caused a significant alteration in the pelvis.

    Oh, he's just spoofing. I thought for a moment he was being serious.
  4. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    It seems to be a misunderstanding of evolution that is leading to his assumptions - evolution doesn't mean to fit perfectly in to your environment, though it can, it's just whatever happens to do the job best. You can still end up with left-over bits, or bad designs that are successful enough to still replicate.
  5. November

    November Member

    It's an interesting thought, but I don't know why these people who are just speculatin end up with whole entire books about the matter. I spose in order to get more meat for the book, they start grasping and end up making the whole thing sound ridiculous.

    How do YOU think we got here? Why are apes still apes? "And Esau was a harry man, but Jacob he was smooth". "Out of you shall come two nations".

    It's all interesting.

    well that's cuz all the other aliens are freaks!!!! :)
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    Americans (not the Natives) come from Europeans. Why are there still Europeans?

    Seriously? Are you having a laugh, or what?
  7. November

    November Member

    Pretty much. It's Saturday. M'day off.

    Your comparison didn't make a lik o sense. Apes stopped evolving. You aint sayin that about the Europeans are you?
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2013
  8. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    You have conclusive proof of that, like knowledge of the state of apes in 100 000 years? I think a species only stops evolving when it's extinct.

    People feeling 'alien-ated' on earth is pretty easy to explain in terms of an unsatisfactory sense of connection to community, which is a big part of our instinct, but is hardly due to extraterrestrial origins as much as social breakdowns; and also the fact that nature is basically trying to kill you and we've lost the skills to feel at home in the wilderness.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. November

    November Member

    Ok, apes didn't stop evolving, we just sped way the heck up (but who knows why???) and they didn't for some reason.
    Maybe someone messed with the DNA.

    I don't know about the rest of you aliens, but I prefer the wilderness. I just don't have the hair all over my body to make it comfy in the winter time. and the stupid bugs that keep biting me is a bother.

    Here's someone with a completely different opinion than the author of the offered piece above: http://www.livescience.com/41146-cavemen-choices.html?cmpid=514627_20131113_14384364 (Caution, it has ads.)

    P.S. That sense of community... not really...
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    No, we didn't evolve from apes we both diverged some time in the past from a common ancestor.
    Most of our software is devoted to it. Big(ger) brains come from our social nature.
  11. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Me too. I think a year or in the wilderness would pretty much eradicate any sense of alienation one felt from the earth.
    You'd know exactly how you and everything fit together.
    However, being so used to shelter and heat and safety, the wilderness can be terrifying and overwhelming for a lot of people.
    And there's none of the little distractions we've trained ourselves to need.
  12. November

    November Member

    Wilderness is full of distraction, if a person has a mind to indulge themselves.

    I haven't studied the alleged "Origins of Man" in depth much at all, for good reason.

    The language for the most part -- seems more focused on trying to lose the reader -- rather than engage the reader.

    The theories are only that. The "may haves" and "possiblies" abound throughout the articles written. It all boils down to the fact that even the "experts" are still only guessing.

    Some scientists seem to have huge egos, and seem to have lost their ability to remain objective. These are the ones who usually write the long, windy, complicated articles, that most of us are not able to understand.

    Science eliminates the Book of Genesis as having any relevance at all, and I think that is a huge mistake. There could be a few ounces of truth in there, if someone looked hard enough with an open mind.

    So you state that apes and humans diverged from a single common ancestor. This brings back to my mind that statement in Genesis, where it was written that "from (the mothers) womb would come two nations", and "And Esau was a hairy man, but Jacob was not". It is speaking of a situation where two separate DNA strands have evolved or diverged from one mutual source. (I am making no statement here to imply any thing. It's just interesting to me.) Either way, this is in line with what you are saying.

    It states that Esau was a hairy man, but Jacob was not. Also interesting when considered with your line of thought.

    In your scenario it seems it was a very BIG divergence. What could you imagine might have happened -- that led to the one group not having that one portion of DNA -- that would allow them to evolve very quickly at all, while the other group -- moved like a rocket toward intelligence?

    If it had happened naturally, the two groups would have still been intermingled. So did half of them make a decision to not breed with the other half?
  13. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Most likely geographic isolation required adapting to different environments, mutation which supported that adaptation was expressed in successful reproduction, etc...
    It doesn't take long for groups to diverge in geographic time.

    Any truth found in the book of genesis would likely be incidental to discovering it through other means, maybe in hindsight it would intersect with some detail, but you wouldn't *start* from the book instead of field research. The fact that genesis might get a scientific idea right wouldn't really blow too many people's minds unless they were already into that sort of thing.
    And what about other early cultural texts? Why genesis and not them? Oh yeah, it's the word of God.
  14. November

    November Member

    Why would you think that I believe that every word in any of the books of the "Bible" would be the "Word of "God"?
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2013
  15. November

    November Member

    So lets come up with a scenario. At some point they are all one group. Apes and Apes.

    At some point they get separated. One group advances in knowledge, intelligence, appearance, while the other stays the same.

    Why wouldn't there be ape/peoples that diverged, that are somewhere in the middle?

    Will we be able to identify that single piece of DNA found in humans that allows further thinking, that will not be found in apes?
    If we do, how do we explain how it got there?
  16. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    I didn't think that, just wondered why you chose the book of genesis as worthy of scientific consideration over the alternatives.

    I don't know if there would be a species somewhere in the middle. Define middle. That assumes apes at one 'end' and humans at another. We're just different, not better.
    There are species that didn't survive, I guess those are your middle species.

    Selective pressures on the different group will make it diverge. Maybe the other group found a good niche and stayed there, I suppose what became us didn't, it had different pressures which required different responses.

    My understanding of evolution is of passing acquaintance only, so I'll have to wiki-quote you.

    I'm not sure if there's able to be a DNA marker of 'thinking', would be interesting if there is.
    We may not necessarily be able to explain how it got there, just observe it. There will be much speculation.
  17. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    This link might help clear up some misconceptions.

    • Like Like x 1
  18. November

    November Member

    After doing a little bit of poking around, here's what I got: (Copy and pasted portions of things that were written here and there.)


    The chart doesn't coincide with the information that I was able to dig up.
    According to the chart, Neanderthal came before Heidelbergensis.
    According to the information I found, it was the opposite.
    According to the written information, Erectus was around until 143,000 years ago but Heidelbergensis was gone long before that.

    The written order is more like this:

    Heidelbergensis - Last seen - 200,000 years ago
    Erectus - Last seen - 143,000 years ago
    Neanderthal - 30,000 years ago.

    I see they have isolated certain genes that are different between Neanderthal and human.
    Some think that humans killed the Neanderthal.
    It's hard to determine when humans appear.

    I still wonder how the genes were changed.
    Could Neanderthals have been given DNA from outside the planet that caused man to be created?

    The change-over wasn't that long ago. Why did Neanderthal disappear?

    Here's the problem. Even the experts are too busy arguing over what happened, when it happened, and the fact that one fact proves the other fact wrong, and round and round and round.

    So the fact that this author Ellis Silver is coming up with an entirely different scenario -- isn't irrational.

    Since all the scientists before -- are hell-bent on making the Darwin/Evolution explanation work (while refusing to consider any other thing), they have locked themselves into a box.

    They cannot agree on any of it, and one theory -- contradicts the other theory which contradicts the other theory, and so on... so something is obviously missing.
  19. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    • Bad backs suggest humans evolved in a world with lower gravity
    Back problems are a trade off made to for the advantages of bipedalism. It is a structural engineering problem that would be present no matter what planet we evolved on.
    • Sunburn hints humans were not designed to be exposed constantly to the sun
    I don't know of any animal that is exposed to the sun 24/7. The amount of exposure we can take depends on the amount of melanin in our skin and the environment we are in. We evolved on the African Savanna and were adapted to sun exposure in that environment. As we spread to far northern climates we lost Melanin to aid in vitamin D production in low sun exposure, winter environment. This trade off left light skinned people susceptible to sunburns but their bodies adapt by tanning (the article has a lovely picture of a sunburned white person).
    • The size of babies' heads present a problem for women when giving birth - difficulty not shared by other species on the planet
    So what? Would our heads be smaller on Alpha Centauri? Other animal avoid this problem because their brains are not as large in proportion to their bodies at birth. Their young are also born more capable of independent survival and mature quicker. This is a trade off we've made for larger more complex brains. It's evolution in action.
    • Humans are always ill, perhaps beacuse their body clocks have evolved to expect a 25 hour day - unlike Earth's
    • ‘This is not a modern condition; the same factors can be traced all the way back through mankind's history on Earth,’
    I would love to see the study this is based on. I wasn't aware that humans are always ill or that this was always the case or that we have 25 hour body clocks. At best you can say that the domestication of animals has exposed us to diseases that we would have otherwise avoided. This is more evolution in action. Our constant exposure to other animals has allowed some diseases to migrate from their original host animal to humans and evolve new vectors of transmission.
    • People just feel like they are not at home on our planet
    This is a BS statement that doesn't really tell you anything. You might be able to argue that people in an urban environment feel detached from the natural world but I doubt if your average San or Yanomami tribesman feels detached from the earth.

    Neanderthals and Homo Erectus are different species.

    His thesis ignores the fossil record. Yes we are still arguing over the finer details of human evolution but there is a fairly consistent evolutionary chain that shows we evolved on this planet. There is a major difference between not having all the details of an evolutionary chain worked out and the possibility that we are from another planet. Add that to sharing a common DNA structure with other life on this planet (something we wouldn't do if we evolved on another planet) and it becomes obvious this is our home world.

    This sounds like an admission that he is engaging in pure speculation without proof. In other words "blowing smoke up the reader ass".
    • Like Like x 3
  20. November

    November Member

    What's wrong with speculation? I'm sure there was a point in Darwin's life when he was purely speculating. Then he went around and gathered evidence that might support his theory.

    All of these explanations we have, are theories. Theory is not fact. It's speculating, evolved to a more solid conclusion, with a few pieces of evidence to support it maybe, but still it's only "theory". And a theory is a "guess".
  21. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    Yes the experts are arguing about the details but what they are arguing about doesn't leave room for the introduction of alien DNA. Here's what we do know from DNA studies:

    At the time the root stock of Homo Sapiens left Africa We shared the planet with three other species of humans: Homo Neanderthalensis (Neanderthals), the Denisova Hominin, and
    Homo Floresiensis (Flores Man, aka "Hobbits). Homo Sapiens interbred with Neanderthals and many Europeans and North Africans share 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. Homo Sapiens interbred with the Denisova Hominim and Australian Aborigines, Melanesians and other populations in South East Asia have 4 to 6 percent Denisovan DNA. No evidence of interbreeding with Flores Man has been found. The sub Saharan Human population has the greatest genetic diversity that would be expected from a initial population and and does not show signs of interbreeding with other archaic human species.

    If you want a basic overview you can get it from Wikipedia:

    • Like Like x 1
  22. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    A Scientific Theory is more than just speculation or guess. It is based on facts and evidence. Darwin and Wallace's theories on evolution were not guesses. They were based on observation and evidence. They were then required to stand up to scientific scrutiny. From the article Dr. Siver's book seems to be based more on personal opinion than substantive evidence and it ignores what is currently known about human evolution and genetics.
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    This is somewhat off topic, but I posted the chart hoping it would address some of the misconceptions you seem to have about evolution. The chart is fairly accurate, I don't think you're reading it correctly.

    Here's a link explaining the word "theory" when applied to the topic of science:

    Darwin came up with a hypothesis...
    he looked for evidence...
    and then he developed a scientific theory.

    Dr. Silver has speculation with no evidence.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    It *might* be argued that since there may be a chance life itself first came from elsewhere on a comet (panspermia), then our shared DNA origins may be 'out there'. So it could be that life got here from elsewhere and started developing, then we were dropped off by the alien breeders, still having a shared origin with the other life just separated by time a bit.

    But I'm ignorant of what exactly DNA can tell us about where we grew up - are there 'earth markers' in it somewhere that show we were formed from earth-specific elements?

    He says the book is a 'scientific evaluation of the evidence', but I'm at a loss as to what is scientific about it. Maybe that's in the meat of the book. However he then does also say it's not meant to be up to a scientific standard. Really it's just 'hey, what about this, wouldn't that be cool?'

  25. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    Generally when people discuss panspermia they are talking about life evolving on Mars and hitching a ride to Earth after a Mars meteor impact but even if you assume a comet you are still talking about our solar system not another, disconnected solar system. As for DNA, life in another solar system would have to develop using the exact same elements, in the exact same combinations creating the exact same base pairs in the exact same chirality. if you are talking about aliens interbreeding with life on this planet consider this: Gorillas, chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor, there is very little difference in our DNA but cannot interbreed. What are the odds of a creature that evolved in another solar system being genetically similar enough to produce offspring with anything on this planet. You could argue that Aliens that could travel here would have the scientific knowledge to over come the genetic differences but that amounts to special pleading or resorting to "magic to make the argument work. The other possibility would be that aliens came to earth 3.5 billion years ago and seeded the planet with DNA and then waited until 200,000 years ago to drop off humans. This ignores evolution on the part of the aliens and their goals over that same 3.5 billion years.

    I haven't read the book but I'm willing to bet the "scientific evaluation of the evidence" ignores all the science that shows why idea behind the book is complete rubbish.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    This is a common misconception. In science, a theory is not a guess:

  27. dunbar

    dunbar Active Member

    I'm sure that most of us at times experience frustration from an inability to fully comprehend the complexities which confront us. Reality is extremely complex and the human mind is relatively simple by comparison. But I don't think it's particularly beneficial to deny what we cannot comprehend or to resent those who through much effort and maybe a little inspiration have managed to gain some relative degree of understanding and are doing their best to share that understanding with their fellow man.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2013
    • Like Like x 3
  28. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    "[W]e have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
    --Richard Lewontin
  29. Boodles

    Boodles Banned Banned

    He is. He simply said his sources say two preceding species to homo sapien sapien are in opposite temporal order to the chart's.
    Was going to let this lie but now that three people have criticised, I'm moved to interject. @November took five words, the links take hundreds, to get to the same point: It is a guess. Write volumes on predictive models, it matters not, that is precisely what it and they are. @November is right.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2013
  30. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    A scientific theory is not a guess. Simple as that.
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    @November may have been succinct but he/she is also incorrect. We are discussing a scientific field and in science a theory is not a guess. A hypothesis would by closer to a guess. Theories are supported by investigation and evidence and exposed to the scrutiny of other scientist.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    We can't explain exactly what goes on at the center of a black hole but that does not change the nature of scientific theory.

    A good scientific theory should allow for what? Guesses? Not knowing what happens at the center of a black hole?
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2013
  33. Boodles

    Boodles Banned Banned

    Good point, @November. I like that.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2013
  34. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    I'm originally from Florida.:D
  35. dunbar

    dunbar Active Member

    I come from the water.
  36. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    There are a lot of books that discuss the evolutionary origin of man in easy to understand language so your reasoning doesn't have much merit. Many of them are targeted at the general public. They are dated (from the 1970's) but, if you can find them, the Time-Life series on early man provides a nice general over view.

    "Keep an open mind" is the rallying cry of alternative historians, pseudoscientist and conspiracy theorists everywhere. It seems to mean: we don't have proof but we believe this and we want you to validate our beliefs.
  37. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    You guys really do paint with a broad, well-tarred brush here. For a supposedly evidence based crowd, smearing and smug cheap shots seem to go over all too well.
  38. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    Sorry if the the truth hurts. I debate ancient alien/UFO fanatics, alternative historians discussing grand conspiracies spanning decades and centuries, and cryptid fans on a regular basis. When shown that the facts don't support their claims they invariably fall back on the "you have to keep an open mind" argument.
  39. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    The truth doesn't hurt. I have no idea who you are debating or how well, but I see no evidence of it here so I cannot comment on it.

    If you've bought into the standard Darwinian model, great. Many haven't. You may assume that it is because they are ignorant and ill-informed, and many of them may be just that. But be that as it may, there are holes in the theory that do give pause.

    I don't pretend to have the answers, but chalking everything up to random mutations and natural selection doesn't jibe with the evidence as I see it, so I do keep an open mind about it. You may mock that if it pleases you, but it doesn't change matters.
    • Like Like x 1
  40. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    Not the evidence but "the evidence as you see it". Does that mean your personal beliefs and opinions allow you to ignore the evidence you don't want to see?

Share This Page