Guest MikeG Posted January 1, 2012 Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) I am simply presenting alternatives Mike, if that disappoints you, or is contrary to your "beliefs", I am sorry for that. It all keeps coming back to the the chicken verses the egg argument for me. As I stated,my own beliefs are irrelevant,and I am not seeking to "re-educate" you, I am simply showing another perspective,that is just as valid as yours,even though it may not be as popular. Why does it make you feel this way to have your own beliefs questioned?Or...read this? http://www.science20...recent_research Either way, I really have no urge to question,or debate your personal beliefs, I have already repeated what my intend was,and is. With the greatest respect, it is you that keeps talking about belief in this context, not me. As I said in my very first post, I seek to do everything I can to avoid belief. I look for evidence. You can convince me of the case for the alternatives to evolution if you can show me a body of evidence that supports the alternative, and rules out the enormous body of work in it's support. So, you "looking for other perspectives" or "alternatives" is not "as valid", as you claimed, unless you can provide corroborating evidence. That's all I ask.......back up you contentions. Until you do, they remain nothing more than that.......contentions. Uncorroborated contentions, proposed by people with a set agenda, clutching around for anything that will support their pre-determined ideas. The exact polar opposite of what good science is all about. Mike Edited January 1, 2012 by MikeG
Guest Posted January 1, 2012 Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) Well I guess I just misread the part where they still cannot prove their primordial soup theories, and since that is the cornerstone of the entire evolution belief system, I suppose I am just wrong,and should not indulge on pondering other possibilities because it upsets your belief systems? You presented your "proof" cut and paste on that, and even in your own proof it stated many scientist do not accept the result. I guess I just misinterpreted your statements and you really are here to explore all the exciting possibilities. My apologies..... Edited January 1, 2012 by JohnC
Guest Jodie Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Hi Jodie, you posted this after my post on non linear time and the concept that our root assumptions about the nature of the universe then lead us to see the world according to these assumptions (just the post above). The open time concept is that all happens at once and multidimensionally. In open time it follows that the Dinosor still exists. Yep, that omniscient concept, which ought to exist if you aren't looking at just our 3 dimensional world.
Guest Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I wonder sometimes if life even truly originated here, or where somehow "seeded" by a comets tail or whatever? Here is a question for the genetic types,if we where seeded here,as a simple bacteria or whatever,how much influence would the original DNA have affected our planets life development overall? Obviously environment dictates a heck of a lot,but how much influence came from the original "seeding", Does that explain the hominid look of supposed aliens? Try not to beat the crap out of me on this one,its just a left field thought for goodness sake.
Guest Jodie Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 What we are seeing in the Grey's may not be the original life form. It maybe a bioengineered organism that was designed to suit our environment for gathering whatever it is they are supposed to be looking for when they get here.
Guest Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 What we are seeing in the Grey's may not be the original life form. It maybe a bioengineered organism that was designed to suit our environment for gathering whatever it is they are supposed to be looking for when they get here. It won't be long now, they're scheduled to arrive on December 21.
BobZenor Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) I wonder sometimes if life even truly originated here, or where somehow "seeded" by a comets tail or whatever? Here is a question for the genetic types,if we where seeded here,as a simple bacteria or whatever,how much influence would the original DNA have affected our planets life development overall? Obviously environment dictates a heck of a lot,but how much influence came from the original "seeding", Does that explain the hominid look of supposed aliens? Try not to beat the crap out of me on this one,its just a left field thought for goodness sake. It is a common theory. I don't think it is probably true. It comes from many biologists that don't seem to understand chemistry or evolutionary biology very well. At least I have heard some who think that because they can't see how the complexity of even the most simple bacteria could spontaneously form. It is not a logical position to even imagine that had to happen. We have limits on what we can deduce because it is very likely that the original replicating molecules were completely lost by evolutionary pressure. We can see the logical progression though. Whatever self replicating chemicals there were, they logically eventually used RNA as enzymes in the same way that modern life does. The vast majority of enzymes and other useful molecules are now made from protein. Apparently some of the functions of the RNA were kept. So you can see where the incorporation of RNA as enzymes eventually led to proteins made from amino acids. It is kind of complicated chemistry if you don't know how they function now. You can't really go back any further but it would not be logical to assume that other systems of self replication might not evolve where the new molecules were more efficient and replaced all the older ones. That is probably what happened. That level of life that you can deduce would be vastly more simple than any life alive today. There is pretty good evidence that our current biochemical formula for life based on proteins made from RNA code that is stored by DNA likely goes back over 3.5 billion years. They have solid evidence of stromatolites not long after that that started photosynthesis. Much before that the evidence is very good of a massive bombardment that would have melted probably all of the crust about 4 billion years ago. If life were seeded by asteroids, panspermia, it must have happened very early. It is certainly possible that self replicating chemical systems are so common that life got a head start on Earth from being in an asteroid. There is probably no way to know that even if you found life in an asteroid. It probably wouldn't make any difference to us now. The life or self replicating chemical systems would evolve to the conditions of the earth. They might not have any resemblance to the original life or what should probably be thought of simply as self-replicating chemical systems. The evolutionary selection is that those systems that are most efficient at self-replication will become the most common. That is all you should need to get life started. If aliens look like us, it would probably be convergent evolution. Trees are logically going to form and animals climbing trees do evolve into monkey like creatures in the form of tree possums and a few other independent lineages. The grasping hand from climbing trees is something that would be very useful for an alien to make tools with. The upright posture makes using the hands more natural. I think some people think too much when they assume that aliens are going to necessarily look like a squid or Jabba the Hutt. We are probably pretty close to the logical form for a technological animal. I doubt that the DNA, RNA or amino acids would be the same on another planet. It might be something that would usually eventually happen but it probably formed based on the chemistry of the early ocean and the particular molecules that were most common. I have thought the grays might be something that learned how to control its evolution by rewriting its own version of DNA. You could have systems that could repair damage done by cosmic rays for example. You could replace RNA with more efficient systems like just using DNA or some other molecule as the code and get rid of the RNA. You could even have machines that make your molecules for you. If there are aliens that visited Earth, there is no reason to think they haven't been beyond our level for tens of millions of years. What could we do in that amount of time? The apparent age of the universe is 13.7 billion years so the odds of them being at our level of biological development is remote. Anatomically modern humans have only been around for 1/68,000 of that time and civilization much less. That assumes that intelligent life would manipulate its own version of DNA and I think it would eventually. We could certainly use some improvements like eliminating growing old. Edited January 2, 2012 by BobZenor
Guest MikeG Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) Well I guess I just misread the part where they still cannot prove their primordial soup theories, and since that is the cornerstone of the entire evolution belief system, I suppose I am just wrong,and should not indulge on pondering other possibilities because it upsets your belief systems? You presented your "proof" cut and paste on that, and even in your own proof it stated many scientist do not accept the result. I guess I just misinterpreted your statements and you really are here to explore all the exciting possibilities. My apologies..... John. You really are pretty persistent, aren't you? You persistently use the word "belief" where it is entirely inapplicable. Evolution is not a belief system. I've said that any number of times now. I also don't have a belief system. I seek evidence. I have said that any number of times. I'll have a little bet that you use it erroneously again, in your response. The "primordial soup" idea is absolutely not the cornerstone of evolution. Whatever gace you that idea? Take it away entirely and evolution still works perfectly well. The cornerstone of evolution is the accumulation of tiny adaptive changes through the generations, through natural selection. My motivations and why I am here? Entirely my own business, thanks. As I said previously, exploring possibilities does not start with throwing out what we already know very well. I suggest we start looking at stuff we don't know...... Now, what about you? Why are you so wedded to the idea of embracing new ideas (actually, you really mean very old ones) when actually you won't consider looking at the one idea that has 150 years of scientific endeavour backing it up? That is the ultimate closed mind scenario.......you'll consider anything except the one idea that doesn't fit your belief system. Talking of beliefs, how old do you understand the planet to be, and how long has it sustained life? Oh, and I haven't cut and pasted anything. I'll give you the page number of the book I accurately referenced if you'll promise me that you'll read the whole book. Now, I'll thank you to kindly not mis-represent my views again. Mike PS I've only been here a week or so, and have no interest in UFOs whatsoever. How on earth have I ended up with X postings in a conversation ostensibly about UFOs? Edited January 2, 2012 by MikeG
Guest Alpinist Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 To me it's more probable that life didn't arrive on earth via meteorite or comet tail but in an ET ship and the ET gardeners are still tending the garden, watching us grow
Guest BuzzardEater Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 To me it's more probable that life didn't arrive on earth via meteorite or comet tail but in an ET ship and the ET gardeners are still tending the garden, watching us grow That's a lot of work. I bet it would be easier to shoot the requisite elements into every planet of certain dimensions within a range of orbits and come back in twelve billion years to see how it's coming along. I predict that when they find out we ate almost all the whales we'll disappear in the wink of an eye.
JDL Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) That's a lot of work. I bet it would be easier to shoot the requisite elements into every planet of certain dimensions within a range of orbits and come back in twelve billion years to see how it's coming along. I predict that when they find out we ate almost all the whales we'll disappear in the wink of an eye. Time to switch to buzzards? Was Hamlet's beggar, who had eaten from the fish that had eaten of the worm that had eaten of the king, a cannibal? Edited January 2, 2012 by JDL
Guest Jodie Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Natural selection is not necessarily the corner stone of evolution, mutations and genetic drift also play a part in that process. John, do you not realize that evolutionary principles are used in most medical research? Genetic diseases are a perfect example of evolution caused by mutations and natural selection. Mutations are constantly occurring, they rarely express because they are either repaired or there isn't enough genetic material there and it becomes a recessive trait most of the time. Since the topic is about bigfoot and the occupants of UFO's, you could use these two as examples for evolution caused by genetic drift assuming we all had a common anscestor once upon a time. Look at Sickle Cell, it is an example of all three things coming into play. The mutation survived because it helps prevent the aquisition of malaria or to make it less life threatening if you only carry the trait. Yet because the red blood cells are sickle shaped, they don't hold hemoglobin very well and prevent oxygenation of the organs. The parasite can not penetrate the rigid sickle cells and can't live in the lower oxygen environment. Those with the trait stand a better chance of survival against malaria than those that do not have it because not all of their red blood cells are affected. Those parents that pass on both of their sickle cell genes end up having a child that will not survive as long as a child with just the trait because of the damage it causes the organs. It's a trade off to make sure that some of your offspring survive malaria, the number one killer disease in the world,to mature and reproduce.
Guest Alpinist Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 A lot of work - yes, but everyone needs a job ... even ET's
indiefoot Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 To me it's more probable that life didn't arrive on earth via meteorite or comet tail but in an ET ship and the ET gardeners are still tending the garden, watching us grow If were them, I'd wait until the garden grew enough to bring most of the readily accessible strategic metals and gems to the surface and then I'd come back and harvest the produce. I could build a few new mother ships or death stars or whatever it is I fly around in and then drive all of the planets true wealth away. All of the earthlings did it for free with a big fat grin on their face thinking they were doing it for themselves, neat trick huh. I don't read sci-fi so that might already be a plot line somewhere, if not you can have it for free. Not sure what the BF have to do with the whole process, maybe they scout out the new mining possibilities and then sprinkle some goodies around for miners to find. Hmmmm.
Guest Alpinist Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Not sure what the BF have to do with the whole process BF are the 2+ million year old Durable Gene pool containers which survive natural disasters well, so they are to be used at the gardeners discretion to splice in core genetics once in awhile with the other prevailing homo species flavour of the day ... I should write science fiction eh ?
Recommended Posts