Does A Bigfoot/ufo Connection Exist?

[Guest HucksterFoot]

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?

Agreed and plussed. :] Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life. That would be abiogenesis.

Bigfoot and transpermia lol

[Guest HucksterFoot]

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.

Something that you might find interesting

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000840

An advantageous mutation spreads from generation to generation in a population until individuals that carry it, because of their higher reproductive success, completely replace those that do not. This process, commonly known as positive Darwinian selection, requires the selected mutation to induce a new non-neutral heritable phenotypic trait, and this has been shown to occur unexpectedly frequently during recent human evolution.

different approaches now converge to conclude that a substantial proportion of non-deleterious mutations are indeed weakly to strongly advantageous

[Guest]

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?

We eat our relatives all the time.

I wonder why those who believe our origins stem from alien creators, dont ask who created them? How did they come to be? Just to simply say some alien beings created you for their reasons, doesnt actually answer the question of how things came into existance.

To me we are all a part of each other and what we are is infinite in nature. Where we came from is not answerable in the sense of some definitive unchanging fact. There are many very wise cultures who dont think in terms of begginings and endings. In such cutures it is understood there is no absolute end or absolute beggining, though there are infinite inceptions and transformations. Each moment contains conception, discovery, familiarity, transformation and unlimited wisdom.

Why also do people believe that some outer being has right to control their life, whether they are the parent, the alien sporner or any other. Once created, we have free will and equal valididty to all that is.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Encounter

[JDL]

The balance of free will is the measure of morality in all relationships.

[Guest]

The balance of free will is the measure of morality in all relationships.

Or as Tagore said " The butterfly flitting from flower to flower ever remains mine, I lose the one that is netted by me"

[Guest HucksterFoot]

:]

Darwinian rules and altruistic bees

I think, to put it simply, Many social creatures evolved/learned ...so to speak, beneficial behaviors; behaviors that brought about a more positive response; certainly when it is vital to maintain a viable and healthy species.

Does that mean all will be good for all individuals? Notice the first link in my post. :]

[See-Te-Cah NC]

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.

Mike,

Is the word "belief" really inapplicable? I know you've stated that you don't have a belief system, which I'm good with. However, Why would one weigh evidence - regardless of its source - if not to decide whether they can form a belief based on that evidence? Jurors do this all the time in a court trial. We are here on this site to discuss evidence, or the lack thereof, to come to a determination on bigfoots's existence... whether to believe it, if you will. I would like to believe that you've based your belief in Evolution because when presented with the evidence, and other evidence that you found to be unconvincing, you decided to believe in Evolution because it had evidence that you found to be more compelling. Seriously, how can you be a proponent of Evolution if you don't hold a belief that the evidence supporting it is true?

It's just a question, Mike. It is in no way an attempt to misrepresent your views.

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

This may have been mentioned already, but this was proposed by Francis Crick of Genome sequencing fame. Crick proposed that extraterrestrials directed panspermia as a possible explanation of the beginning of life on our planet. Not so much the tending by ETs afterwards, but the delivery.

Edited to repair many typos.

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.

This has actually been proposed (minus the whales).

There are reasons given in the Fermi paradox that deal with why we haven't had alien contact, i.e. - The Zoo hypothesis and the planetarium hypothesis.

Edited January 3, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC

[Guest Alpinist]

Thanks for the lead into Francis Crick. Impressive that a scientist of his caliber would suggest Directed Panspermia.

Directed panspermia

During the 1960s, Crick became concerned with the origins of the genetic code. In 1966, Crick took the place of Leslie Orgel at a meeting where Orgel was to talk about the origin of life. Crick speculated about possible stages by which an initially simple code with a few amino acid types might have evolved into the more complex code used by existing organisms.^[58] At that time, everyone thought of proteins as the only kind of enzymes and ribozymes had not yet been found.

Many molecular biologists were puzzled by the problem of the origin of a protein replicating system that is as complex as that which exists in organisms currently inhabiting Earth. In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermiaâ€.^[59]

In a retrospective article,^[60] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Alpinist

[Guest Alpinist]

Thanks for all the thought provoking posts here.

After a considerable amount of reading tonight on the subject of Abiogenesis, the proponents are really stretching, totally grasping at straws. None of the experiments come close to creating anything with DNA in it, amino acids yes, but still a long way from how homo sapiens arrived into the picture. I think there is far less evidence for Abiogenisis than there is for Sasquatch.

Study the Fermi Paradox discussion and then study Abiogenisis, and Directed Panspermia is about the most logical solution to the problem regarding the origins of life on earth there is.

I wonder why those who believe our origins stem from alien creators, dont ask who created them? How did they come to be? Just to simply say some alien beings created you for their reasons, doesnt actually answer the question of how things came into existance.

But Directed Panspermia doesn't preclude that the Directors do not acknowledge a Greater Creator themselves though they are tasked with creator-like duties for him. Or that the occurrence of Abiogenisis was successful, once, on one planet, one time. Therefore all the more reason to facilitate Panspermia if you have the technology to garden the universe.

And, if creating organisms with DNA is so extremely difficult, then all the more reason to have a living higher level DNA storage library, resident on the planet, in the form of the most robust, survivable hominiod form factor you can get, namely a species such as a Sasquatch.

So if there is a Sasquatch / ET connection that is the most probable reason.

Should have posted this one in the Ketchum Thread

Edited January 3, 2012 by Alpinist

[Guest MikeG]

Mike,

Is the word "belief" really inapplicable? I know you've stated that you don't have a belief system, which I'm good with. However, Why would one weigh evidence - regardless of its source - if not to decide whether they can form a belief based on that evidence? Jurors do this all the time in a court trial. We are here on this site to discuss evidence, or the lack thereof, to come to a determination on bigfoots's existence... whether to believe it, if you will. I would like to believe that you've based your belief in Evolution because when presented with the evidence, and other evidence that you found to be unconvincing, you decided to believe in Evolution because it had evidence that you found to be more compelling. Seriously, how can you be a proponent of Evolution if you don't hold a belief that the evidence supporting it is true?

It's just a question, Mike. It is in no way an attempt to misrepresent your views.

See,

I respect your question, and particularly its non-confrontational manner.

Bar the definition of the word belief (and I'll come back to that), you have given an entirely accurate description of my position. I have examined all the possibilities around evolution (I was brought up and educated, for a while, in a Creationist environment, for instance). I weighed them in the balance, if you like. Many times. As I grew old enough to understand what evidence actually was, I realised that all the evidence is on one side of the argument, and that became my considered position (but not my belief). My considered position hardened over time as I read more and more evidence, and the alternatives, including Lamarckism, for instance, came to look less tenable. However, being a considered position, rather than a belief, it certainly isn't set in stone, and remains open to the possibility of change. Someone invented Intelligent Design, so I read all I could about that. No evidence was produced on its account whatsoever, only perceived omissions or difficulties with Darwinism, so, with no evidence for the idea, and all the arguments it puts forward being effectively countered by research, albeit not always immediately, I can only surmise that ID people started with the answer, then clutched around for anything they could find to support it.........the very antithesis of good scientific method.

Now, the word belief. I keep a good eye out for all aspects of my life where belief might creep in. My understanding of evolution, and my considered position on it, are not a belief. Belief to me is absolutely about evidence. A believer will believe something without evidence. Believing in life after death, for instance, is by definition a belief. It appears impossible to produce evidence for it that is repeatable and stands up to scrutiny. So, plate tectonics isn't a belief, for instance, because there is strong evidence to support it. Proper scientific evidence. There isn't anything to weigh in the balance against it. The evidence is overwhelming. But I don't "believe" in plate tectonics, any more than I believe in the air that I breath or the water that I drink. They exist, but don't require belief. The difficulty with belief, by definition, is that it is a "fixed in stone" position which is impervious to evidence (because it doesn't rely on it). People have personal beliefs which they will defend endlessly, even when the evidence is against it, because "belief" somehow supercedes evidence in their view.

Do I believe in Sasquatch? No. I'm a skeptic.......... but a skeptic who expects that sasquatch will be revealed to the world very shortly as an extant mammal, a product of evolution. This goes back to your "balance of the argument" point. I have seen enough to lead me to the conclusion that on the balance of probability the thousands of eyewitnesses aren't all lying or deluded, that not every footprint is a hoax, that not every call in the woods at night is an owl, coyote, or call-blaster. Melba Ketchum would ruin her scientific credibility forever if she hasn't actually done what she says she has done, so I expect that she probably has. But that is only an expectation. Until the peer reviewed results are properly published, I will remain skeptical, but expectant.

Let me deal briefly with the notion of "with my own eyes". Lots of people say "I'll believe it when I see it with my own eyes". Well, there is an element of delusion about this, in my view. Firstly, our eyes and the software processing the images are notoriously unreliable (think optical illusions, for instance, or eyewitness reports at crime-scenes). Secondly, I have never seen the Titanic or the Statue of Liberty, but I am happy to accept the evidence that they exist. You don't have to examine this sort of evidence too closely.

All of the above won't stop JohnC accusing me of belief. Now, that isn't a belief, but it is an expectation and a prediction based on 4 pages of experience. And I thank you, See, for your question.

Mike

Edited January 3, 2012 by MikeG

[Guest HucksterFoot]

After a considerable amount of reading tonight on the subject of Abiogenesis, the proponents are really stretching, totally grasping at straws. None of the experiments come close to creating anything with DNA in it, amino acids yes, but still a long way from how homo sapiens arrived into the picture. I think there is far less evidence for Abiogenisis than there is for Sasquatch.

The Miller-Urey experiment (which is a repeatable experiment) demonstrated whether or not we can produce the basic building blocks of life from non-life. Several steps before RNA, DNA and long before Humans arrived in the picture ...and as you should know, Human origins falls under the evolutionary theory.

Directed Panspermia is about the most logical solution to the problem regarding the origins of life on earth there is.

So you don't think that some advanced extraterrestrial beings seeding the earth is a big stretch; a big gap filled with a fancy idea? Plus, That just moves the problem. How did it begin out there? and if life can start out there on some other planet, why not here? life beginning on earth; independent of some advanced extraterrestrial seeding program.

Though, directed panspermia isn't an immediately testable claim ...I like the idea. I don't believe it is the most likely solution.

Anyways, a link that might interest you:

http://users.tpg.com.au/horsts/transpermia.html

lol. :]

[Xion Comrade]

Put your snorkels on, we are going into the twilight zone with Comrade! Studying New Age/the Extraterrestrial phenomena(Pretty much the same thing tbh), I have come across that we humans(Or 3rd density/dimensional entities of this particular planet) are actually a variety mix from different planets, but in particular were put here here from mars with some pretty hefty genetic engineering over the millenia when the population destroyed Mars' ecosystem if I am not mistaken in a war of some sort (put here by extraterrestrials/the keepers, Or the gardeners, I have heard them put that way as well). Apparently, from my understanding according to these teachings, in this particular corner of the cosmos it is just the norm for entities to evolve into a general sort of hominid shape by the 3rd density(Speaking very generally), or the time it/they/we become self aware. The Sasquatch were already here in some shape or form, but were also manipulated into a more dexterous/humanesque form to better suit them I guess. They live/stick to caves most of the time. There is another creature that is basically a animal(The Sasquatch are "Human", self aware) that aliens/keepers put here in case we nuke ourselves into oblivion(A body/gene pool to keep the species/3rd density going, they say it is able to stand up to what would be left over, radioactive wastelands I guess). These are smaller, do not have glowing eyes, and are much rarer/dispersed all over the planet, much more able to escape human detection, and live in the deep uninhabited forests of the planet rather than caves(Just in general sounds like something I would never want to see, dangerous maybe?). Apparently the Sasquatch are physically handicapped in some way/not as able to be aware of us(Dulled down senses or something, not sure), DO have glowing eyes, and are of a consciousness comparable to a human being, they have to resort to other methods of getting away from us than the nuke-repellant-apes do.

The total story that I have read is that the consciousnesses in the Sasquatches were brought here from Maldek, a planet that is now the asteroid belt. They destroyed it in a war, and were much like us/the martians before doing so(I guess tendencies towards "bellicose activities"). Technologically advanced and far along the beaten path as far as 3rd density goes. Thus the keepers/angels/aliens/whatever you want to call them took a now extinct ape then in existence, genetically modified it into what we now call the Sasquatch body(A giant furry human) and put those "Souls" into those bodies so they could continue....Why the aliens are buzzing around the Sasquatch phenomena so much? Who knows...We may need some of Wud's kool-aid before we can plunge to much deeper. From my understanding there is a spiritual significance to it all that most people don't care about/think about/would tend to serve to distract most people from the most important things right now. The "Aliens" in general just try to help everything, and meddle alot.

And they aren't aliens in the sense that most people would imagine it, being purely flesh and blood. I guess sort of a energy being, something that has evolved past physical/biological. At least that is what my journey has afforded me so far. I guess that is why they come through peoples walls, materialize and dematerialize and all of that good stuff...from a different dimension AND different planet at the same time. The process as I understand it is that the entity creates the "ship"(Not actually a ship, it is just a crystal structure, not really a machine, of course it depends on the type of alien doing it all, some require only thought/will, some are alot more like us and have to rely on technology) first, with thought from wherever it is...then it transfers itself into the ship, then it creates a physical body around itself...all using thought, or some form of super duper advanced meditation. I had read where clouds will condense into the ships and were the ships will sort of...liquify in mid air and change shape, vibrate, oscillate, and all sorts of other things. Splitting apart into smaller ships, letting go of little drones/camera devices and things of that nature...I guess that provides a explanation for it all, the things in the ships are doing it all with their minds. The entities say, supposedly, that we have gotten to the point in our physics and science that we actually understand it all as well as is possible for a 3rd density critter to understand it, just a little bit overcomplicated in our theories, and alot of other distorted/wrong material floating around too...Apparently Quantum Mechanics is important in studying it all among other things.

[Guest MikeG]

What was I saying about belief and evidence? Just the tiniest, teeniest morsel of evidence for that, Xion Comrade, would be great, please.

Mike

[bipedalist]

And may I ask for some of your reading list to assess this advancement of life in the universe and on Earth Xion Comrade. Also, how many of these entities, aliens and life-forms referenced have you personally observed, greeted, interacted with?

All respectful questions btw if you can answer them to thread fine.....if not please PM. Thanks for the post.

[Sasfooty]

Sounds like you've been doing your homework, XC!

I'd like to check out some of your reading material, too.....please?