Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Biology Human Evolution

views
     
SpikeMarlene
post Mar 30 2010, 02:04 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(defaultname365 @ Mar 8 2010, 11:14 PM)
I don't know why... I believe we "humans" are "aliens"...  tongue.gif

Wait... hold on.

See, I believe a certain ancient civilization once ruled the Earth (e.g Sumerian civilization). These "gods" were what we would call "aliens" from outer space. These aliens found Earth way back in time and found life on it, and wanted to exploit the resources on it. So, what they did is that they mixed their genetic code with one of the species on Earth to carry out their bidding - - perhaps one from the chimpanzee/ape species.

Then, we "were formed". A genetically modified "alien". Thus we begin our roles as slaves. For a long time, it seems fine. Until these "aliens" decide to leave and monitor from time to time the labour work of mining, say, gold for example.

But we grew too quickly. Multipled too fast. We were forming our very own civilization. We formed... the "human race". These aliens kept monitoring us and decide to leave us on our own. And that's when things get slighty eerie. From time to time these aliens would "abduct" a human specimen to see how much of them is left in us. Animals too - - but they are mutilated/killed because to these aliens, they have no value. They just want to know the "quality of the environment" by checking out the innards of the animals.

Well.

Then it goes on and on for thousands of years.

Until today, UFOs are flying around. Fact: Google search "UFO", and up pops up a news or more about an eyewitness. Abductions occur more often, but these abductees memories are erased thus difficult to trace whether aliens or just self-injury.

Until "the day" arrives, perhaps when Nibiru approaches, their mothership stationed on the rings of Saturn will move towards Earth and "ferry" some of us away. "Rescue" is what they say. But... I think not.  nod.gif

How bout that.
*
Let's say you hypothesize that we are genetically modified alien slaves. How do you go about supporting this hypothesis? This hypothesis should have testable statements you can made from your claim. For example, alien must have left traces of their settlement, their technologies that modified local raw material that can be dated back to about the same period. Ancient mining sites that demonstrate technology used that were not available during that period. Genetic sequence that exhibits discontinuity from the normal progression expected from evolution. Inserted genetic sequence that cannot be explained by descent with modification. Fossil records show unexplained difference between naturally occuring primates with modified human species ... So where are these evidence? Why we cannot even find 1 shred of evidence where we expect them? Why all available evidence hinge on unreliable eye-witness accounts like UFO and abduction? Where are the hard evidence?

This post has been edited by SpikeMarlene: Mar 30 2010, 02:07 PM
SpikeMarlene
post Apr 1 2010, 02:23 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(defaultname365 @ Apr 1 2010, 02:50 AM)
http://www.starchildproject.com/

user posted image

So many, many more. And I mean, many.
*
Your claim is debunked years ago. See links below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull

"Mitochondrial DNA recovered from the skull establishes that it is human" - http://www.theness.com/the-starchild-project/

Next please.

This post has been edited by SpikeMarlene: Apr 1 2010, 02:24 PM
SpikeMarlene
post Apr 2 2010, 09:31 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(defaultname365 @ Apr 1 2010, 08:29 PM)
I thought this section allows for "open-mindness" and not shunting out possibilities?
Establishes. Right. I know that. Heck, all the DNA-ness points to human. But ALL of the unusual features are yet to be explained as to "why" it is so. Including that elusive 'red-fibre' inside the skull that apparently can't be cut by a diamond saw.

So I can't confirm or deny that aliens = humans. However, if the skull is indeed having human-ish DNA, then it altogether proofs my 'idea' even more viable.

Here is an artists' rendition of the Starchild skull drawn into a physical form:

user posted image

When I said "many more" I meant = pyramids, crop circles with sumerian symbols, etc.. these are the 'phenomena's' that when looked at from my idea reinstates it even more - - the Sumerian Gods were aliens.
*
Open-mindedness doesn't mean you can post anything and not be challenged by people here. I would rather think forum as a good place where ideas are grilled, debated, argued. If you want to just want to read about something, internet is full of such stories, but when you want to test your idea, forum is the best platform.

So your argument has actually been refuted in the links I provided. Test has established that the skull DNA is human. The unusual features are also explained clearly in the links I provided. These clearly indicate that the specimen of the so-called alien is nothing more than a hoax, a fabricated tale to fool the gullible, perhaps for money. And what happened to the red-fibre? If it is a relic from the alien, and tests have established that, wouldn't you think it would have made front page news by now?
SpikeMarlene
post Apr 11 2010, 08:04 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(alex_kos @ Apr 10 2010, 09:00 AM)
hi i had to agree with some especially saying adam and eve are the first pair of human made by God Almighty. Since we cant backdate and prove what is happening in the past, and there is no way to know how human came from, so perfectly with specially and carefully designed organs and functions. Probability must be very very very very, i repeat, very low in creating such a creature named human.

and, it's fantastic to say that human evolve, wait, human knows how to duplicate themselves! I don't want to cite a wrong ones but according to your science teachers, 90% of early scientists believed in God and they came out with these teachings.

...but not evolution theory. According to evolution theory, human evolves overtime to adapt to changes, and supposedly they will grow stronger, live longer, which is really not the fact.

now tell me, who ever lived over 120 years old right now? If you can quickly quote me 10 examples then I will agree with your evolution theory. if you google the answer that means you don't know whoever lives among you ever passed 120 years old.

you may be wandering why I say 120 years old as benchmark and not 150, 200.
And let's see what our ancestors said, 2 hands, 2 feet, 1 head, do we lack anything of it now?
*
Actually it is fantastic to claim that human was created by god with adam and eve being the first pair some 10K years ago, in the face of overwhelming evidence and facts from mutiple scientific disciplines. Essentially this is just another argument from ignorance or incredulity or most probably both. For you to claim that human was created and there is no way to trace the origin of human, you must have missed 150 years of development in evolutionary science. There are thousands of scientists and thousands in the past, who are/were doing active research in this field and you probably do not know anything about their work when you jump to this silly conclusion. Just this fact alone is more than sufficient to refute your argument. Do you think all these scientists are blind to such a simple "fact" like the one you stated above, that even a child can see? Please do read more about science and particularly about human evolution and look into the fact and evidence that support the theory before making silly claims.
SpikeMarlene
post Apr 12 2010, 07:03 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
The theory of evolution is so powerful and clear, once you know the evidence you can feel the close kinship to nature. Amazingly you are part of nature, part of earth in such an intimate way, you are inseparable from every dead or living creatures that shaped the human species. People who do not know the theory and the evidence that support it, criticize it based on their own ignorance. Their material come from dubious or religious sites that parrot the same old stuff which oddly has not eveloved much with the rest of the human understanding about nature. When claims made are challenged, they disappear as quickly as they made those claims.
SpikeMarlene
post Apr 13 2010, 05:22 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(Blaze_hit @ Apr 12 2010, 09:16 PM)
erk, i dun mean to be mean but can pls read back my early post? im pointing about early civilization frm the beginning. I mentioned about human early recorded activities. Did i mention early humans in Africa are not human? @__@ well, some historian agreed to be human means to be civilized (as for ur question, it depends on which definition of civilization u r talking bout). After all, that what's human all about that makes us different frm any being.
*
Surely whether a pre-historic human is a human or not, does not depend on the definition of civilization. If the pre-historic human possesses the full features of a human being, what makes him less human? If an ape is trained by human as compare to an ape in the wild, would that domesticated ape become a human?
SpikeMarlene
post Apr 13 2010, 06:20 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(Blaze_hit @ Apr 13 2010, 05:34 PM)
Sounds like planet of the apes to me. My answer will be no. Why? because no matter how much u trained an ape to be like a human it will never be. Im curious if there's any domesticated ape in this world in the first place to be compared with? If u have one pls show me then we can do the comparison smile.gif
*
So the point is regardless if the human lives in the wild or not, as long as he is a human physically, he is a human by definition. Hence the origin of human does not depend on the origin of civilization or how that is defined but instead depends on similarity in features between a modern human and a pre-historic primate. The theory of evolution predicted there is a gradual increase in similarity the younger fossil is to modern human and that is exactly what we found. At some point in time, some 5 millions years ago, human like primate emerged and branched from a common ancestor with chimpanzee. Primate with all features of a modern human emerged some 2.5 millions years later.
SpikeMarlene
post Apr 26 2010, 09:52 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(Turnip @ Apr 22 2010, 08:34 PM)
Man from apes?You gotta be kidding me.
*
Actually fossil record is only part of a mountain of evidence that support the theory of evolution. For you to express incredulity that human and apes once shared a common ancestor or for the fact of evolution that explains the orgin of the human species, is purely based on ignorance. Maybe you read and believe too much creationist sites.
SpikeMarlene
post Apr 28 2010, 11:48 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(Turnip @ Apr 26 2010, 08:19 PM)
Issit about the DNA-thingy similarities again?  hmm.gif
*
Yes, but how it is related to your argument? More importantly what happened to your statement of incredulity about human evolution? It has evaporated into thin air?
SpikeMarlene
post Apr 29 2010, 10:54 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(CANONPIXMA @ Apr 29 2010, 10:17 AM)
do we consider that as evolution for human? and even for animal? i dont think its consider evolution. for the reason its not consider evolution is because a species bcome extict and eventually being replaced by a species that is quite similar to the species extincted. But they both existed at different time, and doesnt show an evolution process. so for me, human is not evolution, the human look alike before us is totally a different species and its not they adapt to the environment they bcome like us.
*
Becoming extinct is part of the evolution process. How would a species become extinct or how would a species survive at the brink of extinction? What drives a species to become extinct is exactly the force that drives the change in a species. If not how would you explain extinction and species that managed to survive through crisis and emerged better adapted to it's environment?
SpikeMarlene
post Apr 29 2010, 11:32 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(CANONPIXMA @ Apr 29 2010, 12:22 PM)
species who survive extinction still the same species as it before extinction. it does not change or adapt.
*
If so why does the fossils show gradual change in timeline exactly as expected from the theory of evolution? Take the major transition from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Why would we find 'transitional" fossils if what you said is correct?
SpikeMarlene
post Apr 30 2010, 09:00 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(CANONPIXMA @ Apr 29 2010, 12:22 PM)
species who survive extinction still the same species as it before extinction. it does not change or adapt.
*
I just remember 1 good example that show change and adaptation that you would probably understand and have some experience. It's usually known as drug resistance. It's the antiboitics that you take when you are infected with microbes. As the drug kills off the microbes some survive due to mutation. These changed/mutated microbes has developed the ability to resist the drug. The change can be traced to genetic changes in the microbe. This clearly refutes your idea that species that survives extinction is slightly different from before.
SpikeMarlene
post Apr 30 2010, 11:22 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(mashqi @ Apr 30 2010, 09:40 PM)
The evolution theory is still a debated topic. It is not fact. So, until there's a solid scientific proof, I won't believe it. Personally, I think that animals and humans will change and adapt to its environment but not to the extent of the animals to become another new species.

Peace.. biggrin.gif
*
It must be disappointing to know the theory of evolution is a solid theory with solid evidence. Evolution is a fact and the theory explains that fact, whether you believe it or not, like it or not. You must have stopped learning anything about evolution since 150 years ago because your view represents the view at the time when darwin revealed evolution through natural selection.

Even if I were to take your statement above as a valid argument against evolution, if animals and humans will change and adapt to it's environment, what is stopping it from changing to another species? Have you looked at the evidence before you decided you cannot believe in evolution?
SpikeMarlene
post May 1 2010, 03:10 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
Most of the time people protests against evolution are in hit and run posts. They state their disbelief, make a few claims that evolution is a speculative theory, give the example of the monkey and his cousin or something similar and that's the end of discussion as soon as it started. Amazing that they could have learnt anything from this short stint. It seems as if after a series of responses here and elsewhere, telling them how ignorant they are, they have nothing else to offer but yet refuse to abandon their unsupportable position. After a few months, they return with the same drivel, same silly assertion yet to disappear soon after.
SpikeMarlene
post May 1 2010, 09:59 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(mashqi @ May 1 2010, 07:26 PM)
It's like a bird change to cat like that.
*
a bird change to a cat will falsify the theory of evolution. You are ignorant of the theory but yet you dismiss it without much of a thought, based only on hearsay.
SpikeMarlene
post May 3 2010, 08:58 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(lin00b @ May 2 2010, 08:06 PM)
evolution can also be seen in embryonic development. ever wonder why human embryo has a "tail" that slowly disappear?
*
Have you read the idea of "phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny". Although it is wrong but there are strong connections between ontogeny and phylogeny particularly at the early stages of embryonic development. Have you read the book "inner fish"?
SpikeMarlene
post May 16 2010, 10:19 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(CleverDick @ May 16 2010, 03:40 AM)
sorry,if you're trying to challenge evolution with a video that tell tales without even provide verifiable evidence to substantiate your god's existence,then you can bet your last dollar you can still see evolution being taught tomorrow.
*
But that is the best they can do. If you expect something better that, you will be disappointed. smile.gif

This post has been edited by SpikeMarlene: May 16 2010, 10:20 AM
SpikeMarlene
post May 19 2010, 09:31 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(ReWeR @ May 18 2010, 06:48 PM)
then it's time to pickup your book and study.

Scientists believe that all living being in this planet are come from the same ancestor. Which you might called it an alien micro-organism from outer space that fall into planet Earth.
*
Panspermia is only a hypothesis.

It can be demonstrated that all living beings came from some ancient simple organism 3 billions years ago, whether they are the same ancestor or not, I am not sure.

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0304sec    0.43    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 8th December 2025 - 03:10 PM