Alien Origin Concept

a reply to: Barcs

I never said I did either, can you show me where is did? I simply said anything is possibly and yes relatively speaking the brain capacity did jump it was not gradual. See here

But for the lazy the expansion of the hominid brain appears to have only really begun with the genus Homo.

The brain of the earlier hominid genus Australopithecus had a volume of about 400 cubic centimetres, not much larger than that of the great apes. But between 2 million and 700 000 years ago, the size of the brain of Homo erectus actually doubled.

The other major increase in brain volume occurred between 500 000 and 100 000 years ago, in Homo sapiens, and the human brain today has a volume of 1 350 cubic centimetres. In less than 4 million years, a relatively short time in evolutionary terms, the hominid brain thus grew to three times the size it had achieved in 60 million years of primate evolution.

So no you are wrong it was a jump. Not gradual. Next!

a reply to: Barcs

If somebody says the phrase "it just came out of thin air" it's an English phrase you understand.
When I say it came from nothing, even nothing is made of atomic non-living matter, air, ground, liquid, gaseous, solid.
I thought that was a given.
I don't need to explain it, or maybe I actually do ???

I don't mean this as an insult, but is English your first language ?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

If somebody says the phrase "it just came out of thin air" it's an English phrase you understand.
When I say it came from nothing, even nothing is made of atomic non-living matter, air, ground, liquid, gaseous, solid.
I thought that was a given.
I don't need to explain it, or maybe I actually do ???

I don't mean this as an insult, but is English your first language ?

And you are right...kind of. The fact is, there is no such thing as "nothing". At least, it doesn't occur naturally that we have observed.

And your attitude is unnecessary. You are not smarter than anyone else here. You started this thread, after all.

a reply to: TzarChasm

No I don't think I am smarter than other ATS members, I just have a different perspective, that doesn't make me smarter at all. But I will call out those that are using semantical straw men to fire cheap shots, that are intellectually dishonest, and especially if they are veteran ATS posters, they know better.

But enough of that, back to the topic.
I wanted to address the relativity of time, how it feels like it goes faster as you get older. If time goes faster for somebody that is at middle age say, 40 compared to a 5 year old imagine how fast time would go to a alien being a billion years old ? There perspective of time and how long it is taking to fix a problem would be much different than a being that lives only 80 years.

Imagine this concept. A fruit fly thinking he needs a fruit bearing tree that is just a seedling to grow within it's lifetime so he can benefit from it's fruit.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

but i dont think you are being entirely helpful either. you posed a hypothetical, it got shot down, now its time to return to the drawing board and give it a second go over. the definition of abiogenesis is not being debated because its already defined. lok it up on google. now that we have clarified this, lets move on.

I wanted to address the relativity of time, how it feels like it goes faster as you get older. If time goes faster for somebody that is at middle age say, 40 compared to a 5 year old imagine how fast time would go to a alien being a billion years old ? There perspective of time and how long it is taking to fix a problem would be much different than a being that lives only 80 years.

that is a matter of perception. by which i mean, a psychological symptom and not a physical phenomenon. unless you count the deterioration of brain matter and senses.

a reply to: MrStyx

I'm annoyed because I just typed out a long post breaking down all the hominids and their cc rates of increase and for some reason the page crashed and I lost everything. Here's the basics.

The original CC of homo erectus was right on par with Australopithecus afarensis. You said that brain size jumped significantly and out of nowhere. That's not true plus you left out Habilis and a bunch of others in between. The highest Afarensis cc was 550. The lowest habilis CC was 500. Early habilis had cc on par with afaranesis. Erectus is a bad comparison because they lived 1.5 million years (way longer than most other homo species put together), and no, the brain size did not double, it went from 750cc-1225cc. That isn't an astounding change considering they had 1.5 million years to evolve. Funny when you look at homo habilis late specimens, they had 800cc brains, which is right on par for early erectus. I see nothing but slow consistant brain size increase over time. I may have started increasing faster as the homo genus evolved, but none of it was sudden. 4 million years is a very long time regardless of your downplaying of the facts. On average the CC increased about .0005 cc per year.

Why would an alien species slowly increase brain size by .0005 cc per year? If they really came in and manipulated our genes I'd expect a much faster development. Why in the hell would it take 3 million years, and what could they possibly accomplish by doing that? It doesn't make the least bit of sense. Sorry.

Plus you obviously do not understand evolution because it's not linear. You're not going to have everything stay consistent at all times. Don't forget we've been in an age since 2.5-3 million years ago, where the temp has been going from hot and cold every hundred thousand or so years. It's funny as hell that you would downplay 3 million years with a harsh African climate in a constantly changing ice age and compare it with the rest of primate history, where crazier things have happened like land animals becoming whales, yet you have no problem with this, but a cranial capacity increase over 3 million years, when it is the primary survival trait of the genus is outrageous right? That just shows you don't really understand evolution because there is no set timeline for how fast creatures evolve. It follows the environment.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

If somebody says the phrase "it just came out of thin air" it's an English phrase you understand.
When I say it came from nothing, even nothing is made of atomic non-living matter, air, ground, liquid, gaseous, solid.
I thought that was a given.
I don't need to explain it, or maybe I actually do ???

I don't mean this as an insult, but is English your first language ?

Oh please. You are seriously going to question my grasp of the English language when you use exclusively juvenile terminology and make ridiculous points that don't make any sense whatsoever? Not to mention you've been caught in falsehoods and lies numerous times in the topics you have started.

When discussing SCIENCE, it is important to use the proper terminology. You can't use metaphors and catch phrases. Especially the "you believe something came from nothing" argument. That is merely propaganda used by creationists to suggest that abiogenesis is extremely unrealistic. It's pathetic that you 'd try to justify by saying "even nothing is made of atomic non living matter". LMAO. You are wrong. Nothing is made out of NOTHING. Unless you are now redefining that term as well?

No I don't think I am smarter than other ATS members, I just have a different perspective, that doesn't make me smarter at all. But I will call out those that are using semantical straw men to fire cheap shots, that are intellectually dishonest, and especially if they are veteran ATS posters, they know better.

What? So you claim that abiogensis says something came out of nothing, and accuse ME of a straw man? There is definitely a communication problem here, but it's not on my end. Too funny.

a reply to: Barcs

4 Million in comparison to 60 million is not very long at all. If it was just time and evolution and survival of the fittest, the pink skins who lost all their hair don't fit the mold. You'd pick the hairy beast that survives the winter. There were previously multiple species of Hominid living together now there is just one. If it were just simple evolution their should be lizard people far superior to us. There should be an underwater Atlantis with mermen all superior to us. There is no reason that the Hominid became dominant on this planet amongst species that evolved for far longer. It cant be explained away with mutation or some chance of fate. The science does not back it.

originally posted by: MrStyx
a reply to: Barcs

4 Million in comparison to 60 million is not very long at all.

This is irrelevant because evolution is not linear and doesn't follow a set rate. It is controlled by the environment. A faster changing environment (ie Pleistocene ice age), will lead to faster changes in organisms. If a dog looking creature can become a whale in 20 million years (an almost complete revamp of the entire body), why couldn't cranial capacity increase and body hair decrease over 3+ million years (something much smaller in the grand scheme of things)?

Don't forget one of the keys is cooking and eating meat. This led to part of the increase of the brain complexity and size during that time. No other type of mammal in the 60 million+ years of mammal evolution has been able to cook their food.

If it was just time and evolution and survival of the fittest, the pink skins who lost all their hair don't fit the mold. You'd pick the hairy beast that survives the winter.

Negative. The pink skins were originally dark skins, and they lost their body hair as their intellect and innovation increased. Once they began using animal hides for clothing, body hair became an irrelevant survival trait, so it faded away over the years. Once they began using tools and building strong shelters and using fire, body hair had almost no role in survival. In fact, body hair became more detrimental as sexual selection became more prevalent amongst humans. The sexier, less hairy, and smarter individuals were more likely to find a mate. Sexual selection is a huge factor in human evolution, and shouldn't be ignored.

There were previously multiple species of Hominid living together now there is just one. If it were just simple evolution their should be lizard people far superior to us. There should be an underwater Atlantis with mermen all superior to us.

Why? I don't think you fully grasp what evolution entails if you truly believe this. There is no rule in evolution that everything automatically gets smarter or better. It depends on the environment. While mammals are generally smarter than the majority of reptiles, It took 60 million+ years before a creature emerged even capable of pondering his own existence. Maybe there were reptiles that smart that lived during the dinosaur age. We just haven't found evidence of them. It could have happened, but you act like it's guaranteed. It's not.

There is no reason that the Hominid became dominant on this planet amongst species that evolved for far longer. It cant be explained away with mutation or some chance of fate. The science does not back it.

Um, what science have you been reading? The science absolutely backs it. No reason? Hominids primary survival trait has always been their intelligence and ability to use tools (opposable thumbs). THAT is how they became dominant and yes it can be explained by mutation and natural selection as well as other factors. Nothing is inevitable, but we can explain it perfectly without invoking aliens.

And like I said, I do find a lot of AA hypothesis interesting, and it's entirely possible we've been visited and aided in the past, but genetically engineered over a period of 3 million years? That's a substantial investment for something that would take millions of lifetimes. I'd wonder why they would travel all the way to earth instead of doing genetic experiments with creatures on their own planet, if it were as simple as modifying genetics. But you feel that an alien race genetically engineering for 3 million years, is more likely than a slow steady increase of brain size over 3 million years. I just don't see it. If the aliens are super advanced, then why would it take that long? Why couldn't they modify the genome almost instantly instead of having to crawl at a pace as slow as evolution?

It simply doesn't make sense, while evolution makes perfect sense. If aliens engineered us from ancient apes, there is no evidence of any sudden leap of intellect. .005 cc increase per year does not make me think engineering. Even a 700 cc increase in 1.5 million years, doesn't fit the bill. I'd expect it to increase 1000cc within a dozen or so generations and this simply isn't the case. Maybe it's possible, but if so it was done by complete amateurs.

"This is irrelevant because evolution is not linear and doesn't follow a set rate. It is controlled by the environment. A faster changing environment (ie Pleistocene ice age), will lead to faster changes in organisms. If a dog looking creature can become a whale in 20 million years (an almost complete revamp of the entire body), why couldn't cranial capacity increase and body hair decrease over 3+ million years (something much smaller in the grand scheme of things)?"

I'm glad you brought that up. You said it yourself environment determines the rate at which evolution is spurred. If every species is in the same environment it doesn't make sense that only one would be at this level but nothing else.
I'm glad you brought up dogs too, just look at what they have turned into from our tampering. From wolves to canines of all shapes and sizes. Killer bees (Africanized bees), from our tampering, they spread uncontrollably and out of balance just like Homo sapiens. Every species that has been tampered with or transplanted is out of balance I see the same in us.

Our voice boxes alone, totally unique opposite the evolutionary path. If we were eating more meat. Then we shouldn't have lost our Jaw power and sacrificed it for a longer throat which made us more efficient at choking to death. Even today's science can't pinpoint where we got to grunts to talking. Skulls only say so much, and sof tissue is gone. How we use language no other species comes close. There is balance in evolution. There are mice have immunity to snake venom, due to the constant struggles between species. Komodo dragons are immune to each others bile. There is a balance. There is nothing remotely close to us on this planet, that we know of.

"Negative. The pink skins were originally dark skins, and they lost their body hair as their intellect and innovation increased. Once they began using animal hides for clothing, body hair became an irrelevant survival trait, so it faded away over the years. "

That makes no sense, none whatsoever. Your stating intellect determines the rate at which you lose your hair. At no point will fires be enough to spurn evolution to drop your hair that's insane. Only for us to go hunt animals to put it back on. That a lot of shelter and alot of fire, and primitive man had neither in spades. Besides all that it doesn't correlate with the megalithic structure dates. If you believe all of mainstream science, Man should have been in caves when half these structures had long been built. Every day they have to back date the structures some more. Which means they have no idea what was going on or how many times man has evolved.

"And like I said, I do find a lot of AA hypothesis interesting, and it's entirely possible we've been visited and aided in the past, but genetically engineered over a period of 3 million years? That's a substantial investment for something that would take millions of lifetimes. I'd wonder why they would travel all the way to earth instead of doing genetic experiments with creatures on their own planet, if it were as simple as modifying genetics."

That's also an assumption. There are so many different reasons why, just equate it to us. We aren't allowed to do certain levels of genetic manipulation. It may be done in hidden corners and basements but its not accepted. The morality alone is in question. As with anybody with power, it tends to get abused. Its not a stretch to theorize that somebody may have shot out here to not get caught. Then they got caught. You also assume it took them so long to get here. If you trust in Einstein you can theorize shortcuts like the Einstein-Rosen bridges. Just because we cant do something or cant find it, doesnt mean its not possible Also why screw up your own backyard, just look what we've done with genetics on earth and you see why doing it in your own home wouldn't be prudent.

There is also a scientific theory called Panspermia. "Panspermia is a hypothesis proposing that microscopic life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophiles, become trapped in debris that is ejected into space after collisions between planets and small Solar System bodies that harbor life. Some organisms may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. If met with ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, the organisms become active and the process of evolution begins." So it could completely explain seeding planets and genetics over millions of years.

Lets step outside the box further. Lets take it back. Almost every culture that existed amongst man has stated. They were created by gods or people from the stars. That's globally, long before Christianity or Islam. Now before you say it was them trying to grasp their existence. I think they grasped it just fine. Look at their art, architecture, astronomy. They'd smoke anybody living now even with technology. They lived off the stars therefore they knew them. For planes or flying things not to be invented they sure had a wild imagination. Now equate that to a modern day experience, lets go with Bill Cosby. 40 some odd women claimed he did the exact same thing. At some point you had to tell yourself maybe he did it. I use that same logic when thinking of the ancient people, and there writings. Just think the only thing that seems worthy of writing in stone are fairy tales. That doesn't make sense either.

I count nothing out in my search for the truth. No true scientist does either. They prove it. Science hasn't proven it or there would be no debate. There are theories and like I said some more plausible than others, but its still unknown. I can go on. If we get obliterated tomorrow what tools will they find at most of our houses, our sky scrappers. Certainly not the ones that built them.. You wont find cranes and the heavy equipment on location. That got packed up along time ago. You may find a hammer and drills other things for maintenance. So when you find a tool in the sand can you really assume that's what everybody was working with? I assume more advanced species clean up better than us. After all we are pretty wasteful.

I do enjoy a healthy debate, but don't assume I don't read the same science books, or that I'm hell bent on aliens.I find Giorgio Tsoukaloss to be funny and an extremist. Everything is aliens to him. I do read mainstream science. I just don't take them as gospel. They have there motivations. They need that grant money and certain people pay for there services as long as they get what they need out of it. Just look at the global warmign debate. Before that the world was flat. We were also the center of the Universe. I don't trust everything men touch. That goes with History books,(Texas is proving that) the Bible(Romans), Quran, anything written to tell a story. The winners tell it their way. How they want to present it or control someone else. But if you read enough you see a pattern. Everybody steals a lil something from somewhere else, eventually you find common truths.