Evidence that Humans were Genetically Modified

reply to post by Amaterasu


Nah, I havent, but I may in the future. I am looking at first pages of your book right now

Originally posted by Alethea
If this is true, then we are a hybrid race. The Nephilim were a hybrid race also, were they not?

Our essence is spiritual within a flesh vessel. Perhaps this explains why we struggle between a carnal animalistic mindset and a spiritually righteous behavior. The carnal mind says I should hit you, the spiritual mind says I should turn the other cheek.

Could this "modification" be the transition known as the evolutionary "missing link"? Could we be the Nephilim?

I assume you have studied abouth the nephilim, and if so, you know that no good came from them,so if we are nephilim then we are as evil as they.

Originally posted by Amaterasu



Sorry, I'm not buying it. Why would evolution create so nearly to perfection all these varied life-forms and, in Our special case, get it so sloppy? You make it sound as if these diseases have cropped up because of our intelligence, and if we were marginally worse - say, 200 "defects" - I might go with you on this. But over 4,000? Really?

Enjoy, MT

Thanks! In fact, I'm enjoying this greatly for input as thoughtful as yours.

This is the main point that I would like to argue because I feel I understand the subject enough. As an example, think of hemophilia, a genetic disease which causes problems in blood platelets causing the blood to not clot properly, which can lead to excessive bleeding and possibly from a wound that would normally heal itself. In the wild, animals (and humans) with this defect would have a very, very difficult time making it to a reproductive age due to the dangers all around them. If individuals with this defect don't reproduce, their mutations won't be passed on to future generations and will eventually disappear. In our society today and advanced societies from the past, these people are considered handicapped and "protected" for lack of a better word. You wouldn't send a hemophiliac out to go hunting, they could trip fall and suffer fatal internal bleeding. Therefore, the trait remains in the population, multiplying. The more our society advances, the easier life these "handicapped" individuals can have, increasing their survival rates and allowing them to reproduce. In true natural selection defects weed themselves out through death of the "weak."

DNA is made up of a random series of base pairs, if you want to understand it look into it. These base pairs are responsible for the proteins produced in cells which make up all properties of various life forms. The differences in the sequences create the differences in species. Mutations in these sequences change over time through replication mistakes, radiation and other things. If the mutation is advantageous to the individual it will be more likely to survive longer and pass on its new advantageous trait because it reproduces more (keep in mind this happens over a long period of time). If the mutation causes a disadvantage then the individual won't survive or reproduce as much, as earlier stated. If you ask how these molecules in DNA arrange themselves, that goes into chemistry and how molecules arrange themselves in the most energetically favorable conformations (again if you want to know more look into it). All evolution is a random process, every combination could have existed, does exist, or will exist in the future, theoretically. Some of these combos are viable for life (as defined by us) but many are not. The genetics fit to survive in this world do and the ones that don't, don't survive. Its a cruel world but that is how it goes.

Originally posted by doorhand
A question... do genetically modified animals have a shorter life span or get more diseases? eg, the mouse with an ear on its back, or glow in the dark rats?

If so, do humans get so many diseases from the result of modified genes, eg, ape dna mixed with ET dna.

Maybe we have genes that don't really 'get on' together.

I'm not sure. But this would be plausible.

Thanks for joining in!

Originally posted by Farnhold
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Nah, I havent, but I may in the future. I am looking at first pages of your book right now

The Terra Papers put an awesome perspective on things. They start out sounding like a bad space opera - but as they near the present time, they give greater info - and it makes a whole lot I see around me, at any rate, make sense.

EDIT to add: Let me know what you think of the book when you're done! Thanks so much for reading!

reply to post by Amaterasu


I went through it briefly. What caught my eye was when I was passing through the middle, there was a detailed description of things, a story.

Is this book a fiction, or perhaps potential past based on your research? Can you give me some insight? Perhaps a very short description of plot?

Originally posted by ModestThought

Originally posted by Amaterasu



Sorry, I'm not buying it. Why would evolution create so nearly to perfection all these varied life-forms and, in Our special case, get it so sloppy? You make it sound as if these diseases have cropped up because of our intelligence, and if we were marginally worse - say, 200 "defects" - I might go with you on this. But over 4,000? Really?

Enjoy, MT

Thanks! In fact, I'm enjoying this greatly for input as thoughtful as yours.

This is the main point that I would like to argue because I feel I understand the subject enough. As an example, think of hemophilia, a genetic disease which causes problems in blood platelets causing the blood to not clot properly, which can lead to excessive bleeding and possibly from a wound that would normally heal itself. In the wild, animals (and humans) with this defect would have a very, very difficult time making it to a reproductive age due to the dangers all around them. If individuals with this defect don't reproduce, their mutations won't be passed on to future generations and will eventually disappear. In our society today and advanced societies from the past, these people are considered handicapped and "protected" for lack of a better word. You wouldn't send a hemophiliac out to go hunting, they could trip fall and suffer fatal internal bleeding. Therefore, the trait remains in the population, multiplying. The more our society advances, the easier life these "handicapped" individuals can have, increasing their survival rates and allowing them to reproduce. In true natural selection defects weed themselves out through death of the "weak."

Yet... Hemophilia crops up almost exclusively when we inbreed. At least the probabilities go way up. But like I and others have said, many of the "goofs" kill before any chance of reproduction. Why would they still be in there?

DNA is made up of a random series of base pairs, if you want to understand it look into it. These base pairs are responsible for the proteins produced in cells which make up all properties of various life forms. The differences in the sequences create the differences in species. Mutations in these sequences change over time through replication mistakes, radiation and other things. If the mutation is advantageous to the individual it will be more likely to survive longer and pass on its new advantageous trait because it reproduces more (keep in mind this happens over a long period of time). If the mutation causes a disadvantage then the individual won't survive or reproduce as much, as earlier stated. If you ask how these molecules in DNA arrange themselves, that goes into chemistry and how molecules arrange themselves in the most energetically favorable conformations (again if you want to know more look into it). All evolution is a random process, every combination could have existed, does exist, or will exist in the future, theoretically. Some of these combos are viable for life (as defined by us) but many are not. The genetics fit to survive in this world do and the ones that don't, don't survive. Its a cruel world but that is how it goes.

I understand this, and that is why I said I could go for 200 "defects." I would not expect much more than that to develop. 4,000 just seems WAY over the top for evolution - which got it so right everywhere else... And even Humans have been known to kill the weak...

Just saying it's a matter of numbers.

The high number of different genetic diseases makes sense because the more we interfere with natural selection through therapy and medicines, the more genetic defects there are going to be, I can't really put it any other way, you either get it or you don't.

reply to post by Farnhold


That book is a number of things. One is my novella, The Abundance Paradigm, which I used to illustrate the paradigm in action (science "fiction"). Other things my co-author wrote - any section that does not say "by Amaterasu" is by him. He is an inventor. We are working together to make this a better place for Human Beings.

Originally posted by ModestThought
The high number of different genetic diseases makes sense because the more we interfere with natural selection through therapy and medicines, the more genetic defects there are going to be, I can't really put it any other way, you either get it or you don't.

But We really only had any major ways of "interfer[ing] with natural selection through therapy and medicines" over the past few hundred years. These are defects We have carried with us over millennia. One would think that we would have had a beginning stock to work with that didn't have more than (at most) 100 issues. Sure, we may have doubled that with helping out those born with the defect. But clearly, before we got into modern times, from records, it is clear that Humans have always been beset with a very wide array of issues - many that cause stillbirth, infant or child mortality.

I just can't reconcile so many.

Originally posted by Amaterasu


I understand dominant/recessive - all creatures have such. They often are the disease carriers. That is not the point... Chimps, who share 98% of what we have, have a handful of issues. Humans show over 4,000, some related to this phenomenon and some from other genetic influence.

You don't find that odd?

You do realize that for a long long time we have been caring for our sick, and developing medicines, and medical care, and that this has allowed individuals to reproduce and pass on genes that in a species without culture never would have lived long enough.

You people are totally overlooking how caring for one another allows a lot more crap to accumulate in our gene pool. People do not seem to have any problem understanding "eugenics" when traits are being CULLED from the population, but they are utterly oblivious to how our care and preservation of the weak, the sick, the flawed, allows "bad" genes to proliferate in the gene pool.

We have also for thousands of years been circumventing female choice as a mechanism for ensuring good genes, by forcing women to breed with men for political and culturally imposed reasons. So for instance in a ape group, the dominant genetically superior male will father most of the infants. But in human society, the custom of monogamous marriage that women often have little say in means males in nature would never have been chosen to reproduce, get to, and pass on their less than stellar genes.

In short, there are lots of very logical reasons we have more crap in our gene pool, mostly relating to culture. You dont need genetic engineering by a third species to explain it. At all.

Illusionsaregrander, thank you for not only paying attention in biology, but also using logic to verify what you were told and expand on the knowledge you gained.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

But We really only had any major ways of "interfer[ing] with natural selection through therapy and medicines" over the past few hundred years.

No we didnt. We have been keeping the sick and ill and infirm alive and in the gene pool at LEAST since the Neanderthals. Probably longer.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Researchers found that groups living in Europe between 500,000 and 40,000 years ago took care of sick or wounded individuals over a period of many years.

The interdependence of early communities, who would hunt and eat together, let to an emerging commitment to the welfare of others.

The University of York study, published in the journal Time and Mind, examined archaeological remains to see how emotions emerged from our ancestors.

The researchers' evidence showed how a child with a congenital brain abnormality was not abandoned but lived until five or six years old.

It also showed how a Neanderthal with a withered arm, deformed feet and blindness in one eye was taken care of for up to two decades.

I have been workin with this theory since the early mid-90's when a theory I had, largely based on the first paragraph of chap. 6 of Genesis and other theories, someone suggested sounded like Sitchin, and said no more. I immediately looked up Earth Chronicles online then read Sitchin's first book, 12th Planet.

I never accepted Sitchin as gospel, indeed after laying out his general theory he spits out a lot of "possibilities" to consider but doesn't suggest they are all true. I like his general theory and have read others on the subject he seems to have kicked-off.

Our rapid technological advancement over the past one hundred years or so along with our industrial capabilities have advanced sufficiently to question "expert opinion" on the Sumerian tablets, Bible, and other matters, that were well-established BEFORE this tech advancement. I believe we have come to a time when biblical and ancient "miracles" can be understood for what they actually are.

I have spent a decade and a half postulating the Sitchin, et al general theory and can't dismiss the overall picture, just some specifics that have not been proven and some disproven. The overall picture provides the "missing link" not only in man's evolution but the link between science and religion. the skeptics, however, nitpick away at details that many of which don't hold sufficient water, then dismiss it all offhand. Many, it seems, do not want to spoil their fairytale about "God", his Son, and the angels, etc.

Anyway, I believe we are the Children of God in my own non-religious sense, and await the day for the Children to come into their own and take adult responsibility in this matter and not run to big Daddy and Big Bro J-man. My own take is that overall it is plausible, it is the simple answer to long-complicated problems in finding our origins. My advice to the Children of God is GROW UP! and assume your proper role in the big picture. Spend the time proving this piece by piece instead of as a skeptic protecting your child's tale.

S&F!

Originally posted by downunderET
We didn't evolve from monkeys, thats for sure, and if you believe god made us, then so be it.

We did not evolve from monkeys. We and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor.

Originally posted by Jomina
The fact that we, as humans, have inherent into our DNA many genetic diseases that KILL before breeding is possible states that we have been modified somewhere in the line.

Seriously. How is a genetic defect that will kill before breeding is possible passed down to the next generation? So that it can become part of the genetic makeup?

According to current theory on evolution, that is a blatant impossibility.

Perhaps we did have many more genetic diseases. But, unlike other species, we advanced and strengthened working together in groups, protecting ourselves (and the weaker in our tribes). We got smarter about growing and storing food. We evolved. Perhaps these developments affected the rates at which all diseases appeared within our ancestors' progeny. Maybe there were many genetic diseases for which the population couldn't or wouldn't support. Maybe these victims were killed, left to die or simply died too young to reproduce. These particular genetic abnormalities may have been eradicated this way.

Every aspect of the theory of evolution, I don't believe, can be described by the phrase "survival of the fittest." That is but one aspect. Evolution also includes the concept of random mutations. If a random mutation occurs that evolves into a genetic disease (and it may do this because it may not manifest "damage" to the product of reproduction until very late in its path) and those stricken with this disease are protect and treated ... humanely ... this genetic trait may be passed on. Also, genetic diseases aren't a matter of one gene being the bad gene. Dominant and recessive traits may be attached to sequences that code for a variety of physiological aspects that may not have anything to do with the specific disease.

It does not appear conducive for humanity to tolerate any genetic diseases which we can eliminate. However, on the other hand, medical technology and most especially compassion have created circumstances by which many parents (and society as a whole) elect to produce and support children who may be stricken with genetic diseases.

man has two paths ( at least) of evolution
the physical and the mental

without the programing the machine is what it is

it is said god(s) gave man fire
this would influence mans dna in various ways
since it has been shown words effect dna, even the story of gods effects evolution
( also religious prohibitions can effect a whole society and modify its genetic make up...
say, by killing all the witches, erm midwives..)

reply to post by Jomina


just because a genetic disease is passed on that can kill before breeding doesnt mean it will always be expressed every time it is passed down to the offspring, sometimes it lies dormant or is suppressed by the offspring because of their lucky combination of genes that give them a upper hand on the disease but they may not pass those same lucky genes to every single offspring they produce.

reply to post by downunderET


how is it so impossible that we were genetically engineered seeing as the technology does exist today so that means has always existed, we just didnt know how to do it yet, until recently, and another thing is how is it so hard to believe that we didnt evolve from monkeys if you dont believe in the genetically engineered theory i mean overtime natural selection occurs over and over again with favorable genes getting the best chances of being passed on to the point were all these little changes overall add up to a drastic comparative difference between the ancestors and the much further lineages that followed which can be classified as evolution at that point. To deny evolution when you look at it from that point of view is like looking at the sky and saying o thats not blue because my mother who was color blind always told me its not, we are smarter that our parents and their parents and much smarter than their parents meerly because of all the knowledge and technology weve accumulated since their times and with all this new information it is time to make a new speculation on what is our reality, a new theory for our existence, our purpose and were we came from, and stop living under the superstitions of the past primative cultures who lacked the knowledge that we have today.

Here is an EXCELLENT related thread, which helps establish your points. I also agree, that the "gods" came down and genetically manipulated us. Or what we where. I believe this occurred roughly 200,000 years ago when "mitochondrial Eve" was buried. IMO, the alien(s) took a handful of primitive man in a handful of different regions across the world and mixed their DNA into primitive man. This eventually spawned a new race (or races) of man, who eventually interbred and killed off Neanderthal (primitive man).

Related Thread


And a good related youtube video.