Are humans created to be the perfect food source for a carnivorous alien race?

reply to post by chiefsmom


ya

I dont think so, we are waaay too chewy. And dont get me started on the crunchy bits.

Originally posted by chiefsmom
Would make a cool Sci-Fi movie.

You mean like War of the Worlds?

This isn't a new theory, and it does seem to make some kind of sense when we look at the supposed alien interaction throughout the years - disabling weaponry, monitoring nuclear sites, even way back with reports of Gods arriving on chariots in the sky or from the water to tell people how to survive a disaster...

It's a common theory that there is an alien race watching us and stepping in occasionally. Of course, many think of them as guardian angels trying to help us from a distance, but it could actually be selfish in nature.

I change my mind on these things pretty regularly. Sometimes I think we are a natural creation, no different to the trees around us and the energy flowing through the smallest life (we just see ourselves as more important and more intelligent when we're just another part of a larger being), and at other times I think we probably were created, or at least moved here for the survival of a species that was facing extinction. After all, if we knew that the Human race was going to be wiped out in 100 years by a global event that was beyond our control, we would be sending missions to Mars within ten years and building colonies to keep our species going.

The thing that makes me think this idea of being a food supply is wrong is the time it takes, and the risks to the "harvest". We HAVE activated nuclear weapons in the past, we have developed chemical and biological weapons, there have been nuclear accidents which have harmed hundreds of thousands of people, there are a hundred and one diseases that could wipe out 90% of the Human race... that doesn't sound like good crop management to me.

If we are a crop to be harvested, why haven't we ever seen such a harvest, why have we been allowed to create weapons able to destroy the entire crop, and why have "they" allowed us the opportunities to become aware?

If I were that species, I would want a docile and highly fragmented animal, clustered in groups and not in the lest bit powerful. You wouldn't want your food fighting back, and if true they have allowed their crop to become far too powerful for their own good.

All they would have needed to do was prevent the launch of satellites, or rockets, or stop the development of the internet, or TV, or stop ships from travelling too far... there are so many instances where they have failed to keep their "crop" under control that it makes the idea of it being true highly unlikely.

Originally posted by billdadobbie

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
You might be onto something if there wasn't already overwhelming evidence that we evolved from chimps.

If humans did evolve from Chimps, then what happened to the Chimps that are still Chimps and didn't evolve ?

reply to post by Raxoxane

I forgot to add something of great interest,which ties in with your thread.Patience will be needed though,this is not a 3-paragraph article,but it's my opinion that anyone who has the slightest interest in an alien race/ufo/abduction theory,should read this article at least once in their lives.Please pardon the old shaman the fact that there is an association with David Icke(who seems to be unfavorably looked upon by many here,i myself has not read much of his stuff,so i cannot yet say what i think of him in general,and i won't go by the opinion of others) It would seem that Icke sought out this old shaman,and not the other way around,anyway.

Mr.Mutwa touches on many subjects in this article,but chiefly on matters which ties in to this thread.And really,all the matters he discuss seem to form a cohesive whole.It is well worth the read.

www.whale.to...

we are being abducted because in the passed kings of old written in egyptian tombs and scrolls as well as summarian texts and such.

Written *legends* about kings and such that lived thousands of years.
The reason for this is because Anubis the god of death and the underworld (the alien species known as skin walkers) made these kings with a gene that granted them immortality.

Now this gene allowed them to retain a human body that could live thousands of years.
The reptillians or the Pleiadians (greys) were made to die as normal humans do. But these kings were blessed.
And that kinda ticked them off because lucifer was jelly that the humans were reciving all of daddys attention. Not to mention something a greedy race would really really really want. Is to not die. They fear death more than anything.

When these pleiadians speak to us they tell us a bunch of half truths and a bunch of lies. Because of their agenda to completely dominate us take what they want and to eliminate us before we become a threat and chase them through the cosmos.

The last war that happened a huge number of their species was hit by a bio-engineered virus created by Osiris. Or Jaguar and Hunter of the maya hero twins. Whom shot the crowned feathered serpent (owl) knocking his teeth out and his rainbow plums. Turning it into a teethless bald bird. These are the birds we have now.

All avians were effected by this species targetted virus. Some reptillians were immune to this virus and these are the *ancient draconians* that resemble the dragons discribed by Alien whitnesses. These would be the royal blood line as all others have been genetically turned into multch. But Yet these beings return for what ever punishment will be placed on them. So that is why greys look like that. And they are ashamed to admit what they are and so tell us they were *created* by the reptillians and instead of the truth where they are the alterned *shamed* fallen angels. Good riddance. But they are persistent. And are trying any and all hybridization programs in order to force a mutation of that gene to surface. As everyone is closely related because we all came from the same turtle island which was one of the exits of the city of heaven AKA the sheild of Atlantis from which all the survivors hid in the * hollow earth* that is actually these massive city complexs created by Anubis and his demons for his followers to survive from the flood and any of the previous destructions forgotten or scarly written about.

We only know of Atlantis, This could of been the very first dynasty. There could of been many civilizations to rise and fall beyond that time frame as well as many invasions. The only consistancies in this generation are all the current monuments on earth. They will not last this tourmoil and will become ruins therafter. So in conclusion all the temples and pyramids on earth were made around the same time. At least all the major complexs to my knowledge. The tree of life is in reference to the Pleiades tree or the tree of knowledge from which the snake temped man and woman. * because the snake wanted immortality* and in the bible it mentions immortality is stripped. And this happened after they were cast out of Eden. The gene was suppressed because Anubis was angry that we did this. This is why god often appears in the old testament as a roaring lion. Because they are shapeshifters and the lion is one of his favored forms. Its all in conjuction with Orion. With Unas. With all these kings and such. They live in Orion creating new stars with the nursery they set up there. You can google it most of our knowledge of stars came from watching Orion.

They are constantly trying to teach us to conquer our fear of the darkness. Because we live in darkness. And they want us to accend from darkness into it. TO finally see the universe and the truth. The ultimate beautiful truth any being would want. And its such a beautiful truth. They feel the need to spread it to the beings struggling to understand. But then theres the serpents. Who just don't know how to say no. And sadly we had to see the wrath of these beings. But its all for the betterment of humanity. Everyone screams for truth. They shall have it.

Originally posted by AussieDingus



If humans did evolve from Chimps, then what happened to the Chimps that are still Chimps and didn't evolve ?

We didn't evolve from modern Chimps. We share a common ancestor with modern Chimps, from which we evolved separately.

One surprising conclusion, therefore, is that it is likely that the African apes have evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor, which thus makes living chimpanzees and gorillas poor models for the last common ancestor and for understanding our own evolution since that time.

www.science20.com...

www.nature.com...

Originally posted by Slugworth
He made several, and was not generally optimistic about the possibility of heavier-than-air flying machines. Here is an interview where he discussing his opinion on it: Utter Impracticability of Aeronautics & Favorable Opinion on Wireless. In the interview he briefly explains his theory:

"Do you think it possible," I asked him "for an airship to be guided across the Atlantic ocean?"

"Not possible at all," he replied.

"On what ground do you think that the airship is impracticable?"

"Because no motive power can drive a balloon through the air."

"Your objection, as I understand it, rests upon the unwieldiness of the balloon, but how about the aeroplane? Do you think that that is practicable?"

"No; no more than the other."

See also: Clarke's first law

We are talking about scientific theories and you bring up an article where they ask his opinion. Where does Kevlin refer to his opinion as fact (practical or scientific)? Clarke was a British writer, his "laws" are not facts of reality. Kelvin didn't see airplanes as possible because our technology hadn't even come close yet. We didn't even have cars at the time, so the idea of airplane seemed impossible to him, and he made his opinion. There was no scientific theory based off it. Red Herring.

So a fact can be verifiable, yet not be absolute? If a fact is verified, but later discovered to not be absolute this means that the initial verification was flawed and that it was never really a fact at all.

No, it means something changed in the universe to change the fact.

Some of the world's most highly regarded physicists are publishing papers that cast doubt on the existence of gravity.

Theoretical physics is not based on verifiable facts. They are mathematical theories that try to explain the universe. They are in no means at all verifiable or fact. String theory IS NOT a scientific theory. Once again, a red herring. Learn your scientific terminology instead of attempting to nitpick my posts. Gravity might have different causes, but it still exists, and anyone who doubts it is perfectly welcome to jump off a cliff and test it. It is fact. Just like how scientists can measure mutation rates and map genomes to verify evolution. They might one day find other causes of evolution, but it would still be evolution unless mutations stop happening.

You seem confused about the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

No. Clearly YOU are. I posted the definition of a scientific theory and quoted it directly. Please stop twisting definitions around, you are incorrect. Theories are based on verifiable phenomena, hypotheses are educated guesses. It's already been explained. You are claiming a scientific theory is the same as a layman's theory. It's NOT. It's based on verifiable facts as I have clearly explained and demonstrated.

If an intervention does not prove or disprove evolution, the logical converse of that would be that evolution does not prove or disprove intervention. You are arguing in favor of the possibility of intervention, whether you realize it or not.

Yes, Intervention does not prove or disprove evolution, just like evolution does not prove or disprove intervention. I never claimed it did either way. I claimed that your attacks on scientific theories and evolution were not grounded in reality, and so far you haven't given me a reason to think otherwise. I'm still waiting for you to provide me with a scientific theory that has been proven wrong.

Time is relative, and perception of time is subjective. Is 7 million earth orbital periods a long time? Relative to what? According to which life form's subjective perception? You are making assumptions about the relevance of 7 million years, and the nature of time itself.

Time is NOT relative, but yes the perception of it is. 7 million years is a long time when compared with our lifetimes. I'm not assuming anything, but if you are suggesting that some being can perceive time that drastically different you need evidence. 'What if' statements and guesses in the dark are not scientific theories and they don't disprove evolution. What reason do you have to suggest one being would experience time on a 1000/1 or higher level while living on the same planet. How would they do experiments and tests if days passed like seconds? The only way this type of thing is possible is through time travel.

It absolutely qualified as a scientific theory when there was no method to disprove it. This is how science works. Again, science is not a collection of facts or knowledge. It is only a method, we can use the flat earth model to illustrate its application...

Scientific theories have to be falsifiable. Please tell what experiments they used to verify flat earth and what evidence could have falsified it at the time. This is NOT how science works. Science is a method, but we have a huge database of knowledge because of it. A database of scientific facts.

Hypothesis: The earth is flat
Experiment: Stand on a beach and observe the horizon without the aid of equipment (optics, etc) or knowledge of geometry or astronomy, testing for signs of curvature. There is no measurable curvature, because the equipment and knowledge necessary to observe such a curvature does not yet exist.
Theory: Evidence indicates that the earth is flat.

I didn't ask for your theory on why you think they believed flat earth. Please quote me the scientific research papers that verified this. Also, if it's not falsifiable, it's not a scientific theory. Evolution is falsifiable, because if a single fossil out of the millions we have found was found in a different time period (dinosaur with mammals or microbial ancient life with humans, etc etc) it would instantly falsify evolution if verified. This has never happened. What similar things existed that could falsify flat earth theory? Who is the scientist that developed it? I want all the details. Thanks.

You are comparing human brains to those of other species that preceded humans. I suppose I was unclear in my statement, and will clarify it by changing a single word:

Homo sapiens sapiens intelligence has increased without significant physical evolution.

The articles that you linked to not dispute this statement. Additionally, there is no other species that has experienced a comparable increase in intelligence while remaining the same species.

We had an increase of technology and knowledge. Not an increase of intellectual capability. If an extinction level event happened on earth tomorrow it would all be gone, and if a handful of humans survived, they would be back to square one and probably have to rediscover everything.

I was not aware that all of this had happened. The best research that i could find says that 5.8 billion people (84%) are religious. Regarding the advancement of science, very few people truly understand scientific method outside of the scientific community. You are obviously interested in science, and no doubt intelligent, but even you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding about what science is really about, or at least a few misconceptions.

It's alright. You probably weren't aware of the dark ages either, where scientific thought was discouraged and people were tortured and executed for even suggesting that evidence might show anything even slightly deviating from the holy texts. I wasn't saying that religion was gone, I was saying that it released it's strangle hold on society. Please stop accusing me of not understanding the scientific method simply because I call evolution the fact that it is. You have presented no facts to back up your side here. I'm not even opposed to alien invention but when people say something like "there is no proof of evolution in humans", I have to show them they are dead wrong. There is ample proof, and when I post it, it gets dismissed or ignored. If there was a plausible alternative theory I'd be all about considering it. The problem is, there is not.

If you name one, along with its unique trait, I will explain why it is not unique. Prove me wrong.

How about you first prove yourself, right. And no doubt you will stretch the truth and grasp at straws to debunk whatever unique creature I post. Brain is not unique to humans, but you consider that having an advanced brain is. How is that any different from a cheetah having advanced running ability? The cheetah can run 70 miles per hour (20 mph faster than a lion. big difference). No other creature on land can run that fast. Please explain how that is not unique, but advanced brain ability is. I already know your response will be that other creatures run fast, but if so I can counter with other creatures being intelligent. Either way, you're going to have to commit a logical fallacy or set double standards to debunk this.

The Horned Lizard sprays blood out of its eye socket as a defense mechanism.

The Pistol Shrimp uses it's claw to shoot its prey with a blast of hot bubbles that knocks it out.

I guess you'll be able to find other creatures with those abilities. Good luck.

It depends on what you mean by "genius". If it were smart enough to make camouflage it would blend right in. If it were smart enough to build armor or shelter it could protect itself from predators. If it were smart enough to build simple weapons it could subjugate the white mice. If it were smart enough to manage its kingdom of white mouse subjects it could make them do work in tiny mouse mines, harvesting materials for the little mouse factory building a fleet of the cutest little fighter jets that you've ever seen, armed with guided missiles that could kill every predator that comes near it.

Please explain to me how a field mouse makes tools. They don't have hands. They don't have opposing thumbs so they cannot build advanced things. It has no vocal cords to communicate beyond squeaks so language is impossible, they can't write without hands, this makes things very difficult for even a mouse with human level intellect. Again, you're just playing devils advocate, and ignoring the primary points. You need more than just high intelligence. That was my point.

Re: Kelvin & Clarke - Kelvin's statement was given as an example of an educated and respected scientist who made unquestionable contributions to his field who was guilty of occaisonally slipping into non-scientific thought and making a statement of fact based on incorrect assumptions. Clarke's "laws" are not an example of a scientific principle, but a philosophical one about dogma and preconception acting in opposition to science.

If a fact is verified, but later discovered to not be absolute this means that the initial verification was flawed and that it was never really a fact at all.
Response: No, it means something changed in the universe to change the fact.

For a very long time the standard of mass measurement for much of the world was a single barley grain and its derivitive equivalents. If you wanted to weigh something the most precise measurement possible was +-1 barley grain. Later the grain was replaced by other units, and eventually the grain was defined by SI as 64.79891 mg. If you had a marble that weighed exactly 65mg when the grain was the standard its weight was define as "1 grain", even though its actual weight is 0.99690630769 grains. The marble did not change, but the method of observation did.

THEORETICAL PHYSICS is not based on verifiable facts. They are mathematical theories that try to explain the universe.

Evolution theory (theoretical biology) is not based on verifiable facts either. It is a theory. If your argument is that science is based on verifiable facts, and theoretical physics is not based on facts, then you are arguing that theoretical physics is not a field of science and, therefore, theoretical biology is not science either. How could they be if they are not based on facts? The answer is that they are both scientific schools of thought, facts have nothing to do with science, and in fact science abhors the concept of "fact". Theoretical anything is science in action.

You are claiming a scientific theory is the same as a layman's theory. It's NOT. It's based on verifiable facts as I have clearly explained and demonstrated.

I made no such claim. If a theory meets standards of scientific rigour then that is all that matters. A layman's theory is nothing more than an attempt at science that fails due to flaws in observational methods or deductive logic, or one that contains assumptions of facts. This is basically what you are doing when you argue that science is rooted in fact: You are creating a layman's theory about the scientific method.

Logical converse? So reversing a statement now makes it automatically true?

I did not state or imply that. I said that it illustrates a possibility, but made no assesment of the truth.

Intervention does not prove or disprove evolution, just like evolution does not prove or disprove intervention. I never claimed it did.

I never claimed that it did either. Why are you defending yourself against accusations that I did not make?

Time is NOT relative, but yes the perception of it is.

Relativity of time has been observed. Furthermore, nothing can be measured unless it is measured relative to something else. The very act of measuring something means to compare it to some external standard, and express its value relative to the other standard.

I'm not assuming anything, but if you are suggesting that some being can perceive time that drastically different you need evidence.

You are assuming that I was referring to an organisms perception of time, when I was actually suggesting that an organism could live for 500 billion years, thus making 7 million years a relatively insignificant amount of time from its perspective. I do not need evidence to suggest a possibility, but you do need evidence to prove it impossible.

Science is a method, but we have a huge database of knowledge because of it. A database of scientific facts.

If science currently includes a database of facts, as opposed to observations, then there is no need to continue studying anything that has already been explained. Those are facts, so why question them?

If Newton's theories were scientific then they were, according to your definition, facts. If they were facts then all of the post-Newtonian physics that disprove his theories are incorrect. If they were not facts, and the post-Newtonian physics are correct, then Newton was not a scientist. The truth is that Newton was a scientist and his theories were supported by the best evidence available to him. When new observations, new evidence, and new methods of interpreting those observations and evidence arose his theories were proven incorrect. This does not mean he was never a scientist, or that his theories were "layman's theories".

I didn't ask for your theory on why you think they believed flat earth. Please quote me the scientific research papers that verified this.

Earth Not a Globe was published by Samuel Rowbotham and was based on his Bedford Level Experiment. His theory and observations were flawed, and later disproved.

We had an increase of technology and knowledge. Not an increase of intellectual capability. If an extinction level event happened on earth tomorrow it would all be gone, and if a handful of humans survived, they would be back to square one and probably have to rediscover everything.

Why did our technology and knowledge increase, but no observable increase occurred in any other species? If an extinction level event happened on earth tomorrow and I were the lone survivor I would not be back to square one. I would still have knowledge of bacterial infection and how to avoid it by cleaning wounds and boiling water, how to make a battery out of a lemon, why the moon goes through phases, and lots of other bits of knowledge that I have accumulated. I would still be way ahead of any other creature on earth in my understanding of nature, and certainly way ahead of the smartest scientists from antiquity in many respects.

You probably weren't aware of the dark ages either, where scientific thought was discouraged and people were tortured and executed for even suggesting that evidence might show anything even slightly deviating from the holy texts.

I'll disregard the insulting implication that I have not heard of the dark ages, which have been determined not as dark as commonly believed, and instead quote a respected scholar on the topic, David Lindberg

But the late-medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led.

Source: Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction
See also: Dark Ages

I'm not even opposed to alien invention but when people say something like "there is no proof of evolution in humans", I have to show them they are dead wrong.

I never said there was no proof of evolution in humans. I am arguing that evolution does not sufficiently explain the development of humans, and why our evolution is so different from that of other species that come from the same environment. Evolution is not wrong from top to bottom, it is just incomplete because it does not recognize or attempt to explain the differences between human intelligence and the intelligence present in other animals, and therefore is ignoring an easily observable phenomenon.

Regarding my claim that no example exists of a single trait completely unique to a species:

The Horned Lizard sprays blood out of its eye socket as a defense mechanism.

The Horned Lizard is not a species, it is the common name for an entire genus of lizards. The autohaemorrhaging trait is not unique to a single species, but is found in at least four distinct species within that genus. Furthermore, autohaemorrhaging is not unique to horned lizards. There are snakes that possess the same trait.

The Pistol Shrimp uses it's claw to shoot its prey with a blast of hot bubbles that knocks it out.

Again, not a species. The Pistol Shrimp is the common name for an entire family of shrimp, consisting of about 600 species in 38 genera. Most of them carry the pistol claw trait. You are pointing to a group of 600 species that have a common trait.

Please explain to me how a field mouse makes tools. They don't have hands. They don't have opposing thumbs so they cannot build advanced things. It has no vocal cords to communicate beyond squeaks so language is impossible, they can't write without hands, this makes things very difficult for even a mouse with human level intellect.

They do have hands. Thumbs are not required to build things. They are capable of vocalization, but there are many non-vocal methods of communication possible.

Sounds like we are only debating semantics now. Is the Cheetah also a "group of species" that share the same trait? Funniest thing about this is the fact that 60 extremely similar species existing is evidence for evolution. You are just referring to technicalities with classification of organisms. Those 60 species of shrimp originally came from one, where the trait first emerged. That is the species I am referring to. And if you're going to quote species in the same genus, then don't use double standards as human ancestors were in the same genus as well. You are looking for some magical technological evolution to make chimps progress as a society when their brains are half the size of the human brain. For that comparison you would need to know the complete history of chimpanzees and of homo sapiens. Unfortunately we only know the last 10,000 years are we're still fuzzy on many of the details. It's an illogical comparison, and is completely irrelevant to the validity of the modern synthesis. I'll address the details later.

reply to post by Barcs

Sounds like we are only debating semantics now.....You are just referring to technicalities with classification of organisms.

Taxonomy (aka technicalities with classification of organisms) is not semantics, it is science in the strictest definition. I claimed that there is no example in nature of a trait that is completely unique to a single species, and the claim has not been refuted. In fact, both of your examples (the lizards and shrimp) illustrated the point quite clearly. Any trait that can be identified is going to exist across multiple species.

If you really want to refute the claim you could at least start by naming an example that is actually a species, instead of going with a genus or entire taxonomic family.

reply to post by Slugworth


You are seriously trying to tell me that the pistol shrimp and the claw trait did not come from a single common ancestor? It evolved separately in each one? Being in the classification 'genus' means pretty much exactly that. They all share a recent common ancestor.

You also ignored my first example of the Cheetah, now twice. Acinonyx jubatus to be exact. Funny, it's the only living member of its genus, just like homo sapiens. Funny, it appears to have a trait that exceeds all other genuses, just like homo sapien brain power. All of their recent ancestors and cousin species are extinct. Do you see the trend yet?

Besides, what are we even debating here? That organisms can or cannot develop unique traits? It's obvious as day that they did. Everything we are discussing is further evidence of the process of evolution.

As I mentioned in my first post, if aliens did it, they modified existing DNA in hominid ancestors, they did not create them from scratch. They would have used evolution as a tool to engineer humans. It wouldn't mean evolution was wrong or that it didn't happen in humans. It would mean that it's right, or the action would not have been possible in the first place.

You are seriously trying to tell me that the pistol shrimp and the claw trait did not come from a single common ancestor?

Of course they come from a common ancestor. Please quote the part where I said otherwise, or you could retract your erroneous description of what I am "trying to tell" you (you make such statements often). Whatever works for you. All I pointed out was that the pistol shrimp is not an example of a trait unique to a species, and I was accurate in doing so.

You also ignored my first example of the Cheetah, now twice. Acinonyx jubatus to be exact

The cheetah's ability to run is not a unique trait. There are countless other animals that run in the exact same way, using the exact same motion. If the comparison is made to human communication there is no comparable animal that is able to create abstractions of thought in the way that humans do. There is no other species that can pass information down 5 generations without directly communicating it from one generation to the next. I can read a book that the prior 5 generations chose to ignore. This is unique to humans. It is not a case of other animals not being able to communicate abstractions as well as us, but no other organism being able to do so in any capacity whatsoever.

Besides, what are we even debating here?

It started with my statement "Human evolution is unexplained by any theory". You took issue with this, and have been arguing against it ever since.

As I mentioned in my first post, if aliens did it, they modified existing DNA in hominid ancestors, they did not create them from scratch.

I can't seem to find the post where you said this, or anything similar to this. For what its worth, if you had said that I would have agreed with this possibility, though I would also be equally open to the possibility that all life on the planet was created specifically to foster human development for some unknown purpose. The only mentions that I could find from you of ET's modifying human DNA was when you said that the 7 million+ course of human development was indicative of their incompetence at gene engineering.

It wouldn't mean evolution was wrong or that it didn't happen in humans. .

Agreed. But would it have happened as quickly? I think the process was accelerated in some way, which is why we are so different from other terrestrial animals. I think the best possible explanation for how this could happen is intervention by a more advanced organism, if for no other reason than because science has already proven that genetics can be manipulated.

Originally posted by Slugworth
Of course they come from a common ancestor. Please quote the part where I said otherwise, or you could retract your erroneous description of what I am "trying to tell" you (you make such statements often). Whatever works for you. All I pointed out was that the pistol shrimp is not an example of a trait unique to a species, and I was accurate in doing so.

My point was that when the claw pistol trait first developed it was unique. You like to look at things exclusively as they are today, but past evolutionary history is relevant.

The cheetah's ability to run is not a unique trait. There are countless other animals that run in the exact same way, using the exact same motion. If the comparison is made to human communication there is no comparable animal that is able to create abstractions of thought in the way that humans do. There is no other species that can pass information down 5 generations without directly communicating it from one generation to the next. I can read a book that the prior 5 generations chose to ignore. This is unique to humans. It is not a case of other animals not being able to communicate abstractions as well as us, but no other organism being able to do so in any capacity whatsoever.

No other species runs as fast as a Cheetah. No other species thinks as deeply as humans. It's the same thing, just different traits that are better than others. There are plenty of other animals that are self aware, teach their offspring, and experience emotions. They have brains and think. They just aren't as advanced as humans in intellect. Yes, plenty of creatures run, but none run as fast as the Cheetah. It will win the race every time. Humans will out think another species any day of the week.

But why would you expect less intelligent species to achieve the same thing as humans? I still don't understand your point in the least. It's like expecting lions to make more progress in their running ability to keep up with Cheetahs. It's funny, there's actually another thread in this section about monkeys taking over the world and the article is about how apes understand the efficiency of the rocks they use as tools. They spend a lot of time on detail and thoroughly check and test each rock before they use it on their food. Now why wouldn't this information about selecting appropriate rocks to break the right food open, pass down more than 5 generations? Yeah, it's very basic information, but it's information nonetheless and apes are social animals. They operate as a group and even devise plans to trick humans and steal their food. I'd consider that intellectual progress. You will disagree because they can't read texts from 5000 years ago and learn advance math. Humans can think on a deeper level and they pass down much more complex info as one would expect.

I can't seem to find the post where you said this, or anything similar to this. For what its worth, if you had said that I would have agreed with this possibility, though I would also be equally open to the possibility that all life on the planet was created specifically to foster human development for some unknown purpose. The only mentions that I could find from you of ET's modifying human DNA was when you said that the 7 million+ course of human development was indicative of their incompetence at gene engineering.

Perhaps I'm mixing it up with a different thread. I believe I took issue with somebody saying that there's no proof of evolution in humans, or something similar. If intervention is true it happened along with evolution, it didn't magically replace it for the entire 7 million years that hominids developed from ancient apes. I thought that I mentioned something similar to that, but it may have been in one of the other threads.

I don't see any sudden changes in human evolution. I see the brain size slowly increasing over the years in hominids. If there was an intervention I'd expect sudden changes, rather than slow ones over time. Yeah, humans are more intelligent than any other creature, but it evolved over time just like all other traits in the animal kingdom.

No other species runs as fast as a Cheetah. No other species thinks as deeply as humans. It's the same thing, just different traits that are better than others. There are plenty of other animals that are self aware, teach their offspring, and experience emotions. They have brains and think. They just aren't as advanced as humans in intellect. Yes, plenty of creatures run, but none run as fast as the Cheetah. It will win the race every time. Humans will out think another species any day of the week. But why would you expect less intelligent species to achieve the same thing as humans? I still don't understand your point in the least.

Intelligence is not a straight line that goes from stupid to smart the way that running speed is a straight line from slow to fast. The comparison is inapplicable. Intelligence is not a quantifiable attribute like running speed. You cannot truly measure intelligence, or even define it in the way that running speed can be defined. There is no intellectual equivalent to a distance-per-time measurement. It is not hard to find a human who, for example, is a brilliant musician who is unable to repair a lawn mower, or a mentally-ill, uneducated, illiterate person who can repair the same lawn mower with ease.

The thing that makes human intellect unique is not that there is more of it. More and less are irrelevant comparisons when speaking about intelligence because intelligence cannot be reliably and objectively measured. The thing that makes our intelligence unique is the way in which we are smart, not how smart we are. It comes back to our ability to create abstractions of our surroundings in the form of art and language. The use of abstract representations of thought is the unique trait, not a vague and unquantifiable concept like "more intelligence".

Now why wouldn't this information about selecting appropriate rocks to break the right food open, pass down more than 5 generations?

It may be passed down, but it will be by direct demonstration. It is not possible for the first chimp to record an abstraction of his discovery for a descendant to interpret, utilize, or expand upon. If those 5 generations were raised in isolation from each other, thus removing the opportunity for direct demonstration, then the information could not be passed down. In the human intellectual process there is no need for direct demonstration. I do not necessarily need to personally interact with another computer programmer if I want to learn a programming language: I can read the reference documents written by others and teach myself via their recorded thought abstractions.

The cheetah's speed is a unique trait in the same sense that a giraffe's long neck is unique, but the giraffe's neck is still just a neck, and the cheetah is still just running. Every similar animal has a similar but shorter neck, and every similar cat has a similar but slower running ability. There is no primate or any other animal that has a similar, but less developed, ability to create symbolic abstract records of their own subjective thoughts.

Originally posted by Slugworth
Intelligence is not a straight line that goes from stupid to smart the way that running speed is a straight line from slow to fast. The comparison is inapplicable. Intelligence is not a quantifiable attribute like running speed. You cannot truly measure intelligence, or even define it in the way that running speed can be defined. There is no intellectual equivalent to a distance-per-time measurement. It is not hard to find a human who, for example, is a brilliant musician who is unable to repair a lawn mower, or a mentally-ill, uneducated, illiterate person who can repair the same lawn mower with ease.

You are misconstruing intellectual ability, with acquired knowledge and calling it 'intelligence'. Somebody could know how to repair a lawn mower and not be brilliant. It's not a complicated device in the first place.. humans can learn. But to an engineering genius that designs car or jet engines, it would be like a toy in comparison. They could probably narrow down a problem and fix it with their eyes closed. There is so much knowledge out there in the world, it is impossible to learn it all. That's why there are specialists in various levels of society. Being a 'brilliant' musician has nothing to do with anything as you are comparing vastly different field of expertise.

The thing that makes human intellect unique is not that there is more of it. More and less are irrelevant comparisons when speaking about intelligence because intelligence cannot be reliably and objectively measured.

Intellectual ability IS measurable via brain to body ratio and skull cranial capacity, and yes it IS linear, despite your denial. Yes there are smart and dumb people, because there is intellectual variance, but even the dumbest human is smarter than the smartest ape. Humans have bigger brain to body ratios and that's the reason why we have greater intellectual capability and knowledge progress than chimps.

The thing that makes our intelligence unique is the way in which we are smart, not how smart we are. It comes back to our ability to create abstractions of our surroundings in the form of art and language. The use of abstract representations of thought is the unique trait, not a vague and unquantifiable concept like "more intelligence".

So you are saying that brain to body ratio has nothing to do with "how" we are smart?

It may be passed down, but it will be by direct demonstration. It is not possible for the first chimp to record an abstraction of his discovery for a descendant to interpret, utilize, or expand upon. If those 5 generations were raised in isolation from each other, thus removing the opportunity for direct demonstration, then the information could not be passed down. In the human intellectual process there is no need for direct demonstration. I do not necessarily need to personally interact with another computer programmer if I want to learn a programming language: I can read the reference documents written by others and teach myself via their recorded thought abstractions.

What if 5 human generations were isolated from the incredible knowledge database that we have? Would they still know the same stuff? It's the same exact argument and you simply won't see it. Of course humans can create thoughts and ponder things. They have bigger brains, bottom line. How do you not see the connection? Bigger brain = more intellectual capability. More intellectual capability = more intelligent knowledge. It is indeed linear. If there was another creature with similar brain to body ratio and they hadn't yet figured out how to pass down advanced information, you MIGHT have a point, but there's no creature comparable besides human ancestors and cousin species that are now extinct.

Would you not expect a creature with double the brain to body ratio as humans to be able to think on levels we cannot comprehend, and progress intellectually at a much greater rate?

That should end the argument right there.

The cheetah's speed is a unique trait in the same sense that a giraffe's long neck is unique, but the giraffe's neck is still just a neck, and the cheetah is still just running. Every similar animal has a similar but shorter neck, and every similar cat has a similar but slower running ability. There is no primate or any other animal that has a similar, but less developed, ability to create symbolic abstract records of their own subjective thoughts.

Nail in the coffin right here. You say that the Cheetah's speed is unique like giraffe's long neck.. but the neck is a neck and running is running.. So why can't you say that the brain is a brain? You are setting double standards, again. The Cheetah's ability to run is not just based on running. It's based on body weight, muscles, airodynamics, heart size, and a whole bunch of other things outlined here on page 2:

science.howstuffworks.com...

And a Cheetah doesn't just run faster than other cats. It runs 20+ MPH faster, which is a BIG difference. Sorry, but if you can say "running is running" then I can say "a brain is a brain".

reply to post by Barcs

You are misconstruing intellectual ability, with acquired knowledge and calling it 'intelligence'. Somebody could know how to repair a lawn mower and not be brilliant. It's not a complicated device in the first place.. humans can learn.

Could Isaac Newton learn to repair a lawn mower? Perhaps, but it he would have quite alot to learn before he would be capable of making the repair. If Newton is less capable of repairing a lawn mower than an illiterate lawn mower repairman does this mean that the lawn mower repairman is more intelligent than Newton was? For that matter, is a modern engineer who designs cutting edge technology more intelligent than Newton was? The comparisons are unfair because Intelligence cannot be quantified objectively.

Intellectual ability IS measurable via brain to body ratio and skull cranial capacity, and yes it IS linear, despite your denial.

Brain to body ratio is not a measure of intelligence. Human Brain::body ratio is the same as a mouse, and lower than small birds and ants. Brain-to-body mass ratio.

What if 5 human generations were isolated from the incredible knowledge database that we have? Would they still know the same stuff? It's the same exact argument and you simply won't see it.

It is not the same argument. My premise was that those 5 human generations could be isolated from each other and still pass information without direct contact. You are confusing this concept of isolation with total isolation from all other human knowledge. Obviously, total isolation from all human knowledge would not allow them to learn from that knowledge. The point is that other species have no "database" to refer to. It is not a question of technology; the human database of knowledge began before the invention of the wheel.

Would you not expect a creature with double the brain to body ratio as humans to be able to think on levels we cannot comprehend, and progress intellectually at a much greater rate?

Not only do I not expect it, I can prove it. Small ants have a brain::body ratio more than 5 times higher than that of humans.

Nail in the coffin right here.

How dramatic!

You say that the Cheetah's speed is unique like giraffe's long neck.. but the neck is a neck and running is running.. So why can't you say that the brain is a brain?

Because there is a difference between intelligence and abstract thought. All animals demonstrate intelligence, and exactly one animal demonstrates an ability for abstract thought.

And a Cheetah doesn't just run faster than other cats. It runs 20+ MPH faster, which is a BIG difference. Sorry, but if you can say "running is running" then I can say "a brain is a brain".

1. How big is "big"?
2. How much smarter is a human?

If intelligence is a quantifiable entity then you should be able to give me a number, the way that you did with the cheetah's speed, that indicates how much more intelligent a human is. The number should be based on a metric that is not disputed and purely objective, in the same way that "20 MPH" is an indisputably objective measurement distance covered during time. If such a measurement cannot be provided about human intelligence there must be some reason why this is so. If brain:body ratio cannot be that measurement because, aside from being easily disproven through comparison to other animals, there is no significant difference between the brain sizes of the smartest and dumbest humans.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by AussieDingus



If humans did evolve from Chimps, then what happened to the Chimps that are still Chimps and didn't evolve ?

We didn't evolve from modern Chimps. We share a common ancestor with modern Chimps, from which we evolved separately.

One surprising conclusion, therefore, is that it is likely that the African apes have evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor, which thus makes living chimpanzees and gorillas poor models for the last common ancestor and for understanding our own evolution since that time.

www.science20.com...

www.nature.com...

edit on 21-5-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.

I wasn't actually referring to modern chimps. What I meant was, when [or if] we evolved from chimps at that time, then why didn't all chimps of that time evolve ? Evolution is usually classed as a forward progression, and if man evolved from ancient chimps, then men from chimps was the forward progression, yet some chimps remained as chimps.

Maybe i'm missing something very obvious and I will take that into account. But if we shared a common ancestor, then what was the common ancestor ? To know that we shared this ancestor, then we must know what the ancestor was ?