We came from Martians

[MeteorWayne]

The variations between the groups you describe are immeasurably small. That variations withing the groups are far greater than the variations between them

This is old school belief that has been debunked by scientists fully during the past few years. The Internet is filled with modern info about this matter. Drugs are being manufactured today for spesific ethinc groups because of variations.

Please show me some debunking then. From what I've read (and I read a lot) drugs are beginnning to be manufactired for specific genomic variations, not ethnic ones specifically.

 

[aphh]

I put these keywords in Google: drugs ethnic groups, and a lot of information about testing of drugs for spesific ethnic groups came up. Remember, that this is pretty new course that has only been taken for a few years now.

If you want to do more research about the recent findings about human genome and variations in it, you should be able to find recent info.

Here's one link about a recent study, very recommended reading: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... etics.html

 

[dragon04]

Those are the things that compel me to keep an open mind and thought to an "external influence or source" that just might have stopped by to check up on their handiwork about 6,000 years ago.

I was thinking more along the lines of them stopping by 6,000 years ago, only to find that Neanderthal, or whoever it was ......... failed ... essentially died off. Our aliens would then conjure up some new DNA configuration that had a greater chance of survival ......... man.

Nah.... Because we can trace H. Sapiens back what... 40k years, and we know to a certaintly that H. Neanderthalis was a distinct species of man.

However, that does not preclude "outside intervention". Even 10K years ago, Man was capable of learning anything we can teach today. Their brains were as developed as ours; their database was just smaller. IOW, the wheel needn't be reinvented. A rudimentary education would have put Man on the right technological road and events could then play out on a "natural" time scale.

But that's speculation. There's no evidence to support the hypothesis.

 

[ArcCentral]

Those are the things that compel me to keep an open mind and thought to an "external influence or source" that just might have stopped by to check up on their handiwork about 6,000 years ago.

I was thinking more along the lines of them stopping by 6,000 years ago, only to find that Neanderthal, or whoever it was ......... failed ... essentially died off. Our aliens would then conjure up some new DNA configuration that had a greater chance of survival ......... man.

Nah.... Because we can trace H. Sapiens back what... 40k years, and we know to a certaintly that H. Neanderthalis was a distinct species of man.

However, that does not preclude "outside intervention". Even 10K years ago, Man was capable of learning anything we can teach today. Their brains were as developed as ours; their database was just smaller. IOW, the wheel needn't be reinvented. A rudimentary education would have put Man on the right technological road and events could then play out on a "natural" time scale.

But that's speculation. There's no evidence to support the hypothesis.

There are plenty of options here if we take on the alien as our creator, at least as to when we were created.

It is quite possible that a rudimentary education was given.

 

[aphh]

It seems odd that just one specie truly broke the learning barrier. I don't mean elephants with artistic abilities, but rocket building and atom splitting capabilities.

Could it be, that having witnessed cataclysmic events, we were given faster learning ability to try and prevent ourselves from getting roasted in another cataclysmic event.

Pure speculation, ofcourse, with no science to support.

 

[quantumnumber]

We were not created by a god, aliens or martians.

 

[sacr3]

We were not created by a god, aliens or martians.

unless you explain to me how all this came to be, Where the "big bang" hot ball came from. Where was it sitting? Why is this here? Why did this all happen? You cannot tell me "God doesn't exist". I mean for crying out loud we don't even know where the energy is coming from that drives atoms.. that doesn't allow them to stop at all.

My family believes in a Supreme Being and I respect that 100%. Why? because as of right now we don't know why this is here. What was before, etc.

But the Aliens/Martians.. I have my doubts, for sure.

 

[quantumnumber]

I am glad we both agree about the aliens/ martians.

There are more theories about how this universe and life came to be besides the big bang. Many people think in terms of black and white. Only two possible event that could have happened, a supreme being creating the universe or the big bang, but there are more possibilities that just this. ie. a multiverse could exist.

 

[redroars]

My first job after getting out of the military was a TV repair man. The most important lesson I learned right off the bat was to look for the obvious because the unusual is almost never the problem.

Geometry is build complete from postulates and by making basic assumptions an entire useful mathematical system emerged. I believe that the answers to many of our problems are knowable by applying rational thought.

We know that there are a lot of unexplained phenomena and that is the greatest proof that we do not yet know everything there is to know. But it does not mean that anything is possible. If anything was possible then that would mean no order, rules, or patterns in the universe. The very order of what we do know implies that not everything is possible.

So we must ask what is more likely and where should we put our attention so that we are not just wasting our time on useless speculation. For instance why try to prove that the Easter bunny actually hides eggs.

I believe such things as UFO sightings, telepathy, ancient astronauts and many other credible phenomena actually exist so my question is how can these things exist?

God has a major problem of always having existed and being ultimately intelligent since forever with no beginning. This is not logical thought. I know that religious folks think that is a though straight from the devil because to them to question God is a sin. Blind faith is anti scientific thinking and cannot and will not ever discover the means to anything.

So the question remains, how did our human intelligence develop?

 

[quantumnumber]

How did our human intelligence develop? I think that life is the result of random cosmic events that happened. Dying stars exploded which is where the carbon and other necessary elements for the formation of life came from. Eventually DNA was formed out of these elements and things evolved from it. I do believe that there could be aliens out there somewhere because if there is life here, then there could be life other places, but all I know is that our human intelligence most certainly did not come from aliens.

 

[bearack]

I pretty much give equal footing to an Earth with evolution only, and an earth with alien design, both would take many moons to accomplish. Actually I'm leaning toward alien design more, because the fossil record looks gappy to me.

I do agree that the potential for Alien intervention in Human evolution is a possibility. I just find it hard for a race that became a space fairing race in our own solar system, with a dying planet not taking advantage of a habitable planet right next door to them.

 

[bearack]

How did our human intelligence develop? I think that life is the result of random cosmic events that happened. Dying stars exploded which is where the carbon and other necessary elements for the formation of life came from. Eventually DNA was formed out of these elements and things evolved from it. I do believe that there could be aliens out there somewhere because if there is life here, then there could be life other places, but all I know is that our human intelligence most certainly did not come from aliens.

I don't know about that. Our planet could have been seeded just like we have proposed in the past of storing DNA samples of all life here on Earth on Mars, incase of a catastrophy here.

Also imagine our planet getting destroyed, but DNA or bacteria attaching to debris of remaining pieces of earth. And if this bacteria survived in hibernation and traveled millions of light years to another habitable planet. Our DNA from here would spread and evolve on that planet. All speculation of course, put a potential.

 

[origin]

So the question remains, how did our human intelligence develop?

Simple - evolution. We are just very clever apes. No big deal. We think we are somehow above nature or special because we have abnormally large brains, sorry, but I don't think so.

It is just like a cheetah thinking they are special because they are so fast and wondering why they above all other creatures were blessed with this incredible ability.

Or a giraffe noting that it is special because it has the longest neck.

We have big absurd looking noggins, that's it.

 

[quantumnumber]

Bearack, I still don't know about the whole coming from martians / aliens idea, but you do have a good point. I can't seem to think of anything you said that I disagree with.

 

[aphh]

How did our human intelligence develop? I think that life is the result of random cosmic events that happened. Dying stars exploded which is where the carbon and other necessary elements for the formation of life came from. Eventually DNA was formed out of these elements and things evolved from it. I do believe that there could be aliens out there somewhere because if there is life here, then there could be life other places, but all I know is that our human intelligence most certainly did not come from aliens.

If you take a vacuum cleaner and empty the content of the dust carrying bag on the carpet, how many times would you need to repeat that before something useful results?

We can't even replicate synthetically the most basic protein molecule with it's biological functions.

 

[aphh]

Simple - evolution. We are just very clever apes. No big deal. We think we are somehow above nature or special because we have abnormally large brains, sorry, but I don't think so.

It is just like a cheetah thinking they are special because they are so fast and wondering why they above all other creatures were blessed with this incredible ability.

Or a giraffe noting that it is special because it has the longest neck.

We have big absurd looking noggins, that's it.

Why didn't other apes evolve just like we did? Only one specie broke the learning barrier, not even two or three species?

Cheetah or giraffe barely have a sense of self - their functions are hard-coded in their genome. Cheetah or a giraffe knows he's hungry or when he or she has to mate, but that does not mean they know they are a Cheetah or a giraffe. The actions that result for a Cheetah for feeling hungry come instinctively.

I try to give a small example; let's say you are driving a car and suddenly somebody runs a red light and you need to do a emergency maneuver to stop or avoid a collision. You do not think one bit that you have to brake hard or steer away, you just do it instinctively. That's how it works for Cheetah all the time.

The only animals besides human and big apes that are supposed to have a rudimentary sense of self are dolphins, whales and perhaps elephants. All have large brains too. They supposedly can do some thinking and relate themselves to other beings.

 

[MeteorWayne]

If you take a vacuum cleaner and empty the content of the dust carrying bag on the carpet, how many times would you need to repeat that before something useful results?

We can't even replicate synthetically the most basic protein molecule with it's biological functions.

That's one of the dumbest analogies I''ve ever seen in my life.

 

[aphh]

If you take a vacuum cleaner and empty the content of the dust carrying bag on the carpet, how many times would you need to repeat that before something useful results?

We can't even replicate synthetically the most basic protein molecule with it's biological functions.

That's one of the dumbest analogies I''ve ever seen in my life.

It may sound dumb at first, but it's still valid. We are nothing more than tiny interactions between molecules and atoms and particles, according to evolutionaries.

Big bang shook the dust bin and somehow everything came to be.

The more I study natural sciences, the more obvious it has become that there are enormous empty spots in science that nobody knows what makes it tick. Yes, we see the effect of the phenomena but can't tell what causes it.

The enormous complexity of proteins and living cell are just one example. That just came to be by shaking the dust bin?

 

[quantumnumber]

"If you take a vacuum cleaner and empty the content of the dust carrying bag on the carpet, how many times would you need to repeat that before something useful results?

We can't even replicate synthetically the most basic protein molecule with it's biological functions."

Aphh -Indeed a terrible analogie. Who knows, maybe a big bang didn't occur, maybe it did. People always think in terms of black and white, that a creator created the universe or the big bang happened, nothing else could have happened. Maybe something else could have occured. Maybe there is a multiverse and or our universe was born a different way, for example "a universe in which, at random points in space and time,spontaneous breaking occurs. At each point where breaking occurs, a universe is created which inflates a little. Most of the time, the amount of inflation is minor......It also means that our universe might have budded from a previous universe." (Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds) I think that the existence of life is just a lucky cosmic accident.

 

[origin]

The only animals besides human and big apes that are supposed to have a rudimentary sense of self are dolphins, whales and perhaps elephants. All have large brains too. They supposedly can do some thinking and relate themselves to other beings.

And we have evolved more complex cognative abilities than these animals, but it is just a different level of the same thing.

 

[origin]

It may sound dumb at first, but it's still valid. We are nothing more than tiny interactions between molecules and atoms and particles, according to evolutionaries.

Big bang shook the dust bin and somehow everything came to be.

The more I study natural sciences, the more obvious it has become that there are enormous empty spots in science that nobody knows what makes it tick. Yes, we see the effect of the phenomena but can't tell what causes it.

The enormous complexity of proteins and living cell are just one example. That just came to be by shaking the dust bin?

It still sounds dumb.

Life is not the result of a random pile of stuff that is thrown together, it is the result of natural laws under the right conditions. It was probably (but not necessarily) a fortuitous set of circumstances in conjunction with the natural laws that first allowed life to be created. Once life is created the natural process of evolution takes over.

Your anology can be applied to quartz crystals - pour a pile of sand on the ground and you won't get a quartz crystal. You need the right environment in conjunction with natural laws (thermodynamics, etc.)

 

[aphh]

It still sounds dumb.

Life is not the result of a random pile of stuff that is thrown together, it is the result of natural laws under the right conditions. It was probably (but not necessarily) a fortuitous set of circumstances in conjunction with the natural laws that first allowed life to be created. Once life is created the natural process of evolution takes over.

Your anology can be applied to quartz crystals - pour a pile of sand on the ground and you won't get a quartz crystal. You need the right environment in conjunction with natural laws (thermodynamics, etc.)

Let me elaborate a bit,

you speak about 'natural laws' above. Where did they come from or who created them?

Unless the natural laws, the tiny interactions between molecules and particles, came out just right in the big bang, somebody has been doing some creating, right? There are no natural laws, the laws are just our perception and agreement of how things work formulated in math.

I will refine the vacuum cleaner analogy a little bit to make my point;

Take a fully completed Rubik's cube who's all sides are uniform color, as they should. Now disassemble the Rubik's cube to it's pieces, put the pieces in a bag, shake the bag and empty the pieces on the floor.

Two things should happen to result in a fully finalized Rubik's cube; first in the first shake (the Big Bang) the pieces and parts of the Rubik's cube should atleast acquire "natural laws" for themselves that would allow the pieces later to assemble themselves to a fully made Rubik's cube on the next time or third time (or 10^47th time) you shake the parts and empty the bag.

Nevertheless, the end result should be a fully finalized Rubik's cube.

 

[quantumnumber]

nobody has ever done any creating.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Take a fully completed Rubik's cube who's all sides are uniform color, as they should. Now disassemble the Rubik's cube to it's pieces, put the pieces in a bag, shake the bag and empty the pieces on the floor.

Two things should happen to result in a fully finalized Rubik's cube; first in the first shake (the Big Bang) the pieces and parts of the Rubik's cube should atleast acquire "natural laws" for themselves that would allow the pieces later to assemble themselves to a fully made Rubik's cube on the next time or third time (or 10^47th time) you shake the parts and empty the bag.

Nevertheless, the end result should be a fully finalized Rubik's cube.

Let me make sure I'm understand your analogy. Are you saying that the pieces are randomized each time you "put them back in the bag and shake them". If so that's not how evolution works. In a very crude fashion it's more like the yellow pieces stick together whenever, however they are brought into contact. You shake the bag to allow motion to carry yellow to yellow and from time to time look in the bag to examine the progress of things sticking together. What you don't do is rip apart things that have stuck together and redo the experiment 10^47 times.

 

[aphh]

If after the first or second or 10^47 shakes the yellows seem like they are starting to form something you still need to put them in the bag aswell, but naturally you don't need to tear apart something that the "evolution" had managed to cobble up.

But if the yellows then get disassembled again to single pieces, you just have to give evolution another try.

Remember, that in this test Big Bang first laid the foundation and created natural laws that the pieces could obey and form functioning structures that could evolve into more and more complex structures in just the right conditions aided with a lot of good luck.