We came from Martians

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aphh

Guest
If evolution worked step by step, right elements found each other to form molecules that then found other molecules that together formed a block that could be further used as a building block for more evolved complex... how is it possible that there were no fundamental errors in the process that didn't accumulate and prevent a functioning protein and cell from forming?

Like this Rubik's cube test, how did evolution manage not to fuse greens and yellows into blocks that didn't prevent uniform colors from forming? Otherwise the evolution would have needed to go back to where the error happened and continue from there, but evolution has no logic.

There is no supreme being taking a peek in the bag to see what's mixing and guiding the process and correcting errors, so how did evolution recover from errors?
 
O

origin

Guest
aphh":1vm6prja said:
There is no supreme being taking a peek in the bag to see what's mixing and guiding the process and correcting errors, so how did evolution recover from errors?
If the errors were beneficial then the organism would flourish and reproduce, if the errors were a detriment then the organism would die and not reproduce.

This conversation would proceed much quicker if you would learn something about evolution as it is taught in a science class and not how it is misrepresented by fundamentalists. If you reject evolution on religious grounds that is fine but you are going to have a hell of a difficult time trying to dispute evolution on scientific grounds!
 
Q

quantumnumber

Guest
I agree with what Origin is saying. Not all errors are bad. Also, what accounts for the fact that there is only a 2.7 % difference between the human genome and chimpanzee genome? or the fact that organisms evolved to have a better chance of surviving. like the fact that giraffs evolved to have longer necks? Natural selection drives evolution. Giraffs that had a shorter neck were less likely to survive as long as giraffs with a longer neck, which allowed the giraffs with the longer necks to reproduce more often than the short-necked ones thus producing many more offspring with a longer neck than a shorter neck. Eventually their necks got longer and longer. And of course, there are many more examples of this. This is how life came to be as it is today, through natural selection and evolution.
 
A

aphh

Guest
origin":21j0fnso said:
aphh":21j0fnso said:
There is no supreme being taking a peek in the bag to see what's mixing and guiding the process and correcting errors, so how did evolution recover from errors?
If the errors were beneficial then the organism would flourish and reproduce, if the errors were a detriment then the organism would die and not reproduce.

This conversation would proceed much quicker if you would learn something about evolution as it is taught in a science class and not how it is misrepresented by fundamentalists. If you reject evolution on religious grounds that is fine but you are going to have a hell of a difficult time trying to dispute evolution on scientific grounds!
I look at this from the perspective of a molecular scientist (I study biochemistry in the university).

I think you base your perception of evolution on some really rudimentary laws of physics, like what Newton formulated. The complexity of nature becomes obvious only when you look under the hood.

We can create some of the 20 basic aminoacids in a laboratory when we do all sorts of tricks to the elements, like give them electric shocks etc to mimic the conditions that supposedly took place in the very start (millions of years of heavy lightning may have contributed to the formation of life).

But a single protein or polypeptide may be built of 124 aminoacids in not random order, but in exact correct order that makes the protein tick or function biologically. We can not do that artificially in a laboratory, even with the logic that we have. Nature has no logic, it is all in the tiny interactions that somehow made the parts fall in to places that created the protein molecule.

Of those 124 aminoacids in the polypeptide chain each has a function. If you remove one aminoacid from the chain the protein stops working. It is more amazing when you learn that of those 124 aminoacids 30 may reside inside a cell's wall so that the outer part of the peptide chain can act as a link to maintain metabolism in a living cell. The process involves various enzymes and substrates and is so complex that it is mind-boggling.

After realizing that you have to start thinking if all that could have happened without logic (nature has no logic, only tiny interactions between molecules and particles. Only humans have sufficient logic with the current knowledge).

According to evolutionaries, all this must have happened almost by accident (Big Bang) that miraculously created the "natural laws" that allowed tiny interactions in the first place. Only after that the evolution even had a chance to start creating someting using energy principles where pieces fall into places in the most energy efficient way.

All I am saying is that we really don't know what happened. It is all speculation at this point, so it is best to keep an open mind and try to add to the knowledge bank to finally allow connecting the dots.
 
A

aphh

Guest
quantumnumber":1sxtjzcx said:
I agree with what Origin is saying. Not all errors are bad. Also, what accounts for the fact that there is only a 2.7 % difference between the human genome and chimpanzee genome?
More interesting question to me is how that 2.7% allows building rockets and learning about quantum mechanics.

quantumnumber":1sxtjzcx said:
or the fact that organisms evolved to have a better chance of surviving. like the fact that giraffs evolved to have longer necks?
Nature has no logic, nature only has purpose. Nature itself knows nothing about survival or evolving. Otherwise there would have to be a supreme being that uses logic, but we have no evidence of that.

Nature follows energy principles, where pieces fall into places in the most energy efficient way. If a functioning block formed that way, that allows it to grow more complex using again nothing but the same energy principles, then that is evolution.

If you say that nature knows something about it's own survival, that there is a "survival instinct" in the molecular level, then that would be an indicator of a supreme being, but there is no such thing. Atleast we have found no evidence.

quantumnumber":1sxtjzcx said:
Natural selection drives evolution. Giraffs that had a shorter neck were less likely to survive as long as giraffs with a longer neck, which allowed the giraffs with the longer necks to reproduce more often than the short-necked ones thus producing many more offspring with a longer neck than a shorter neck. Eventually their necks got longer and longer. And of course, there are many more examples of this. This is how life came to be as it is today, through natural selection and evolution.
Before you can have something that looks like a giraffe, you need to have a living cell. And even the structure of living cell is so complex that with all the logic that the humans have, we can not replicate it artificially.

Yet life formed somehow. We don't know how.
 
A

aphh

Guest
Now I have a better analogy; life and evolution is a computer software that learned to program itself! Line by line after trial and error useful chunks of code would eventually form, which would then fall into right places to allow the software run error-free.

Yes, we should be able to model formation of life using a computer. First we need to instruct the software code about "natural laws", though.

Wait! Now there is already a supreme being fiddling with the principles, so it's not going to work. ;)
 
O

origin

Guest
I look at this from the perspective of a molecular scientist (I study biochemistry in the university).

According to evolutionaries, all this must have happened almost by accident (Big Bang) that miraculously created the "natural laws" that allowed tiny interactions in the first place. Only after that the evolution even had a chance to start creating someting using energy principles where pieces fall into places in the most energy efficient way.

All I am saying is that we really don't know what happened. It is all speculation at this point, so it is best to keep an open mind and try to add to the knowledge bank to finally allow connecting the dots.
As a scientist of biochemistry you know perfectly well that 'evolutionaries' don't need to consider the big bang or abiogenesis. These are 3 completely different theories. I don't understand why a scientist like yourself would confuse a lay person like myself by mixing these completely different theories together.

Lets assume that God made the Big bang and created the universe. This does nothing to support or invalidate evolution. Actually there are many people who beleive this.

Lets even assume that God magically made the first bit of life, again this does nothing to support or invalidate evolution.

Evolution is one of the most well proven concepts science has. The exact mechanism is where the theory part comes in.

Science does not assume the supernatural is responsible for the natural. It may be universe started with a supernatural act, but I tend to doubt it.

Man has hsitorically attributed his lack of understanding to the supernatural. When people got sick it was thought this is a punishment from god. We now have removed illness from the realm of the supernatural. Floods and drought were thought to be divine punishment but now we know what drives the weather. People use to fear comets as a supernatural sign of doom and now comets are seen as a fascinating light show.

In the dark past it was generaly though that God was responsible for everthing in our daily life. Science has explained much of our world and removed the superstition of everyday occurances. The things that God is responsible for (the things science cannot yet explain) has decreased dramatically. God has shrunk to a god of gaps.

If you were a betting man and you bet on the supernatural as an explanation for the unknowns in the past you'd be broke. I am going with the history and assuming that for the current unknowns there is a natural explanation, not a supernatural expanation.
 
Q

quantumnumber

Guest
"Man has hsitorically attributed his lack of understanding to the supernatural. When people got sick it was thought this is a punishment from god. We now have removed illness from the realm of the supernatural. Floods and drought were thought to be divine punishment but now we know what drives the weather. People use to fear comets as a supernatural sign of doom and now comets are seen as a fascinating light show.

In the dark past it was generaly though that God was responsible for everthing in our daily life. Science has explained much of our world and removed the superstition of everyday occurances. The things that God is responsible for (the things science cannot yet explain) has decreased dramatically. God has shrunk to a god of gaps.

If you were a betting man and you bet on the supernatural as an explanation for the unknowns in the past you'd be broke. I am going with the history and assuming that for the current unknowns there is a natural explanation, not a supernatural expanation."

This is all very true. Also, a God, the Bible, and everything like that is a bunch of fake stories about how life came to be. How can I even come close to believing those stories when the church has been wrong before? One great example of the church being proven to be wrong is when it thought that the sun revolves around the Earth. Later on as we all know, it is proven that the Earth revolves around the sun. People like it(the idea of the existence of a supreme being / creator) because the ideas are comforting. It would be kind of nice to know that our universe was created by a God, but unfortunately none of that is true.
 
Q

quantumnumber

Guest
"More interesting question to me is how that 2.7% allows building rockets and learning about quantum mechanics."

Unfortunately I don't have the answer to this question nor can I come up with one.


"If you say that nature knows something about it's own survival, that there is a "survival instinct" in the molecular level, then that would be an indicator of a supreme being, but there is no such thing. Atleast we have found no evidence."

I didn't say that nature knows something about it's own survival.
 
O

origin

Guest
One great example of the church being proven to be wrong is when it thought that the sun revolves around the Earth. Later on as we all know, it is proven that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Which is precisely why the Catholic Church has officially accepted that evolution is an accurate theory (the whole Galileo thing did not turn out well for them). Even a religion can learn from it's mistakes - sort of an evolution in itself.
 
A

aphh

Guest
quantumnumber":1416iq1y said:
It would be kind of nice to know that our universe was created by a God, but unfortunately none of that is true.
I'm not a God advocate, but I have found that there are still huge unknowns in our knowledge. Before those unknowns become known, it is best not to give generalizing statements like above, that can not be substantiated.

Your claim is a belief in itself, not a scientifically proven fact.

Big Bang may be God's work or may be not, but we don't know about that. So it's best to keep searching for the truth.
 
Q

quantumnumber

Guest
"I'm not a God advocate, but I have found that there are still huge unknowns in our knowledge. Before those unknowns become known, it is best not to give generalizing statements like above, that can not be substantiated.Your claim is a belief in itself, not a scientifically proven fact. Big Bang may be God's work or may be not, but we don't know about that. So it's best to keep searching for the truth."

All right, you do have a good point.

Here is one question that no one has ever been able to answer for me, if a God or creator exists, then who created the creator?
 
Q

quantumnumber

Guest
"Which is precisely why the Catholic Church has officially accepted that evolution is an accurate theory (the whole Galileo thing did not turn out well for them). Even a religion can learn from it's mistakes - sort of an evolution in itself."
origin

I honestly never knew that. One major step foward for science!
 
J

Jumanji

Guest
To add to the ID argument going on at the moment, I heard they say that, out of all things every scientist understands as a whole, we only understand 1% of the universe. I don't know if this is true or not, I figure it's less than that.

ArcCentral":38sje168 said:
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. :)
As much as I enjoy a good UFO story or a good ghost story, I have to be skeptical about things like this.

The reason the fossil record is "gappy," is due to the fact that we don't quite understand how fossilization works, but because of the wide variety of environments we have on Earth, and ones we had, might alter how fossils are formed. We've had some fossils with just bones, and others with bits of flesh attached. Also, a lot of organic material, under the pressure and heat of the Earth, have changed to become other kinds of material (i.e. coal.) This is the best I can do to explain the gappy fossil record.

bearack":38sje168 said:
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.
For conspiracy theory refs, look up the apocryphal books of the Bible, then interpret them as a sci-fi thing. 'Nuff said.

Any ways, as a previous user stated, their job would be purely observational, or should be. If most of our mythologies were based off of omniscient lifeforms watching us, they were doing a poor job of not getting caught.
 
A

aphh

Guest
quantumnumber":hn7ax4st said:
All right, you do have a good point.

Here is one question that no one has ever been able to answer for me, if a God or creator exists, then who created the creator?
That is a good question and the only rational answer that comes to mind is Evolution. Evolution that formed logic allowed a specie to rise to a higher level of existence and become a creator.

It starts to sound like some New Age cult, but if you think about it, the only known beings in the universe currently with logic are humans and we want to become a creator, modifying the existing and perhaps create something totally new.

We are the "supreme being" at the moment and we should use the gift of logic to try and rise to the next level of consciousness and also help other species who have no logic to follow but need to rely on trial by error to survive and evolve.

It is easy to get fooled by nature to think that some complex mechanism follows logic, when it only follows purpose. Take honeybee, forexample. They act seemingly rational in what they do, but all they do is still just a nature's own software code that the honeybee follows. A honeybee is a bio-robot, like most other species. Programmed for a certain functions.

Without logic to help honeybee to make decisions based on observations, it is in constant danger to become extinct, if the environmental parameters in which honeybee's code only works change suddenly and dramatically. This is what ultimately drives extinction of species, they are unable to alter their course or habits when required by changes in their environment.

Only known specie currently with logic to help decision making is human. We are the "supreme being" at the moment, capable of altering our course and habits when required by changing and adjusting to environmental factors. But we can not do very well without honeybee and other species, so we need to use our logic to try and help lesser species to thrive aswell.
 
Q

quantumnumber

Guest
"That is a good question and the only rational answer that comes to mind is Evolution. Evolution that formed logic allowed a specie to rise to a higher level of existence and become a creator.

It starts to sound like some New Age cult, but if you think about it, the only known beings in the universe currently with logic are humans and we want to become a creator, modifying the existing and perhaps create something totally new.

We are the "supreme being" at the moment and we should use the gift of logic to try and rise to the next level of consciousness and also help other species who have no logic to follow but need to rely on trial by error to survive and evolve.

It is easy to get fooled by nature to think that some complex mechanism follows logic, when it only follows purpose. Take honeybee, forexample. They act seemingly rational in what they do, but all they do is still just a nature's own software code that the honeybee follows. A honeybee is a bio-robot, like most other species. Programmed for a certain functions.

Without logic to help honeybee to make decisions based on observations, it is in constant danger to become extinct, if the environmental parameters in which honeybee's code only works change suddenly and dramatically. This is what ultimately drives extinction of species, they are unable to alter their course or habits when required by changes in their environment.

Only known specie currently with logic to help decision making is human. We are the "supreme being" at the moment, capable of altering our course and habits when required by changing and adjusting to environmental factors. But we can not do very well without honeybee and other species, so we need to use our logic to try and help lesser species to thrive aswell."

I agree with all that you are saying. Indeed the human being is the "supreme being" at the moment. Also, I don't believe that there was ever a powerful enough creator to create our universe and the life within it, and possibly creating a multiverse. To me, that seems impossible, so yes, we are the supreme beings at the moment.

What do you mean "rise to the next level of consciousness"? What is the next level of consciousness?
 
A

aphh

Guest
quantumnumber":v3v9666c said:
I agree with all that you are saying. Indeed the human being is the "supreme being" at the moment. Also, I don't believe that there was ever a powerful enough creator to create our universe and the life within it, and possibly creating a multiverse. To me, that seems impossible, so yes, we are the supreme beings at the moment.

What do you mean "rise to the next level of consciousness"? What is the next level of consciousness?
Perhaps logic was always present in the universe and humans are merely the current manifestation of logic?

Therefore it is our duty to try to rise to the next level of consciousness, so that the logic could survive even if everything else was wiped away by cataclysmic event. There are all sorts of things that we would need to accomplish, like harnessing energy to terraform planets.

Terraforming a planet would give a new platform and opportunity for logic to flourish. It would be "God's job", so to speak.

If we really were the only beings in the universe with logic right now, don't you think it is a quite the responsibility to try to keep the logic alive and improve it? Being the "supreme being" at the moment brings with it tremendous responsibility that we haven't fully understood yet.
 
Q

quantumnumber

Guest
aphh":33kqpoka said:
quantumnumber":33kqpoka said:
I agree with all that you are saying. Indeed the human being is the "supreme being" at the moment. Also, I don't believe that there was ever a powerful enough creator to create our universe and the life within it, and possibly creating a multiverse. To me, that seems impossible, so yes, we are the supreme beings at the moment.

What do you mean "rise to the next level of consciousness"? What is the next level of consciousness?
Perhaps logic was always present in the universe and humans are merely the current manifestation of logic?

Therefore it is our duty to try to rise to the next level of consciousness, so that the logic could survive even if everything else was wiped away by cataclysmic event. There are all sorts of things that we would need to accomplish, like harnessing energy to terraform planets.

Terraforming a planet would give a new platform and opportunity for logic to flourish. It would be "God's job", so to speak.

If we really were the only beings in the universe with logic right now, don't you think it is a quite the responsibility to try to keep the logic alive and improve it? Being the "supreme being" at the moment brings with it tremendous responsibility that we haven't fully understood yet.
Indeed it is quite a responsibility to try to improve logic and keep it alive. I am not really sure about the whole logic always being present in the universe. I think ever since we came into existence, it is the first time that logic is present.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
I really don't see what this has to do with the subject of the thread "We Come from Martians"
 
Q

quantumnumber

Guest
"I really don't see what this has to do with the subject of the thread "We Come from Martians" "

Honestly I don't either, sorry for getting off topic so much.

Anyways, the fact remains, we did not come from martians, kind of a silly idea to me.
 
A

aphh

Guest
MeteorWayne":3k0c07wq said:
I really don't see what this has to do with the subject of the thread "We Come from Martians"
Perhaps there was a supreme being before us with logic, who originated from Mars? What if Earth is their terraforming project?
 
Q

quantumnumber

Guest
"Perhaps there was a supreme being before us with logic, who originated from Mars? What if Earth is their terraforming project?"

I hope I am not offending you, but that comment is really hilarious! One of the funniest things I ever heard!
 
A

aphh

Guest
quantumnumber":2or3uwod said:
I hope I am not offending you, but that comment is really hilarious! One of the funniest things I ever heard!
Why is it hilarious that we may be the only God there is right now? But there may have been other Gods before us and we may owe our existence to them.

This is just as good explanation as any other, but atleast I used logic to come to this conclusion.

Also, why do people want to believe in tooth fairy and Santa Claus, but not in human being? I'm pretty sure that if we abandoned the cynicism and started to have a little bit of faith in ourselves, this world would become a better place.
 
Q

quantumnumber

Guest
Sorry about my rude remark earlier. There may have been other gods before us, but I don't think we owe our existence to them. Things live and die, come and go. We did not come from martians. People don't really want to believe that tooth fairyies and santa clause exist, kids are the only ones that want to believe those things exist. Maybe adults don't want to believe in them, they just want to make life more fun for their kids. Anyways, we still have yet to prove the existence of martians, and now that I am thinking about it, maybe human beings should keep their minds open, including myself. I still have much to learn about keeping my mind open to the many possibilities.
 
R

redroars

Guest
I am much more likely to believe in superior beings that we mortals would consider gods if they developed right here in our solar system, than the belief in some universal god ie. the God of our entire universe, which most of you will admit is quite large, is a pretty big stretch for even the one true God.

Extremely advanced civilizations would seem to us as gods just as we would appear as gods if we could somehow visit earth a mere 1000 years ago. I started a blog to discuss some of these facts in more details. You can get the address from my profile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY