New DNA evidence to make the idea of DNA 'seeding' by ETs sound more plausible?

OK, I don't really believe that modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) were 'made' by ETs (though I do believe in ET contact), but this article might, in a weird way, serve to help out those who do believe in ET genesis...

It says that genetic evidence demonstrates that, at one point, the 'human' family was down to ONLY 2,000 members! Now, by 'human' they mean people, like us, who could speak and think, especially in abstract terms, not the the various other types of humans (in the genus Homo) who were around back then (in this case 70,000 years ago).

Now, and sorry if I'm not being clear, here, if DNA says that we all come from only 2,000 individuals, who lived among, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of other humans -- archaic homo sapiens, neanderthals, and erectus survivors -- does this knowledge seem to say that it's possible that ETs DID create humans, at least 'modern' ones?

Now, I'm not saying it proves the idea, just that it helps it and supports it, as 2,000 is a reasonable 'release' number for a genetically modified race... I've always ignored a lot of the stuff regarding ET interations with human evolution, becuase I mistakenly assumed that this would require manipulating hundreds of thousands of people over hundreds of thousands of years, but a one time modification and 'release' of 2,000 people seems doable. Also, how can 2,000 individuals come to overtake the world, in some cases against far greater numbers? Either they were significantly different -- better -- than their competitors, or someone was helping them.

Here's the link:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Yes, I know that this describes a 'bottleneck'... but, there's no way of knowing how many people existed before that bottleneck, and the numbers that survived it seem very, very low for a successful species. What I'm trying to get at, here, is that this number sounds like a starting off one.

Actually that makes things very plausible. 2000 individuals is perfectly viable number for a well established experimental group, and is well above the "survivor population" limit. Certainly is large enough to allow genetic diversity, and not have the "cousin" syndrome set in....

Since this is on my debate topic, I guess I should abstain from this thread though... sorry.

Actually, it doesn't. Lemme first give a reference ("Oh no! More Science!!!") and then 'splain in English.

Somewhere on the Anthro-L listserver, some anthropologists are discussing it: listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu...

(and my brain starts mumbling, "somewhere... just out of sight, the Anthropologists are gathering...")

Basically the argument runs like this: You have a limited number of individual lineages that show up in modern day genes... but this isn't necessarily a good way to determine who and how many. They see 2,000 SURVIVING lineages... but what they don't see are the ones that died out.

Let me put it into a simple context. Let's say that today we see just 4 lineages. BUT... this could have happened:

(lineages) (years ago)
ABCDEFGHIJK 10,000
ABCDEFGH 9,000 (IJK stomped by mammoth)
ABCDEFG 8,000 (H became infertile, died out)
ABCDEF 7,000 (G lineage dies in intertribal wars)
ABCDE 4,000 (F lineage dies out)
ABCD present (E lineage infertile, gone)

So, as they were discussing, this is not a good and accurate picture. They *might* be talking about Homo Sapiens sapiens and ignoring Homo sapiens neanderthalis (also alive at that time) and homo sapiens Hidelbergensis (ditto)


An interesting site: www.archaeologyinfo.com...

BTW, the H sapiens sapiens lineage could have married into the H sapiens hidelbergensis or h sapiens neanderthalis and those genes left the gene pool when those two human subspecies died.

good point about lineages..

But, other genetic studies have created 'maps' of where and how these surviving lineages moved. They show one group of people starting out in africa, then moving outwards.... Now, if we looked at this as just 2,000 surviving lineages, as opposed to a group of 2,000 people who spread outward, those maps wouldn't be able to show the human race radiating out of a central point. The problem with just seeing this as elimination from a larger number down to a smaller one is that those who survived have, in the interim between the time this study is talking about, have created their own lineages, which can be traced back, based on mutations, to a central group.

To do the alphabetical thing, my understanding is that it goes more like this:

70,000 years ago
A1E2E2E3E4E5F6F7G8G9H
A1A1E2E4F6F7G8G9
A1A1A1E2E4F6F7G8
A1A1A1B1B1E4F6G8
A1A1A1A1B1B1B1E4F6
A1A1A1A1B1B1B1C1C1F6
A1A1A1A1B1B1B1C1C1C1
Present day--
(where #1 is the trait used to track the 'modern' human poulation, and the letters are individuals).

Sorry to argue with the man of science, but this, and studies like, are not saying that there are only '2000 lineages' that survived to the modern era, but that these 2000 lineages all originated from the same source, branching off from each other around 70,000 years ago.

This discussion, in a way, mimics the out of africa versus multiregional one. And, so far as Sapiens breeding with neanderthal... my understanding is that most scientist now think that the two couldn't interbreed, and so were different species.

PS they calibrate the passage of time, here, through the rate of mutation and other things within DNA.

I'm not all scientific like the Byrd man..but I just don't see how we all came from the 2000 who were not known/named, basically we came from a mysterious race of 2000? I've never heard this before. I always thought we did evolve from the neanderthals? Or atleast that's what makes the most sense to me or is embedded in my brain to.

But really, to say that that mysterious race was ET, is just freaky! I do have a notion that some 'people' running around and living amongst us are ET's but not the entire human race. Wouldn't we look more like an ET type then the neanderthal if this was the case? *although I don't think we look a whole lot like neanderthals anyway*

I'm just not following this at all..too weird
Magestica

[Edited on 6/11/03 by magestica]

To clarify,
What I was trying to say was that some people in the UFO world think that the human race, as it exists today, was 'engineered' by ETs. They theorize that the sudden appearance of abstract thinking within human society, in a relatively short amount of evolutionary time, can be explained by a program wherein ETs geneticly enhanced or engineered some humans in the prehistoric past. These engineered humans went on, in this theory, to displace all other human types because they had superior planning abilities.

I admit I was a little unclear, but my thinking was that a study that shows that all living humans are descended from 2000 individuals, who lived in the same region, at the same time would go along way towards helping out the whole 'ET seeding' theory. Byrd was saying that it's not special for only 2000 lineages to make it to the modern world, as it's not special for only two teams to be left at the end of a tournament (due to elimination), but my understanding of the study is that it used DNA to trace everyone back to 2000 individuals who lived in the same general population. My thinking is that, if we (the ones who made it this far) all came from a group of 2000 people, and not from a larger, more widerspread, population, that the whole idea that ETs could 'create' a specific breed of people, then 'release' them on the Earth seems more plausible.

Look at it this way, the golden retriever is one of the most popular dogs in the USA. Yet, if you did a genetic analysis of it, you would find that its ancestry goes back to a few english hunting dogs. It's not as strong as the wolf (which is the animal dogs were first domesticated from), but it *may* be smarter than it. Now, the GR was bred by humans to be a clever dog that was good at aiding hunters, at first, and was later on bred to be good with children. It is, somewhat, unatural, as it is the product of intelligent selection. Now,,, if the GR was the ONLY dog in the world, and all the millions of them could be traced back to about 2000 basic retrievers, yet, at the same time, the GR appeared to have a lot of abilities which it wouldn't need to survive, then a Golden Retriver scientist might conclude that, somehwhere along the line, mythical 'humans' may have done something to separate GRs from the rest of the pack, so to speak (maybe this analogy is bad, but I think you know what I'm getting at).

I'm not saying that humans are ETs, just that ETs may have come along, thousands of years ago, and genetically manipulated 2000 archaic homo sapien embryos so that, when matured, they would have greater mental abilities than all other beings on the planet.

So far as Neanderthal (or Neandertal) is concerned, though people have believed for about a century that we may be his descendants, many modern scientist believe that the Neanderthal lineage died-out without descendents.

I hope I've made myself clearer, Magestica and Byrd

[Edited on 11-6-2003 by onlyinmydreams]

Ever since I was in 4th or 5th grade, I believed that we were created by extraterrestrials. I would seriously be surprised if we would find out that we weren't even "modified" by ETs. They are coming here for a reason; they meaning however many different "species" or whatever we should call them. They either come here to do tests on us, possibly "modify" us, check on us or a combination of those three.

No fault of yours though 'Only'..

So which species of aliens are they thinking we evloved from? The greys, the blues, the reptilian?
A sudden experience of abstract thought could result in possible abduction, but not creation IMO. "IF" we were genetically engineered by aliens, then why do we all look so different? If we came from a close knit 2000, wouldn't we all look pretty much the same? Same color eyes, hair color and so on?
And if we can be traced back to that mysterious 2000, then why do they have to be alien? Let's say that this is true..what makes them so sure that it was an alien race? So then the ones seeing aliens and claiming abduction and testing are the real humans or are they the descendant of the alien race?

Aliens seem to be way to fascinated in us humans to have created us. They seem just as curious to learn from us as we are from them. They seem to also be in a mutated state of the human or could be vice verse. I just cannot fathom this one at all. It makes about as much sense as us evolving from a ape.

Maybe this is just too new yet to fully understand and make sense of? But I'd have to say nope...next!
Magestica

It's not that those 2000 were aliens, but that they were 'modified' by the aliens.

Human DNA contains thousands and thousands of little bits of information. Changing just one or two can have a huge impact, though. The FOX2P gene, for instance, plays a major role in speech... people who have damaged FOX2Ps, for instance, have problems with speech, though the rest of their body is fine. The aliens would not, necessarily, have 'breed' with these prehistoric humans to create a hybrid race... they could actually have just altered or inserted little bits of DNA, and these modifications may have been what allowed humans to develop complex culture so rapidly, after going hundreds of thousands of years with the same basic mentality (as evidenced by the 'design' of their stone tools). So... these people would look like everyone else around them, but their brains would have functioned differently. Who knows, maybe genes like FOX2P were inserted, from scratch, into the human genome?

Now, I'm not saying that this study proves that aliens altered humans, just that it MAY, arguably, coincide with that idea.

So which species of aliens are they thinking we evloved from? The greys, the blues, the reptilian?

We evolved from the reptilians:

"It's similar to the brain possessed by the hardy reptiles that preceded mammals, roughly 200 million years ago. It's 'preverbal', but controls life functions such as autonomic brain, breathing, heart rate and the fight or flight mechanism. Lacking language, its impulses are instinctual and ritualistic. It's concerned with fundamental needs such as survival, physical maintenance, hoarding, dominance, preening and mating. It is also found in lower life forms such as lizards, crocodiles and birds. It is at the base of your skull emerging from your spinal column."

LINK: www.crystalinks.com...

INSTINCTUAL and RITUALISTIC-- this is the part of the brain where fear comes from.

Check out some of David Icke's videos to see how reptilian extraterrestrials have been present in our early history. Most world religions talk about "godly" individuals descending from heaven and interacting with human beings on earth. Some cross-breeding is even reported on ancient sumerian tablets.


[Edited on 13-6-2003 by MKULTRA]

Where in the hell do you people get this crap?

The only sensible person in this thread is Byrd, the rest of you are just a little out there in your beliefs.

Homo sapiens sapiens were not the only humanoids to develop sentience. Neanderthals were thought to be just as intelligent as we are. Our ability to think is not something that was given to us by aliens, it was because of evolution.

Our species almost died out because of the Ice Ages and competition but we survived and probably wiped out the other human species in our path to dominance over the world.

If aliens are here, they are probably doing nothing more than checking up on us from time to time to see how we are developing as a civilization. They are probably waiting for us to reach a certain stage of development before they make true contact.

Vander,
No one said that Homo Sapiens Sapiens were/are the only humans capable of abstract thought -- nor did I mean to say that they were the only ones with consciousness. All things being considered, I'd say that Byrd's opinion is probably right, but this is a message board dedicated to throwing ideas 'out there' for consideration.

As for Byrd's analysis, he was wrong when he said that the study just showed that 2000 lineages survived, because such studies are based upon re-assembling trees through the study of mutations that serve as 'markers' on genes. The reason I bothered to point that out was because Byrd often gives the 'straight facts' on science issues, here, but in some cases he debunks before looking at the evidence (as in a thread on the Columbia in the science forum).

Also, no one 'knows' what type of mentality the neanderthals had. The last time I checked, recent DNA studies showed that they lacked some of the genes necessary for articulate speech.

The new image of the neanderthals as gentle, wise giants is more a product of recent pop culture than hard science.

Yes but Neanderthals obviously had some sort of sentience, you don't need to be able to speak to show intelligence.

I know this message board is for throwing ideas out there, but you have to stay within the realm of common sense. There is a boundary that divides the ridiculous claims like this thread from the common sense based theories.

You can speculate about things but anytime you start saying that aliens made humans and other crap like that, you're throwing out all logic and common sense because it's simply not a plausible answer.

I don't know about anyone else but I would be quite interested in a defintion of "common sense", "ridiculous claims" and "common sense based theories".


regards
seekerof

Vander,
Well,
I guess you didn't take the time to read what i was saying. I didn't say that aliens 'made' humans from scratch, just that it's possible that, tens of thousands of years ago, they did some 'germ line' tinkering with our ancestor's DNA -- perhaps only modifying one or two genes -- and, because this tinkering gave them an advantage, we're here, today, typing on computers instead of banging rocks together.

So far as that being ridiculous... well, I guess you don't think that a lot of the stuff you see in science magazines is really happening, because, we, today, create organisms ALL THE TIME by playing with their DNA. Haven't you ever seen the photo of the rabbit that glows in the dark? It was created through genetic manipulation -- in this case the genes from a jellyfish (if I remember correctly) were inserted into its DNA by humans in a lab. I guess that poor little bunny doesn't exist, though.

And, so far as 'cavemen' go... the various types of humans that existed before modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved had a limited set of tools in their toolkit... they also went HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years between changes in that kit. A Homo Erectus in 700,000 BC had the same stone blades that his ancestor in 1,000,000 had. However (and has been pointed out by Dragonrider in his debate), within the last fraction of the history of Homo, we've gone from these same tools to the computers we're both typing on.

And, yes, I realize that there are different 'styles' of stone tools, but even these staid, UNCHANGED, for hundreds of thousands of years. The bottom line is that, suddenly, from both an evolutionary and, really, contemporary standpoint, SOME humans started developing a huge slew of technologies, with which they rapidly displaced all the other humans in the world.

And, yes, Neanderthals (actually, ...'tals') were intelligent, but, they, too, used the same 'tool kit' for thousands of years without change. They also never painted or engaged in any type of ceremony (though some people argue that they perfomed abstract ceremonies near the end of their span.. though, even if this is true, it was after they may have made contact with humans like us).

Bottom line: after hundreds of thousands of years of slow, nearly static, evolution, a branch of the genus Homo suddenly developed a wide variety of mental capabilities that none of its cousins had. Do I think that aliens really did 'make us' so long ago... no. However, I do realize that it IS possible and so deserves attention.

It's not that I'm saying that it didn't happen. It's just that the whole idea is totally laughable because there is 0 evidence of it happening. Maybe if there was a shred of evidence it might be a plausible conclusion, but since there is none it is nothing more than science fiction.

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
It's not that those 2000 were aliens, but that they were 'modified' by the aliens.

Human DNA contains thousands and thousands of little bits of information. Changing just one or two can have a huge impact, though. The FOX2P gene, for instance, plays a major role in speech... people who have damaged FOX2Ps, for instance, have problems with speech, though the rest of their body is fine. The aliens would not, necessarily, have 'breed' with these prehistoric humans to create a hybrid race... they could actually have just altered or inserted little bits of DNA, and these modifications may have been what allowed humans to develop complex culture so rapidly, after going hundreds of thousands of years with the same basic mentality (as evidenced by the 'design' of their stone tools). So... these people would look like everyone else around them, but their brains would have functioned differently. Who knows, maybe genes like FOX2P were inserted, from scratch, into the human genome?

Now, I'm not saying that this study proves that aliens altered humans, just that it MAY, arguably, coincide with that idea.

Maybe thats why they have been abducting people and yet to make contact? They are abducting people to implant some special stuff into our bodies hoping for us to reproduce with that gene passing onto our offspring and MAYBE there is something about us that scares the heck out of them and the thing they put in our bodies takes away the oh so special something? Just a thought...