It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If we get full disclosure on our origin, how would you react?

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Sorry im late to this party. Interesting conversation on the first few pages.

I don't think that anyone, other than those who identify themselves personally as something that would be upended (like hardcore religious, etc) would have an issue with any of it. It would cause turmoil, to be sure. People who identify, as a piece of their ego, as of a religion will have the hardest time. Along with those who just have a hard time dealing with unknowns.

Me personally? Like a sponge.




posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
It matters very little about our past, as this cannot be changed. Most important is who we are today to plan who we wish to become in the future.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman




What if we are told that 1, God is not the one who made us explicitly, not like Adam and Eve in the Garden. What if 2, it is revealed that we are a genetic ancient alien mess of (insert your contradictory origin theory)


As for the first proposition it is obvious that many many millions of people already living with this kind of "disclosure" at least since Darwin and not freaking out
So, you are kind of late with your groundbreaking news.

Talking about genetic manipulation, I would be surprised if so called aliens were using Earth DNA code at all. I see Earth DNA code as a result of evolution here on planet Earth and it seems very unlikely that similar system of coding evolved anywhere else in the Universe. Even here on Earth we can see slight variations of the so called "universal" code. What I'm implying is that even if aliens do exist their biochemistry is very different from ours at the core. May be they have RNA or DNA like molecules, but to think that their hereditary code would be compatible with Earth specific code is a long shot.


edit on 21-3-2016 by kitzik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: kitzik




May be they have RNA or DNA like molecules, but to think that their hereditary code would be compatible with Earth specific code is a long shot.


Indeed, kind of like the thought that monkeys' hereditary code of DNA is compatible with our own bloodlines.




posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol




Indeed, kind of like the thought that monkeys' hereditary code of DNA is compatible with our own bloodlines.


Not exactly. Monkeys and Humans have the same DNA code. With our contemporary understanding of genetics it is possible to make all kinds of manipulations even with not so related species like Mouse and Drosophyla and insert them into Human or plant DNA.What I was saying that aliens may have no DNA, rather some other long polypeptide molecule. With different amino acids, rare or not present at all on Earth. They may have not 20 amino acids, but lets say 30 or 10. Or many other countless possibilities. 20 common amino acids are ALMOST universal here on Earth, but if we look for exceptions it is apparent that some Archea had different code.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: kitzik

While microxenograft can indeed produce hybrid by complex design, it seems that so far we don't recognize complex molecules as being alive.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol




so far we don't recognize complex molecules as being alive.


I think our definition of "being alive" is something like - "complex biomolecules capable of reproducing themselves".
Second feature, though not usually explicitly said is: that those structures are potentially capable to evolve. That is to adapt and change themselves with the time. There is also need to be a balance over how much they can preserve themselves against the change. To put it bluntly. Something that is not evolving is not life.

Back to aliens.
1. Existence of aliens will not solve the problem of the origins of life
2. Alien "primordial soup" could have been very different quantitatively and qualitatively, such as their means of reproduction could be almost unrecognizable by us.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: kitzik




to evolve. That is to adapt and change themselves with the time. (...) To put it bluntly. Something that is not evolving is not life.


Everything, including non-life changes and adapts through time: not a part of the definition of life.

Existence of aliens would not solve the problem of the origins of life, clearly.

Alien "primordial soup" if based on similar elements, should be reproducible anywhere.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Godthief

Well that depends on their methods or theories ( if they ever were that good to begin with)they'd like to practice and depending on how well it applies to thr present reality. True if the mythology, metaphors an what not don't adjust they become fallible and depending how well it applies to reality or appeases the gods it would be the ideal religion.

Hinduism still around and is one of the oldest religions to date and that should be enough to get idea. Being born poor could of been considered that one had committed a sin in a past life and the only way to make amends was being slaves to their superiors who probaly knew better but didn't do better.

Thing is it depends on perceptive, like kings or priests blaming natural catalyisms or disease and using prejudice s as a scapegoat saying God is pissed.

That method of control only can only do so much that it will easily backfire.

And what happens if they run out of scapegoats to sacrifice, and see no rain or sunshine for months while their people are slowly dying?

I'll tell you what happens, that dumb little flock of sheep will turn to feral wolves and will bite the hand that fed em.


edit on 21-3-2016 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol




Everything, including non-life changes and adapts through time: not a part of the definition of life.


I don't have clear cut definitions of what is life, obviously. But what I said is a vague, intuitively accepted truth even by a toddler





Alien "primordial soup" if based on similar elements, should be reproducible anywhere.


This is what I'm arguing with. I wouldn't go as far that life is possible as non-DNA and non-protein based (if that is the case we don't have a clue what is their life like), but that alien "primordial soup" could give rise to a substantially different forms of life. Presumably they will also have some hereditary molecules, similar to function as our DNA,RNA etc. And they will have proteins, but with possibly unusual amino acids. As a consequence, the whole genetic machinery will be too different from ours.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Blueracer
Who has the ultimate authority? You might think the governments of the world, but......

The ultimate authority, would be those that hide the secret in the first place. Just your most basic logic. If they want to "Reveal" themselves, they will, and boy, what a day that would be.

I wouldn't, if I were them, broadcast their existence beginning with "We Come In Peace". No, I think I would start off with a history lesson that none of us have ever heard before. "Millions of Years ago, on this Planet", or where ever that planet might be.

Oh, and my reaction would be a smile a mile wide, no matter what they say. As long as its the truth

edit on 21-3-2016 by All Seeing Eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: kitzik

It would be reproducible through these steps:

. assuming life away from earth originates away from earth (this is where I personally choose to drop that ball)

. determining where this life may have originated

. reproducing the conditions observed from that location, theoretically determining how self reproducing organisms may spontaneously appear, if that's an actual thing

. practically conducting the theoretical model to fruition

This said, there are all kinds of soup here and now, that don't seem to give way to much life at all.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: kitzik

It would be reproducible through these steps:

. assuming life away from earth originates away from earth (this is where I personally choose to drop that ball)

. determining where this life may have originated

. reproducing the conditions observed from that location, theoretically determining how self reproducing organisms may spontaneously appear, if that's an actual thing

. practically conducting the theoretical model to fruition

This said, there are all kinds of soup here and now, that don't seem to give way to much life at all.


we have only had a few decades to try and recreate it, whereas the actual process itself took billions of years.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

In a billion years, when you have reproduced and observed it, it'll be science, if it does occur that way.

'Till then, I'll go with present science.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

I would say "I told you so" and get on with the rest of my life.

The only people disclosure of our origin would effect in an adverse manner are backwards thinking week minded religious types that refuse to think for themselves.

Something to ponder humanity seems to have fared just fine since the mathematician Copernicus formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at the center of the universe in the year 1519.
edit on 23-3-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TzarChasm

In a billion years, when you have reproduced and observed it, it'll be science, if it does occur that way.

'Till then, I'll go with present science.


the evidence of that process is still here to be examined and verified today, and will continue to be.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Most definitely



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TzarChasm

In a billion years, when you have reproduced and observed it, it'll be science, if it does occur that way.

'Till then, I'll go with present science.


You'll go with present science? Is that another lie? Last I checked you have been making a career on this site of denying present science, but whatever floats your boat. Just stop the lies already. It's getting old.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: kitzik




to evolve. That is to adapt and change themselves with the time. (...) To put it bluntly. Something that is not evolving is not life.


Everything, including non-life changes and adapts through time: not a part of the definition of life.

Existence of aliens would not solve the problem of the origins of life, clearly.

Alien "primordial soup" if based on similar elements, should be reproducible anywhere.


It is reproducible and Urey-Miller showed that organic molecules forms under simulated conditions. Secondly, there is no evidence that the formation of organic chemicals violates any part of known chemistry and rather operates according to the known properties instead.

It would also help to not use multiple definitions for evolution in one statement. That alone shows a lack of understanding. Biological evolution is a process and does not apply to areas such as geology.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Cypress
How does simple organic matter (by evolution as a processed form) animate itself? At what point in that evolution does self awareness occur?
edit on 25-3-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join