reply to post by Imtor
Thanks for the article link. I started reading it, and found it interesting, but have to go to bed soon; will peruse it later, as it seems like it
might be informative. From what I picked up, the gist of the article is that there are some modifications to Darwin's theory; however, it is not a
matter of it all being bunk. We have learned that in extreme conditions (at very high speeds and/or near very massive objects) that classical
Newtonian mechanics doesn't hold and that General Relativity comes significantly into play, but that doesn't mean Newtonian physics isn't a good
model to use for most situations. Likewise, Darwinian evolution is going to be subject to modifications as more is learned about biology and
biochemistry; however, the main premises of it continue to apply as a reasonable working model how creatures' characteristics change over time, given
OK, so by your standards Neanderthal is human, even though N. only shares 1-3% of its DNA with non-native-African homo sapiens. And you say N. is
human because he/she was a thinking being. That's very insulting to many other, if not all, animals. You think chimps, dogs, cats and dolphins --
amongst a plethora of others -- don't think? Forsooth!
But let's get back to Neanderthal, who, I trust you will acknowledge, wasn't quite the thinker Homo Sapien is because his/her tools were more
primitive and N. never invented credit default swap instruments and the like. What about Homo erectus, who was around before N.? Was he/she a
thinking man/women too? Certainly not as much as N. or Homo sapien, I would trust you would agree. And how about Homo habilis before that, and
Australopithicus before that?
Even some of these earlier hominids used tools, but they were much, much more primitive. It is also believed that even Homo habilis, 1.4 million
years ago used fire. But it was fire that allowed for safer and more calorie and nutrient efficient diets, which in turn allowed hominids to evolved
by expending fewer resources on the gut and more put into the brain.
Furthermore, the farther back one looks, the closer these species resemble proto-chimps. Alas, we don't have skin and/or hair samples from them, but
if there bones are more similar to chimps and their DNA is more similar to chimps, it is likely that their hair covering is more similar to chimps
than it is to humans'.
At what point won't you claim these earlier hominids were thinking creatures on the level of humans? If you say they, too, are thinking creatures,
then I would contend that chimps, gorillas, orangutangs and all other primates are also thinking critters of one level or another; however, I
certainly wouldn't call them human, although I would acknowledge that they share what we anthropomorphic creatures consider to be "human" traits.
Once again I'll mention that there is a fossil record and DNA evidence that links the proximity of these lines of evolving hominids -- all done with
well-established scientific methods and a wealth of evidence. But you insist on positing that a alien race was involved with our creation, which
would require time travel and/or faster than light space travel -- things that have no established scientific basis at this point. Thus, you'd
rather reach for fantastic, as yet unproven -- not to mention unknown -- scientific theories to explain why we are here rather than use well
established scientific theories and evidence, which provide a far simpler explanation.
That is like the situation of having a window open in your house on a windy day, and when a door is blown shut you claim that a ghost did it. Why
infer a prosaic explanation when a perfectly unreasonable, fantastic one is at hand, right?
And sure one can read all kinds of books and subscribe to notions about us being the 6th or 9th civilization (whatever that means), but that doesn't
mean some notions are based on any factual evidence.
Don't you think it is more plausible that we indeed have TRAITS OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS and maybe mixed with chimps.[?]
I'm guessing by "human beings" you mean thinking creatures from another world. To answer your question: No. We share 98.4% of our DNA with
chimps, so I think we didn't mix, but evolved a ways away from them Wouldn't we be closer to sharing 50% of our DNA with chimps by your theory?
However, I believe (but don't quote me on this) that we even share as much as 65% of our DNA with chickens. So much is shared because we evolved
from similar ancestors way back when. Have you seen comparisons of human and chicken fetuses at early stages? They are quite similar. And not
because aliens crossbred themselves with chickens to crate us humans.
In addition, being that chimps have 55 chromosomes and humans have only 54 would suggest that any possible offspring between the two wouldn't be
viable, let alone fertile. Now could your hypothesis be the case? Possibly, but very improbably. I'll go with the much more likely and
well-established scientifically model myself, thanks.
And all of this is not meant to claim that I dispute the possibility that aliens now or in primeval times visited this planet. My original point was
that your reasoning for prima facie
evidence of such E.T. visitations being the fact that humans are on this planet holds no water (to put it