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.

 

Could humans have landed and interbred with primitive man?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Evidence needed. Seriously, you're making an extraordinary claim, it requires a lot of evidence. Maybe even extraordinary evidence. Please, provide it.




posted on May, 8 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Um...we've decoded the entire human genome. Here, have a look at it!

It's right there. Not 5%. Now...if there's a message in there, please find it.


Not the junk DNA. Most of it has no identifiable purpose and yeah, I'll get right on it.
Putting on my lab coat and getting out my science kit now.


Over 8% of the human genome is made up of (mostly decayed) endogenous retrovirus sequences, as part of the over 42% fraction that is recognizably derived of retrotransposons, while another 3% can be identified to be the remains of DNA transposons. Much of the remaining half of the genome that is currently without an explained origin
en.wikipedia.org...


Researchers also don't know the role of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) --single DNA base changes within the genome-- or the role of noncoding regions and repeats in the genome.
www.ornl.gov...
edit on 8-5-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


We don't know its functions, but we've actually decoded it. We have the sequence of every single 'letter' of the genome. Now, there are all sorts of actual scientific concepts revolving around the purpose or origin of this DNA...DNA that isn't just found in humans.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


I understand. I've read the same information in other forms and from other sources. Going from "we don't know" to "aliens did it" without positive evidence of the involvement of an external intelligent agency of some kind is still a fallacious and nonscientific argument.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by newcovenant
 


I understand. I've read the same information in other forms and from other sources. Going from "we don't know" to "aliens did it" without positive evidence of the involvement of an external intelligent agency of some kind is still a fallacious and nonscientific argument.


Aliens is a relative term which just means not from here and since it is already fairly conclusively determined we arrived on earth as bacteria trapped in meteors one might speculate we are the aliens ourselves.
I always speculate and never say for sure anyway.
It is you and the others who are comfortable in your certainty. Not me.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 
That's something we share with all modern organisms, that being much of our DNA has probably been obfuscated from random mutations over a few hundred million years of mutations, thus its origins are difficult to identify. If aliens manipulated our DNA, then they manipulated the DNA of every single organism, because we share the same genetic properties



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
Aliens is a relative term which just means not from here and since it is already fairly conclusively determined we arrived on earth as bacteria trapped in meteors one might speculate we are the aliens ourselves.
I always speculate and never say for sure anyway.

My viewing of the videos and reading the sources you linked give me the distinct impression that a case was being made for intentional manipulation of DNA by alien entities, not seeding of the planet by bacteria from space. If they were simply making the case for panspermia or something similar, it would have the same effect on all organisms. Unless you're asserting that the bacteria arrived here and only had contact with one species - us. I think the two hypotheses are distinct from each other.


It is you and the others who are comfortable in your certainty. Not me.

I'm perfectly comfortable with a scientific theory saying "we don't know" when there's a lack of conclusive evidence. I think it's good when the answer to a question raises further questions. I'd argue that people who feel the need to rush in and fill those gaps with God or aliens or some other untestable hypothesis are the ones showing discomfort. When the answers to questions are absolute, unquestionable, and all-encompassing, science stops and stagnation starts.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SystemResistor
Could it be that, there was an advanced civilisation, comprised of human beings, that landed on Earth and established advanced civilisations with what remained of thier spacecraft, interbreeding with our primitive ancestors?


No... it'd be pretty obvious. High tech civilizations leave ALL sorts of traces (in fact, it's harder to destroy some of our plastics than it is to destroy wooden sledges used by the Egyptians 6,000 years ago.) Secondly, a civilization that had lived on another planet long enough to develop spaceflight technology would have been living on a planet that had a different chemical composition than we have here on Earth (more carbon, say... less silicon... or less salt... or more iron... and so on and so forth) and would have adapted to temperature and food from that planet as well as from the atmosphere. Landing on a primitive Earth would not be a place where they'd want to move in and reproduce with the indigenous population (or even impregnate them.) They had countless different diseases and malnutrition and few lived to be older than 40 years old.

The females would start to look old by 20 and ancient by 35 (mass of wrinkles.) This isn't attractive to someone who comes from a population where 50 is still youthful (for example.) Nor would you want your experimental crossbreeds to be stuck in a population constantly infested with parasites and bacteria and viruses (when we crossbreed valuable animals for future stock, they're put in contained environments and fed special diets and inoculated against disease and parasites and so forth... and their offspring are kept that way as well.

That kind of thing stands out like a sore thumb, and so would the alien DNA.

Yes, our genes are different from other hominids... those are the critical changes that make us "homo sapiens" and not "homo something-elseis".



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
your post is short....where did you get your idea



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SystemResistor
 


It's doubtful, very doubtful, that a species which evolved on a planet different from our own would be able to land here and interbreed with the life that evolved here on Earth. The odds would be astronomical


Also we've got human Evolution pretty well figured out, there aren't that many gaps left and nowhere along the line does it seem that we suddenly got a whole lot better, it was gradual as evolution usually is. Genetic and fossil evidence points toward natural evolution for all life on Earth including humans, this is not to mention the total lack of evidence for any alien visitation.
edit on 23-5-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join