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.

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".

your post is short....where did you get your idea