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.

 

Alien Ancestors: Yeigh or Neigh?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 

Unfortunately the facts at hand are only included in material that disagrees with me.
However the establishment also has major loopholes, and I find my reading of the few facts in their arguments also coincides with so much more that was unique about Homo Sapiens.

Physically weaker than the hominids, Homo Sapiens quite rapidly populated almost the entire planet, and to our knowledge wiped out the other hominids in a relatively short amount of time.

And yes, it is a matter of interpretation, as long as everybody realizes that from all positions that is great!
I am not laying down the law or the "truth".
Perhaps one day we will find something to radically upset everyone even more, and we were all wrong.




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Alien Ancestors

Sounds like shifting the responsibilities. If aliens created the human, who created the aliens?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 

I'd say that aliens didn't really create anything as such, rather they interfered with mankind's evolution at certain points, or at a certain point.

I guess there's philosophical answers to that, such as other aliens could have also interfered with them.

Ultimately God or evolution (or some combination) could have created the original aliens who interfered with the aliens and so on.

But I'd like to stick to our humble origins and planet for now, or we're heading towards religious territory.

edit on 13-10-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   

evolution (or some combination) could have created the original aliens

That exactly is the dilemma with the idea that aliens had to interfere with the evolution. If the original aliens have been the result of ordinary evolution why shouldn't we? Which renders alien interference superfluous.
edit on 13-10-2011 by moebius because: typo



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 

True from a purely philosophical perspective.

But increasingly the alien intervention theory is used to fill loopholes in the knowledge that we do have so far - one could say that lacunae in certain fields of knowledge almost demand the alien theory.

Hence we will see it proliferate increasingly, and moving from the exiled fringes to some respectability.

In a broad sense it retains the same time-lines and possibilities as science (although human evolution is hardly scientifically complete in any detailed form), and unlike religion it doesn't change the age of the earth to 6000 years!

So it's a further possibility within science, and I wouldn't dismiss it completely.
If "alien" seeding can be possible according to some scientists (and just a decade ago one would have been excommunicated from the establishment for proposing it) then other interventions might be too.

edit on 13-10-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   

So it's a further possibility within science, and I wouldn't dismiss it completely. If "alien" seeding can be possible according to some scientists (and just a decade ago one would have been excommunicated from the establishment for proposing it) then other interventions might be too.

Of course given the size of the universe from statistical point of view the motto is: "Anything goes".

The question is, what is more likely? The plain old evolution wins hands down for me.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 

Fair enough - but where does evolution start and end?
I think the way people are connected across the globe today has socially raised questions about that, and about our limits, or lack there-of.
After the global village - what comes next?

Many people a century ago lived out their whole lives in a village and they didn't much care for the wider world or that it mattered; now that is no longer conceptually possible.

Now we can start to think universally, even beyond our planet, not only about possible life in space (which is not that new and has been a historical feature of the Enlightenment), but the inter-connectedness of life and evolutions in the universe.

And "real scientists" are only beginning to take note and look at such things.

The very idea that pieces of Mars rock and meteors could have carried life - I mean it is so revolutionary to my generation, but today it doesn't raise eyebrows that high anymore.


edit on 13-10-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
No being equine, I will vote "nay" instead of "neigh."

Whinny whinny stomp stomp.

Harte



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I agree with Harte. What does yeigh mean anyway? I think he meant yea. Either way, nay for me.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I'm going to have to go with NO, on the Alien Ancestors theory.

Even if they were around, I can't see anywhere they helped out. All of our development has pretty clearly recorded advancements that then led to other advancements, etc.

Also, on the TV show, a lot of what they show is downright incorrect most of the time. Whether it's misinterpreted art history symbols (like anthropomorphic sun and moon, misunderstood depictions of the Holy Spirit, etc.), or just illogical leaps (depictions of gods loosely resembling a guy with a helmet like some 50's sci-fi movie)...there really is almost NO basis for the show's conclusions half the time.

Our ancestors were far more clever than we often give them credit for....



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by johnwilkesbooth
 


It is interesting the assumption you take in asking the question Alien Ancestors?

What makes you think humans are not just cattle.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by alfa1
 

Not sure on what exactly, but on the genome evidence:
www.scienceinafrica.co.za...


By tracing the patterns of mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA in people throughout the world, there are at least eighteen mtDNA lineages and ten Y chromosome lineages from which all other mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA patterns could be derived. The oldest patterns using both mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA are found in Africa, dating to between 80 000 to 120 000 years before present.


On humans having 46 chromosomes and chimps 47:
en.wikipedia.org...

With Homo Sapiens coming from basically "nowhere", we suddenly find art and a whole cultural revolution, and the gradual withdrawal of other hominids and primates.

I concede I am a fan of Lloyd Pye (see www.abovetopsecret.com...) and some unconventional approaches, but it is not without merit.

The aliens probably interfered more than once, with different sub-species.
edit on 13-10-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


Hi, using that logic, didn't chimps and other primates also appear from 'nowhere'? Actually taking it further, didn't everything?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
I believe that intelligent life most likely exists throughout the Universe, however I don't think they have been to our planet.

I believe that all of the alien/UFO propaganda, whether it be on TV, in the movies, radio, etc, is all part of a slow conditioning program preparing the public for a false flag alien event. When will it happen? Who knows, probably not any time soon... they still have options such as collapsing the global economy, world wars, etc. Don't fall for it when it does happen though!


Hmmm, the problem for me with the false flag thing is that if you use the same premise (saturation in movies, radio, books etc.) then there is also a false flag for Ghosts, wizards, vampires etc. which all have been recurring themes, all of those longer (or at least as long) as alien visitation.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 



Hi, using that logic, didn't chimps and other primates also appear from 'nowhere'? Actually taking it further, didn't everything?


Not really, you can find vestigial leg bones in most aquatic mammals, indicating their return to the sea...etc. Even we often exhibit vestigial tail bones. There are traces that still show the evolutionary traits throughout time. Sure, there are missing links, but the idea that we have fossils of EVERYTHING is equally ludicrous, so that actually isn't too surprising to have such holes.



edit on 13-10-2011 by Gazrok because: inserted relevant quote



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 

Personally I think there are gaps everywhere and we certainly are closely related to the primates (and the hominids, assuming they still exist, as I do).

But no, we have never seen such a profound change as that of one group of hominids to modern man.

The rapid cultural revolution of Homo Sapiens is unsurpassed, and when a species has such a physical change (just considering the rib-cage and skull), which coincides with an explosion of arts and tool-making, and vast adaptability and sudden expansion of habitats, then one cannot compare this sudden wonder to any other species.


edit on 13-10-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
Physically weaker than the hominids, Homo Sapiens quite rapidly populated almost the entire planet...


You could say the same thing about mice.

"Physically weaker than all other rodents, mice quite rapidly populated almost the entire planet."

So, alien mice?

There's simply no question about it. Aliens bred mice on this planet to collect cheese and seeds. Once the mice got in the seeds and cheese collection habit, the aliens left, promising to return for their seeds and cheese.



... and to our knowledge wiped out the other hominids in a relatively short amount of time.


There is nothing in this part of your statement that the phrase "to our knowledge" applies to.

Harte



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnwilkesbooth

Anyone still with me? Okay, good. I simply believe that beings from another planet were experimenting in creating life. In this creating, they were told to not do it in their planet anymore. So they looked for a planet that was similar to theirs so that they didn't have to change what they already know in order to compensate for the planets differences to their original planet. Meaning, if one organism from their planet could only live in a hot environment, they wouldn't likely choose an Ice planet. Moving on, things went great for them and they have many breakthroughs. They wanted to move on to bigger and better things, like....themselves. They wanted to (not to quote the Bible or anything) create in their own image. Now, my only question to that is; why create beings by cloning if you could just have sex and create a new one? But I digress.


Your whole theory is based on said aliens looking, thinking, acting and reproducing like us. If that's the case, then we wouldn't be their "experiment in creating life", we would be them. In other words, they would have just come here and colonized, they wouldn't bother "creating" life that looks exactly like them because they already existed. But there is zero evidence that we're an ET colony. If on the other hand we aren't a colony of ETs from another planet, then the probability is that if there are ETs out there, they would be utterly alien to us. Imagine intelligent floating jellyfish-like creatures, or 30 foot tall praying mantis creatures. We try too hard to imagine ETs being in our image.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by moebius
 

True from a purely philosophical perspective.

But increasingly the alien intervention theory is used to fill loopholes in the knowledge that we do have so far - one could say that lacunae in certain fields of knowledge almost demand the alien theory.

Hence we will see it proliferate increasingly, and moving from the exiled fringes to some respectability.

The "loopholes" you speak of, which an individual may choose to fill with ancient alien claptrap, are mere holes in that individual's knowledge about the past.

I'll agree that there's a lot about the past that we don't know anything about. But there is nothing there that we know about that supports any ancient alien intervention.


So it's a further possibility within science, and I wouldn't dismiss it completely.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There's just no evidence.


If "alien" seeding can be possible according to some scientists (and just a decade ago one would have been excommunicated from the establishment for proposing it) then other interventions might be too.


Hyperbole about scientific reaction to what one might consider to be an unusual theory abounds among the ignorant. However, opinions aren't worth squat if one doesn't stop to think before uttering them:


Panspermia
The first known mention of the term was in the writings of the 5th century BC Greek philosopher Anaxagoras.[3] In the nineteenth century it was again revived in modern form by several scientists, including Jöns Jacob Berzelius (1834),[4] Kelvin (1871),[5] Hermann von Helmholtz (1879) and, somewhat later, by Svante Arrhenius (1903).[6] There is as yet no evidence to support or contradict panspermia, although the majority view holds that panspermia – especially in its interstellar form – is unlikely given the challenges of survival and transport in space. Sir Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) were important proponents of the hypothesis who further contended that lifeforms continue to enter the Earth's atmosphere, and may be responsible for epidemic outbreaks, new diseases, and the genetic novelty necessary for macroevolution.[7]


"...and just a decade ago one would have been excommunicated from the establishment for proposing it..."

Really?

Harte



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Also, on the TV show, a lot of what they show is downright incorrect most of the time. Whether it's misinterpreted art history symbols (like anthropomorphic sun and moon, misunderstood depictions of the Holy Spirit, etc.), or just illogical leaps (depictions of gods loosely resembling a guy with a helmet like some 50's sci-fi movie)...there really is almost NO basis for the show's conclusions half the time.


Soooo true! I watch the Ancient Aliens show because it is quite interesting, they always have a fascinating selection of oddities from around the world and while these things are often mysterious, they jump to wildly unfounded conclusions regarding their origins. "Here's a square hole in a rock and they only had basic metal tools back then, so clearly this was made using a laser beam and since we didn't have laser beams at the time it had to have come from extra terrestrials." Just because we don't know how our ancestors made something does not mean ET intervention was required to make it.


Originally posted by Gazrok
Our ancestors were far more clever than we often give them credit for....


Yes! We tend to overthink everything because of our technology. If we need to move something we try to figure out where to rent the crane, how to size it, how to get it to the site, how to rig it, etc. It never even crosses our minds that we could probably just get 30 big guys to pick it up and move it in a fraction of the time
It's a shame our ancestors didn't document their construction techniques, I imagine if we knew how they did things we'd be impressed by the elegant simplicity of it all.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
For some groups of people but others....na.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join