Evolution and an alien origin of life?

LittleByLittle

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Words

 

I think first it should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that such a species of beings exist before we posit them

A trillion planets multiplied by 200+ billion galaxies makes for the strong likelihood of many other advanced lifeforms existing in the Universe. According to Drakes Equation it projects 1000 - 100million advanced civilizations in our own galaxy. Regardless, their existence isn't really in question. It's more about proximity to us and motive for visiting our planet.

From external view I can think of earth like this:

Earth is like we see a jungle or an uncivilized country fighting among themselves over material gain. Quarantined and a no fly zone until further notice. When the planet becomes open for visits you will be informed. Until then we advise you to keep your distance from the system. We are monitoring their advances.

You have no idea how close you are in this analysis being right on the money.

sk0rpi0n
So I watched 'Prometheus' again last evening and while its a disappointing film storywise, it did depict quite nicely the idea of advanced aliens ''seeding'' life on planets, kickstarting evolution and moving on. _________________________________________ Should academic circles be taking seriously the idea of advanced aliens intentionally seeding life on earth? Its plausible that life on earth was pre-programmed to adapt to various enviromments and it may explain how life evolved in the way ToE claims it did. Or should academic circles hold that hi-tech aliens belong in sci-fi movies and rigidly insist that earth-life could simply not have been the handiwork of alien genetic engineering. If so, why?

edit on 14-1-2014 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-1-2014 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

Your basic premise is deeply flawed.

If life could "evolve" on some other planet, it could very well "evolve" on earth as well. What is wrong with "earth" or different from any other planet?

The academic "circles" are going in circles in the case of origin of life. Because this is a spiritual matter. Only power of soul (or spirit if you prefer) can get to this. For non-spiritual, the very limited abilities of human body make it impossible to understand the reality of origin of life.

If aliens that supposedly inhabited earth were so smart, we would have at least be living in peace and prosperity - all citizens of earth. Since this is not the case, as half of humanity lives in poverty, and at least 3/4 live in unjust societies, it does not seem that these "aliens" are very smart.

reply to post by GargIndia


Speaking of a deeply flawed premise.

What you said is predicated on aliens having this huge investment into our welfare. You give no reason for that having to be the case, and stating it's the only case that would serve as testament to their intelligence is absurd. They could have come to Earth for reasons entirely separate from Humankind. For resources or simply scientific inquiry. There is a multitude of explanations we could invent that are logical outside of them caring about our future well-being.

I don't understand how you put the word "evolution" and the phrase "origin of life" together....

Evolution, in particular evolutionary biology, does not in any way shape or form attempt to explain the origins of life...Instead, it is more concerned with diversity of species and what happened after life already existed....

IMO, the origin of life is rather easy to explain....life is all there is...

I believe we've hindered our own advancement by contemplating the origin of life when in reality, life has always been...Its simple in my mind...without genetic variation, evolution(of the biological sort) cannot occur....and genetic variation cannot occur without there first being life...

A2D

As far as the aliens go....Who knows? Who cares? Don't we have more important things to worry about? Perhaps like feeding the hungry, comforting the hurt, and sheltering the weathered?

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


So do you mean by that an eternal physical Universe that always had life?

As far as the aliens go....Who knows? Who cares? Don't we have more important things to worry about? Perhaps like feeding the hungry, comforting the hurt, and sheltering the weathered?

I care.

Why can't we address issues like poverty and also value space exploration? I see no reason an interest in finding other intelligent lifeforms is mutually exclusive to an interest in addressing social issues.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


My friend, the origin of life is very important.

The force that created 'life' can also create all the diversity found in 'life'. Why should it be a single DNA?

I do not doubt 'adaptability' and 'mixing within same/similar species' which are natural processes observed in nature.

That does not mean humans came from monkeys. No process has been scientifically established that shows that.

Scientists have achieved some success in modification of genes artificially in bacteria and viruses. These single celled creatures anyway adapt and change quite quickly in the natural environment. So scientists have not done anything not observed in nature.

However scientists have yet to show a progression in complex life through gene manipulation.

My premise is simple, a theory must be based on scientific knowledge and experiments. The theory of 'evolution' is putting cart before the horse.

GargIndia

That does not mean humans came from monkeys. No process has been scientifically established that shows that.

Nor has science ever sought to establish that. Humans and apes shared a common ancestor. You should be familiar with it before you dismiss it.

Lucid Lunacy
GargIndia

Lucid LunacyThat does not mean humans came from monkeys. No process has been scientifically established that shows that.

[iGargIndiaNor has science ever sought to establish that. Humans and apes shared a common ancestor. You should be familiar with it before you dismiss it.

Apes were created using a human genome to (in a hopeful endeavor) become a slave race. It failed. There is a commonality. Some specie backfire the ape/simian was one if them as an experiment. We never evolved from the ape. The ape was an abomination that survives today as a reminder of how laboratory experiments can fail (against all laws of nature evolving). Apes and humans never shared a common ancestor; it happened too rapidly to be explained rationally. DNA borrowed from the human and manipulated is all.

vethumanbeing
Lucid Lunacy
GargIndia

Lucid LunacyThat does not mean humans came from monkeys. No process has been scientifically established that shows that.

[iGargIndiaNor has science ever sought to establish that. Humans and apes shared a common ancestor. You should be familiar with it before you dismiss it.

Apes were created using a human genome to (in a hopeful endeavor) become a slave race. It failed. There is a commonality. Some specie backfire the ape/simian was one if them as an experiment. We never evolved from the ape. The ape was an abomination that survives today as a reminder of how laboratory experiments can fail (against all laws of nature evolving). Apes and humans never shared a common ancestor; it happened too rapidly to be explained rationally. DNA borrowed from the human and manipulated is all.

Please show some data to support the supposition that humans and the other apes not only don't share a common ancestor but that humans predate other
Apes. The fossil record aside DNA shows the exact opposite of what you claim.

Lucid Lunacy


So do you mean by that an eternal physical Universe that always had life?

That is one possibility. Another possibility is that the Universe itself is conscious life...Another possibility is that this physical Universe was created by life outside of this physical plane....
My point is only that IN THE BEGINNING, there had to be LIFE. I can speculate all day long, but in the end I don't know what kind of life, or where it was, or what happened to it, or even if it's still around in the same form as it was "back in the day"....

Why can't we address issues like poverty and also value space exploration? I see no reason an interest in finding other intelligent lifeforms is mutually exclusive to an interest in addressing social issues.

We can. We absolutely can and I respect your post. Obviously I think it's at least worthy of discussion or else I would not have ventured here in the first place. However, what I meant was that issues and discussions such as these should, in almost all respects, take a backseat to more pressing issues.

But I must ask...what value do you see in finding other intelligent lifeforms? Or even just lifeforms in general, not necessarily intelligent ones...? Granted, it may rewrite our history books...It may redefine how we approach teaching our children...It may change a lot of things in general....
But...I've always been one to think that what you do with your life is more important than what you know....

A2D

peter vlar
vethumanbeing
Lucid Lunacy
GargIndia

Lucid LunacyThat does not mean humans came from monkeys. No process has been scientifically established that shows that.

[iGargIndiaNor has science ever sought to establish that. Humans and apes shared a common ancestor. You should be familiar with it before you dismiss it.

VHBApes were created using a human genome to (in a hopeful endeavor) become a slave race. It failed. There is a commonality. Some specie backfire the ape/simian was one if them as an experiment. We never evolved from the ape; they evolved using our Dna. The ape is an abomination that survives today as a reminder of how laboratory experiments can fail (against all laws of nature evolving). Apes and humans never shared a common ancestor; it happened too rapidly to be explained rationally. DNA borrowed from the human and manipulated is all.

PeterVlar Please show some data to support the supposition that humans and the other apes not only don't share a common ancestor but that humans predate other than Apes. The fossil record aside DNA shows the exact opposite of what you claim.

Data? You humans are so involved in this immersed data formation that you fail to see what is right in front of you. Evidence right before your eyes. You are saying you evolved from a simian specie rote form. The human is the same being. When did the differenciation start; they should have evolved at the same time and be competitors. If you were to apply this theory to the mammal dolphin and its cousin whale, why did they not destroy the disruptive shark specie. Its within their environment and allowed it to 'stay the same'. The human would have murdered the ape to survive if as evolving specie were/would have been in competition with each other. There is no proof they ever were. There was no common ancestor as the ape was always a hybrid of the human form. If you want to call Neanderthals a better version; I suppose I could agree as a bridge point. The jumpstarting with the human was the CroMagnon and was an impressive acceleration. The two species developed separately. How can you say Apes have sentience; they are the leftover trials of a laboratory; those manipulated humanistic specie (that have no idea why they are here; because they are left without intellectual properties of thought). There are only 3 specie on earth that recognise themselves in a mirror, as in having scentience they see themselves represented: the human, the African Grey Parrot and the Dolphin.

GargIndia

My friend, the origin of life is very important.

A matter of opinion...but I'll concede that the origin of life is generally considered important by the majority of people...to what degree it is considered "important" would vary from person to person....

The force that created 'life' can also create all the diversity found in 'life'. Why should it be a single DNA?

I do not doubt 'adaptability' and 'mixing within same/similar species' which are natural processes observed in nature.

That does not mean humans came from monkeys. No process has been scientifically established that shows that.

Scientists have achieved some success in modification of genes artificially in bacteria and viruses. These single celled creatures anyway adapt and change quite quickly in the natural environment. So scientists have not done anything not observed in nature.

However scientists have yet to show a progression in complex life through gene manipulation.

My premise is simple, a theory must be based on scientific knowledge and experiments. The theory of 'evolution' is putting cart before the horse.

I have my own theories...I have my own beliefs. I do not let anyone convince me with their evidences and logic...I examine the evidence and apply my own logic. That being said, I do not support the theory of evolution, but I do understand it to a particular degree ...out of necessity.

Humans came from monkeys? I don't believe that either....but again, that's based off my logical examination of the evidence and no one elses...

When someone finds a beneficial genetic mutation that is heritable that actually ALTERS a species...then I may reconsider....However given the evidence at this moment, I cannot find any. I see beneficial genetic mutations such as those that protect against HIV, sickle cell, and lactose tolerance....but these don't alter a species....

A2D

The biggest fraud in science is "theory of evolution" which has consistently proven to be false in experiments. Microbiologists with years of experience and 'open mind' (not tainted by atheism) readily accept it.

Todays science is very advanced. Believe me, if Darwin's theory was provable, many weird creatures would be walking the streets. It is not due to lack of trying.

The problem is fetus dies when injected with non-compatible DNA. Ask microbiologists.

The soul enters a body which is compatible with the 'karmas' and stays in that body until that remains true. Because body is a vehicle to experience result of 'karmas'. If the body is not suitable, God takes away the soul and then places it in another body.

Humans have no control over birth and death. Humans think they understand the process, but in reality, the knowledge is imperfect and there is no certainty of results.

God has made this creation in such a way that He always remains hidden though his powers are working everywhere. Humans seem to be in control as they can do certain things. This is an illusion created by God Himself, as He has given humans freedom of action (ability to create new 'karmas').

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


There are methods available to avoid disease, and there are methods available to cure disease - and these methods do not involve gene manipulation.

What I am trying to tell you is that humans do not understand the process of birth and death. These processes are under the control of God.

The gene manipulation is a "hit and trial" method. I have discussed this with two microbiologists with PHDs, both working in USA. There are established practices but the results are not significant.

Humans seem to have achieved more success with creating new diseases than curing old ones. There is definitely huge success in building new methods of killing people.

vethumanbeing


Data? You humans are so involved in this immersed data formation that you fail to see what is right in front of you. Evidence right before your eyes. You are saying you evolved from a simian specie rote form. The human is the same being. When did the differenciation start; they should have evolved at the same time and be competitors. If you were to apply this theory to the mammal dolphin and its cousin whale, why did they not destroy the disruptive shark specie. Its within their environment and allowed it to 'stay the same'. The human would have murdered the ape to survive if as evolving specie were/would have been in competition with each other. There is no proof they ever were. There was no common ancestor as the ape was always a hybrid of the human form.

Why would they be competitions? Humans ARE apes for one thing. For another, they(the other apes) are each adapted to different environments, there was little overlap for most species, especially over the last see real million years. Geographical isolation precludes competition for resources. Ad in case you weren't aware, I Africa people still do hunt, poach and east other apes. And the last nail in your dreamland coffin is that apes have been around for at a east 10 million years with Neanderthal only emerging half a million years ago and AMH approx 200,000 YA so how could apes be derived from human DNA.

If you want to call Neanderthals a better version; I suppose I could agree as a bridge point. The jumpstarting with the human was the CroMagnon and was an impressive acceleration.

I guess we're leaving out H. Erectus , Denisovan and Floresiensis. They must murk up the fantasy a little. I could point to "jump starts" in each and every member of our family tree and none is less impressive then the other.
We are the sum of all the best traits of our fore bearers that best adapted us for our current environment.

The two species developed separately. How can you say Apes have sentience; they are the leftover trials of a laboratory; those manipulated humanistic specie (that have no idea why they are here; because they are left without intellectual properties of thought). There are only 3 specie on earth that recognise themselves in a mirror, as in having scentience they see themselves represented: the human, the African Grey Parrot and the Dolphin.

I see you're not so big on facts, lets start with some basics. Even Wikipedia has a better gasp of the mirror test than you exhibit. ALL great apes recognize themselves in a mirror. This include gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobo, orangutan, and humans. Non apes that you didn't include would be elephants and orcas. It must be part of being a silly human, needing and using facts to form opinions.

GargIndia
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

There are methods available to avoid disease, and there are methods available to cure disease - and these methods do not involve gene manipulation.

What I am trying to tell you is that humans do not understand the process of birth and death. These processes are under the control of God.

The gene manipulation is a "hit and trial" method. I have discussed this with two microbiologists with PHDs, both working in USA. There are established practices but the results are not significant.

Humans seem to have achieved more success with creating new diseases than curing old ones. There is definitely huge success in building new methods of killing people.

I agree.

I do not side with evolution...I am a Christian. I do however understand their stance and their opinion on the matters. I have studied both biological and cosmological evolution to...well, "significant" degrees...in a secular institution of higher learning to boot....

Genetics is still a moderately young discipline...what we think we know isn't much but at least we can say we're trying....We're trying to understand the processes behind the veil....but yes, I agree with you that God is in control and much of what we want to know will not be revealed to us....(but to clarify for other readers, this is MY opinion and not necessarily a statement of fact)

A2D

reply to post by GargIndia

The biggest fraud in science is "theory of evolution" which has consistently proven to be false in experiments.

Except all those lab experiments where it's not ergo experimental evolution. Not that I would take your word considering you thought the science believed we evolved from monkeys...

Microbiologists with years of experience and 'open mind' (not tainted by atheism) readily accept it.

"not tainted with atheism". lol. How objective.d

Todays science is very advanced.

Indeed it is. Ironically the very science you belittle beget the computer you are using to tell us how fraudulent science is.

Believe me, if Darwin's theory was provable, many weird creatures would be walking the streets. It is not due to lack of trying.

No. It's your failure to understand what this kind of evolution entails. Take sharks for instance. They are apex predators. Their lack of ability to walk on two legs doesn't negate how magnificently efficient that are adapted to their environment. You're holding them to some completely humanized standard of what evolution should look like and that's not reflective of reality or the science as we understand it.

The soul enters a body which is compatible with the 'karmas' and stays in that body until that remains true.

So basically you're using science to argue your position yet at the same time posit something as truth that holds zero bearing in science. Science doesn't work that way. You can't use it at your convenience.

God has made this creation in such a way that He always remains hidden though his powers are working everywhere.

Even this statement is counter to science. If God is working in tangible ways by affecting the Universe we should see scientific evidence for it. In order for you to make that claim you have to say it transcends science. So please be honest and do so. Be honest about your position here. Which in fact is, you have faith based claims about god's nature and science has nothing to do with it so you shouldn't bring it into discussion in support of it.

Have you ever heard of the idea of a Von Neumann probe? The idea is that you can explore space by releasing a swarm of self-replicating robotic space vehicles. If their instructions aren't copied from one generation to then next with 100% accuracy, then the machines will evolve over time, am I right? Over great lengths of time, the small changes occurring during each replication will compound to amount to continually greater changes from the original model. Perhaps, over huge time scales, their form has evolved to such an extent, that where they once ran on gears and wires, their inner workings now have a greater resemblance to that of organic life.

What I'm getting at is that life on earth could be descended from machines of the nuts and bolts variety. And quite by accident.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


The problem with today's science is that terms keep on changing in meaning.

The shark is efficient does not mean it 'evolved' into such an efficient animal. How did you get that?

I follow truth. One must have faith in truth. I believe in science as much as you do.

There is no argument between true religion and true science. Both complement each other.

God cannot be removed from the equation. It is impossible.

God can only be denied by humans to their own peril. I said earlier as well - truth can be denied but can never be hidden. The people with open eyes will always see the truth.

God is called 'sat' or truth in Veda. The problem is with your conception of God, not with God.

reply to post by Tearman


Has any of it built yet?