blonde poker forum

We’ve had loads of talk about religion on Red-Dogs thread, but we’re yet to question where we come from.  

Which really ties in with religion, different religions have different beliefs. Hinduism has lots of different interpretations and a common theme in Hinduism is that our deities brought us here from another planet. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread672580/pg1 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread672580/pg1)

I’ve heard other literal interpretations that we stem from two forms and evolved and spawn and expanded over the years, but I find this hard to fathom.

Dr Ellis Silver has wrote a study that suggests that humans aren’t from Earth based on our physiology and have arrived from somewhere else..

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/human-beings-came-from-another-planet--not-earth--new-book-claims-134335110.html#FHErsbz (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/human-beings-came-from-another-planet--not-earth--new-book-claims-134335110.html#FHErsbz)

Here's a piece from the article


“Mankind is supposedly the most highly developed species on the planet, yet is surprisingly unsuited and ill-equipped for Earth's environment: harmed by sunlight, a strong dislike for naturally occurring (raw) foods, ridiculously high rates of chronic disease, and more. Plus there's a prevailing feeling among many people that they don't belong here or that something "just isn't right".

Africa

^ ^ ^ Is huge...

Interesting post and interesting forum. I could waste spend a lot of time on this forum. This topic does interest me a lot but it is hard to get good referenced information, particularly in favour of some of the more bizarre theories that are about. I really enjoyed this topic, despite not really believing the in favour side. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread313281/pg1&mem=

He completely misunderstands evolution and the concept of survival of the fittest through natural selection.

If mankind wasn't suited to living on earth, then why are there over 7,000,000,000 humans living on the planet at this very moment.  Humans live on every continent, and we've evolved to be adaptable to different climates and environments ranging from Arctic tundra through to tropical rainforest and everything in between.  We are the most adaptable large animal on the planet, so not sure why we're less suited to living here than any other species? We aren't 'harmed' by sunlight - it's a fundamental requirement for almost all life on this planet, especially humans.  It's like saying we're harmed by water.  I think overall having water and sunlight are good things for humans (and every other species of plant and animal on earth).  The 'ridiculously high rates of chronic disease' are obviously not ridiculously high as we have flourished as a species and the birth-rate > death-rate, which shows we're well suited for our environment to live and reproduce and therefore perpetuate the species.

Dare I even click on the link to read the other nonsense he's written?

If anyone questions why we have evolved the way we have (and that includes other species on earth as well), I'd suggest they read this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925

Also, how does 'Dr' Ellis explain the DNA of humans being so close to every other species of life on the planet if it's just humans that 'arrived' separately on the planet already populated with all the other life?  Comparing our genes with our closest relatives (chimps and other great apes), we have a 95% 'match'.  In fact we share a 50% 'match' to bananas!  This is a hell of a coincidence if we didn't evolve here (along with everything else) and were dumped here by an alien taxi relatively recently.

Boshi nothing was on earth when the aliens brought us here on noahs ark 

Frankly disappointed that the dna argument came so late.

I think you should re-consider your position as forum bs-findergeneral.

I will write that down in my Filofax.

Great response, will reply later...

;marks;

nearly £40? is it written on gold leaf? :D

Okay gonna finish late and maybe playing the HH super 50 tonight so I'll drop a few comments

I’m not suggesting that Dr Ellis is correct in his theory, but am suggesting that we need to be open to the endless possibilities that may come about as we start to understand our evolution more and more.

In the last 10,000 years the pace of evolution has sped up 100 times so what's triggered this? but right now some argue that evolution has stopped altogether for humans as we’ve found ways of keeping even our weakest alive through modern science.  If this is true will humans require more or less nutrients in the future and as our climate changes our natural resources change how will we adapt for these small changes? Technology and science is one thing but nature is something we can’t control.  Thus leads me to, if we were from another planet, depending on our genetic make-up wouldn't we have evolved & adapted with the conditions of this planet?  

We don’t know what kind of biology aliens have yet, so we can’t rule out that there maybe similarities between aliens and humans, as far fetched as it sounds, it’s something we can’t answer so can’t rule out.  

The report and study is not presented as fact and very little facts are actually presented, it’s a study to provoke debate on the topic.  

We'll go into genetics and the SRGAP2 tomorrow.. :)

Eh?

How has 'the pace of evolution sped up 100 times'?

(http://www.idcow.net/idcow/products/etl2019.jpg)

Digestion, teeth, hair, our brains are now smaller... We've evolved more in the last 10 thousand years then we have in the million+ years before that..

You can get it for about a fiver.  Did I link to a hardback copy or something?

I've only really got a recent trip to the American Natural History Museum to go on - but have you got any respectable source for this? Because I don't think there's been any notable evolution at all in the last 10 thousand years (IIRC).

Call.

Would like to see any evidence that shows we've "evolved" more in any specific period of time.  What does "evolve more" mean?  Evolution is not moving towards a goal, it doesn't 'improve' species. Stick a 21st century human in the conditions our early ancestors lived say 500,000 years ago, and the current humans could well struggle to survive.

We evolved from fish. We're not 'better' than fish, we just evolved to fill an evolutionary niche in a particular time and place.  Throw us back in the ocean, and the fish will appear to be 'better'.

TBF he's only filling in during Gatso's blonde sabbatical.

Don't think this post got the credit it deserved. I was almost crying.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on evolution or that these theories are true, I'm just posing questions to trigger debate on the subject. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=culture-speeds-up-human-evolution (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=culture-speeds-up-human-evolution)

Plenty of info around on the acceleration of human evolution on the net, just google human evolution..

Am I missing something here? Was this a "I like Turtles moment"?

Well yes, there are plenty of google results for this sped up evolution theory.

But having looked at it I can't see any of them that don't ultimately derive from this single source
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/The_10,000_Year_Explosion_(Cover).jpg)

It's fairly notable that this was research by a team of anthropologists rather than experts in biology, palaeontology or any of the most rigorous sciences who might be better placed to comment on such matters - and that basically nobody agrees with them. Going to Boshi's point regarding the definition of evolution they have based their theory on the rather sketchy notion that the development of immunity to some diseases or the ability to digest milk represents evolutionary progress - whereas a more standard approach suggests that when evolution occurs  it results on what can be seen as identifiably different sub-species; fighting disease and being able to drink milk really don't come close. And the implication in that article that the development of humans with blue eyes represents evolution is just bizarre; coupled with the inclusion of such subjective conditions as the development of IQ their study could even be construed as borderline racist.

Basically it demonstrates the whole point of why I included the word 'respectable' in questioning a source for your assertion.

If you do google Human evolution for example there's a handy link to pages such as the BBC or the New Scientist with no mention of this theory at all. The New Scientist for example has a link on a timeline for human evolution. In the last 10,000 years it includes things like the development of agriculture and the formation of villages; but previously to that there are obviously the extremely significant biological changes but also articles relating to the development of symbolic usage and beginnings of 'culture'; profoundly more significant leaps then minor genetic mutations related to disease and digestion, for example.

Great response Mr Woodfield... Like I said I'm not claiming to be an expert in evolution and I agree that my sources need to carry more weight, I'm just putting these topics forward as they're topics I'm interested in and would like to trigger debate on them.  I'm yet to form my own opinion and debating helps with that.

When talking about evolution do you not think that cultural changes play a big part? The significant biological changes that you’re talking about are the visible changes in our form which has evolved over millions of years, DNA changes in many different ways and our ability to survive and reproduce are effected when things like teeth, and digestion and we culturally evolve.  We evolve to survive and these play a significant part as does technology and our willingness to learn.

When talking about Science and evolution, you have to remember we can’t ever prove anything with science, you can only refute false theories and replace them with better ones.   Science in the process of forming hypotheses and then falsifying them through experimentation and then replacing them with new hypotheses and then attempting to falsify those etc etc

So today we have popular take on evolution but tomorrow our take may change.   Lamark spoke about adaption before Darwin and the Greeks spoke about it before that, over the years it changed with Darwin rejected aspects of Lamarks theory and gave credence to other parts. 

Back onto the topic at hand, can we disprove or falsify that alien beings changed our DNA or that we are descendants of space travellers not from this planet. 

+ 1

I'm pretty sure you could turn this question round and the answer would be the same?

Although I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, far from it in fact, I would trust that theories offered by science that are generally accepted by the masses would offer more testable predictions than aliens landing and 'fucking our shit up'.

Then again, if there's anything that can't currently be explained, then blame the aliens.

Love this  rotflmfao

Whenever an outrageous or "ridiculous" idea is brought forward as an explanation for something, with no evidence to support it please refer to Occam's Razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Science doesn't try to prove anything. It makes a best guess at a model or hypothesis based on existing evidence, tries to disprove the theory through experiment and observation, and constantly challenges and questions.

Saying "aliens done it" or "goddidit" might be impossible to disprove, but neither is it based on any real evidence and neither is it useful. These wild and unsubstantiated ideas don't actually predict anything or achieve anything tangible.

As for talking about society and civilisation "evolving" - that's not the same thing as evolution in terms of the biological term. One is a very specific thing in a scientific discipline, the term is also used in general practice, but the definitions are not interchangeable. There is the same confusion with the word "theory" which means one thing in scientific use and another in general conversation when I could say something like "I have a theory about why celtic is so bad at poker". There are terms in finance and law (for example) that have very specific definitions, but also have definitions outside those fields that are used in everyday conversation, and again the two uses shouldn't be confused.

Creationists often introduce an argument where they try to interchange the uses of the words "theory " and "evolution" to win an argument. It just tends to highlight their lack of logic and reason.

Anyway, were we discussing evolution in terms of the effects from natural selection on random mutations on individuals and species, or something else?   

I understand what you're saying Tom, but theory and facts are two separate things.  

In science it doesn’t go Hypothesis, theory the graduate to fact when proved, so testable is a relative word here.

Facts come first and they’re not proved they’re observed to be true.  We observe evolution to be fact, but science is not about facts, it’s about getting explanation for facts, we make assumptions which form hypothesis and then gather evidence for the hypothesis which become theories.  All theories can refuted against new theories based on the observation of facts and technology available to the observer

So it’s always a theory and never proven, hence why I mentioned something as far fetched as aliens.  

Provoking debate on Human evolution and was it could it have been spurred by something other then natural selection..

Am I right in thinking that gravity is only a theory too?

Gravity is a law.

Evolution is fact, a good example of this is bacteria and how is grows resistant to antibiotics. 

After a quick bit of research, I found out that it can be both.

"So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other"

A little bit off topic though.  I would guess there is more evidence to support the theory of evolution than there is aliens landed and started messing about with stuff?

There's a tonne of evidence that shows how humans have evolved that fits with all the accepted knowledge and understanding of evolution.  In fact the theory of evolution, predicted a lot of things that have subsequently been discovered.

Aliens - no evidence, no credible theory, no need to consider it - Occam's Razor.  It might make a good science fiction story though, in fact it has been.  Emphasis on the 'fiction' element though.

Natural selection is a fundamental and necessary part of the evolution of species. 

Newton's laws have been amended based on new theories and evidence.  A fella called Einstein was involved in that. 

There is a theory of gravity, theory of evolution, theory of general relativity.  Why do people need to introduce imaginary aliens into the picture as an alternative...'theory'? 

so what you trying too say Noah wasnt the skipper of the starship cruise-liner Alien New World?

I’m familiar with Occam’s Razor and love Einsteins quote

“Make everything simple as possible, but not simpler”  

But “simple” is a subjective word.

So when applied here you have your side which makes the simplest route for yourself and let’s say a conspiracy theorist could argue the that aliens came down 65 million years ago, killed off the Dinosaurs and planted life which then took another say 12 million years to develop as they did 200 million years before that.  And a creationist has another view.. Even though there’s no empirical evidence for these theories creationist and conspiracy theorists find these theories "Simple"

Just because we look for the simplest possibilities first, it doesn’t make them necessarily correct.  A lot of the popular theories today were unsubstantiated theories once, the development of modern technology and science have changed that.  Who’s to say that our belief today will not go back to historic theories that were once ridiculed?

Aliens changing the cycle of human evolution; is just a topic of discussion for me, I never made any claims that this is “true” or that this is my belief.

Okay now to give you my actual stand point on it, which hasn’t changed since I was around 17 years old.  “Evolution by natural selection” but thought  this was a fun topic to bring up and challenge debate on.  It’s easy to defend something that you believe in but a lot harder to give arguments to the alternative. I do believe in God and Karma but in a higher energy type of way not a person that created everything kind of way

So what’s your take on intelligent alien life? (This question is directed at everyone)

170,000,000,000 galaxies in the known universe (give or take).

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in total (give or take).

Likelihood of life occurring somewhere else other than this 'pale blue dot' - pretty high I'd think.

Likelihood of intelligent life - also pretty high I'd have thought.

Chance of intelligent life travelling millions of light-years to reach earth to 'visit' and then bugger off - very slim.

Chance of intelligent life travelling millions of light years to reach earth to plant the human race (and place loads of false evidence that points towards another explanation) and then buggering off without a trace - slimmer than a very slim thing.

Sorry I missed this... Will take a look when I finish up today...

I agree, it's fun looking at these topics even though most of them a pretty far fetched..

Oh, and the chance we'll get to 'interact' with an intelligent alien life-form in our life-time? 

Unfortunately, probably very slim indeed.

The human race is a pretty young compared to the age of the planet, but in terms of development we have technology capable of space travel, who's to say that there aren't older races in the universe that have grasped the concept of "Light speed" or "Time travel" it's very likely that if these species are older and maybe more developed or just more advanced.. Let's not rule anything out.. May I remind you of the movie "Independence Day" and also the theory regarding the Scientific propaganda ...


Always the optimist..
  

It would take something in the region of 30,000 years to travel to the centre of our own galaxy - at the speed of light!

I'm also pretty confident with our understanding of physics that time-travel or travelling at (or even close) to the speed of light for anything with appreciable mass isn't possible, no matter what level of technology we have.

Also, the fact we haven't met any of these intelligent alien races already means we're not likely to meet them any time soon either.  Which is a shame, as it would be the best thing....ever.

I did Did I say time time travel too  ;)

I agree...

Area 51, dont say it doesnt exist its there and the usa government have recently admitted it so they can prepare us for the invasion

And the Government shut down is causing all sorts of problems in Area 51..

Got to love the Russians

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-space-troops-are-not-prepared-for-battle-with-aliens-says-official-8856460.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-space-troops-are-not-prepared-for-battle-with-aliens-says-official-8856460.html)

It’s also estimated that each star has at least 8 planets so it’s a no brainer that the universe must be jam-packed with life.

/end thread

Great contribution...  /:-|

'kinboshi has a 'kinfanboy.

Kinell.

*kin' 'ell.

Apostrophe masterclass ITT.

(http://static.allmystery.de/upics/19cb52_ancient-aliens.jpg)

Richard Dawkins Stephen Hawking on Alien life

19 minutes in, gets interesting

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrBpq26xO4g