Humans from another planet

[fidelio]

Why do some of you believe humans come from another planet? Seems like you're just trying to propose outrageous things for the sake of it. Those of you that support this theory, please give me a few lines of reasoning and your best points of evidence.


(I am partial to Mccarthy's pig-chimp theory, though I have a little theory of my own built on his. I'm open to discussing either with anyone interested.)

[D_Archer]

Who is saying this?

---

In any case, life is everywhere in the universe, so it is not really that far fetched that an advanced civilization settled on this planet.

Regards,
Daniel

[nick c]

fidelio,

Why do some of you believe humans come from another planet? Seems like you're just trying to propose outrageous things for the sake of it. Those of you that support this theory, please give me a few lines of reasoning and your best points of evidence.

That is not a subject covered or a position taken by the Thunderbolts project or the EU model. I do not know to whom you are referring when you write "some of you..."

[fidelio]

I am well aware it is not an official position of Thunderbolts/EU, but I was reading in a thread about human origins and there was quite a lot of talk about us evolving on one of Jupiter's moons. There's also a ridiculous "Cosmos in Collision" theory that borrows a lot from Talbott et al. Sorry, I'm new to this forum! Check out macroevolution.net for more on the pig-chimp theory I mention. I think it is very much in the spirit of the EU model.

[tholden]

Why do some of you believe humans come from another planet?

Mainly for good and sufficient reason:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KipG79pXc84

[fidelio]

Why do some of you believe humans come from another planet?

Mainly for good and sufficient reason:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KipG79pXc84

I didn't go much further than the part where it is suggested our eye sockets are smaller than the neanderthals due to adaption to a brighter world. Where the speaker suggests lemurs and what not have bigger eyes because they are leftovers of said darker world is where you lose me. Not because the world wasn't darker, but because this is a clear obfuscation of the process of adaptation which is used to explain the large eyes in the first place. A few thousand years of living in a brighter world should be more than enough time for these animals to form smaller eyes, if it were advantageous, humans included.

Most, if not all, of the traits attributed to adaptation to an aquatic environment are explained by the what is proposed in the link in my original message, with the addition of many, many more traits that are not explained by adaptation to aquatic life. The main problem with aquatic ape theory is adaptation itself, the same adaptation that is conveniently ignored in regards to lemurs, humans etc. Aquatic ape theory is predicated on the notion that all forms of life can be explained almost completely by a slow, gradual adaptation to niches, which is an obvious analog to the ridiculous uniformism of geology, and which, like uniformism, ignores most available evidence.

I assume the speaker will go on to suggest our sudden arrival on earth was also due to our ancestors originating on Ganymede instead of observing the fact that the arrival of virtually all new forms of life on earth, through the fossil record, appear sudden. There are spontaneous processes in organismic evolution that have not been acknowledged. One such process is clearly hybridization.

Otherwise, I agree that neanderthals were probably pretty hairy.

[spark]

Lloyd Pye on Human Origins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KWQ9hm2ZOk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI3Tdp2x_x0
or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5qJYwfAju8

[tholden]

Why do some of you believe humans come from another planet?

Mainly for good and sufficient reason:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KipG79pXc84

I didn't go much further than the part where it is suggested our eye sockets are smaller than the neanderthals due to adaption to a brighter world. Where the speaker suggests lemurs and what not have bigger eyes because they are leftovers of said darker world is where you lose me. Not because the world wasn't darker, but because this is a clear obfuscation of the process of adaptation which is used to explain the large eyes in the first place...

The eyes of the dark-world creatures weren't big because they adapted. The darkness was primordial and the creatures were basically designed with big eyes to deal with it.

You seem to be hung up on evolutionism... Evolution is a bunch of BS. The educated lay person is not even aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so stark and unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal. There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

[tholden]

Other than that, there is no general disagreement as to the arrival of Cro Magnon man on Earth. All scholars pretty much agree that Cro Magnon man arrived here straight out of the blue with all of his fancy tools, weaponry, and artwork intact from day one, and absolutely nothing resembling an evolutionary antecedent to be found on the planet anywhere. Further, Cro Magnon man was totaly maladapted to the conditions he encountered here on arrival so that there is no way to believe that he was either created here or evolved here.

If you don't want to believe that he came here from Ganymede, then you need to come up with some other place that he DID come from and you will not find that to bean easy task. Ganymede, for all of the reasons noted in Cosmos in Collision, fills the bill to a T. Nothing else in our system does.

[tholden]

Lloyd Pye on Human Origins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KWQ9hm2ZOk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI3Tdp2x_x0
or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5qJYwfAju8

Pye came to the same conclusion which Troy and I did in claiming that humans could not have originated on or have been native to this planet, but he never presented a plausible alternative as Troy and I have. You need to watch Pye's videos up to the point at which he starts talking about "Annunaki(TM)" and then turn them off.

[fidelio]

tholden:

Ok, thanks for explaining to me in detail why Darwinism doesn't work-- But did you notice that I agree with you? I assumed, due to your obsession with adaptation, that you were something of a Darwinist. I guess I figured you wrong. But what do you suggest "designed" these creatures? Maybe I missed that part.

I've already suggested that hybridization is a fantastic explanation for the spontaneous additions of sometimes mal-adapted new forms of life. This includes your "cro-magnon" man, which, by the way, today is thought by your "scholars" to be not very distinguishable from other modern humans.

And I agree humans have a few traits that seem to be aquatic, but we can hardly be said to have been designed for such an environment. Have you looked into the site I linked? I'd be interested in what you have to say about that.

[tholden]

You mentioned a pig-chimp hybridization theory but it doesn't look as if you provided any sort of a link to it. Donkeys and horses are enormously closer to each other than a pig is to a chimpanzee and all mules are sterile, so that it would seem hugely unlikely that you'd ever get anything viable from a chimpanzee trying to do anything with a pig other than kill and eat it.

Cro Magnons were modern humans, not meaningfully different from you or me. The thing we're really different from is hominids.

http://cosmosincollision.com/forum/index.php?topic=57.0

[fidelio]

You're right those animals are closer and that they always produce sterile offspring, but that does not create any barrier for other animals that are more different. I know it doesn't sound right. But that's how hybridization works. Goats and horses simply don't work together. Again, not because they are too distant from each other on the tree of life. It has been proven to be a myth that animals of different "species" cannot produce fertile offspring; however, they're fertility rate is usually pretty low.

The author of this work is probably the top expert on animal hybridization on planet earth. His site is:

macroevolution.net

--------
And yea........... Cro Magnons are definitely not modern humans. "Cro magnons" isn't even really used anymore, but it was meant to refer to early modern humans in Europe. By early, it is meant around 40,000 years ago while many modern human remains have been found in Africa and other places up to more than 100,000 years ago...

[tholden]

Cro Magnon art work contains several portraits:





Those are modern humans. The only Neanderthal reconstruction which I view as valid at this point is that of Danny Vendramini, and you can certainly see a number of differences between Vendramini's Neanderthal reconstructions and the Cro Magnon images:

[tholden]

There is no totally good word or term for people who lived prior to Adam and Eve at this point. Scientists don't like "Cro Magnon" because they could never really figure out which groups to include; "Pre-Adamite" is politically incorrect since the term was being used in racist tracts 120 years ago; the current terms AMH and EMH (anatomically or early modern human) are problematical since those terms are generally used to include gracile hominids, which I view as wrong-headed. The Skhul/Kafzeh hominids were just hominids, and never had any artwork or fancy tools or weaponry or any of the other things which distinguish early humans.

Troy and I decided to stick with the original term "Cro Magnon" with the caveat that we are using it in lieu of terms like "pre-Adamites" or "indigenous people".