Ancient Aliens

[Edit_XYZ]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Half right. The mutations don't actually need to be beneficial, they only need to correlate more strongly with survivors (who produce a lot of offspring) than early dyers (who produce less). TRAITS can be beneficent, of course, but it takes a long time for any combination of mutated genes to produce consistently identifiable traits.

Blue eyes is a relatively clear example: they're no actual benefit to HAVING blue eyes, but that particular trait correlates more strongly with people who overall have lower skin and hair pigmentation, which itself is a trait that has become beneficent over time. Significantly: there is no one mutation that causes a person to become blond white and blue-eyed. That is the result of TENS OF THOUSANDS of discrete mutations all layered on top of each other. And even then, there's still enough variation in the genotypes of Europeans that if their climate were to suddenly change, in another ten thousand generations they would probably turn black again.

Mutations correlate more strongly with survivors - wits lots of offspring - on a consistent basis ONLY when they're beneficial.
Mutations that are neutral depend on random chance to correlate consistently (and the chance is quite small).
Mutations that are disadvantageous do not correlate at all with survivors on a consistent basis (to be exact, them correlating is HIGHLY improbable).

That's not evolution. That's medical therapy you only have to take once.

Really, you've sort of got you terms muddled up here. Even if it were possible to genetically engineer an entirely species from scratch, that still wouldn't be evolution, since that species didn't actually evolve. On a much longer timescale producing small but useful variations in a single race, still isn't evolution. That's called "breeding" and we've been doing that with animals already for thousands of years (we've also been doing that with royalty, but I repeat myself).

You're describing a process that works over two or fewer generations, doesn't involve natural selection, doesn't produce a new species and doesn't produce a distinct genotype as an end result. That's "artificial evolution" inasmuch as a basketball is an "artificial moon."

What you just wrote here is accurately described as straw-men and forced semantic interpretations:
Evolution does NOT work abruptly, producing a new species from the beginning (that's a straw-man); evolution produces races different from the ones existing and goes from there.
Genetic therapy will do just this - creating de facto new human races with significant differences in their genotypes from baseline humans.

Natural selection - AKA selections of the most adapted to the environments - will most definitely be involved once the subjects of genetic therapy leave the hospital.

Breeding IS evolution (the breeded most adapted to their environment survive, becoming a new race of their species; in a relatively short time, with mutations accumulating, even a new species).

Newtype_alpha, in order for you to have an argument, you want to restrict the concept of "evolution" to only something that happens naturally, with no intervention from intelligence and on a very long timescale. That's a failed semantic forcing: you see, the concept of "evolution" has no such restrictions - except in your own mind.

... is a a strawman and a figment of your imagination that is also totally unrelated to anything I have ever written in this thread.

newtype_alpha, you forget, your posts are there for everyone to read - for example your non-sense about evolution not being possible because only a small subset of the initial population will have access to genetic therapy (read - mutations designed to be advantageous in the present and likely future environments), etc.

Unless, of course, they all pick up machineguns and massacre the modified humans in a holocaust of irony, achieving global victory only because of their superior numbers and greater willingness to resort to violence. This is the thing that you -- and many geneticists -- don't understand about evolution: what WE consider beneficent and what NATURE considers beneficent are two completely different things. Ultimately, it's just as likely that a ruthless man with a tendency for subversion (and an inborn knack for hitting moving targets with a rifle) could be better adapted to survive than a super-intelligent pacifist with a photographic memory and a high respect for authority figures.

Indeed, it's impossible to assume that the "loser" traits that currently exist among humans actually ARE non-beneficial in evolutionary terms. It's not hard to envision environmental conditions in which laziness becomes a valid survival technique, where snap-judgement prejudice is usually the safer position, where the survival of the species could actually depend on the willingness of males to rape their female counterparts. Intelligence and strength are things that HUMANS value, but it is not necessarily something that has evolutionary value.

And here you're reduced to try to name EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE future environments in order to give your supported position some credence.
And personifying "NATURE" to some transcedental, unknowable entity.
And coming with ad-hoc, unsupported assumptions such as "willingness to resort to violence" only for a specific group, etc.

newtype_alpha - I already told you, we can predict the most likely future environments. And, guess what? Intelligence, resistance to disease, etc are advantageous in all of them.

And another thing - the human species lives not in a single environment, but in a multitude of environments.
The chance of all these environments becoming of the extremely unlikely variety you are so desperate to advertise, for any length of time, is practically 0.

Which is why "artificial evolution" is so much bullshit. Even the best geneticists in the world cannot control -- let alone predict -- how those genetic modifications will affect the human species except in a very limited scope and in a very limited timeframe. To assume otherwise is to assume that the technological paradigm that allows for genetic modification in the first place would become a permanent fixture in human society, relatively unchanging for thousands of years.

And yet in the whole of human history, virtually nothing we have EVER created -- no government, no institution, no technology, no culture -- has ever endured long enough to affect evolutionary change in humans, even if they HAD the technology to do so. Ironically, the few human societies that DID make any concerted effort to pursue a genetic upgrade -- either by breeding up or by eliminating undesirables -- either collapsed much faster or gave up those policies after they became untenable. Apparently the drive not to be expunged from the human gene pool is ALSO a beneficial survival trait.

And another batch of staw-men:
No society in human history had the technological means to give a person specific desired traits via genetics (not even the current human societies have the technology to do this - yet).
Having the delusion of being able to do this is NOT the same as being able to do this. And it's no surprise that irrational fanaticism such as this will lead to a society's downfall (due to its influence on society, economics, politics, etc).

And another one - that the genetic therapy changes in the genome will not be transmitted the old fashion way, but that each new generation will have to go to the doctor for their "brain pills".
Or your assumption that becoming more intelligent, etc equals reaching some imaginary peak of genetic perfection.

And yet again you come with extremely unlikely future scenarios for the sole purpose of creating irrelevant what-ifs as arguments for your points:
For example - that advanced technology will disappear from human society in thousands of years.

Yet again you transform nature into an unknowable entity, etc.

PS - in conclusion, your entire post is made up of straw-men, extremely unlikely what-ifs and attempts to muddle the ideas discussed by forced semantic changes and ad-hoc assumptions.
As said - your "arguments" are highly unconvincing, newtype_alpha.

[The Castellan]

Duration doesn't necessarily reflect quality. The fact the Ancient Aliens show is still on the air tells us that.

Well, the show seems pretty well quality to me, I got all the DVD sets of it that's been released so far. Also, I have shown it to some of the most closed minded or just average joe sixpack of my friends and family and they do admit the concept is fascinating and worth thinking about. And if the topic of that show bothers you so much, then don't watch, grab the channel changer and change, or get off your butt and do it manually.

It also shows that people still will ask the questions mainstreamers, and Trek nerds, it seems, dare not ask.

And to the ones who believe in the ancient alien theory as I myself do, don't be discouraged by the skeptics and naysayers. Like what Mr. Van Daniken himself said, "there's always going to be skeptic and critics" so to hell with what they say, and stick to your beliefs. Hell, when Copernicus and Galileo talked about the earth going around the sun, the authorities went after their asses. No real differences today....when a topic like this is brought up, there's always going to be venom towards it, but stick to your beliefs, and don't cower from it because the mainstream might get upset at you or ridicule you. Remember, we're in a world, unfortunately, that's so authority driven that they won't believe anything, unless a figure high in authority says it, even though we get lied to and deceived by said authorities....which makes no sense to me......I mean if your best friend sleeps with your girlfriend or boyfriend, you're not gonna still trust the fellow, right? Stand up for your beliefs, cause who's gonna if you don't, yes?

And here's one for yas. mohenjo daro, what would cause what we saw there? People's bodies laying in the streets, as if something really horrible happened to them? Why is there evidence of animals never touching the bodies to feed on? Why do they give off a higher than normal radiation, and why has the city itself vitrified? And why is the radiation readings noticeably high there?

I do wonder, if the ancient alien theory is proven to be correct, wonder if some folks here would go ballistic, seeing that we, mighty humans are not the masters over matter if that's the case.

To the proponents of the ancient alien theory, if you wanna chat over it, PM me so we can trade contact names and discuss it without the drama queens, LOL'ers, and juvenile caption pictures. I would love talk with you all.

[Gov Kodos]

Since you brought up mohenjo daro, you might enjoy this link where they bring up the topic of the Mahabarata and aspects that sound like a high tech war in the ancient past. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...ohenjodaro.htm By the way Castellan have you ever wondered how Da Vinci had such broad knowledge during an era of such intellectual vacuity? Maybe, Leonardo didn't really invent any of that. He just stole items from the Vatican Archives which had been transferred to Rome during the Roman Empire from the Library at Alexandria and contained lost texts from Atlantis. That's the real reason the Church wanted to suppress his writings, they were hiding the evidence of their real source. Much as the Mahabharata may be vague retelling of a long forgotten alien battle on Earth.

[The Castellan]

Gov Kodos wrote:

---

Since you brought up mohenjo daro, you might enjoy this link where they bring up the topic of the Mahabarata and aspects that sound like a high tech war in the ancient past. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...ohenjodaro.htm By the way Castellan have you ever wondered how Da Vinci had such broad knowledge during an era of such intellectual vacuity? Maybe, Leonardo didn't really invent any of that. He just stole items from the Vatican Archives which had been transferred to Rome during the Roman Empire from the Library at Alexandria and contained lost texts from Atlantis. That's the real reason the Church wanted to suppress his writings, they were hiding the evidence of their real source. Much as the Mahabharata may be vague retelling of a long forgotten alien battle on Earth.

What about the radiation, the fact also that the people looked like they were running for their lives, and did not succeed, all strewn about as if something really terrible happened. Plus the bodies look pretty much new, and giving off radiation themselves. I think either an advanced human society or aliens were the cause, plus vitrified walls are seen in other places of the world, which also look like some really nasty combat was taking place.

With ol' Leo, I would not be surprised, if he did, or the Vatican trying to hide it all. Since Alexandria was trashed, man really got dumbed down for ages.

Also, these ancient societies not only handled stones weighing up to 1000 tons, many of them looks like to carved via machine, the super complex patterns to which they were cut were amazing, especially when they are so sharp, you can still cut yourself on them. Even the query sites show indications of machine or even laser cutting, the statue of Ramses and obelisks in Egypt show that, they look very very mechanically made, no one, no matter how good they are, can't do that by hand with copper chisels. Also, some hieroglyphs show what looks like large lightbulbs.....mainstreamers say they are lotus blossoms with their 'fragrance' going out.....but the smell of flowers, even giant ones, don't need support racks, which are shown in each of these hieroglyphs with said bulbs....the racks are holding them up.


I'm impressed, Kodos, your mind is quite open. I like that.

[Balrog]

The Castellan wrote:

---

It also shows that people still will ask the questions mainstreamers, and Trek nerds, it seems, dare not ask.

That Pat Boone would have made a better Khan than Ricardo Montelban?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Open-mindedness to fabrication, lies, wishful thinking and rumor is crap.



Open-mindedness in the face of real evidence is a virtue.

[Silvercrest]

The Castellan wrote:

---

Well, the show seems pretty well quality to me, I got all the DVD sets of it that's been released so far. Also, I have shown it to some of the most closed minded or just average joe sixpack of my friends and family and they do admit the concept is fascinating and worth thinking about. And if the topic of that show bothers you so much, then don't watch, grab the channel changer and change, or get off your butt and do it manually.

No problem! It's been switched.

It also shows that people still will ask the questions mainstreamers, and Trek nerds, it seems, dare not ask.

Oh, we've asked. And the only answer that doesn't involve preposterous assumptions is, "Not enough evidence; get back to me if you find anything."

There's no harm in continuing to look for evidence, but it is harmful to try to convince everyone that it's true when you have no proof.

[Crazy Eddie]

Edit_XYZ wrote:

---

Mutations correlate more strongly with survivors - wits lots of offspring - on a consistent basis ONLY when they're beneficial.

I'm sorry, but that's simply untrue: there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. Beneficial traits correlate with survival, and those traits are usually the combination of tens or hundreds of discrete mutations, the combination of which becomes a new trait with enough staying power to actually BE inherited by a significant number of one's offspring.

What you just wrote here is accurately described as straw-men and forced semantic interpretations:
Evolution does NOT work abruptly, producing a new species from the beginning (that's a straw-man)

And I never said it did. I said evolution produces gradual variation in the genome through natural selection of beneficial traits over deleterious ones by the gradual accumulation of gene mutations to produce new traits over time.

Genetic engineering doesn't produce gradual variation, doesn't involve natural selection, and doesn't produce new traits over time. Therefore it doesn't fall under the definition of "evolution" and there's no reason to pretend it is in any way similar to it, especially since genetic engineering itself would really only be a transient source of new information which would factor into natural evolution anyway.

Genetic therapy will do just this

Of course it will. And genetic therapy is not evolution.

Natural selection - AKA selections of the most adapted to the environments - will most definitely be involved once the subjects of genetic therapy leave the hospital.

Only on timescales much longer than human beings are in any way equipped to contemplate and plan for, which are timescales in which evolution plays out. In the very short term -- speaking in terms of a few centuries or a few millennia -- political, military and cultural forces play a far greater role than natural selection.

Breeding IS evolution

No, breeding is breeding.

Newtype_alpha, in order for you to have an argument, you want to restrict the concept of "evolution" to only something that happens naturally

I don't "want" to do anything at all. Evolution is a scientific concept with a discrete definition, one which you have chosen to expand to include things that otherwise have nothing to do with evolution.

Genetic engineering and/or selective breeding can do all kinds of things for the human race, but it won't create a new species, and it won't directly affect evolution. For pretty much the same reason that strip mining and fracking won't affect plate techtonics and space exploration won't affect the Earth's orbit.

newtype_alpha, you forget, your posts are there for everyone to read

Then you should probably start READING them instead of scanning for potential counterarguments.

And coming with ad-hoc, unsupported assumptions such as "willingness to resort to violence" only for a specific group, etc.

Certain people ARE more willing to resort to violence than others. That, too, is a beneficial survival trait, and conditions have existed in the historical past where it was the ONLY trait that really mattered.

And, guess what? Intelligence, resistance to disease, etc are advantageous in all of them.

Not necessarily, especially from an evolutionary standpoint.

You realize, of course, that we're talking about traits that correlate with a large number of offspring -- NOT financial or political success as such. A smarter populace might make the calculated decision to have fewer children, realizing that smaller families are easier to manage financially and emotionally, and also being smart enough to practice effective family planning. Meanwhile their stupider counterparts in the developing world continue to breed like rabbits, popping out litters of children that they can barely feed. To some extent this is ALREADY the case in western countries, where wealthier/college educated parents tend to produce fewer children than high school dropouts who don't even have the wherewithal to use birth control. What's more, it seems to be the case that highly intelligent women tend to pursue things like career goals and personal satisfaction rather than simply staying home and popping out children by the dozen.

And those are the conditions we have RIGHT NOW, where intelligence is NOT a beneficent evolutionary trait.

And another batch of staw-men:
No society in human history had the technological means to give a person specific desired traits via genetics

Which is why I mentioned selective breeding instead of genetics, and why I said "even if they had the technology," none of them survived long enough for the use of that technology to make a difference.

And another one - that the genetic therapy changes in the genome will not be transmitted the old fashion way

I never said they wouldn't. Significantly, "transmission of traits" is not the same thing as evolution.

And yet again you come with extremely unlikely future scenarios for the sole purpose of creating irrelevant what-ifs as arguments for your points:
For example - that advanced technology will disappear from human society in thousands of years.

Even if this is a safe assumption for "advanced technology," do we actually know that GENETIC ENGINEERING will still be possible -- or practiced, or even LEGAL -- three thousand years from now? It would be a hell of a thing to assume so, considering we do not even use genetic engineering NOW and there's even less to assume that if and when we start using it that we will continue to do so for anything like the time it would take to contribute to evolutionary changes.

PS - in conclusion, your entire post is made up of straw-men

FYI, "Strawman" does not mean "something I assume you believe because I think you're wrong."

[The Castellan]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Open-mindedness to fabrication, lies, wishful thinking and rumor is crap.



Open-mindedness in the face of real evidence is a virtue.

the infamous cat box image means nothing to me. this was even talked ab out o nthe news that day and a msnbc poll found more people than not believed the face is real and this was found to be a photoshop in itself plus it seems JPL, run by the infamous Mike Mallen himself, waiting just right for a hazy day on Mars, bad sun angle, turned the pictures completely around, and used a filter to make only certain things show, and adding shadows bunch of photoshop geeks were able to see through this....also, since 1992, we get no real live feeds...it's all on delay and an embargo is made so that all info has to be approved by the top dogs before an of it is shown, it was not like that prior to 1992....that's a censorship if ever I saw one ....though why I am even telling you this is beyond me, since you won't bother to listen, anyhow. And with Brookings, NASA's and JPL's own Prime Directive, as well as NASA being of the military (read the charter if you don't believe me), and I trust the military as much as I have in government, and I quit voting 6 years ago. Besides, you're the guy who said if you were in charge, you'd prosecute guys like Van Daniken and others for distributing their work......so, taking any advise or 'wisdom' from your, my friend, is like having the authorities during the times of Galileo and Copernicus, or Spain's inquisition of "heretics". So, the catbox you posted is not a convincing proof. You see, the side I am on is not the only one who has to have proof, you do as well, and the catbox is not proof.

Oh, we've asked. And the only answer that doesn't involve preposterous assumptions is, "Not enough evidence; get back to me if you find anything."

There's no harm in continuing to look for evidence, but it is harmful to try to convince everyone that it's true when you have no proof.

you forget something that hardcore skeptics and debunkers alike always say:

1: Oh, look, ANOTHER grainy, blurry image/video....FAKE!
2: ~With a good video or image~ Gimme a break, this is too well done, it's all clean and looks waaay to good to be real.....FAKE!

You'll need to be specific to what evidence will be enough to change your decision, since many skeptics and debunkers say they want proof but never say exactly what. It's a two way game.

So, I could post reams of notes, findings.....I could be standing in the middle of time square, butt naked, with 2 real live aliens next to me and all that, but those folks won't believe anything unless suddenly Obama or some other authority figure (ironic we keep calling the, liars, except for this area....a bit odd, I think) comes on TV and says, "My fellow Americans, we are not alone"

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm on the "side" of facts, not woo-woo conspiracy fantasies and superstition.



There's no face on Mars. Fact.

[Crazy Eddie]

The Castellan wrote:

---

you forget something that hardcore skeptics and debunkers alike always say...

Something irrelevant, because hardcore skeptics and debunkers aren't the kinds of people you should be trying to convince with evidence. Mainstream science has a considerably different standard of proof.

You'll need to be specific to what evidence will be enough to change your decision, since many skeptics and debunkers say they want proof but never say exactly what.

Accepted!

I want positive evidence of direct alien intervention that DOESN'T take the shape of an inconvenient in scientific/historical/archeological data. A sample of alien technology, for example, or a fossil for a life form that is structurally fundamentally different from anything found on Earth.

IOW, I want essentially the same thing that scientists in sci-fi movies want shortly before ACTUALLY MAKING that pinnacle discovery: firsthand evidence, recovered by discovery, NOT by the clever extrapolation of circumstantial evidence.

The reason you're getting so much flak from skeptics and debunkers is because everyone knows you don't have THAT kind of evidence, but you continue to behave as if you do, or that the evidence you DO have ought to be as convincing as the solid firsthand evidence the rest of us are thirsting for.

Really, it's like you claiming that you bought your house for just $5000 -- no mortgage, no loan, just cash -- and then when pressed for details claiming "Well I didn't actually pay $5000 cash, but when you look at the accounting and the terms of the mortgage and my savings, that's what I'll end up paying."

It's a claim that's too good to be true, and it probably is.

So, I could post reams of notes, findings.....I could be standing in the middle of time square, butt naked, with 2 real live aliens next to me and all that...

Actually, I would prefer to see just the aliens (your hairy ass in the middle Times Square is totally optional), especially in preference to the notes and findings that we BOTH know are suggestive at best. Indeed, if you HAD two live aliens to show people as proof -- or better yet, two dead ones we could dissect and run comparative genetic studies -- we would not still be having this debate.

[Edit_XYZ]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

No, breeding is breeding.

That's the quintessential summary of your last post.
Taking my quotes out of context (many times removing the explanation) and then repeating yourself, under the mistaken assumption that, by repeating them, your refuted claims gain value.

Or simply repeating yourself, being under the same mistaken assumption, newtype.

FYI, "Strawman" does not mean "something I assume you believe because I think you're wrong."

Indeed, it doesn't mean that.
Making a straw-man means creating the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

You engaged in quite a few straw-men - and various other logical fallacies - in your posts, newtype.
To be fair, though, in your last post you did try to spin some of your previous straw-men, making them somewhat more accurate.

[Edit_XYZ]

The Castellan wrote:

---

the infamous cat box image means nothing to me. this was even talked ab out o nthe news that day and a msnbc poll found more people than not believed the face is real and this was found to be a photoshop in itself plus it seems JPL, run by the infamous Mike Mallen himself, waiting just right for a hazy day on Mars, bad sun angle,[....]I could be standing in the middle of time square, butt naked, with 2 real live aliens next to me and all that, but those folks won't believe anything unless suddenly Obama or some other authority figure (ironic we keep calling the, liars, except for this area....a bit odd, I think) comes on TV and says, "My fellow Americans, we are not alone"

Castellan, sorry to tell you, but you don't have an open mind.
It's quite the opposite - you're a true believer:
The evidence you presented proves absolutely nothing (just to name some examples: the photo is clear - no hazy day, bad angle, whatever; wild conspiracy theories; you have no aliens to present; etc).
Despite this, you behave as if your asserted claims are, beyond the shadow of a doubt, true and correct.

Meaning, you unbendingly believe something is true without proof. That's called faith, NOT open-mindedness.

[Vanyel]

Yawn. I'm through with this thread.

[Balrog]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

I'm on the "side" of facts, not woo-woo conspiracy fantasies and superstition.



There's no face on Mars. Fact.

Hey, look! The woman from Charlie X!