Reptilian Humanoid Startles Bikers

[qxcontinuum]

Silurians are not extraterrestrial, they are the original inhabitants of this planet.

Doesn't anyone else watch Dr Who?

Why not callimg them annunakis?

Speaking of which, a long time ago I watched a documentary made by BBC, about how dinosaurs would look alike today if the asteroid would have missed planet Earth before.

Would be something like below, amazing similar with the allegedly reptilian figure spotted.

Edited February 20, 2014 by qxcontinuum

[psyche101]

Nope, not lately. I think they may have been filming in the Sonoran Desert though.

Ohh, you have to catch up! the 9th, 10th and 11th doctors are awesome!

12th one this season!!

[psyche101]

You don't want my opinion on 21st century Who's Silurians Psyche.....

?? I thought she was pretty hot myself...........

She is lesbian too, reptilian lesbians! Ohhh baby!!! I can just see her in a snakeskin bikini and boots....... mmmmmmmm Silurians.......

BBL Cold shower needed.....

Edited February 20, 2014 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Why not callimg them annunakis?

Why would one??

Speaking of which, a long time ago I watched a documentary made by BBC, about how dinosaurs would look alike today if the asteroid would have missed planet Earth before.

Would be something like below, amazing similar with the allegedly reptilian figure spotted.

It's really Carl Sagan's idea when he speculated exactly this in his 1977 book, Dragons of Eden.

I honestly do not know if the idea has merit or not, whilst it fascinates the imagination, most biologists refuse the idea and feel Dale Russell simply anthropomorphised a Troodontid. In reality, Troodontids were probably about as smart as an Emu or Opossum.

Darren Naish offered what he feels is a more likely depiction of a "Dinosaurid" and offers a good argument as to why he feels birds like Grounded Hornbills would be far better candidates than the older Dinosaurs.

LINK - Darren Naish Tetrapod Zoology.

[qxcontinuum]

Well yeah they weren't smart back then, but imagine after 200 millions of years of continuous evolution.

Edited February 20, 2014 by qxcontinuum

[psyche101]

Well yeah they weren't smart back then, but imagine after 200 millions of years of continuous evolution.

Seriously, try the link I left you.

Dinosaurs became birds - remember?

200 million years? Man only started to jump out of trees about 7 million years ago. Look at us.

Edited February 20, 2014 by psyche101

[qxcontinuum]

Seriously, try the link I left you.

Dinosaurs became birds - remember?

200 million years? Man only started to jump out of trees about 7 million years ago. Look at us.

Only some small dinosaurs became birds. Majority of them from the higher chain disappeared.

We humans are different, we've been helped and since i don't believe in carbon dating accuracy i would estimate much less for humanity to evolve. I mean we know officially that we've been around in the final modern shape for like 100.000 years. That is more realistic than 7millions of years of misteries and missing links that is hard to digest ... Unless everything happened in the water ( see the water ape theory) and therefore the clues are gone

Edited February 20, 2014 by qxcontinuum

[Skep B]

wouldnt the clues largely be gone over a long period of time just as easily?

[qxcontinuum]

wouldnt the clues largely be gone over a long period of time just as easily?

For sure they would have gone as well. Isn't actually funny that they barely can find some monkey bones coming to the Darwinistic theory help from lets say 34 millions years ago, but they are finding tons and tons of Dinosaurs fossils from 200 millions years ago?

It is clearly something wrong here unless of course, the evolution of humans had actually taken place in water. See the monkey ape theory again

Edited February 20, 2014 by qxcontinuum

[Astra.]

Ohh, you have to catch up! the 9th, 10th and 11th doctors are awesome!

12th one this season!!

Haha...

[DONTEATUS]

Just as long as we develop into sumptin that can Fly under our own mind power,and Always Have a muititude of sexual partners ! Thats Mans Best Dream !

[psyche101]

Only some small dinosaurs became birds. Majority of them from the higher chain disappeared.

Yes, like 65 million years of development?

That is what you were saying about Dinosaurs were you not? Remember you said "Back then, but with 200 million years of development (which BTW is another 145 million years away yet since the end of the reign of Dinosaurs) They did develop, they are still here, and they are birds, which is what Naishe's model takes into account that Dale Russell's Dinosaurid does not. Todays Dinosaurs ARE birds, why would an evolved Dino not be? And evolved Dino is a bird isn't it?

We humans are different, we've been helped

I beg your pardon? By whom? When and where?

and since i don't believe in carbon dating accuracy i would estimate much less for humanity to evolve.

If you want to date a fossil, try one of those date a granny sites instead of UM.

Radiometric dating is used with fossils, there is a good thread here at UM if you want to learn more. LINK

What do you base your lower estimate upon? Surely you have good reason to believe that human development took a shorter path than you envisage?

I mean we know officially that we've been around in the final modern shape for like 100.000 years. That is more realistic than 7millions of years of misteries and missing links that is hard to digest ...

They morph together to show us a gradually evolving shape. That seem pretty simple and straightforward to me? We are certainly not the only species that show this change, every substantial sized species has long histories showing great changes, just look at the evolution of the whale.

Honestly not sure where it is that you see the problem here.

Unless everything happened in the water ( see the water ape theory) and therefore the clues are gone

I do not know how you see it that way, although Morgan is said to have received praise for the final draft of the ideal, it has never passed peer review, nor appeared in any academic journal. Must be stirring stuff huh?

Reminds me a bit of how that woman Alison DuBois told reporters and others that she helped police solve crime with her psychic abilities, and even inspired a TV show, and many believed her claim, but when the actual police were asked they said "What??? No she has never helped solve a single crime, when she does get in the way she is either totally wrong, or simply no help at all.

Edited February 20, 2014 by psyche101

[qxcontinuum]

I strongly believe as all other cultures from around the world and geologic researches that there were major ecosystem disasters in history. I believe the remaining dinosaurs have evolved to flying since majority of earth surface was covered by waters. The other animals who have not perished have adapted to life in the waters.

[qxcontinuum]

Yes, like 65 million years of development?

That is what you were saying about Dinosaurs were you not? Remember you said "Back then, but with 200 million years of development (which BTW is another 145 million years away yet since the end of the reign of Dinosaurs) They did develop, they are still here, and they are birds, which is what Naishe's model takes into account that Dale Russell's Dinosaurid does not. Todays Dinosaurs ARE birds, why would an evolved Dino not be? And evolved Dino is a bird isn't it?

I beg your pardon? By whom? When and where?

Perhaps by our makers, those whom have helped us being what we are today? Aliens, Gods, Angels..you name it!

If you want to date a fossil, try one of those date a granny sites instead of UM.

Radiometric dating is used with fossils, there is a good thread here at UM if you want to learn more. LINK

Recently, however, researchers at Purdue University observed a small (a fraction of a percent), transitory deviation in radioactive decay at the time of a huge solar flare. Data from laboratories in New York and Germany also have shown similarly tiny deviations over the course of a year. This has led some to suggest that Earth's distance from the sun, which varies during the year and affects the planet's exposure to solar neutrinos, might be related to these anomalies.

Researchers from NIST and Purdue tested this by comparing radioactive gold-198 in two shapes, spheres and thin foils, with the same mass and activity. Gold-198 releases neutrinos as it decays. The team reasoned that if neutrinos are affecting the decay rate, the atoms in the spheres should decay more slowly than the atoms in the foil because the neutrinos emitted by the atoms in the spheres would have a greater chance of interacting with their neighboring atoms. The maximum neutrino flux in the sample in their experiments was several times greater than the flux of neutrinos from the sun. The researchers followed the gamma-ray emission rate of each source for several weeks and found no difference between the decay rate of the spheres and the corresponding foils.

According to NIST scientist emeritus Richard Lindstrom, the variations observed in other experiments may have been due to environmental conditions interfering with the instruments themselves.

"There are always more unknowns in your measurements than you can think of," Lindstrom says.

They morph together to show us a gradually evolving shape. That seem pretty simple and straightforward to me? We are certainly not the only species that show this change, every substantial sized species has long histories showing great changes, just look at the evolution of the whale.

Honestly not sure where it is that you see the problem here.

I do not know how you see it that way, although Morgan is said to have received praise for the final draft of the ideal, it has never passed peer review, nor appeared in any academic journal. Must be stirring stuff huh?

Physiological and biochemical claims

• Bipedalism. Some proponents of AAH claim that bipedalism offers numerous advantages in water, including permitting deeper wading, improved balance and reduced strain on the back, hips and knees as well as improved blood circulation.^[14][26][27] But bipedialism also gives many advantages on land, particularly lower energy expenditure and the ability of long-distance running—which humans do better than most terrestrial mammals. Proponents of the AAH suggest that bipedalism is disadvantageous when comparing humans to medium-sized, terrestrial quadrupeds, but the fossil record shows that the evolution of humans from ape ancestors didn't include a period of quadrupedal locomotion. Instead, human evolution features mainly brachiation, suspension and climbing as the primary method of transportation, with a gradual increase in bipedal locomotion over time. In addition, the elongated lower limbs of humans, which is explained by AAH proponents as improving swimming speeds, appears only after the evolution of the genus Homo ^[3] and biomechanical analysis indicates humans are far too poor swimmers to have derived from an ape ancestor that swam,^[28] and pre-human apes would face similar problems.^[29] There is no single accepted explanation for human bipedalism but freedom of the hands for tool use, carrying of infants, feeding adaptations, improved energy expenditure or some combination of these are suggested, with considerable diversity in pre-human skeletal adaptations that would assist in bipedalism.^[30]
  
• Hairlessness. Morgan claimed the relatively hairless skin of humans was due to comparable adaptations in aquatic mammals and land-dwelling mammals that have aquatic ancestors as well as those that currently spend much of their time in wet conditions, and what body hair humans do have follows the flow of water over the body.^[31][32] However, humans vary strongly in the amount and distribution of body hair^[33] and comparably sized mammals adapted to semi-aquatic lifestyles actually have dense, insulating fur^[29][34] or large, barrel-shaped bodies that retain heat well in water.^[29] Hairlessness is only an advantage for aquatic mammals such as whales and dolphins that have spent millions of years adapting to aquatic lifestyles involving diving, fast swimming and migration over long distances; such animals show considerable skeletal and cardiovascular adaptations to an aquatic environment.^[3][29] Though a variety of explanations have been proposed for human hairlessness, the best-supported hypothesis involves improved cooling through perspiration; while fur helps cool inactive animals, hairless skin that sweats vigorously is much better at cooling humans who generate body heat through activity.^[29] Langdon, in his 1997 critique of the hypothesis, stated that the streamlining features attributed to hair follicle distribution and direction would be more reasonably achieved through changes in the shape of the skeleton and soft tissues.^[3]
  
• Descended larynx. The human larynx is situated in the throat rather than the nasal cavity, a feature that is shared by some aquatic animals who use it to close off the trachea while diving; it also facilitates taking large breaths of air upon surfacing.^[32] However, other terrestrial mammals, such as the red deer, also have a permanently descended larynx.^[35] Humans also have a considerable amount of control over their breathing, which is an involuntary reflex for most terrestrial mammals.^[26][32] Breath control is also thought to be preceded by bipedalism, which frees up the muscles of the upper torso from locomotion and allows breathing independent of limb position. Both of these adaptations are thought to derive from improvements in vocalization and the evolution of the ability to speak^[3][36] and the human larynx is shaped differently from that of aquatic animals, predisposing humans to choking.^[3]
  
• Encephalization: The human encephalization quotient, an expression of the size and complexity of the brain of a species, compared to its physical size and other factors, is considered the highest in the animal kingdom, followed by whales, in particular dolphins, other great apes, elephants, certain species of squid and some intelligent birds.^[37] It has been argued, that aquatic mammals more often develop large brains, and that particularly grassland mammals conversely stagnate in brain development.^[38] Morgan^[32] and other authors^[39][40][41] have suggested that the encephalization of the human brain was a response to increased consumption of seafood. A team lead by Canadian biochemist Stephen Cunnane has argued, that both developing and maintaining a healthy human brain is heavily dependent on a key series of micronutrients, most especially docosahexaenoic acid, DHA (an Omega 3 fatty acid) and iodine-ions. Both these have proven extremely rare in purely terrestrial food groups (including cereals, fruits, vegetables and husbandry meats), but are conversely abundant in fish, shellfish and other sea foods, particular from saline and alkaline waters.^[42][43] Critics have argued, that considerable human encephalization began quite late in the development of the genus Homo, particularly with Homo erectus, long after the development of bipedalism. Bipedalism had occurred already in the australopithecines (4.2–3.9 mya) and Ardipithecus (4.4 mya), and perhaps as early as in the species Sahelanthropus tchadensis (approx. 7 mya). On the other hand increase in cranial capacity occurs quite late in the fossil record: Homo habilis (approx. 2 mya) for example, while fully bipedal, had a brain size within the range of modern day gorillas. Counter to this, Cunnane et al. have argued, that a transition of semiaquatic Hominina-forms from fresh water habitats in the hinterland of Africa to more alkaline and saline habitats in Eastern Africa, e.g. in the then sea-flooded Afar-depression in modern Ethiopia, could have supported the increase in human brain size through an increased access to e.g. DHA and iodine rich foods. It is argued, that molluscs, e.g. clams and oysters, as found along the shores of East Africa and in alkaline lakes along the Great Rift Valley has an optimal composition to support the extant human brain's nutritional needs.^[44][45] Proponents point to archaeological finds of shellfish kitchen middens as far back as in middle pleistocene some 164,000 years ago, during the earliest days of archaic Homo sapiens.^[46] Conversely, critics argue that landlocked humans without access to seafood develop normal brains^[3] and that these nutritional requirements can be met with a specific terrestrial diet.^[47][48] The encephalization of early Homo species is also argued as having been possibly driven by the consumption of hunted or scavenged animal brains supplying large amounts of scarce nutrients including DHA.^[48][49]
  

A baby submerged being supported by an adult: Elaine Morgan claims that a baby holding its breath underwater is evidence for her proposals.^[50]

• Reproduction: Morgan and others point to the increased adiposity of human infants, a marked difference from the offspring of other great apes. This is suggested as an adaptation to increased insulation and buoyancy in water for human babies. It is pointed out, that vernix caseosa, a cheesy varnish coating the skin of newborn babies, apart from humans so far has only been observed on the cups of a few pinniped species, e.g. harbour seals.^[51] It is pointed out, that infant humans cannot walk upright, until as much as one year of age, completely unknown among simian offspring, e.g. grassland-dwelling baboons. Morgan also claims, that newborns are adequately suited to swim along with their mother, while being able to hold their breath upwards of 45 seconds.^[50] Historically, women throughout the world have experienced a series of potentially life-threatening circumstances delivering above water, while Morgan and others, e.g. the French physician Michel Odent, point to recent decades of studies into baby swimming and water birth, which have become common practices in modern obstetrics and pediatrics to relieve stress and pain effects for both mother and child, with no corresponding observed drowning risks for the child.^[52][53] Morgan also points to unique features of both men and women's genitals, and the woman's protruding, fat-filled bosom as possible aquatic adaptations, with alleged convergence observed in sirenia. Presented criticism to these claims include the infant's increased risk of drowning if parting from its mother, coupled with observations of both young children as well as adults developing aquaphobia, while baby swimming and water birth are being rejected as fads.^[50]
  

Reminds me a bit of how that woman Alison DuBois told reporters and others that she helped police solve crime with her psychic abilities, and even inspired a TV show, and many believed her claim, but when the actual police were asked they said "What??? No she has never helped solve a single crime, when she does get in the way she is either totally wrong, or simply no help at all.

Edited February 20, 2014 by qxcontinuum

[psyche101]

LINK - Aquatic Ape Theory - Sink or Swim?

Mate, you should posts links not walls of text, I think the site guidelines make it pretty clear if you have a look.

I already pointed out that for all Morgans claims, not one has passed peer review, not one has appeared in an academic journal.

Morgan stooped so low as to attempt to use sexism as a reason for her work not being accepted by mainstream. Using poor excuses like that tend to indicate one had little if anything to begin with.

[qxcontinuum]

you can't really ignore some of the very interesting similarities between us and aquatic mammals. There are numerous facts other than described in the article upper mentioned that is indicating links to the aquatic kingdom. Just look at the membrane between your fingers and look at a monkey . You will see a big difference The monkey has none. In the same time the amount of time we can hold our breath, the fat we depose under skin...etc...

I will never say Morgan has failed , history will prove it. It is known in the scientific circles that alternative science is hard to be accepted once the entire world has been driven by already established grounds in human evolution. Still do not forget that genetic science cannot relate the evolution of human modern man from apes. I mean genetically we are more close to pigs and rats than we are to apes. I would say we are on the same evolutionary tree as apes in the past but separate branches. They evolved separately and we went our way. That is one theory that I can accept .

The only amendment or the second theory I accept is having Gods coming down with all the ingredients and cells in a syringe, creating the modern human engineered to be perfect and have all the characteristics and abilities to master the air, the water and the earth all together. The fact they have chosen apes was probably because they were the only animals existent at that point capable of having the required dexterity or to be transformed getting closer to the physical requirements of mastering all the elements. I mean the dolphin doesn't have feet or hands obviously couldn't be a builder, or other animals, etc...

Edited February 20, 2014 by qxcontinuum

[psyche101]

you can't really ignore some of the very interesting similarities between us and aquatic mammals.

Aquatic mammals started out on land? They went from the sea, to land, and back to the sea. Why would there not be similarities?

There are numerous facts other than described in the article upper mentioned that is indicating links to the aquatic kingdom. Just look at the membrane between your fingers and look at a monkey . You will see a big difference. In the same time the amount of time we can hold our breath, the fat we depose under skin...etc...

Nope, got me, here is an illustration, please feel free to make your point with further clarification using these models.

Holding breath is something we have had to develop in order to expand food sources in extreme situations, these generalisation do not prove that man was ever aquatic, they just pose open ended claims is all.

What do you think of things like vestigial ear muscles? That many tree dwelling primates have today and utilise?

I will never say Morgan has failed , history will prove it.

Does not the historical record, and the fact that she failed any attempts at peer review indicate exactly this?

It is known in the scientific circles that alternative science is hard to be accepted once the entire world has been driven by already established grounds in human evolution.

Yes, that is why we have peer review. Flores man as a new species was heavily challenged to, and had to make it's argument with solid evidence. That where Morgan fails from what I can tell, she has no evidence just speculation.

See the big difference is I can go to Africa, and pick up a skull of one of my ancestors, show you the similarities to my own skull, and then even crack you over the head with it - and why would I do that? To show you it is real, as real as they come. You won't be able to deny the painful egg on your head as easily as you do established science. Can the Aquatic Ape theory give me anything at all like that? Anything you can crack my head with to prove we were aquatic at some point?

Science is fluid, science moves, if something is proven science accepts it, that simple. Science has no ego.

Still do not forget that genetic science cannot relate the evolution of human modern man to apes. I mean we are more close to pigs and rats than we are to apes.

What? No we are not, we ARE Great Apes. what on earth are you on about now?

Edited February 20, 2014 by psyche101

[qxcontinuum]

read this

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/claim-humans-came-from-chimp-mating-a-pig

Edited February 20, 2014 by qxcontinuum

[DecoNoir]

read this

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/claim-humans-came-from-chimp-mating-a-pig

This article has been discussed in another thread long ago, and rightfully shown to be hogwash. The genus Homo did not descend from chimps, but evolved parallel to them from a common ancestor. And the claim that a chimp and a pig could viably mate makes about as much sense as mating a komodo with a wallaby.

[psyche101]

read this

http://www.wnd.com/2...mp-mating-a-pig

I have read that. There is a thread on it at UM, and I commented in it.

You surely cannot be serious. That's more of a thought experiment in anything, and the ENTIRE claim is based on observation, not one tiny little bit of genetic evidence. Nothing at all.

Do you really think a Pig jumped a Chimp million of years ago and it became us?

Look if you do, I think I just wont be speaking to you anymore, I do expect a certain level of sensibility and academia in a discussion. This is about as valid as debating wether fairies really do die if one does not believe in them. It's just getting stupid now.

You really need to read these articles a bit more instead of just reading a few lines an then mixing this with something else you like the sound of. All people do is explain the articles you post back to you, and it's getting a bit long in the tooth. Seriously, in order to be considered a valuable contributor, and not just a time wasting halfwit, please read these links and do a little research before throwing these rather silly ideas out there.

One second you are telling me we were aquatic, next thing you tell me a pig jumped a Chimpanzee. Slow down a bit mate, get yourself in order a bit first, then post.

[qxcontinuum]

i presented you two scenarios.

if the first one is not solid i'll take the second one..see I am also confused. i don't know what to believe anymore...To much reading and links made in time can seriously alter perceptions and trust in all the publication data.

"The only amendment or the second theory I accept is having Gods coming down with all the ingredients and cells in a syringe, creating the modern human engineered to be perfect and have all the characteristics and abilities to master the air, the water and the earth all together. The fact they have chosen apes was probably because they were the only animals existent at that point capable of having the required dexterity or to be transformed getting closer to the physical requirements of mastering all the elements. I mean the dolphin doesn't have feet or hands obviously couldn't be a builder, or other animals, etc..."

Edited February 20, 2014 by qxcontinuum

[psyche101]

i presented you two scenarios.

That's more like it.

You said numerous facts suported the aquatic ape ideal, that's not really the case, numerous speculations and observations have been pondered, which is not the same thing. organ presents straw-man arguments, much like the ETH with well, if it's not A, it must be B. Never considering a very viable C.

if the first one is not solid i'll take the second one..see I am also confused. i don't know what to believe anymore...To much reading and links made in time can seriously alter perceptions and trust in all the publication data.

Why insist alternatives hold answers and refuse mainstream?

I never understand why people insist on fringe when perfectly good answers are staring you in the face. Apart from God, or a Pig jumping a chimp, or aquatic apes, Darwin's Theory gives the answers you seek, it's not that hard.

What you should believe is what can be proven, not what people can babble on about. Talk is cheap. Facts take hard work.

"The only amendment or the second theory I accept is having Gods coming down with all the ingredients and cells in a syringe, creating the modern human engineered to be perfect and have all the characteristics and abilities to master the air, the water and the earth all together. The fact they have chosen apes was probably because they were the only animals existent at that point capable of having the required dexterity or to be transformed getting closer to the physical requirements of mastering all the elements. I mean the dolphin doesn't have feet or hands obviously couldn't be a builder, or other animals, etc..."

You are answering your own questions right here.

Why did man evolve into what we are today? Because we are best suited to do so, and in the race between us, Denisovia, Neanderthals, and goodness know who else, we won because we were able to overcome the last obstacles. We are the ones whose body shape was moulded over millions of years, we had to step up to the bar. Transitional fossils map the path we traveled, we can go al the way back to the Silurian and see how fossils map the changes from Haikouichthys as it evolved into the jawless-fish Cephalaspis, we can then see Cephalaspis going through stages of lobed fish and evolving into Hynerpeton who crawled onto land, and then the real fun begins and we see some astounding developments.

It's all there, and really quite clear, I have no idea what it is you are struggling with, or why you avoid this established line of science for idealistic kooks. Or a need for God. God is not required for the Universe to evolve and function.

Edited February 20, 2014 by psyche101

[seeder]

"The only amendment or the second theory I accept is having Gods coming down with all the ingredients and cells in a syringe, creating the modern human

ON another thread, in a very similar discussion, I posted the below. In response to a claim that the missing link started with the Neanderthals, then the ET allegedly came and did their stuff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now here we haver a reconstruction of a Neanderthal, along with a currently famous modern man

So again, please tell me what wonderful changes the ET made to mankind? And was it even necessary? Neanderthals looked much like we do

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You might benefit from reading the whole thread

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=262569&st=45

[Davros of Skaro]

I take a bath, or swim for a duration, and I prune up.No aquatic Ape here.

[seeder]

I take a bath, or swim for a duration, and I prune up.No aquatic Ape here.

And these ones take a bath just to get warm, no doubt their digits soften up too

But they have some MORE cunning tricks, first, they make snowballs

The small ones make...smaller balls..

They all join in

THEN... they stack all the balls together...

To form...

Edited February 20, 2014 by seeder