[Emma_Acid]

FurthurBB, on 04 November 2009 - 02:17 PM, said:

I will agree that the theory of evolution is faith based when the alien astronaut theory (or any religion) makes predictions that lead to a single great discovery.

[innerverse]

Emma_Acid, on 04 November 2009 - 04:34 PM, said:

If you knew anything about it, you'd know that:

evolution is an observed fact, and one of the best understood area of any science;

and

evolution is already backed up my mountains of evidence - if it wasn't, it couldn't be considered as a scientific theory.

Emma, did you read my reply where i explain myself about evolution?

[Mattshark]

innerverse, on 04 November 2009 - 02:17 PM, said:

I should clarify here, without making my point link-debated (as we're gonna get lost in the references), that the opinion that i know have of evolution is that it is the result of the interaction of consciousness with matter (or with form in general). Which means, that it allows Darwin's theory of random genetic mutations in it as a step-by-step evolution, but also integrates the term of the one "consciousness" (no need to put the word "god" here) behind all living beings as an intelligent factor or as a directional mosaic for possible future "mutations", giving the ability for a being to "transform" it self within a smaller time period than the one estimated with Darwin's general theory (There are many examples here, but i will leave as it is, as we will probably get off topic). If you resist the term "consciousness" or "higher intelligence" in there, you could also replace it with the scientific term used in modern cosmology of "THE ΑNTHROPIC PRINCIPLE". So for me, Darwin's theory is not WRONG, rather incomplete.

Evolution: A change in the allele frequency of a population over a generation.

You can't just change the definition to suit you.

And evolution is certainly not random.

I really think you actually don't understand what evolution is.

[innerverse]

Mattshark, on 04 November 2009 - 04:45 PM, said:

Evolution: A change in the allele frequency of a population over a generation.

You can't just change the definition to suit you.

And evolution is certainly not random.

I really think you actually don't understand what evolution is.

Well it seems to me that you also give your own interpretation of evolution here. In Darwin’s The Origin of the Species, the first theory he presented was that “the species are not immutable.” Through mutations, Darwin contended that new species have appeared by a natural process called “descent with modification.” His second proposal was that this process could account for nearly all of the diversity of life, because all living things have a common ancestor, and that this process was guided by natural selection or “survival of the fittest.”

Darwin wrote that RANDOM, genetic mutations occur which allow the owner an advantage over its fellow members of the same species. This slightly superior creature then passes on the mutated gene to its offspring who, like their parent, are now somehow better suited to the environment. Eventually, these mutated specimens become more numerous than their ancestors because of their beneficial evolution. As a result of several million plus of these mutations, over millions of years we reach the pinnacle of evolution, Homo sapiens.

[FurthurBB]

innerverse, on 04 November 2009 - 03:50 PM, said:

Well it seems to me that you also give your own interpretation of evolution here. In Darwin’s The Origin of the Species, the first theory he presented was that “the species are not immutable.” Through mutations, Darwin contended that new species have appeared by a natural process called “descent with modification.” His second proposal was that this process could account for nearly all of the diversity of life, because all living things have a common ancestor, and that this process was guided by natural selection or “survival of the fittest.”

Darwin wrote that RANDOM, genetic mutations occur which allow the owner an advantage over its fellow members of the same species. This slightly superior creature then passes on the mutated gene to its offspring who, like their parent, are now somehow better suited to the environment. Eventually, these mutated specimens become more numerous than their ancestors because of their beneficial evolution. As a result of several million plus of these mutations, over millions of years we reach the pinnacle of evolution, Homo sapiens.

The mutations are random, but, evolution is not. Descent with modification is a simple way to explain evolution when you have absolutely no idea what genes or alleles are as was the case with Darwin. The only reason why the mutated genes become more prevalent is because the species with these genes live longer and produce more offspring.

[Mattshark]

innerverse, on 04 November 2009 - 02:50 PM, said:

Well it seems to me that you also give your own interpretation of evolution here. In Darwin’s The Origin of the Species, the first theory he presented was that “the species are not immutable.” Through mutations, Darwin contended that new species have appeared by a natural process called “descent with modification.” His second proposal was that this process could account for nearly all of the diversity of life, because all living things have a common ancestor, and that this process was guided by natural selection or “survival of the fittest.”

Darwin wrote that RANDOM, genetic mutations occur which allow the owner an advantage over its fellow members of the same species. This slightly superior creature then passes on the mutated gene to its offspring who, like their parent, are now somehow better suited to the environment. Eventually, these mutated specimens become more numerous than their ancestors because of their beneficial evolution. As a result of several million plus of these mutations, over millions of years we reach the pinnacle of evolution, Homo sapiens.

Actually what I gave you was the definition of biological evolution. Individuals don't evolve, only populations do.

And do really think modern evolutionary biology and the mountains of new evidence since then has not led to the theory being modified since then?
How about factors like genetic drift? What do have to say about that.
Parpatric, sympatric and allopatric speciation, any comment on these factors?

There is no pinnacle of evolution. Again, you are not understanding evolution at all if you think there is a peak of if you think any one species is more evolved than another.

[Hanslune]

Welcome Innerverse

My my, people are still making this decades old claim in public?

"Certain clay tablets left by an ancient civilization says that pile of rocks was built by the aliens as a navigation beacon"

Okay Kenny you know the drill provide the link to said tablets - which we both know don't exist. Why do you make such a claim KNOWING you'll be debunked?

A devotee of De Sade perhaps? LOL

[innerverse]

Mattshark, on 04 November 2009 - 05:01 PM, said:

Actually what I gave you was the definition of biological evolution. Individuals don't evolve, only populations do.

And do really think modern evolutionary biology and the mountains of new evidence since then has not led to the theory being modified since then?
How about factors like genetic drift? What do have to say about that.
Parpatric, sympatric and allopatric speciation, any comment on these factors?

There is no pinnacle of evolution. Again, you are not understanding evolution at all if you think there is a peak of if you think any one species is more evolved than another.

I'll start from the end, where of course i agree, there is no pinnacle of evolution (have i anywhere claimed that?).
Now, your thesis against mine was about the randomness of evolution wasn't it? (And my original post where i claim the limited time period where evolution occurs in some cases). Taking genetic drift for example, a supplementary to the theory of natural selection which adds chance and random sampling to the proportion of a gene variant in a given population, as another factor apart from their reproductive success. Parpatric, sympatric and allopatric speciation (apart from peripatric which is somewhat controversial) also give different explanations of the genetic changes of different cases of populations, but aside from the evolution of the theory of evolution , gaps within this theory remain, like Stasis, sudden apearance and the Cambrian explosion. Now, that is why i said in the beginning that the theory of evolution needs more evidence to establish herself, and that doesn't of course mean that it's wrong. Now let's leave to that, I'm sure there is some other threads discussing evolution, (it was probably a mistake that i brought it up in this topic), and re-focus on the absence of alien artifacts considering the ancient astronauts theory.

[Mattshark]

innerverse, on 04 November 2009 - 04:27 PM, said:

I'll start from the end, where of course i agree, there is no pinnacle of evolution (have i anywhere claimed that?).

Yes

innerverse, on 04 November 2009 - 02:50 PM, said:

As a result of several million plus of these mutations, over millions of years we reach the pinnacle of evolution, Homo sapiens.

[Abramelin]

Hanslune, on 04 November 2009 - 04:04 PM, said:

Welcome Innerverse

My my, people are still making this decades old claim in public?

"Certain clay tablets left by an ancient civilization says that pile of rocks was built by the aliens as a navigation beacon"

Okay Kenny you know the drill provide the link to said tablets - which we both know don't exist. Why do you make such a claim KNOWING you'll be debunked?

A devotee of De Sade perhaps? LOL

I was thinking about asking him the same, but it's of no use.

He can't provide any evidence, it's just his belief, and he will fabricate another excuse for not bringing up any proof.

It happens all the time here, it's people with active braincells battling people with convictions based on nothing but a fancy fantasy.

[innerverse]

Mattshark, on 04 November 2009 - 09:04 PM, said:

Yes

As a result of several million plus of these mutations, over millions of years we reach the pinnacle of evolution, Homo sapiens.

Wrong use of words there I'm afraid... i use that as an example of how species evolve, whereas the ones that fail to adapt to the changes of their environment get extinguished, but by no means I'm implying that there is an end to the spiral of evolution.

[danydandan]

You banging your head off the wall yet?

[innerverse]

danydandan, on 05 November 2009 - 01:49 AM, said:

You banging your head off the wall yet?

Ouch! Well, you have warned me haven't you?

[Swede]

innerverse, on 04 November 2009 - 10:27 AM, said:

I'll start from the end, where of course i agree, there is no pinnacle of evolution (have i anywhere claimed that?).
Now, your thesis against mine was about the randomness of evolution wasn't it? (And my original post where i claim the limited time period where evolution occurs in some cases). Taking genetic drift for example, a supplementary to the theory of natural selection which adds chance and random sampling to the proportion of a gene variant in a given population, as another factor apart from their reproductive success. Parpatric, sympatric and allopatric speciation (apart from peripatric which is somewhat controversial) also give different explanations of the genetic changes of different cases of populations, but aside from the evolution of the theory of evolution , gaps within this theory remain, like Stasis, sudden apearance and the Cambrian explosion. Now, that is why i said in the beginning that the theory of evolution needs more evidence to establish herself, and that doesn't of course mean that it's wrong. Now let's leave to that, I'm sure there is some other threads discussing evolution, (it was probably a mistake that i brought it up in this topic), and re-focus on the absence of alien artifacts considering the ancient astronauts theory.

I concur with your basic question. Where is there to be found verifiable physical evidence of extra-terrestrial activity on this particular planet? It would appear that such evidence would be notably lacking in the archaeological record. I would be quite interested to learn of the presence of an artifact assemblage that could be attributed to a currently undocumented culture not associated with known human activity patterns.

This post has been edited by Swede: 05 November 2009 - 02:29 AM

[sepulchrave]

Why is there no evidence of ancient aliens? To answer this question we must apply Occam's razor¹, and a lot of footnotes.

Although our technology is far from being as advanced as that of our ancient visitors², we are approaching the threshold. In almost every field our major advancements in technology have either been or been associated with advances in computing. However we are rapidly reaching the limit of what doped-silicon based technology can achieve, and current progress into semiconductor and metallic alternatives (spintronics, photonics, etc.) are going nowhere³.

The way forward, of course, is with quantum computing. And how will quantum computing be achieved? It is already well known that the human brain possess a high degree of quantum entanglement⁴. This is not enough for an ultra-high-tech society⁵, of course, but massively parallel arrays of organic neurons coupled to Bose-Einstein condensates⁶ cooled to lHe temperatures might just do the trick. Of course once the aliens left, the lHe boiled away and the organic components quickly rotted - leaving no trace.

Ok so we've got their computing part out of the way. Now how did they get here? Obviously space is really big, and the idea of just flying through it is laughable⁷. The answer: the ancient aliens traveled around via wormholes. If you can manipulate the web of space-time to create a tunnel to take you somewhere else, why bother doing it from space⁸? You can just create a wormhole from the surface of your planet to the surface of the planet you want to visit⁹.

Now how do they know where to go? Well, back at home they had tachyon sensors. It is well known that the presence of mass and energy warps the fabric of space-time, and therefore modifies the trajectory of superluminal tachyons¹⁰. The tachyon sensor arrays allowed the ancient aliens to probe thousands of planets from the comfort of their own home!

Now the first worm-holes to earth were no doubt a bit of tricky business. But once the aliens established regular contact with our ancestors they required something to "lock on" to. And what better way of modifying the space-time continuum in a distinct manner than placing large, massive objects with unnatural flat surfaces and right angled corners ¹¹?

Truly we are but hapless Aegeans caught in a labyrinthine game of intrigue and mystery. Secrets and lies! Secrets and lies!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In this post it seems it has been a long time since Mr. Occam sharpened his razor.
2. Even though they are no longer around to defend themselves, most people are STILL convinced they didn't exist. I mean, how high tech is that! Straight outta Douglas Adams, I'm telling you.
3. Well, at least not getting there fast enough. I want my photonic computer already!
4. Sorry, Mattshark - I couldn't resist. At least you can switch from defeating the arguments of anti-evolutionists to defeating the arguments of pro-brain-entanglement-ists.
5. No snide remarks about my brain in particular, please.
6. Any Robert Charles Wilson fans in the house?
7. Well I guess NASA doesn't find it laughable, but it's been years since they've been to the moon.
8. Other than the risk of extreme gravitational gradients nerfing the place you are trying to go to.
9. And hope the planet has an atmosphere at the same pressure as yours!
10. Of course there are many good arguments why tachyons shouldn't exist, but if you are aware of them you've probably stopped reading before this point.
11. Actually I can think of several better ways of modifying the space-time continuum, but none that bring pyramids into the discussion. And without pyramids, well, it just isn't a conspiracy.

This post has been edited by sepulchrave: 05 November 2009 - 03:03 AM