Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
qxcontinuum

interesting object found on Google Mars

324 posts in this topic

We should not deny however a few characteristics we have and that are specific only to water mammals. Nothing else explains how we evolved from 4 legged walking to only 2 and modifications of the pelvis which normally defies evolution and it creates a lot of health troubles with aging.

In the same time we are the only species on earth (land) capable of holding breath for so long, we still have a reminiscence of a membrane between fingers. Discovery have also made a documentary on the Aquatic Ape theory and evolution in parelel adding the mermaid subject in discussion as a very potential reality.

Its all nonsense, trust me it is.

Now we are getting away from the OP subject. You could post your questions on the evolution side of the forums. But why not read my other thread, its not long and has some good info about genetic deviations

Get started with a vid, the Humanzee, an ape that walks on 2 legs, is bald, and smokes cigars. (Thats after of course he finishes reading the papers). :lol:

https://www.youtube....h?v=-C6NkRUbI38

Then have a read if you want

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=253504&hl=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot deny anything as long there are indications of otherwise ...The water ape evolution if true can also apply on other planets explaining radical fast evolutions from animals to smart predators.

The entire universe is driven by identical moving motors and factors, the only problem is our way of interpreting them or measure by using numerous tools and constants that are not fully understood or their little factors physically explained like the Carbon dating with izotop method.

an interesting article regarding the carbon dating;

In principle, any material of plant or animal origin, including textiles, wood, bones and leather, can be dated by its content of carbon 14, a radioactive form of carbon in the environment that is incorporated by all living things. Because it is radioactive, carbon 14 steadily decays into other substances. But when a plant or animal dies, it can no longer accumulate fresh carbon 14, and the supply in the organism at the time of death is gradually depleted.

Since the rate of depletion has been accurately determined (half of any given amount of carbon 14 decays in 5,730 years), scientists can calculate the time elapsed since something died from its residual carbon 14.

Dating Subject to Error

But scientists have long recognized that carbon dating is subject to error because of a variety of factors, including contamination by outside sources of carbon. Therefore they have sought ways to calibrate and correct the carbon dating method. The best gauge they have found is dendrochronology: the measurement of age by tree rings.

Accurate tree ring records of age are available for a period extending 9,000 years into the past. But the tree ring record goes no further, so scientists have sought other indicators of age against which carbon dates can be compared. One such indicator is the uranium-thorium dating method used by the Lamont-Doherty group.

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot deny anything as long there are indications of otherwise ...The water ape evolution if true can also apply on other planets explaining radical fast evolutions from animals to smart predators.

The entire universe is driven by identical moving motors and factors, the only problem is our way of interpreting them or measure by using numerous tools and constants that are not fully understood or their little factors physically explained like the Carbon dating with izotop method.

an interesting article regarding the carbon dating;

In principle, any material of plant or animal origin, including textiles, wood, bones and leather, can be dated by its content of carbon 14, a radioactive form of carbon in the environment that is incorporated by all living things. Because it is radioactive, carbon 14 steadily decays into other substances. But when a plant or animal dies, it can no longer accumulate fresh carbon 14, and the supply in the organism at the time of death is gradually depleted.

Since the rate of depletion has been accurately determined (half of any given amount of carbon 14 decays in 5,730 years), scientists can calculate the time elapsed since something died from its residual carbon 14.

Dating Subject to Error

But scientists have long recognized that carbon dating is subject to error because of a variety of factors, including contamination by outside sources of carbon. Therefore they have sought ways to calibrate and correct the carbon dating method. The best gauge they have found is dendrochronology: the measurement of age by tree rings.

Accurate tree ring records of age are available for a period extending 9,000 years into the past. But the tree ring record goes no further, so scientists have sought other indicators of age against which carbon dates can be compared. One such indicator is the uranium-thorium dating method used by the Lamont-Doherty group.

F-FWD this vid to 30 secs, and watch and listen well. A very short vid, but raises some interesting things to think about - on evolution elsewhere

And the text and longer explanation, 2 pages

http://www.scientifi...-t-look-like-us

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....I like his plushie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rest assured that NASA photo's are scrutinized by experts before being released to the public.

If there was anything of "ET Interest" the photo's would not have been shown.

You think government employs actually do their jobs?

hahahahahahaha good one

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F-FWD this vid to 30 secs, and watch and listen well. A very short vid, but raises some interesting things to think about - on evolution elsewhere

[media=]

[/media]

And the text and longer explanation, 2 pages

http://www.scientifi...-t-look-like-us

.

Seeder I have to wonder if "YOU" are Michael Shermer, and not just a follower of his. His video on evolution is pure garbage, not science, just razzle dazzle for dumb people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeder I have to wonder if "YOU" are Michael Shermer, and not just a follower of his. His video on evolution is pure garbage, not science, just razzle dazzle for dumb people.

why not give me your version to scrutinise and consider then? If not, then simmer down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to 4:10 or so on this video, he does his same mumbo jumbo and it looks like one of the guests tries to interact/discuss it with him, but he rudely keeps yapping on with his canned responses. Stanton Friedman was correct in saying, we don't know ... I believe there is more where Michael Sherman is asked for proof or he is questioned and he continues on with his plastic looking smirk and not responding to evade questions. Sorry Seeder, I just find this person just puts on a show or an act for his cause, which can be cute to watch but unfortunately not factual.

I don't need to give you my version, I'm willfully scrutinizing his, he presented it, and so did you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to give you my version, I'm willfully scrutinizing his, he presented it, and so did you.

Oh but you do. But lets do it another way for you. You can simply tell me why his theory or view is wrong. According to you and your experiences and learnings of course. Come on, cards on the table time.

Also answer me this. If the dinos had never existed, would man have evolved as he did, in the time frame too?

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also other ways to look at what he is suggesting. If we are the only unique species on the planet, bipedal and intelligent, then we are the only dataset to go by. Given this information we can only currently assume any intelligent life in the universe would be similar to us not the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a weird question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also answer me this. If the dinos had never existed, would man have evolved as he did, in the time frame too?

The dinosaurs never existed?! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dinosaurs never existed?! :w00t:

eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a weird question.

Well thats your opinion just, but its one that has so far not been answered, I was trying to call codemonger out.... he is quick to trash others views but very slow to offer his own.

The situation in a nutshell is, we have one well known skeptic saying the arrival of the human form, or bipedal primate to use the exact phrase, was such a chance development amongst the millions of other developing species.

But then on the other hand, we have the ufo crowd who seemingly think the humanoid shape is a given throughout the universe, and that aliens will be similar to us. But we only arrived at our form through the specific pattern of evolution on earth, and early climate changes - and the exploitation of disasters that killed the then number one predator, the dinos.

So, without some of the previous life forms, incl the dinos, would man have evolved into his current form, anyway?

So I dont think its a 'weird' question at all. Perhaps you can answer it though?

typos

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i also believe the intelligent life forms, must have a head, legs to walk and hands to grab and use technologies. So yes humanoid shape can be universally accepted.

If we're thinking to alien forms in the shape of fish or animals we are wrong. How can a dolphin use a hammer or built a flying ufo w/o having hands and walking around it. you get the picture.

The organs might vary , or the skin , eyes, nose etc...

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i also believe the intelligent life forms, must have a head, legs to walk and hands to grab and use technologies. So yes humanoid shape can be universally accepted.

If we're thinking to alien forms in the shape of fish or animals we are wrong. How can a dolphin use a hammer or built a flying ufo w/o having hands and walking around it. you get the picture.

The organs might vary , or the skin , eyes, nose etc...

Well if the dolphin had hands and was amphibious it would be fine!

Edit: See - this guy could build a spaceship easily:

stock-photo-cynical-digital-painting-of-a-dolphin-slaughtering-humanoid-sea-mammals-71686612.jpg

Edited by Timonthy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i also believe the intelligent life forms, must have a head, legs to walk and hands to grab and use technologies. So yes humanoid shape can be universally accepted.

If we're thinking to alien forms in the shape of fish or animals we are wrong. How can a dolphin use a hammer or built a flying ufo w/o having hands and walking around it. you get the picture.

The organs might vary , or the skin , eyes, nose etc...

so if the aliens are indeed a humanoid form with hands and perhaps crucially, an opposable thumb, then what led to them evolving on their planet, and what did they evolve from? An alien version of apes?

Or did they somehow side step all the twists and turns that evolution and climate change may have created on their planet, including such a long evolutionary period?

heres a thought. Lets say you have a thousand wooden blocks, each numbered from one to 1000 - right? Though not in sequence, so the numbers could start - 999, 2, 27, 45, 789, etc etc....These blocks can represent dna.

So, we know for example, in the case of the human form, the numbers of each of the 1000 blocks that gave rise to the human form, But most importantly their sequence in the 'dna' chain

So now, what will be the odds, of you casting a thousand wooden blocks on the ground, and arriving at the exact same number sequence used to make a human form?

I believe this is a simplified way of saying what the skeptic Shermer said... but Im rushing to go out and buy a car so hope it makes sense the way ive said it...

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i also believe the intelligent life forms, must have a head, legs to walk and hands to grab and use technologies. So yes humanoid shape can be universally accepted.

But why human like legs and arms? Why not like an octopus with many similar prehensile boneless limbs for walking, toolmaking, manipulating things, etc.?

Perhaps there's intelligent life out there is like apes that walk on all fours, but still have human like hands that they can use for manipulating, grasping, tool-making, etc.

And why a head? Again why not like an octopus where the torso and head are the same thing and the limbs sprout from that?

Why two eyes on the front of the head? Why not on the side of the heads like some creatures, giving them a much wider field of view? Why not freaky chameleon like independently moving eyes? Why not a bunch of eyes on stalks?

Why not a muzzle like dogs and other animals instead of a flat face like humans? Perhaps we'll meet an aquatic ET species who needs the equivalent of a diving suit - a pressure suit filled with water suitable for them.

There's a lot of tunnel vision in this thread. This idea that intelligent life looks like us but just a bit different - taller, skinnier, shorter, bigger eyes, etc. - seems to show a lack of imagination.

There's so many factors and accidents over millions of years that lead to homo sapiens that I find it extremely doubtful that given a different environment (atmosphere, gravity, rival species, prey and predator species), different unpredictable factors (gamma ray bursts, giant meteor strikes, etc.), and the randomness to the mutations that drive evolution, I find it very hard to imagine that if and when intelligent life develops on another planet, it'll look like us but just skinnier, or a bit taller, or with bigger eyes, etc.

The idea that humans look a certain way and they're the only intelligent civilised species we know, therefore we can assume other intelligent species on other planets will look the same doesn't make the sense. The thing about a sample size of one is that given no other information we can infer nothing about intelligent life elsewhere. We simply have no information to go on and given the variety of life that has developed in this single planet, who knows what will evolve on a planet with an entirely different environment and history.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thats your opinion just, but its one that has so far not been answered, I was trying to call codemonger out.... he is quick to trash others views but very slow to offer his own.

The situation in a nutshell is, we have one well known skeptic saying the arrival of the human form, or bipedal primate to use the exact phrase, was such a chance development amongst the millions of other developing species.

But then on the other hand, we have the ufo crowd who seemingly think the humanoid shape is a given throughout the universe, and that aliens will be similar to us. But we only arrived at our form through the specific pattern of evolution on earth, and early climate changes - and the exploitation of disasters that killed the then number one predator, the dinos.

So, without some of the previous life forms, incl the dinos, would man have evolved into his current form, anyway?

So I dont think its a 'weird' question at all. Perhaps you can answer it though?

typos

Well, its still weird, but ok.

lemme answer your question with another question.

Would foxes have evolved the same way had iguanas never existed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well there could be also non material life forms like energetic beings that are capable of manipulating and create matter. We know that everything including stones are radiating energy so why not there could be different hierarchies of energies, from simple ones similar to small life forms to big complex ones similar to humans. In fact we humans might have another body (the energetic one) that could be another type of Life forms we are yet unaware off.

However to answer to a few questions. Yes there could be tentacles instead of hands but they must have fingers as for grabbing smaller things so obviously;y it will start looking more like a hand.

The head is needed to hold the brain and it must be protected by a solid bone structure, it that cannot be in the stomach or walking area , or day by day activities (hands) area for a variety of obvious reasons.

The eyes can only be in the front close to each other for 3 dimensional processing (predators) otherwise that specie will never make it. Always will stay in the shape of a prey.

The face can be different, with muzzle or hair or anything you might think off, but that inteligent creature must have

1) legs for moving

2) hands with fingers for grabbing and do things

3) head with bone structure separated by the rest of the body

4) a body

by the way; more than 4 legs can actually slow down a land animal. 4 legs are the most advanced and efficient. Humans walking in two legs like birds are almost handicapped and an obvious joke of evolution.

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The eyes can only be in the front close to each other for 3 dimensional processing (predators) otherwise that specie will never make it.

Just a quick note till I settle down for proper browsing later...sharks, are a top predator. Eyes on side of heads...they made it pretty well

But I get what you mean..

"A shark's eyes are almost on completely different sides of its head, so the shark has a nearly 360-degree field of vision. The shark does have two major blind spots, which are right in front of the snout and right behind the head, and because sharks can only see about 50 feet (15 meters) ahead, the sense of sight is really only important to a shark once it has closed in on its prey"

[source: SeaWorld].

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they are living in an environment where there is not competition to their size and velocity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they are living in an environment where there is not competition to their size and velocity.

Except for the Orca's and large squid of course

Several populations of skilled orcas around the world have learned how to overcome sharks using a combination of superior brain power and brute force.

The Great White and Mako are just two of at least nine species of shark known to be eaten by some orca families.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6668575/Killer-whales-attack-and-eat-sharks.html

.

Edited by seeder
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except for the Orca's and large squid of course

Several populations of skilled orcas around the world have learned how to overcome sharks using a combination of superior brain power and brute force.

The Great White and Mako are just two of at least nine species of shark known to be eaten by some orca families.

http://www.telegraph...eat-sharks.html

.

Then perhaps is a battle of power and supremacy. I would not be surprised to see Orcas and dolphins in the future winning and becoming the predominant species in the top of the trophic chain. I mean we know they are already capable of very complex thinking including vocabulary and emotions like love to their pair or babies in the same time revenge against killers and fisherman. They are smart creatures comparing to those dumb ass sharks using tons of jaw power but brainless.

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except for the Orca's and large squid of course

Several populations of skilled orcas around the world have learned how to overcome sharks using a combination of superior brain power and brute force.

The Great White and Mako are just two of at least nine species of shark known to be eaten by some orca families.

http://www.telegraph...eat-sharks.html

.

sorry to quote myself, but in case anyone didnt read the orca link, pls do read this bit from it. WOW I thought...

"The most impressive strategy is the 'karate chop'," said expert Dr Ingrid Visser, 43, who has studied orca behaviour for 17 years.

"The orca will use its tail to drive the shark to the surface. They don't even touch it. Using an up-thrust of its tail it creates a vortex which pushes the shark up on they current they create with their movements.

"Once the shark is at the surface, the killer whale pivots and lifts its tail out of the water and comes down on top of it like a karate chop."

The orca then grasps the shark and turns it upside down - suggesting that they may somehow understand shark biology. When sharks are quickly flipped upside down, they enter a paralysed state known as 'tonic immobility'.

"It's not that the orca understands the physiology of the shark," said Dr Visser, from Tutukaka, North Island, New Zealand.. "But it does demonstrate that they understand the behavioural consequences of what will happen if they take a certain action.

And I thought Free Willy was about a soppy whale

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.