Have ET's Already Discovered Earth?

[Horta]

8 hours ago, Advenix said:

rel·e·vant - closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered.

It means the cosmological theories about what will transpire when 22 billion years ticks away cannot be "utterly irrelevant" from the question whether some ET civilization has discovered Earth within the past 200 million years.

Yeah sure.

Science has hypothesised the ultimate fete of our universe, therefore the number of et civilisations we will find in the next 200 million years is...

1. 0

2. Greater than 0.

3. Pick a number out of your favourite orifice and pretend it means something.

Now that you have explained the relevance, looks like you're right. Would be a very worthwhile study.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Horta

[Dejarma]

5 hours ago, Advenix said:

It's better to leave things alone and let them wallow in their own ignorance.

NO! what you say could be right but you're not listening to other thoughts, opinions & treating these with no respect= in my opinion, that is the ultimate in ignorance!

[Advenix]

5 hours ago, Horta said:

Yeah sure.

Science has hypothesised the ultimate fete of our universe, therefore the number of et civilisations we will find in the next 200 million years is...

1. 0

2. Greater than 0.

3. Pick a number out of your favourite orifice and pretend it means something.

Now that you have explained the relevance, looks like you're right. Would be a very worthwhile study.

You are hopelessly wrong. I explained what cannot be utterly irrelevant, as claimed, and why. Here is a treat for you:

ut·ter·ly - completely and without qualification; absolutely.

[Advenix]

3 hours ago, Dejarma said:

NO! what you say could be right but you're not listening to other thoughts, opinions & treating these with no respect= in my opinion, that is the ultimate in ignorance!

Really? Well, here is reply #3 by imaginarynumber1:

Quote

I didn't read your post, but i'm.still pretty certain whatever your conclusion happens to be, it's wrong.

So, by your judgement, this is not a good example of ignorance, right? If you are willing to listen to this kind of opinion, well, that's your own peculiar style of a discussion, but you should refrain from raising your admonishing finger and point it toward those who don't share your very peculiar approach.

[stereologist]

After the inane comments in the ancient history forum I can certainly see imaginarynumber1's point. I just went back to give it another like.

[-Nuke-]

On Wednesday, July 04, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Golden Duck said:

LoL.  It's really simple- look at what I quoted. 

"Every Analogy Limps" is a well known idiom.

Studying a culture is not analogous with studying wildlife. 

Simple.

 Like I said before look at what I quoted. 

Man hasn't been around 200 Million years, let alone NASA. So your fantastic, hypothetical question could have any answer. 

Whatever prevents us from finding ET could just as easily prevent them from finding us. 

175million to 200million if you count other homos

[Horta]

1 hour ago, -Nuke- said:

175million to 200million if you count other homos

We only diverged from our common ancestor with chimps about 6-7 million years ago?

[-Nuke-]

19 hours ago, Horta said:

We only diverged from our common ancestor with chimps about 6-7 million years ago?

Chimps? What? We bred with denosovians and neanderthals... they were around before us...and home erectus was before them... I assume lucy was home erectus not sure... now if they came from chimps which idk if they did, it would be much longer than the 7mill years you just stated... glad u out a ? Mark .... asking questions is how you learn.... many people are closed minded opinionated peopleon here... and already have it in their head they aren't gonna change their mind... so it's pointless to even debate with those kind.

 

P.s. Many others on here can give u much more details than myself on what u posted

[Essan]

7 minutes ago, -Nuke- said:

Chimps? What? We bred with denosovians and neanderthals... they were around before us...and home erectus was before them... I assume lucy was home erectus not sure... now if they came from chimps which idk if they did, it would be much longer than the 7mill years you just stated... glad u out a ? Mark .... asking questions is how you learn.... many people are closed minded opinionated peopleon here... and already have it in their head they aren't gonna change their mind... so it's pointless to even debate with those kind.

 

P.s. Many others on here can give u much more details than myself on what u posted

Lucy was an Australopithecus and dates to around 3.2 mya.    Australopithecines were more ape-like than human and lived alongside the ancestors of modern apes such as chimps.  The divergence between chimp and homo may actually have occurred as far back as 13 mya, but there are suggestions interbreeding between different species (chimp-ancestor and homo-ancestor) may have continued as recently as 4 mya.  

Homo Erectus emerged about 1.8 mya.

175 mya not even the shrew-like creatures that were our dinosaur-era ancestors had appeared (the first known mammal dates to around 160 mya)

[Horta]

2 hours ago, -Nuke- said:

Chimps? What? We bred with denosovians and neanderthals... they were around before us...and home erectus was before them... I assume lucy was home erectus not sure... now if they came from chimps which idk if they did, it would be much longer than the 7mill years you just stated... glad u out a ? Mark .... asking questions is how you learn.... many people are closed minded opinionated peopleon here... and already have it in their head they aren't gonna change their mind... so it's pointless to even debate with those kind.

 

P.s. Many others on here can give u much more details than myself on what u posted

If you go to the link, scroll down to the section on "homo" and you'll get a rough idea how long the genus has been around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

Edited July 19, 2018 by Horta

[Horta]

[stereologist]

The rise of mammals does not begin till after the end of the Cretaceous which ended 65Mya, The mammals before that time are identified mainly by their teeth.

The primate branch itself does not appear till possibly 78Mya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

Your roughly mid Jurassic age time of 175Mya ago is simply off the mark.

[-Nuke-]

9 hours ago, stereologist said:

The rise of mammals does not begin till after the end of the Cretaceous which ended 65Mya, The mammals before that time are identified mainly by their teeth.

The primate branch itself does not appear till possibly 78Mya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

Your roughly mid Jurassic age time of 175Mya ago is simply off the mark.

Definitely correct, sir... But I've also seen discoveries change how far something has existed by hundreds of thousands if not millions of years

[stereologist]

33 minutes ago, -Nuke- said:

Definitely correct, sir... But I've also seen discoveries change how far something has existed by hundreds of thousands if not millions of years

Of course, but not by a hundred million years in the case of when different types of plants and animals came into being. That's an error which is on the order of the uncertainty of the beginning of the universe.

Going back into the Cretaceous for the origin of primates is looking at animals which have little in common with the genus Homo. To find Homo we look to more recent evolution, well after the end of the Cretaceous.

Edited July 19, 2018 by stereologist

[-Nuke-]

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Of course, but not by a hundred million years in the case of when different types of plants and animals came into being. That's an error which is on the order of the uncertainty of the beginning of the universe.

Going back into the Cretaceous for the origin of primates is looking at animals which have little in common with the genus Homo. To find Homo we look to more recent evolution, well after the end of the Cretaceous.

Do you have any info on what would differentiate Homo from Australopithecus? I know it's very small changes in DNA, that's about it... 

 

I've also heard we are only 1% different than a chimp in our DNA (don't know source) but if humans are 1-5% Neanderthal DNA and .5 - 3% denosovian dna, then wouldn't a chimp have to have some of those too? Who's to say a chimp and a very very early human type didnt breed? When it was more likely possible that it would work? Sorry if my question seem noobie, this is one of my worst subjects. So I'm tryingto learn... not the type of dude to go through layers of earth and notice subtle differences and find bones, nor have I had the time lol

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, -Nuke- said:

Do you have any info on what would differentiate Homo from Australopithecus? I know it's very small changes in DNA, that's about it... 

 

I've also heard we are only 1% different than a chimp in our DNA (don't know source) but if humans are 1-5% Neanderthal DNA and .5 - 3% denosovian dna, then wouldn't a chimp have to have some of those too? Who's to say a chimp and a very very early human type didnt breed? When it was more likely possible that it would work? Sorry if my question seem noobie, this is one of my worst subjects. So I'm tryingto learn... not the type of dude to go through layers of earth and notice subtle differences and find bones, nor have I had the time lol

These are all great questions. I am a noobie as well. In fact, one of t he issues I was looking up today was a definition of a primate I could grasp. 

I'll get back later. I have to go to a meeting shortly.

[Myles]

This thread has changed a bit.   Interesting though.

As for the thread title question:

Since we don't have any evidence for intelligent aliens having visited Earth, and we have good reasons to believe they have not, I say NO they haven't been here. 

[stereologist]

12 hours ago, -Nuke- said:

Do you have any info on what would differentiate Homo from Australopithecus? I know it's very small changes in DNA, that's about it... 

 

I've also heard we are only 1% different than a chimp in our DNA (don't know source) but if humans are 1-5% Neanderthal DNA and .5 - 3% denosovian dna, then wouldn't a chimp have to have some of those too? Who's to say a chimp and a very very early human type didnt breed? When it was more likely possible that it would work? Sorry if my question seem noobie, this is one of my worst subjects. So I'm tryingto learn... not the type of dude to go through layers of earth and notice subtle differences and find bones, nor have I had the time lol

The fact that we are a certain percentage difference between us and chimps is a bit misleading. I think. It all depends on how that idea is used. I was at a creationist lecture in which the person points out that a cloud is 99% the same as a watermelon.  Possibly true, probably not. I doubt a watermelon is 99% water by weight. The shared DNA is of interest because it shows evolutionary connections. We think of complexity as being defined by more and more "instructions" in the DNA, but one of the biggest sequences is the loblolly pine at 22 billion base pairs. Humans have 2.3 billion base pairs. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_taeda#Genome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome#Genome_size

Be careful with your numbers because your percentages are not of the same type. But what is true is that Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry and ours have a common origin. Go back far enough and we share an ancestor even if it is us and a trout. At some point in the evolutionary past we share a common ancestor. At some point genus Homo splits off from an ancestor that led to chimps. Genus Homo and genus Pan, the chimps, had a common ancestor. Therefore, we share some common DNA. The amount of DNA and the type of genes shared is indicative of the recent nature of the common ancestor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee

This idea of sharing DNA as an indicator of when two species diverged, or once shared a common ancestor is used by the molecular clock technique. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock

Part of my reading about primates was that the mammals are adapted to tree climbing. They also have larger brains. Here is a short article about the differences between Homo and Australopithecus.

1. larger brain - one third larger

2. smaller mouth and teeth - probably a switch to a softer plant and more meat diet

3. shorter arms

https://www.reference.com/world-view/main-differences-between-homo-erectus-australopithecus-efd0bf0d27a76da1

[-Nuke-]

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

Be careful with your numbers because your percentages are not of the same type. But what is true is that Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry and ours have a common origin. Go back far enough and we share an ancestor even if it is us and a trout. At some point in the evolutionary past we share a common ancestor. At some point genus Homo splits off from an ancestor that led to chimps.

To add to this (without a source) I've heard birds are the common defendants of most types of dinosaurs.

[Unusual Tournament]

On 7/4/2018 at 7:42 PM, Horta said:

Why is it the right time? 

How could they possibly know?

The only obvious and realistic answer would be that they'll probably have a much better idea of that in another 200 million years. lol.

yeah it is kinda presumptive to say that we'll find something that we're not sure exists in 10-20 years. maybe he's referring to the advances in computers to crunch numbers and what not. or maybe life outside of earth is given.  

Edited July 20, 2018 by Captain Risky

[Mrgood]

Oh, they are here. Mantis Alien Captured on Video https://imgur.com/gallery/xpEoGM2

[Minimalists]

20 minutes ago, Mrgood said:

Oh, they are here. Mantis Alien Captured on Video https://imgur.com/gallery/xpEoGM2

Come on man! For real? You take a blurred image of whatever that is and assume its some sort of alien being...I know what it is, it's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

[Mrgood]

It is blurry to you because you were not there looking at it. A picture at night taken of a UFO moving through a dark sky is never going to be a clear image unless it is fake.That is the reason I included the sketch.UFO Alien Sketched For Blind People

[stereologist]

Here is the story behind the photos.

https://metro.co.uk/2015/01/23/texas-oil-worker-escapes-abduction-by-ufo-and-has-pictures-to-prove-it-5034142/

Quote

A Texas oil worker escaped the clutches of alleged alien abductors – and has pictures showing an extraterrestrial with an alarmingly large horn on its forehead, which may or may not double as an anal probe.

Quote

Mercifully, Dawson escaped his clutches without discovering the uses of the horn.

LOL. It does not get funnier than that.

Anyways, it seems Dawson is parading his stories of whatever in as many places as he can

Edited July 21, 2018 by stereologist

[stereologist]

Ronny Dawson was discussed ears years back.

Posters thought this was laughable then and its still a laughable story.