Aliens = Demons?

[Darrell]

consider the gap in cranium size over the last 2 million years (between ape and human) ...

http://images.search.yahoo.com/image...fr=yfp-t-701-s

and notice the lack of fossils to accompany this large change.

NOTE: click to enlarge image, then scroll across and down.

[Darrell]

Originally Posted by conspiracygirl

Hi Darrell, for arguments sake perhaps you underestimate the advantages of a superior brain and the discovery of fire. Which came first, the regression of bodily hair, or a new way of keeping warm, ie. fire and clothing?

Otherwise I agree that modern man did appear rather suddenly on the scene. I believe in intelligent design, not to say that natural selection and mutations don't happen, but I think evolution needs direction, it isn't so completely random.

Anything is possible. Included in that anything is the possibility that if aliens genetically engineered us, they probably did what it took to help us survive. You assume that we designed our own survival by use of our superior brains; whereas I assume that via our superior brains we were taught how to survive BY THEM!

As to the process of evolution itself, I feel that you don't quite grasp the total concept. The randomness is in the generation of mutations to be tested. The direction is imposed by the existing environment at the time the mutation occurs. If a mutation offers significant advantage for survivability and/or sexual selection, it will become dominant via deselection of its rival. On the other hand, were a mutation not to offer any significant advantages, it will be rejected and subsequently lost.

[starman2003]

Originally Posted by Darrell

consider the gap in cranium size over the last 2 million years (between ape and human)

Members of our genus were already present 2 ma ago.

and notice the lack of fossils to accompany this large change.

Na, there was Homo erectus, intermediate between habilis and sapiens. Pro anthropologists see no need for aliens to explain a natural evolutionary process. If aliens were necessary for our brains, it's remarkable that the first alien intelligences rose without external "help."

[starman2003]

Originally Posted by Darrell

No. But I do think they are wrong to think that we rapidly transformed to hairless, physically weak, large brained people via natural processes. Hairlessness was certainly an anti-evolutionary change, because that took away protection from the cold.

What "cold"?? According to the latest scientific view (not aquatic ape) our species evolved in Africa where hairlessness evolved to keep us cooler--we didn't need the fur (at least, not in the plains where humans hunted; our ancestors weren't in the forests like chimps.)

Physical weakness was also anti-evolutionary in a world where strength was required for survival.

Nonsense--brains compensated for that, and then some. Even before our species trumped H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus supplanted A. robustus, which was quite strong as the name implies.

And although advantageous eventually, the large brain required a large brain cavity; and there are no discoveries that display any hint of brain enlargement. SO ... where (on Earth) is the evidence that we naturally evolved from hairy, physically strong, small brained apes to modern man? Where are the missing links?

Homo erectus is a key such link.

And why would evolution proceed along paths that maximize disadvantages of design rather than advantages? Given the senario of apes 2 million years ago, weak hairless apes would have been rendered extinct via the competition long before the advantages of the larger brain could work out new strategies for survival.

The larger brain was selected for because cultural evolution notably weapons, became more important in latter hominid history.

...and they can furnish no evidence to support such a rapid transition.

What "rapid transition"? Had aliens been behind our development, it wouldn't have taken over a million years.

[Darrell]

Originally Posted by starman2003

Members of our genus were already present 2 ma ago.



Na, there was Homo erectus, intermediate between habilis and sapiens. Pro anthropologists see no need for aliens to explain a natural evolutionary process. If aliens were necessary for our brains, it's remarkable that the first alien intelligences rose without external "help."

habilis 800 cc
erectus 1100 cc
sapiens 1500 cc

these are giant steps over short periods of evolutionary time. the question becomes: what rapidly changed habilis to erectus; and what rapidly changed erectus to sapiens? if these huge changes occurred naturally, where is the evidence? During a span of 2 million years, there ought to be some intermediary skulls to examine. Where are they? And what changes in environment directed said changes in brain capacity? And if nature directed a need for higher brain capacity, why do we not see this also occuring in other animal species?

I am quite sure that most anthropologists are quite comfortable with their current explanations for natural evolution from habilis to erectus to sapiens. And I bet they would be considerably uncomfortable attempting to answer the questions I've posed above. 'nuf said.

[Darrell]

Originally Posted by starman2003

What "cold"?? According to the latest scientific view (not aquatic ape) our species evolved in Africa where hairlessness evolved to keep us cooler--we didn't need the fur (at least, not in the plains where humans hunted; our ancestors weren't in the forests like chimps.)

much of the migration around the planet was cold, especially thru the last ice age.

Nonsense--brains compensated for that, and then some. Even before our species trumped H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus supplanted A. robustus, which was quite strong as the name implies.

how about you go out into the woods alone and unarmed and take on a grizzly bear. let me know how your superior brain makes out in the contest. I'll even permit you to make a spear using sticks and sharpened rocks.

Homo erectus is a key such link.

not evidence of GRADUAL PROGRESSION from 800 to 1100 cc; and not evidence of GRADUAL PROGRESSION from 1100 to 1500 cc. these are giant steps with no "tweeners. what lies between is total conjecture.

The larger brain was selected for because cultural evolution notably weapons, became more important in latter hominid history.

the question here is how did the weapons concepts originate; and who taught them how to use them? somehow I have trouble visualizing an ape-like man conceiving the idea of tying a rock to the end of a stick and using it as a spear. Having once been a boy scout, I really have trouble visualizing primative man making fire by rubbing two sticks together. And I definitely have trouble visualizing such men living in caves on one day and out building pyramids the next!

What "rapid transition"? Had aliens been behind our development, it wouldn't have taken over a million years.

the transition would take time due to the need to build up a new population of newbies while replacing a firmly entrenched population of oldies. the mutation itself would only require a portion of a life span. And if manipulated by aliens, time would be needed to evaluate the new species and determine what changes might later be required.

yet these changes would seem at light speed, when compared to how slowly natural evolution has performed in the past. Ask yourself how many hundreds of millions of years the aligator or the snake has remained basically unchanged. Yet we go ZOOM!

And lastly, consider the claims of many abductees that new hybrids are being created right now (again?) between homo sapiens and THEM. If the claims are true, then they are evidence of alien intervention throughout our development.

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by Darrell

Should you carefully reread what I said in my post on the topic, you will see that I was discussing the lack of missing link(s) during the last 2 million years when man suppossedly naturally evolved from hairy, super strong, small brained apes to hairless, super weak, large brained modern humans. I was not discussing the old anti-evolution 'missing link' argument used by creationists in their attempt to disregard reality.

Perhaps you would prefer different terminology? Let's say what I am referring to is a lack of fossil record showing a gradual transition from the hairy, super strong, small brained apes of 2 million years ago to the hairless, super weak, large brained humans of today. Understand? No evidence during this period of time of any gradual change; and no environmental justification for said changes.

You, in particular, have been one of the critics of conjecture without evidence ever since I've been here at this website. Well, look carefully. The anthropologists have no evidence of gradual change for what I have specifically described. And how does one explain the changes going opposite environmental determinants as "evolution?" Evolution is all about selections which are favored by environmental determinants. You have to admit that freezing to death while being overpowered by the competition is a bad start for reving up our eventual rocket science brains.

I agree there are problems with transitional fossils related to change over time for the humanoid natural evolution theory but that does not negate the theory imho...btw those links address some of your concerns.
Perhaps in time we will learn more about this process.
Just recently they discovered another dinosaur type so we may still 'dig up' other hominid bones in time.
As far as the alien idea it's certainly possible that we were tampered with but currently we have no solid evidence for this. Again...in time we might know one way or the other.

[Darrell]

simplistically stated, I could ask what lies in a numerical sequence between 1 and 7. you can make a theory that 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are in between 1 and 7. you can also make a theory that nothing is in between 1 and 7. and you can speculate anything else (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 ...). what you can't do is identify what, if anything, IS ACTUALLY POSITIONED between 1 and 7 without actually knowing.

Anthropologists have, of course, postulated a natural transition from habilis to erectus to sapiens. I would probably do the same WERE I NOT TO HAVE HEARD LOTS OF STORIES OF ALIEN ABDUCTION IN WHICH A COMMON THREAD OF GENETIC MANIPULATION OF HUMANS WAS THE THEME. Now I go back and see two very large quantum changes in a relatively short evolutionary span of time, with no evidence for naturalized gradual change and begin to wonder "what if?".

Now I will concede that changes in evolution can be abrupt. Gradual change is an observation, not a rule. But without any in between skull evidence to go by, and with a claimed motive of alien abduction in the records, I am forced to rethink the gaps. I personally feel that the collection of claims of abductees counts for more that the voids which anthropologists can only fill with assumptions and conjecture.

[starman2003]

Originally Posted by Darrell

habilis 800 cc
erectus 1100 cc
sapiens 1500 cc

these are giant steps over short periods of evolutionary time.

Nothing new in evolutionary history, and not at all extraordinary. Tyrannosaurus rex had much more powerfully muscled jaws than even its closest known relatives, D. torosus and T. bataar. It represented a quantum leap in predatory prowess yet there wasn't much temporal difference between T. rex and T. bataar, and no known intermediates. I suppose you'd say aliens were behind that too.

the question becomes: what rapidly changed habilis to erectus; and what rapidly changed erectus to sapiens?

Strong selection pressures. There was an arms race involving brains. The brainiest ones developed better weapons etc.

if these huge changes occurred naturally, where is the evidence? During a span of 2 million years, there ought to be some intermediary skulls to examine. Where are they?

You're getting to sound like the holy joe creationists. Same old nonsense argument--what if something was found with 1300cc; you'd then demand an intermediate with 1400 and so on ad infinitum...Among erectus there could have been extraordinarily brainy individuals with 1500cc, which were selected for under the circumstancs, forming a new species.

And what changes in environment directed said changes in brain capacity?

Competitors.

And if nature directed a need for higher brain capacity, why do we not see this also occuring in other animal species?

It did in quite a number of cases, albeit involving more modest brainpower. T. rex had a brain twice the size of that of Carcharodontosaurus about 30 million years earlier.

I am quite sure that most anthropologists are quite comfortable with their current explanations for natural evolution from habilis to erectus to sapiens. And I bet they would be considerably uncomfortable attempting to answer the questions I've posed above. 'nuf said.

Na, I think they're comfortable enough with natural evolutionary origins of our species even IF some intermediates may still be lacking. If advanced aliens were responsible, the leap from 800 to 1500 would probably have occurred overnight in geological terms.

[starman2003]

Originally Posted by Darrell

Anthropologists have, of course, postulated a natural transition from habilis to erectus to sapiens.

Sure, which is by far the most parsimonious view. Heck, 1100 is quite intermediate between 800 and 1500.

I would probably do the same WERE I NOT TO HAVE HEARD LOTS OF STORIES OF ALIEN ABDUCTION IN WHICH A COMMON THREAD OF GENETIC MANIPULATION OF HUMANS WAS THE THEME.

I don't dismiss reports of alien abduction. But there's no good evidence for genetic manipulation of our species--we haven't changed in the last 50 years. The aliens may be only doing research or harvesting genes for use in their species. You can't base a theory of alien intervention intended to increase human brains on the abduction phenomenon.