Moontanman Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Regarding the appearance of simple life, complex life, multicellular life, intelligent life: Based on a sample size of one (always a bad thing to do), it doesn't take much time for simple life to form, not much longer for intelligent life to form once multicellular life has formed. It is the appearance of complex life and multicellular life that are low probability events. So you are of the Rare Earth Camp? Regarding all the rest: They imply that long lasting, civilized life is very rare. Couple that with the other low probability events and you get that civilized life is very, very rare. This is the problem with aliens. If the closest alien civilization is a galaxy away, getting here is highly problematic. If the closest is many galaxies away, they'll never get here. I'm not as sure as you they will never get here, it doesn't take Star Trek technology to colonize the galaxy, slow boats, less than .01% of the speed of light could colonize the entire galaxy in a few hundred thousand years, millions almost certainly. This is a very short time in respect to the age of a star or the galaxy. D.H. Why are you so obsessed with defending that aliens have ever visited Earth? Do not let even a small chance that this happens? Why are you so obsessed with asserting aliens have visited us when there is no direct evidence of such a visit, even indirect evidence is very iffy to say the least. I think that religion, especially later ones who mention sky creatures coming down and providing laws, technology, and such might have been the result of such contact. there really are cave paintings that rather closely resemble modern descriptions of UFOs and some medieval paintings are very suggestive of space craft. The idea that our ancestors could do some very difficult things has no bearing on aliens ancient or otherwise. My own pet idea is that aliens already inhabit the solar system, they colonize the Ort cloud and Kuiper belt type places in star systems. and slowly move from one star to another using resources there to build habitats and eventually sending our more slow boats as they colonize the stars outer reaches. With no need for planets they might very well have little or no interest in creatures living on planets other than wonder about us from an academic point of view or possibly some worry about our reaction to discovering they had colonized "our" solar system. A properly build IR detector should be able to spot their colonies in the solar system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 D.H. Why are you so obsessed with defending that aliens have ever visited Earth? Do not let even a small chance that this happens? First off, a correction to your post. You meant never, not ever. To answer your first question, I find it a repulsive and ignorant bunch of anti-scientific woo that explains nothing and that denigrates human intelligence. That is an excellent venue by which amoral shucksters take advantage of a gullible public just adds to the fire. Good enough? To answer your second question, no. At least not in the sense portrayed on Ancient Aliens et al. So you are of the Rare Earth Camp? Basically, yes. Not the unique Earth camp. That's ridiculous IMHO. But rare Earth? It is by far the simplest answer to the Fermi paradox. If there are no aliens nearby, it explains why we don't see any credible evidence of aliens. There's also no need to assume aliens will naturally be elevated beings with a Galactic Prime Directive if they effectively are not there. Note well: I am not saying we are all alone in the universe. The universe is so flippin' huge that saying that is just silly. Suppose, for example, that the probability that a galaxy will spawn even one intelligent, space faring civilization in 14 billion years is 1/100. That means there are billions of intelligent species somewhere out there in galaxies far, far away. It also means we are effectively all alone. Not just alone in our galaxy, but probably alone in the Local Group. There's a huge, huge difference between being effectively alone and unique. I'm not as sure as you they will never get here, it doesn't take Star Trek technology to colonize the galaxy, slow boats, less than .01% of the speed of light could colonize the entire galaxy in a few hundred thousand years, millions almost certainly. This is a very short time in respect to the age of a star or the galaxy. Your numbers don't add up. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across. Even at 0.1c it would take a million years or so. They wouldn't send ships to the furthest stars. They would do something akin to how the Polynesians spread across the Pacific, except this would be by star hopping rather than island hopping. This star hopping lets a civilization gradually disperse throughout it's galaxy but does not require technologies capable of surviving for extremely long times. There is no star hopping between galaxies. At 0.1c, going from Andromeda to the Milky Way would take 25 million years. That's a long, long time for equipment and passengers to stay intact without resupply. If the nearest civilization is in the next galactic group, it's pretty much impossible. As I said before, this is by far the easiest way to answer the Fermi paradox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dapifo Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Escuse me, but I´m agnostic about the possibility that aliens visit the Hearth (as well about the existence of God). Yes, because I don´t have evidences of both thinks. But I leave a possibility for them !!! Who I see very obsessed in don´t believe are you : D.H., Studiot, Moontanman,... And I think that this is very few scientific and profesional...It seams more a matter of religious faith than a reasoned scientific conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Your numbers don't add up. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across. Even at 0.1c it would take a million years or so. They wouldn't send ships to the furthest stars. They would do something akin to how the Polynesians spread across the Pacific, except this would be by star hopping rather than island hopping. This star hopping lets a civilization gradually disperse throughout it's galaxy but does not require technologies capable of surviving for extremely long times. There is no star hopping between galaxies. At 0.1c, going from Andromeda to the Milky Way would take 25 million years. That's a long, long time for equipment and passengers to stay intact without resupply. If the nearest civilization is in the next galactic group, it's pretty much impossible. As I said before, this is by far the easiest way to answer the Fermi paradox. You thinking is too linear, think of it this way, one intelligent species colonizes the space around it's own star, in 1000 years it manages to colonize two stars, in another 1000 years they each manage to colonize two more stars and so on. How long before the entire galaxy is colonized? Remember no habitable planets are necessary only the resources in orbit around stars... Eventually the speed of the colonization front will exceed the speed of light because it's going in so many different directions at once even though individual ships are far slower than light speed... http://www.nicap.org/papers/gemert-eth.htm Likewise, if we suppose a race sent out only one expedition every 100,000 years from a given stellar system to colonize another stellar system, in another 100,000 years, each of these would send out another expedition. Therefore, the number of space colonies would double every 100,000 years. At this rate, in only million years, 1000 stellar systems would be colonized. In 2 million years, a million systems would be colonized. In 3 million years, a billion systems. And in less than 4 million years, they could theoretically fill the entire galaxy. Of course this still doesn't explain why they aren't already here, unless of course they are and are not the least bit interested in planets... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 You thinking is too linear, think of it this way, one intelligent species colonizes the space around it's own star, in 1000 years it manages to colonize two stars, in another 1000 years they each manage to colonize two more stars and so on. How long before the entire galaxy is colonized? Remember no habitable planets are necessary only the resources in orbit around stars... Eventually the speed of the colonization front will exceed the speed of light because it's going in so many different directions at once even though individual ships are far slower than light speed... Think about that last statement for a second: "Eventually the speed of the colonization front will exceed the speed of light". TThere are no magic bullets that allow anything to exceeding the speed of light. Your colonization front is information. Even information cannot exceed the speed of light. What you described in your opening remarks is a dispersion or percolation process. These processes are very slow, much slower than linear processes. Assuming a linear growth is not a hamstring. To the contrary! It's an upper bound, and not even close to a least upper bound. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when my "thinking was too linear." 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) Think about that last statement for a second: "Eventually the speed of the colonization front will exceed the speed of light". TThere are no magic bullets that allow anything to exceeding the speed of light. Your colonization front is information. Even information cannot exceed the speed of light. What you described in your opening remarks is a dispersion or percolation process. These processes are very slow, much slower than linear processes. Assuming a linear growth is not a hamstring. To the contrary! It's an upper bound, and not even close to a least upper bound. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when my "thinking was too linear." Again you are missing my point and thinking linearly, nothing even information will be traveling faster than light. But the spherical front of colonization when all the progress is added up mean that eventually in a year the spherical front of colonization will cover in a year more light years than light could travel in a year but since it's in all directions and not just in one direction nothing actually travels faster than light. If you had 15,000 colonies all traveling at .1c their combined progress in a year would be more than c. Edited July 5, 2012 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 No matter how many colonists you have, the furthest colony from the home planet is colonised slower than light would reach. The distance between the two most distant colonies (as viewed from somewhere in the middle) could theoretically increase at a rate higher than the speed of light - but only if the colonists were over .5c and moving in diametrically opposite directions 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Either I am completely crazy, always a possibility, or I'm not expressing my self correctly. The "Ideally spherical", front of colonization encompasses space faster than the speed of light but only because the front of colonization is moving in many different directs at one. More stars are encompassed by this front than you could visit even if you were traveling at many multiples of the speed of light even though individual ships never exceed .01c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Either I am completely crazy, always a possibility, or I'm not expressing my self correctly. That's a false dilemma. What makes you think this is an either/or proposition? The "Ideally spherical", front of colonization encompasses space faster than the speed of light If you are talking about radial expansion rate, no, it won't. It cannot. If you're talking about diameter, yes that can exceed the speed of light, but only by a factor of two and only if the radial expansion rate is greater than 0.5c. See imatfaal's last post. but only because the front of colonization is moving in many different directs at one. That's a dispersion process. Dispersion is much slower than a linear process; dispersion progresses as t½. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dapifo Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) You are too closed to the current state of the art...and you are accepting as absolute that light speed can not be exceeded....but sure that will be methods for it...when another Einstein...wil climb one step more at a physical. Please, don´t you think that now we know every thing of the Universe and its laws?.... sure we don´t know more than 1 per billion ....of whole Edited July 5, 2012 by dapifo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 That's a false dilemma. What makes you think this is an either/or proposition? Well i could wrong but we all know that can't be right... If you are talking about radial expansion rate, no, it won't. It cannot. If you're talking about diameter, yes that can exceed the speed of light, but only by a factor of two and only if the radial expansion rate is greater than 0.5c. See imatfaal's last post. I am pretty sure I am confused on this due to something i thought I read cannot seem to find again. That's a dispersion process. Dispersion is much slower than a linear process; dispersion progresses as t½. The real point I am trying to make before I went off into crazy land is that most scenarios assume that to colonize a star requires there be a habitable planet around that star. Since it is almost surely correct that all stars do not have habitable planets around them this limits the ability of a star faring species to colonize the galaxy. The following example assume a habitable planet every 5 light years, only certain types of stars are also assumed inhabitable, in my scenario even hot relatively short lived stars could be targets of colonization. http://www.geoffreylandis.com/percolation.htp My idea is that planets are not only unnecessary but actually not desirable due to gravity wells and the energy needed to bring things up from the surface and own to the surface not to mention dealing with native life forms. In my scenario all stars are colonizable and the entire galaxy might very well be colonized already but not the inner parts of star systems just the ort clouds and or kuiper belts and asteroid belts. The debris around stars would be more desirable than the planets. I think this would not only speed up the process of colonization it would mean that inhabited planets are by passed and there is no reason for aliens to contact us even though they may very well already be "here" The clouds of debris around stars are so vast that many different species could colonize each star as well. This scenario would allow for the galaxy to be full of alien life forms and for us to still not be aware of them. It could also account for why aliens would land in farmers brown field late and night and then leave with out doing anything constructive like "take us to your leader" a quick trip to check out the earth wouldn't be the imminence endeavor that traveling to the sun from another star would be so quick trips to sample a cow or dirt (both of these things have been reports by UFO witnesses) or to anal probe bubba would be more reasonable. It also explains why they haven't colonized the earth already, way before we came into being... A small group of alien scientists from each species might specialize in studying up and coming intelligence's but for the most part we are simply not interesting enough for most of them to care. If this scenario is true falsifying it should be trivial, it's much harder to get rid of waste heat in space than to keep warm, the IR emissions of colonies should stand out like a sore thumb to a telescope able to detect them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) I might add " so if aliens are the reason were as smart as we are today, then what aliens influenced the aliens that influenced us? " mind-fuck. Edited July 9, 2012 by too-open-minded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I might add " so if aliens are the reason were as smart as we are today, then what aliens influenced the aliens that influenced us? " mind-fuck. ! Moderator Note Your link appears to be broken. Before you edited it, you seemed to be trying to link to this picture: ! Moderator Note Your new link comes up as broken and then when I try to fix it, forbidden. If the above picture is what you were after, I'm happy to edit your post to fix it. In future, make sure that you click through to the actual image URL rather than the Google preview (there is a button on the right hand side) and copy that link. Also, a small language warning. This is supposed to be a family friendly site, so keep the profanities to a minimum. Thanks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typist Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Apologies, I have not read the whole thread, so if this has already been covered, please ignore. UFOs and such can be explained if we are willing to accept one theory, which is... At some point in human history time travel will be possible. It presumably doesn't matter if it's 100 years from now, or 10,000 years from now. Who would be more interested in us than future humans, or their descendants? This could possibly explain why the reports are usually of humanoid type creatures. So don't forget, when the space ship lands on your front yard, those are your kids. Be nice! This theory is possible because human beings have already invented wild speculation travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 At some point in human history time travel will be possible. There was a rather good short story about this idea and Stonehenge. A camera on a tripod is sent back to see why Stonehenge was built but every photo seemed to show people bowing to something behind the camera. By turning the camera around they realised that the people were bowing to the camera. Also a series of trips were needed to work out exactly when Stonehenge was built. So the answer was quite simple. Stonehenge was built to commemorate the magical device that appeared and disappeared over a long period of time. Chicken, meet Egg. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtue Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) Hooookay, Ancient Astronaut Theory, right lets start from the beginning shall we? 200,000 years ago: A race of highly advanced humanoids called theAnunnaki/Nephelim/Enki visit planet Earth to mine minerals such as Gold, Diamond and other precious materials. Initially they perform the work themselves, however after some time they decide using terrestrial workers would ease mining. They come across the native humanoid species', most likely Homo Erectus or Homo Heidelbergensis, and perform DNA splicing and genetic engineering with their own DNA on these primitive humanoids. Thus creating abrand new, genetically engineered species called Homo Sapiens. However, to prevent these workers dissenting, they limit their brain capacity to only follow commands; early humans were basic "drones" or slaves, it is probable that only males were bred to do the work. Argument: Considering human fossils only show up within the last 200,000 years or so, the accepted theory that as a race we slowly evolved over a period of time is flawed; indeed, actual DNA tampering is clearly shown within our own genetic code (23 chromosomes compared to 24 in all other primates), We have 223 unique genes directly inserted into our gene code that seemingly came from nowhere, and 1/3rd of those genes appear in no other species on the planet. This is totally impossible over such a short period of time, evolution takes millions of years. Mainstream scientists credit this sudden fusion of DNA to a bacterial infection that swept through the population, mutating the genetic code forever, yet absolutely no evidence supports this theory. we have over 4000 genetic defects whereas every other species has perhaps 200, if we evolved slowly at the same rate as other species surly we would have roughly the same? Then there's the 97% of non-coding DNA that is considered"junk DNA", we pass down this exact same code to our offspring, what is the purpose of this DNA? We can already code every functioning part of our body; this anomalous DNA appears to have no function, and is highly resilient to any form of tampering (including destruction by bacteria or viral infections). Asfor the Gold Mine theory first put forward by Zecharia Sitchin (one of the original proponents to the entire Ancient Astronaut Theory), well this site has actually been found in southern Africa, right where the Sumerians (more on them later) claimed it to be. Evidence: 200,000 year old gold mine discovered in south africa An article about Alien DNA found in our bodies, and the non-coding DNA and its significance The 223 unique genes Another Article about gene transfer and the 223 unique genes The Anunnaki: According to Zecharia Sitchin, the Anunnaki are a race of humanoids from the planet Nibiru, the supposed "12th planet" of our solar system, this is of course highly debatable, it is unlikely that life(especially highly advanced) could survive in the cold reaches of the outer solar system, more likely they came in a mothership of some sorts, and considering many ancient cultures worshiped or saw the importance of the Orion or Sirius constellations, these are the most likely places they originate from. They are described as tall, pale-skinned elegant creatures with white, blonde, or redhair and blue eyes; this is consistent with nearly every pre-Christian description of the so-called "gods" that "came from the sky". Argument: Evidence of such creatures actually exist; unusually tall skeletons with white hair have been unearthed from Pyramids in China, and many'elongated' skulls have been found across the world, mostly in South America, which is a hotbed of activity in the ancient world involving Megalithic structures. Egypt too still has unexplained mysteries, the royal bloodlines and pharaohs being depicted as tall with elongated heads and therecent DNA analysis of Tutankhamun proves he is not of Egyptian descent, rather but rather "Caucasian", his father Akhenaten was also depicted as very tall with an elongated skull, his actual remains prove this. Are these people Anunnaki? Hybrids? Pioneering research into these elongated skulls is being done by the likes of Brien Foerster, however the scientific community turns a blind eye by simply saying the shape of these skulls were achieved using headbinding techniques. Headbinding does not increase the actual brain capacity (some skulls have nearly double the capacity of normal human skulls) nor does it cause cranial sutures to either disappearal together or not even form. Also these skulls have anomalies such as huge eyesockets, abnormally large jaws, evidence of no molars, and most striking, nerve holes at the back of the skull which a normal human skull does not. This supported by the fact that some of these skeletons found have been over 7 feet tall! There may have indeed been giants roaming the earth in ancient times. Evidence: "White" Chinese mummies "Caucasian" Tutankhamum, which by the way, was leaked as originally scientists didnt want to announce this Brien Foerster's page, he runs a museum dedicated to elongated skulls, you can see loads of analysis plus videos of megalithic sites Megalithic Structures Throughout the ancient world there are many incredible Megalithic structures that have been built by so called "stone age" man, now as for the Giza Pyramids, I'll turn to professional engineer Chris Dunn, and his amazing work actually at the site and in the chambers, as a professional stone mason, fabricator and toolmaker and an expert using many cutting techniques (including laser, diamond saw, milling, hammering etc) he concludes that there is no possible way the inner chambers made out of solid granite could've been constructed using contemporary tools, at the time they supposedly only had bronze hammers and copper chisels. We look at the MOHs scale of hardness and both are around 3-4 whilst granite sits at 7-8, even IF they could cut the granite using solely them they could in no way finish them to a perfect glossy finish that we see in the inner chambers, he actually measured the surface of a wall and it had a discrepancy of around 1/500th of a millimetre, he found no human error, no chisel marks, no uneven surfaces and certainly no evidence that contemporary man achieved these feats, yet, mainstream scientists still believe outdated archaeology from the late 1800s about the pyramids! How could they achieve such precision? how could they cut granite using copper chisels and bronze hammers? Easy, they didn't. Argument: I Shall now present to you the cream of the crop, and indeed the shining example of evidence that even now no one can factually disprove or refute: Puma Punku. what you see here is evidence of ADVANCED machining (and by the way some people think the site dates back before the last ice age), drillholes in solid andesite, This precision-made 6 mm wide groove contains equidistant, drilled holes, in addition they all have the same depth. It seems impossible that these cuts were made with use of stone or copper tools, yet here it is, clear as day. Again, Chris Dunn has visited this site and was completely blown away on how precise everything is here, and were talking about a culture that supposedly had no written language or sciences. The second image shows the precise nature of the stonework, 90 degree angles, no toolmarks (the discrepancies are caused by weathering), and an understanding of advanced geometrics. Copper chisels and bronze hammers? not a chance. As for the accuracy of the surface cuts, he measured it to be similar to the inner chambers of Giza, a totally impossible feat considering they are solid blocks of andesite (some weighing in at over 80 tons). Evidence: Chris Dunn's article on the inner chambers at egypt Chris Dunn explaining the precision and techniques needed to be used to cut so accutately I think that will do for now, it took me long enough and I await all counter-arguments Edited August 2, 2012 by Virtue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Hooookay, Ancient Astronaut Theory, right lets start from the beginning shall we? If "starting right from the beginning" is what that long post full of bunk was supposed to be, there's one word to describe it: FAIL. There were no Anunnaki/Nephelim/Enki. There is no planet Nibiru. King Tut was not an Anunnaki. Half of European men do not share his DNA; iGENEA is just a scam company. The people who built Pumapunku were more advanced than the Incas who followed. This happened all the time in the ancient world. Technologies were developed, only to be lost when the civilization collapsed. It wasn't aliens. It was just humans being humans: Treating key technologies as state secrets. We still do that today. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtue Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 If "starting right from the beginning" is what that long post full of bunk was supposed to be, there's one word to describe it: FAIL. There were no Anunnaki/Nephelim/Enki. There is no planet Nibiru. King Tut was not an Anunnaki. Half of European men do not share his DNA; iGENEA is just a scam company. The people who built Pumapunku were more advanced than the Incas who followed. This happened all the time in the ancient world. Technologies were developed, only to be lost when the civilization collapsed. It wasn't aliens. It was just humans being humans: Treating key technologies as state secrets. We still do that today. oh how ignorant. Clearly you didnt even click any links I provided, nor countered with any evidence. Ill start from the bottom this time: Explain the drillholes at Puma Punku whilst keeping in mind the technology available and taking the MOHs scale of hardness into consideration when arguing about materials used. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 oh how ignorant. Clearly you didnt even click any links I provided, nor countered with any evidence. Ill start from the bottom this time: Explain the drillholes at Puma Punku whilst keeping in mind the technology available and taking the MOHs scale of hardness into consideration when arguing about materials used. Ignorant? I read your links and they are all examples of how a system designed to insist that assertions be backed up by evidence can break down. All of your links are based on, composed of, or simply nothing but assertions rooted in incredulity. only ignorance could support these assertions I'll give you a single example that can be described in no way other than to say it is a lie. The Star Child, this has been debunked so many times it's difficult to see how it could possibly still be alive, i guess a wooden stake needs to be driven into it's heart... more ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull Beside the fact this has been shown to be a deformed human skull, yes i know it's shocking but your link lied about the DNA evidence supporting this idea of the starchild being an alien human hybrid, the very idea that beings who evolved on one planet could possibly cross bred in some way with beings that evolved on another planet due to no other factor than they are both humanoid in form is ludicrousness. It would more reasonable to cross human DNA with petunias and produce a living being. This hoary old idea that humans and aliens could interbreed has been around for a long time but it is based on the idea that the shape of a living thing means they are related in some way. There is no evidence that any aliens would be humanoid in the first place, to think they could reproduce with humans is an idea rooted in ignorance... willful ignorance.. stupid on purpose... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtue Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Id just like to point out that wikipedia isn't a credible source of information, anyone can edit that page. Lloyd pye himself has been barred from editing that page. Besides, they use a dna test done in 1999 by STUDENTS, using (by todays standards) very archaic testing methods, and its been proven that the samples were contaminated. I'm just gonna go and post his whole page about DNA and let people try debunk it: http://www.starchild...com/dna2012.htm A Fragment of the Starchild's FOXP2 Gene is Recovered: A New Partial Analysis Of DNA Reinforces That Absolute Proof Can Be Obtained To Confirm The Starchild Skull Is Not Human. © Lloyd Pye, 2012 For 13 years we at the Starchild Project have known the Starchild Skull came from a being that was not entirely human, if human at all. First, it shares no physical characteristics with a normal human skull—none!Unfortunately, this astounding divergence in physical points of comparison never impressed mainstream scientists because they could, and often did, glibly explain all of them away by insisting: Nature can do anything!But that was never true. Nature actually functions by strict rules that confine life to well-defined boundaries outlined by the unique genetic code of each species. No laws are more firmly established than the laws of genetics. Fifty eye-witnesses can say that a person committed a crime, but if DNA shows otherwise, the witnesses are ignored. DNA dominates in courts because it is the math of biology. It says what it says, again and again, with consistency you can stake your life on. Within that life-and-death consistency, the human genome does contain slight variations. Tiny Pygmies and tall Watusis are black Africans with stark physical differences, yet both tribes are unmistakably human. Differences in their genetic makeup make it impossible for two Pygmies to produce a Watusi, and vice-versa. Yet DNA can flex enough so that if one of each tribe were to mate, they could produce viable offspring, although the flexibility does not go beyond certain points. Something is either human, or it isn't. There is no in-between. Because genetics is the math of biology, the Starchild's DNA provided the only means to overcome the mainstream explanation that it has to be a one-in-a-billion freak of Nature. Unfortunately, we had to wait nearly a decade while the technology for recovering and sequencing "ancient" DNA, such as the 900-year-old Starchild's, could be perfected. Now such new technology has been in place for a few years, and its initial extraordinarily high cost has fallen within the reach of reasonable investment. Also, we now have enough partial analyses of the Starchild's DNA to know without doubt that when we can afford a complete inventory of its genome, it will prove to be radically different from humans. This essay is designed to make the most crucial information about those partial analyses understandable to anyone. If you can take the 15 minutes needed to read it, you will learn about the three kinds of partial proofs we now have, what each one means, and why they will help the Starchild make history on a scale that seldom occurs in human lifetimes. ***** From New Scientist, Feb. 7, 2011 [text in brackets added]: Fossils of the Denisovans, [a new extinct hominin and] close relative of Neanderthals, were discovered in Siberia in 2008. A draft genome was released in 2010 by Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, which revealed that Denisovans interbred with modern humans. However, each position in the genome was read only twice, so the fine detail was unreliable. The new genome covers each position 30 times over [so the fine detail is now highly reliable]. To understand the Starchild Skull's unique situation, the short paragraph above must be understood. In 2010, the Max Planck laboratory secured two "reads" (short for readings) through what are called "next generation" sequencing machines. That means they made the first announcement of a draft assembly of the Denisova genome with the average depth of coverage being around two. Each assembly includes thousands to millions of individual readings, and the depth of coverage indicates how many times each reading is repeated. The draft data would have included gaps that remained in certain areas of coverage in the entire genome, so while the result would be highly indicative (the reason they announced it), the gaps would make it basically unreliable. This is always the case when data are obtained with "next generation" sequencing methodologies. However, conducting many reads closes nearly all of the gaps, and ultimately provides a very high level of certainty for the results. With the Starchild Skull, the partial results obtained by our geneticist at the DNA lab we work with are every bit as reliable, and as compelling, as those from Max Planck. He uses the same analytical techniques, and his results are what theirs are—partial but compelling. And, like the geneticists at Max Planck, to put our geneticist's results beyond all doubt, he has to complete them at least 30 times over, to the same extraordinary level of certainty. ***** To understand what our geneticist has accomplished so far, let's start with nuclear DNA (nuDNA). It is found inside the nuclei of nearly all of the trillions of cells in human bodies (everything other than red blood cells and sex cells). It contains genetic material provided by our parents when our mother's egg is fertilized by our father's sperm. In humans, it produces a genome made up of over 3 billion base pairs comprised of what are callednucleotides. In the illustration above, the four different nucleotides are distinguished by their chemical bases—Cytosine withGuanine, and Thymine with Adenine. Working together while always matched to each other, they form the base pair "steps" of the "ladder" that is DNA. The 3+ billion base pairs of the sprawling nuclear DNA genome contain hundreds of thousands of mutations called Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, or SNPs. Among those hundreds of thousands, over 4,000 are known to be associated with genetic diseases or disorders. In any cell's nucleus, most of its DNA is considered non-coding, non-functioning, or, as it is widely known, junk. As much as 95% of the nuDNA genome is considered junk because it doesn't produce any of the proteins our bodies need to survive. Our cells seem to do all of their normal housekeeping and functioning using only 5% of our nuclear DNA genome. However, 5% of 3 billion is 150 million, so apparently that is enough to accomplish the myriad biochemical tasks required to keep our bodies functioning as they should. Nobody understands why our bodies need so much junk DNA. What we do know is that during every cell division, our bodies faithfully reproduce all of our nuDNA, including the junk, which means our bodies treat it as vital, so it must be considered highly conserved. (In this sense, the term "conserved" means "protected from change; not easily transformed.") From the Starchild's nuDNA genome, our geneticist recovered and sequenced several dozen fragments that totaled well over 30,000 base pairs (bp). Though seemingly a large number, it is a woefully small percentage of the 3+ billion bp total (.001%). Nonetheless, those several dozen fragments tell a compelling story about the Starchild Skull's DNA. Our geneticist sent those unknown genetic sequences to be compared with millions of sequences contained in the massive database at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in Maryland. That database is extremely comprehensive, covering the accumulated genomes of thousands of different organisms—from mammals to reptiles to crustaceans to bacteria. When comparing the Starchild's sequences, the search parameter ranged from an exact match of the entire base pair string, to matches that were similar to any segment of any fragment. Using these exceptionally broad criteria, many Starchild fragments could be matched to genetic sequences in the NIH database. Some of those were comparable to human sequences, which meant they were human-like, though not necessarily human. The human genome has large numbers of corollaries in the world around us. Humans share 97% of our genes with chimps, 95% with gorillas, 70% with rats, 65% with mice, and 26% with yeast! Thus, nearly everything on Earth is, in some way, genetically interrelated with humans, so it is not unusual that some of the Starchild's nuDNA is found to be human-like. What is unusual, and shockingly so, is that there are segments of many other fragments of the Starchild's nuDNA for which no close matches could be found in the NIH database! This is not unheard of, nor impossible, but it is a significant indicator that something about the Starchild is not entirely human. It strongly suggests that some aspects of the Starchild's DNA might not be found on Earth at all! Again, this is not absolute proof. We need many additional readings through modern sequencing machines to confirm it. However, we take this initial partial result as a strong indication that the Starchild is not entirely human. ***** An even stronger indication of this came later, when four fragments were recovered from the Starchild's mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is found in tiny parcels floating like raisins in pudding within the cytoplasm between any cell's nucleus and its outer wall. MtDNA is passed along to all generations through the female line, in her much larger egg. Males do not contribute to mtDNA because sperm contain only the male's genomic package, nothing else. In sharp contrast, the mtDNA genome is vastly smaller and much more tightly packed, and it contains a very specific number of base pairs: 16,569, compared to the 3+ billion in nuDNA. All DNA is equally susceptible to mutations, which are malformations or irregularities in the arrangement of coding regions that prevent them from functioning properly. Mutations can occur at any time and at any point in nuDNA or mtDNA. The large amount found in nuDNA (hundreds of thousands of SNPs) is there because so little of it (5%) actually works to keep our bodies running. Mutations can steadily accumulate in the 95% called junk because their impact in non-coding regions seldom causes adverse impacts for those who develop them, and thus they can be—and in most cases are—passed on to succeeding generations. In mtDNA, the exact opposite is true. Nearly all of mtDNA (98% or more) functions at a very high level of efficiency. Thus, if a mutation occurs in the working part, there is a very high likelihood its impact will be averse to the point of causing death, and therefore will not be passed to subsequent generations. In short, mutations in mtDNA tend to be eliminated from the population by the death of the individual in whom it occurs. This makes the DNA in mitochondria extremely highly conserved, which means it changes very little over time. Among the 16,569 base pairs in each mtDNA genome, a maximum of only 120 vary between all humans. The 120 maximum is found in descendants of the first humans, who originated in southern Africa around 200,000 years ago. The rest of us carry fewer mutations because our ancestors did not develop until well after the first humans appeared. No matter how many I carry, or you carry, all are found in the 2% of mtDNA that is not absolutely essential to the processes of our lives that they manage. This is why so few variations exist in mtDNA. Though physically quite small, the proper functioning of the mitochondria is essential to life, so permanent mutations must occur in nonessential areas. In terms of this all-important mtDNA in the Starchild, our geneticist has recovered four reasonably large fragments which together total 1,583 base pairs, or 9.55% of the 16,569 base pair total for humans. As before, this is only a partial result, but also as before, it is highly indicative of what the final result of a full mtDNA genome analysis will be. Within those 1,583 base pairs, the Starchild carries a grand total of 93 variations that are different from the extremely highly conserved human mtDNA genome. That is 93 in only 9.5% of the genome! It's already near to the maximum of 120 variations in human mtDNA. If we do a simple but highly reliable mathematical extrapolation, expanding the 9.5% out to 100% (times 10.5) we find that 93 established variations extrapolates out to 977 variations! Remember, the maximum of variations in human mtDNA is 120. Neanderthals carry 200. The new hominins, Denisovans, carry 385. The Starchild extrapolates to 977! However, we must be clear about what that 977 means. During the course of repeated mtDNA sequencing, a high probability exists that several of the variations found will not hold up as valid. Some are likely to be established as errors. Because of that likelihood, let's be overly conservative and err well on the side of caution. Let's say the Starchild's mtDNA will fall in the range of 800 to 1000 variations. Compare that range to the human 120. What does it mean? Based on this partial mtDNA recovery result, which must be repeated many times before it can be considered fully reliable, the Starchild Skull is not from a human being. We will no doubt hear arguments from mainstream scientists insisting it is some new kind of humanoid being, but it would have to be an exceptionally variant humanoid, something far away from Neanderthals and Denisovans, something nearly as genetically different from humans as chimps, which have 1,500 of those mtDNA variations compared to our 120 maximum. To resolve the debate that will swirl around the Starchild's genetic status, its full genome will have to be compared with the human genome, the Neanderthal genome, the Denisovan genome, and, for good measure, chimps and gorillas, and other higher primates. Ultimately, a determination will be made, for good or ill, like it or not, no matter how inconvenient the result might be. But before we get to that point, we have to meet a new player in the game. ***** Our geneticist has now recovered a fragment of the Starchild's DNA that is so powerfully convincing, even standing alone, we are confident it provides a tipping point in our quest to recover the Starchild's entire genome. He has secured a fragment of a gene from the 5% of human nuclear DNA that codes for proteins, and it does most of the work of keeping our bodies functioning as they should. This gene is not only functional, it is a highly functional "master gene," one of the most vitally important genes in the body of any species on Earth. Virtually any complex species has a variation of this gene, and it is without question one of the most highly conserved genes in the human body. It is the FOXP2 gene. That odd name comes from its technical title:Forkhead Box P2, or FOXP2. Here is one of a wide variety of illustrations that try to capture its vast importance in a single image. In any creature, the overwhelming importance of their FOXP2 gene is that it controls a "downstream" cascade of genetic processes in hundreds of other genes, all coordinating the formation of various parts of a body as it gestates and grows to maturity. In mammals and other "higher" species, any single flaw in FOXP2, any isolated mutation or variation, can cause a severe negative impact in some of the most important aspects of development: the function of the brain, the sound or speech mechanisms, the lungs, heart, guts, and nerves, among others. Because it is so utterly vital, it is even more highly conserved than mtDNA. Recall that in the 16,569 base pairs found in the mtDNA genome of normal humans, as many as 120 variations can be found in the first of us, southern Africans. That percentage of difference is quite small, only 0.7%. Compare that with the FOXP2 gene, which in normal humans is 2,594 base pairs long, and contains novariations. 0%! None! Nada! Every normal human has the exact same array of FOXP2 base pairs as every othernormal human. This is not to say mutations never occur in FOXP2. They can and do, and a number of them have been found. However, every mutation is debilitating in some way, and because FOXP2 is vitally important to so many bodily functions, most mutations in it will cause termination of life. When termination does not occur, the mutation's impact on its host is usually severe. In one well-studied mutation in the section of the gene that influences speech development mechanisms in humans, those who inherit it will never be able to speak. This has led some to suggest FOXP2 is a language gene, or a speech gene, but that is not the case. Speech is much too complex an arrangement of working parts to be so simply controlled, although a properly functioning FOXP2 gene is an essential part of the speech-development equation. The key point to understand is that while a tiny amount of survivable mutations are possible in FOXP2, every one that occurs presents debilitating or life-threatening consequences, so to this point in time none have been passed on to the general population of humans. Therefore, in the vast, vast majority of humans, the FOXP2 master gene is absolutely identical. ***** With that said, let's examine the fragment of Starchild Skull FOXP2 sequenced by our geneticist. Of the entire 2,594 base pairs of the normal FOXP2 gene, our fragment is 211 base pairs that come from a segment near the center of the gene. If the same 211 base pair section were isolated from any normal human, every base pair would be exactly the same as what is found in any other human. There would be no difference in any of them. Okay, ready….brace yourselves. The Starchild's 211 base pair FOXP2 fragment has a grand total of 56 variations! Now, while extrapolating this 211 base pair fragment is a bit more of a stretch than extrapolating the four combined fragments of mtDNA we discussed earlier, doing so does provide something to think about. Divide 2,954 by 211, and you get 12.3. Multiply 12.3 by 56, and the range of total variations in the Starchild's FOXP2 base pairs would be 600 to 700! So let's be crazy conservative and say it's only 200 or 300. It is still astounding in a super highly conserved gene that in normal humans has no variations at all! If we compare the same section from a rhesus monkey's FOXP2, only 2 of its 211 base pairs would vary from any human. If it were a mouse, it would be 20. If a dog, 27. An elephant, 21. An opossum, 21. A Xenopus (a kind of frog), 26. So dogs and frogs are the most different, at 27 and 26 base pairs respectively. To put this in perspective, let's imagine that when alive, the Starchild was indeed some unknown humanoid. No matter how different from humans it might have been, to be in the humanoid family its FOXP2 gene would have to be in the range of 1 or 2 or at most 3 base pair variations from a normal human. To go past 5 or 10 would put it into another class of species. 20 to 25 would put it in the range of mice and elephants, and dogs and frogs. To have 56 is to put it in another realm, another dimension entirely. It is utterly unique. To verify this radical statement, below is the actual comparison of the Starchild's FOXP2 fragment with the same gene segments of some of the species listed above. In each case, imagine it as a string of 211 base pair nucleotides, although to fit into this format it must be broken into two segments, top and bottom. Notice the steady blue of the human nucleotides that make up its base pairs, and the stark red of each variation in the other species. CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE Notice the SCFOXP2 line directly above, beginning with "Gln." It lists the amino acids determined by three-lettercodons. Codons establish rules by which information carried by genes is translated into proteins, which are molecules that perform various functions in cells and eventually in bodies. These groupings, known as triplets, are formed from the single-letter nucleotides—C, A, G, T—and they represent a blueprint for building the proteins that are encoded by each gene, using the standard set of 20 amino acids that our bodies utilize. The fragment shown above encodes a peptide (a stretch of amino acids) that is very unusual in the human FOXP2 gene. It contains a long stretch of 40 triplets, each coding for the same one of the 20 amino acids—glutamine (Gln), encoded by either a CAA or CAG triplet. After the stretch of 40 Gln in a row, there is a shorter stretch with six other triplets and one more Gln, then another stretch of 11 Gln in a row. In the Starchild FOXP2 fragment, there is also the 40 Gln tract, plus the 11, but it also contains several more glutamines. In the 211 base pair fragment from the FOXP2 gene in normal humans, no variations occur among the amino acid sequence in the FOXP2 protein, and the coding pattern for Gln (using either CAA or CAG) is exactly the same not only in humans, but essentially in all primates. (Compare only 2 amino acid variations in a rhesus monkey, which is not even a great ape.) In the Starchild Skull, we find 16 amino acid variations in this fragment, which despite all those differences unmistakably resembles the human FOXP2. Yet it demonstrates a coding pattern that is wildly different from all species shown above. This is an astounding contrast! Notice, too, the Starchild's 40 Gln stretch continues for 3 more, making it a 43 Gln stretch, where it reaches what is known as a "stop" codon, TAG, signified by the blue all-cap STP near the middle of the bottom line. The presence of this "stop" codon inside the protein is quite strange, since it will result in production of an abnormally shortened FOXP2 protein devoid of the downstream regions that are critical for important functions of this protein. It is always possible that some kind of sequencing error has been made, so it needs to be repeated to confirm this initial analysis. In any case, after the mysterious "stop" codon, a new Gln stretch begins and continues to only three amino acids from the fragment's end. This, too, is wildly different from the human sequence, but as with the other anomalies, further research is needed to determine what altered functions these differences cause. Another comparison to make is to remove the Gln stretches from different species and examine what is left. For example, if we analyze the entire FOXP2 gene in humans and chimps, our closest genetic relative, with the Gln stretches removed from consideration, then only 2 amino acids (depicted by the three-letter codons) are different. The same 2 are found in gorillas and other higher primates. In mice, the difference is 3 amino acids. If we remove the Gln stretches from the Starchild's fragment of FOXP2, only 7 amino acids remain to be compared to the corresponding amino acids of the human FOXP2. These are the first four, at the beginning of the fragment, and the last three, the end of the fragment, and all 7 amino acids are different! Whatever we might say about this comparison, it is certainly not between two humans, or anything near two humans. In addition to having a "stop" codon in its last quarter, the Starchild fragment is also missing the large intron(marked with a vertical green arrow) that normally intervenes in the human gene and in the gene of other species. This suggests that the Starchild fragment could be a pseudogene, dysfunctional ancestors of normal genes that have lost the ability to encode proteins, or are otherwise no longer capable of being expressed in a cell. This means they are nonfunctional, and are therefore another form of junk DNA. Suggesting the Starchild's FOXP2 fragment might be a pseudogene immediately collides with the fact that there is no currently known human FOXP2 pseudogene. Because it is a master gene, it must always function properly, and if it doesn't function properly in even a small way, very negative things happen to the individual carrying the variation. Thus, since a human FOXP2 pseudogene is not known to exist, if it turned out that the Starchild Skull carried one, that would clearly establish it as not human. What's the bottom line? That can only be determined when the entire Starchild genome is recovered and compared—nucleotide by nucleotide, base pair by base pair, codon by codon, amino acid by amino acid—with humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, chimps, and gorillas. Whatever it is, most of the preliminary evidence indicates it is quite distinct from humans. Most important, perhaps, to keep in mind is that our FOXP2 results are preliminary, as are the results from the earlier nuclear DNA fragments, and the mitochondrial DNA fragments. All three preliminary results are highly indicative of what the final result will be, but they cannot be considered absolute proof. They can, however, be considered proof that absolute proof will come when the Starchild's entire genome can finally be recovered. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) oh how ignorant. You're right. There's a lot of ignorance going on here. It is ignorant to explain unknowns in science to some religious cause such as ancient aliens. It is ignorant is to take the word of some random, crackpot website as truth, yet ignore science. These dishonest, crackpot proselytizers have found that there is a whole lot of easy money to be made from a gullible, ignorant public. Shame on them for their dishonesty, and shame on those who fall for this tripe. Id just like to point out that wikipedia isn't a credible source of information, anyone can edit that page. Lloyd pye himself has been barred from editing that page. That Lloyd Pye has been barred from editing that page disproves your thesis that anyone can edit that page. As for the rest of your long nonsense post, tl;dr. Edited August 2, 2012 by D H 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtue Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 You're right. There's a lot of ignorance going on here. It is ignorant to explain unknowns in science to some religious cause such as ancient aliens. It is ignorant is to take the word of some random, crackpot website as truth, yet ignore science. These dishonest, crackpot proselytizers have found that there is a whole lot of easy money to be made from a gullible, ignorant public. Shame on them for their dishonesty, and shame on those who fall for this tripe. That Lloyd Pye has been barred from editing that page disproves your thesis that anyone can edit that page. As for the rest of your long nonsense post, tl;dr. ^ ignorance ^ tl;dr? awwwww poor little guy *shakes cheeks* aww iddle boy cant be bothered to read? bless ya! I feel sorry for you that you have a short attention span, must be ADHD, heres a cookie to keep you occupied while us adults have an intelligent debate to put it in "laymans" terms heres a youtube video: -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 ! Moderator Note Virtue - please re-read the forum rules you agreed to when you signed up. whilst criticism, dissection, and possibly distruction of an argument is desirable; comments directed towards the person are completely unacceptable. please limit your responses to the discussion at hand and ensure that no more attacks are made on the members. thanks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 So what do you think the odds are of a distinguishable FOXP2 gene being in an alien, even an extraordinarily divergent one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I fail to see why people don't give credit to people for these accomplishments. Everything I have seen so far could have been accomplished with the tools available at the time - It would just be a lot harder and take a lot longer. As for alien/human interbreeding: Rubbish - you would have more success in breeding with jellyfish, at least they are from the same planet. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now