The proof is in our DNA. We have conserved genes that cross almost all forms of life. HOX genes, the proteins in the electron transport chain in mitochondria and other genes for proteins (enzymes) used in DNA and RNA replication.
Keep in mind too all the other hominoid species that came before us and lived along side us. And the other hominoid species that we've mated with and incorporated into our DNA. Eg Neanderthal, Devonian and that other (I can't remember the name if it even has one) hominoid species that they've found evidence of in our DNA but no fossil evidence of so far.
We are part of a large family of life here on earth and we're all related to one another.....
I don't suspect that of being the reason we don't take better care of the planet or, of each other for that matter. Short-sighted greed/unrestrained natural resource exploitation, stupidity, violence and cruelty would seem more like the reasons.
I know, the question was rhetorical. However DNA doesn't reconcile the lack of fossil record.
This is that cup half empty vs half full debate. I view it as how resilient lifeforms are. Added to that, the earlier comments on this thread about the inevitability of mutation and adaptation, it's as if there is a predestined location. Perhaps embedded codes?
Maybe, probably, could've, would've, should've... In that case, could we have ended up with dino-erectus?
That (bold text) is red herring. What is needed is what existed before. If macro evolution happened, we would have found just as many transitory fossils as the ancient fossils we've already found but no.
That depends on what defines successful life. Quantity vs quality perhaps? If stayed longer but couldn't do anything about the incoming asteroid that would wipe out its life, would that be considered successful? Again, just thinking out loud.
Trace as in what we consider trace? If the beings that are advanced enough to travel this far (even the nearest solar system is unreachable by us at the moment), don't you think they would have something more advanced than our current level of comprehension on what the trace would be?If we did, (and I don't believe it), it stands to reason we would have had the insight to anticipate this very controversy and make sure we left no trace so it appears we are indigenous. That way we'd have no indifference to the planet and be inclined to take care of it. However that notion may well prove untenable. Why we'd have no history/recollection of the event could be because the 1st gens were sworn to secrecy. You know, like the moon landing astronauts are keeping silent about the truth.
Trace as in what we consider trace? If the beings that are advanced enough to travel this far (even the nearest solar system is unreachable by us at the moment), don't you think they would have something more advanced than our current level of comprehension on what the trace would be?[/QUOTE]
No no, if they were us, they/we simply hid the knowledge we would eventually rediscover.
No no, if they were us, they/we simply hid the knowledge we would eventually rediscover.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
think of the decisions this alien race had to make before seeding our planet. If not starting from a clean sheet by eliminating all other life they’d have to ensure we were backwards compatible, hence the DNA mixture we have that allowed us to thrive and dominate
they’d perhaps be cautious to ensure we didn’t rise up to challenge them by including some limitations in our future capabilities
and presuming there was a purpose for putting us here they will want to get something back, entertainment, organs, nutrition, slaves, or they were just altruistic and so why aren’t they helping us to develop why not give us some coaching along the way, or have they already died out
or are we a science experiment that alien children are running at ‘school’
or more likely, we evolved here, simple. All the evidence supports this conclusion. Fossil records grow and fill out with every new discovery.
they’d perhaps be cautious to ensure we didn’t rise up to challenge them by including some limitations in our future capabilities
and presuming there was a purpose for putting us here they will want to get something back, entertainment, organs, nutrition, slaves, or they were just altruistic and so why aren’t they helping us to develop why not give us some coaching along the way, or have they already died out
or are we a science experiment that alien children are running at ‘school’
or more likely, we evolved here, simple. All the evidence supports this conclusion. Fossil records grow and fill out with every new discovery.
Last edited:
Maybe, probably, could've, would've, should've... In that case, could we have ended up with dino-erectus?
That (bold text) is red herring. What is needed is what existed before. If macro evolution happened, we would have found just as many transitory fossils as the ancient fossils we've already found but no.
You do realize that mammals lived alongside dinosaurs for a very long time without being able to gain the upper hand, right?
Placental mammals diverged from marsupials and monotremes as early as the Cretaceous period 145 million to 66 million years ago.
I like this one overall, if for no other reason than the quality of the visuals.
History of the Earth - YouTube
Is it hubris to suppose we can calculate the likelihood or frequency with which a similar enough series of events that lead to “us” may have occurred in the unimaginable vastness of what we call the observable universe, or for that matter how often the whole cycle has run?
Let’s admit that a fair percentage of us get some enjoyment from a good sci-fi fantasy flick, and one of my favourite short pieces of CGI is the closing to the original Men In Black. Puts a whole new perspective to Carl Sagan’s “little blue dot”
Man in black - ending HD - YouTube
@ Charles Darwin...No, not kidding. Where are all the transitional fossils showing the gradual incremental stages of the evolutionary record of any animal. Pick one, any one.
Of course we're from here. Just entertaining the thought. But a purpose could be simply survival of a last remnant of a civilization we finally destroyed somewhere else.
I like this one overall, if for no other reason than the quality of the visuals.
History of the Earth - YouTube
Is it hubris to suppose we can calculate the likelihood or frequency with which a similar enough series of events that lead to “us” may have occurred in the unimaginable vastness of what we call the observable universe, or for that matter how often the whole cycle has run?
Let’s admit that a fair percentage of us get some enjoyment from a good sci-fi fantasy flick, and one of my favourite short pieces of CGI is the closing to the original Men In Black. Puts a whole new perspective to Carl Sagan’s “little blue dot”
Man in black - ending HD - YouTube
Fine, I pick Hominids.
The only surprising thing is that there are so many that we have found.
Besides fossil are a bad example as there is so much that can ensure very few will ever be found like plate tectonics which constantly swallow up rock and melt it down beneath the Earth's mantle.
DNA is much better given that faults/mutations occur with extreme regularity. Like clockwork...
Last edited:
Come on now, let's not be evasive here. Point us to the fossil record as per my initial challenge. We know lots of fossils have been found.
Eventually rediscover as in decoding the hidden info? Wouldn't that be tracing?
Okay brainiac's, for those of you who refuse to believe in anything that does't have scientific proof to support the claims or theories, come up with a logical reason or how these things can possibly happen. 411 missing-the Canam project. These are real documented cases that defy all known logical means. Oh, and Bigfoot DOES exist. Things exist that cannot be explained. Multiple dimensions, alternate realities, travel at the speed of thought, instantaneous manifestations. Truth can be stranger than fiction.
Last edited:
What about it?
Per theories based on fossils discovered so far. As Bigun pointed out,
- Status
- Not open for further replies.