Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: goodsamaritan on March 19, 2015, 08:09:31 pm
-
(http://www.macroevolution.net/images/eugene-m-mccarthy-300-392-18.jpg)
Ha ha, geneticist getting into this game because the other hypotheses are unsatisfactory!
- Dr Eugene McCarthy points to features that distinguish us from primates
- He says that the only animals which also have these features are pigs
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html#ixzz3UpgRa4ha (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html#ixzz3UpgRa4ha)
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Geneticist's interesting website http://www.macroevolution.net (http://www.macroevolution.net)
Lots of hybrid examples there...
Let's get this debate rolling... Read the links first.
-
Here is one of the rebuttals against this hypothesis:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/yes-you-share-a.html (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/yes-you-share-a.html)
Another critic:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/dec/04/theory-chimps-pigs-hybridisation (http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/dec/04/theory-chimps-pigs-hybridisation)
And another critique:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/02/the-mfap-hypothesis-for-the-origins-of-homo-sapiens/ (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/02/the-mfap-hypothesis-for-the-origins-of-homo-sapiens/)
-
Unsurprisingly, Dr McCarthy's hypothesis has come in for substantial criticism from orthodox evolutionary biologists and their Creationist opponents alike.
One important criticism, which dubs his theory the 'Monkey-F******-A-Pig hypothesis', is that there is little chance that pigs and chimps could be interfertile. The two orders of creatures, according to evolutionary theory, diverged roughly 80million years ago, a ScienceBlogs post points out.
'[J]ust the gradual accumulation of molecular differences in sperm and egg recognition proteins would mean that pig sperm wouldn’t recognize a chimpanzee egg as a reasonable target for fusion,' PZ Myers writes.
Furthermore, the blogger explains, while chimps have 48 chromosomes, pigs have just 38.
He adds: 'Hybridizing a pig and a chimp is like taking half the dancers from a performance of Swan Lake and the other half from a performance of Giselle and throwing them together on stage to assemble something. It’s going to be a catastrophe.'
Finally, he suggests rather impudently that Dr McCarthy do the experimental work himself and try mating with a pig to see how far he gets.
But Dr McCarthy believes that, in the case of humans and other creatures, his hybrid modification to evolutionary theory can account for a range of phenomena that Darwinian evolution alone has difficulty explaining.
Tyler quoted...
My take is...
If the timeline we are talking about is millions of years ago... the hybridization event... it would be too assumptive for us to think it was just plain Monkey Fucks Pig...
... stretch your imagination to millions of years ago... is it not possible that some intelligent beings DID the hybridization act?
... just look at 2015 current genetic technology!
... are you assuming our 2015 tech is the PEAK of technology on EARTH?
... is it NOT POSSIBLE some other CIVILIZATION was intelligent or MORE SO than us humans today in 2015?
-
This von daenikenesque stuff has already been extensively debunked long ago. GS, you may have too much time on your hands.......
We really need some rigorous scientific analysis of what we believe in to make us more mainstream. I am, quite frankly, proud of the fact that so many modern scientific studies back up our raw, palaeolithic diet in various ways.
-
This von daenikenesque stuff has already been extensively debunked long ago. GS, you may have too much time on your hands.......
We really need some rigorous scientific analysis of what we believe in to make us more mainstream. I am, quite frankly, proud of the fact that so many modern scientific studies back up our raw, palaeolithic diet in various ways.
Well double ha!
So indeed you are assuming that 2015 is the pinnacle of human civilization / Earth technology!
How much GMO and hybrids have humans done in the past 12,000 years?
How long has human civilization been in existence? How long have humans been on this earth?
A few hundred thousand years from now... a few million years from now... what / how would our GMO / hybrid handiwork look like?
What number / kinds of past high tech civilizations had been eliminated by past earth catastrophes like giant floods, pole shifts, asteroid collisions, orbit shifts? I don't know... nobody knows.
What I disagree with is us assuming that 2015 is the peak of any civilization / technology on this planet.
How many human reboots have happened?
How many intelligent species reboots have happened?
You are saying aliens had never ever visited this planet?
Duh... of course all is possible.
In a long enough time line anything is possible... hundreds of thousands of years... millions of years... tens of millions of years... is a lot of time.
-
if aliens had ever visited our planet ages ago, they would have long ago wiped out our ancestors before they ever got intelligent enough....
-
if aliens had ever visited our planet ages ago, they would have long ago wiped out our ancestors before they ever got intelligent enough....
Why?
-
Why?
Because we would have been seen as an eventual threat.
-
So, now you can not only read into JeuneKoq’s mind, but in whatever extraterrestrial aliens’ mind! Some time ago, I posted in response to your arguments on this topic a paper of James W. Deardorff published by the Royal Astronomical Society, but you don’t seem to have taken notice. Here it is, again: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1986QJRAS..27...94D&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1986QJRAS..27...94D&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES)
Anyway, GS, if there had been human civilizations since several millions years ago, they would certainly have had discovered how to master and make fire at will and thus would have cooked at least some of their food and gone into agriculture and animals’ domestication. That’s an unavoidable inference since a civilization without fire mastery and without agriculture wouldn’t be a civilization in the way we define it.
Therefore, if our ancestors had been eating cooked food, cereals and dairy for several millions years, we would be adapted to those foods much better than we are and there wouldn’t be much point in a raw paleo diet. Mind you, the raw paleo theory relies on some form of the evolution theory.
-
We can reasonably assume that aliens will have the same goals as we have re elimination of possible rivals! The link you gave forbids any access, but I have read other links via googling and they merely show that Deardorff merely gives some claims as to why aliens might allow us first contact after a very long time. The trouble with this hypothesis is that it is just another example of human hubris wherein humans imagine that their own species is so important that other sentient species actually care about their existence.
-
We can reasonably assume that aliens will have the same goals as we have re elimination of possible rivals!
I disagree.
If humans came into contact with less advanced alien lifeforms, would their first thought be to destroy them because they might be "possible threats"? Or study them, let them evolve in their environment, like ornithologist do with birds?
Would we humans even pause a threat to an alien civilization that is probably hundreds of thousands, even millions of years ahead of us in terms of knowledge and technology?
Would they not be simply interested in observing our evolution, our development as a relatively intelligent earthling specie?
You can either have a very pessimistic view on the matter, or a more optimistic one.
I saw this show once where they talked about people's account of aliens visiting them. These people where declared sane by psychiatrists. There was this one account when several people witnessed aliens visiting their school. The aliens telepathically told this girl something in the lines of "take care of the environment, stop pollution". So it would seem that at least some type of alien beings are actually trying to help us, guide us to a brighter future... If these aliens really do exist.
-
There's the part of the show "experiencers" :
Zimbabwe - UFO - 62 School Children (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgZE8s0hBRQ#ws)
-
The link you gave forbids any access,
I can perfectly and freely access all the pages (94 to 101) of this remarkable paper.
-
If humans came into contact with less advanced alien lifeforms, would their first thought be to destroy them because they might be "possible threats"? Or study them, let them evolve in their environment, like ornithologist do with birds?
Would we humans even pause a threat to an alien civilization that is probably hundreds of thousands, even millions of years ahead of us in terms of knowledge and technology?
That's absolutely obvious to me. Tyler, you've read too many science-fiction books and you ignore factual research! The rational way would be to check the facts before theorizing instead of going into wildly speculative and hypothetical theorizations while ignoring the known facts.
-
It is logical to assume that more technologically advanced aliens would want to wipe us out, as this is what has happened throughout our human history. To assume differently, one would have to assume wholly alien civilisations on wholly alien water-free planets etc. which are unlikely to exist.
The delusions of UFO "abductees" are irrelevant. I once read, for example, that there were many mixed-race couples featured among fake so-called UFO "abductees", the idea being implied that mixing races wouldn't seem so alien if confronted with the notion that there are even weirder, more alien extraterrestrial species from other planets out there. The crop-circles have already been debunked by farmers who came forward to admit that they had faked those crop-circles themselves, and so on and on......
-
There's the part of the show "experiencers" :
Zimbabwe - UFO - 62 School Children (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgZE8s0hBRQ#ws)
Thanks for that very impressive video! I did read the book of this psychiatrist MD John E. Mack about 20 years ago. A flabbergasting book, I could never sort out what to conclude from it and several other books I did read on the same topic. Now, I'm glad to have seen him and listened to him thanks to this video.
-
It is logical to assume that more technologically advanced aliens would want to wipe us out, as this is what has happened throughout our human history. To assume differently, one would have to assume wholly alien civilisations on wholly alien water-free planets etc. which are unlikely to exist.
The delusions of UFO "abductees" are irrelevant. I once read, for example, that there were many mixed-race couples featured among fake so-called UFO "abductees", the idea being implied that mixing races wouldn't seem so alien if confronted with the notion that there are even weirder, more alien extraterrestrial species from other planets out there. The crop-circles have already been debunked by farmers who came forward to admit that they had faked those crop-circles themselves, and so on and on......
Yet, you're again wildly speculating on the base of the preconceived ideas you stick to without even caring to check the facts.
-
Yet, you're again wildly speculating on the base of the preconceived ideas you stick to without even caring to check the facts.
I was indeed basing my ideas from facts. Such as the fact that the dominant lifeform on this planet has made sure that less successful types should fail. You have also wholly ignored the Great Filter theory which excellently explains why no aliens have ever visited us. Your appalling human hubris lies in the assumption that organic, advanced sentient species would a) be able to cross over to other solar systems and b) be interested in communicating with "lesser" species.
-
It is logical to assume that more technologically advanced aliens would want to wipe us out, as this is what has happened throughout our human history.
It is absolutely not logical, but obviously nobody is going to change your opinion. Hopefully aliens will...
Also, it is foolish to compare human's supposed behavior with that of a non-terrestrial, presumably much more technologically advanced civilization. It's probably closer to comparing an ant with a pig, than a dog with a wolf. And even then!
To assume differently, one would have to assume wholly alien civilisations on wholly alien water-free planets etc. which are unlikely to exist.
????
The delusions of UFO "abductees" are irrelevant. I once read, for example, that there were many mixed-race couples featured among fake so-called UFO "abductees", the idea being implied that mixing races wouldn't seem so alien if confronted with the notion that there are even weirder, more alien extraterrestrial species from other planets out there. The crop-circles have already been debunked by farmers who came forward to admit that they had faked those crop-circles themselves, and so on and on......
Believe what you want...I think there are fantasies, and I think there are also genuine accounts, where people have waited years in fear that they would be labeled crazy before telling what they experienced... But I'll never be either in total denial, or totally convinced before I actually meet some.
-
It is naturally reasonable to assume that the same processes that enabled human evolution would enable alien evolution. The alternatives, such as silicon-based-evolution on other extraterrestrial worlds are too unlikely to ever happen.
Here is a far more scientifically-accurate explanation for the UFO abduction claims:-
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/09.22/11-alien.html (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/09.22/11-alien.html)
-
Thanks for that very impressive video! I did read the book of this psychiatrist MD John E. Mack about 20 years ago. A flabbergasting book, I could never sort out what to conclude from it and several other books I did read on the same topic. Now, I'm glad to have seen him and listened to him thanks to this video.
Your welcome, Iguana :) I actually realize I have the dvd of the show at home. It's a French production from Stéphane Allix who works -or used to work- for M6, and now does his own documentaries on paranormal phenomenons. He tries to back up his topics with as much credible accounts, rational facts and expert approval as possible, so as to convince the usually skeptical public of the reality of these experiences. Of course, it is slightly dramatized, as all public shows are these days :) The show is called "enquètes extraodinaires".
-
I was indeed basing my ideas from facts. Such as the fact that the dominant lifeform on this planet has made sure that less successful types should fail. You have also wholly ignored the Great Filter theory which excellently explains why no aliens have ever visited us.
A theory which explain why something has not happened is completely worthless if that something is constantly happening ! Just like the obsolete ridiculous theory that said there can be no meteorites because there’s no stone in the sky.
Your appaling human hubris lies in the assumption that organic, advanced sentient species would a) be able to cross over to other solar systems and b) be interested in communicating with "lesser" species.
No.
I’m not assuming anything. I’m just curious about this topic without being able to draw any definitive conclusion. I don’t know.
BTW, could a mod split this topic or at least change its "... Fermale..." title ?
-
It is naturally reasonable to assume that the same processes that enabled human evolution would enable alien evolution. The alternatives, such as silicon-based-evolution on other extraterrestrial worlds are too unlikely to ever happen.
This doesn't support your idea that highly intelligent aliens would somehow act like the most barbaric form of humans in any ways.
Here is a far more scientifically-accurate explanation for the UFO abduction claims:-
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/09.22/11-alien.html (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/09.22/11-alien.html)
I read your link, and it is just assumptions that these people's witness aren't valid because they may or may not have been in sleep paralysis... It's possible, but IMO not systematic.
And what can be said about the ones that were experienced while awake? Or in mass?
Did these kids in the video want their 10 minutes of fame, so they set up this story together? Or they were all drugged on some toxic gas leaking from the school cafeteria, and together hallucinated the whole thing? Who knows...
-
A theory which explain why something has not happened is completely worthless if that something is constantly happening ! Just like the obsolete ridiculous theory that said there can be no meteorites because there’s no stone in the sky.
It is not constantly happening. The evidence for that is vague and lacking in credibility, with alternative sufficient, perfectly logical explanations being given for all UFO sightings.No.
I’m not assuming anything. I’m just curious about this topic without being able to draw any definitive conclusion. I don’t know.
The whole point is that any species able to cross interstellar distances obviously has no credible reason to hide itself, yet still show vague hints of itself via strange lights in the sky. Obviously, such a species would have the technology to hide itself completely if it even wanted to hide, that is.
-
This doesn't support your idea that highly intelligent aliens would somehow act like the most barbaric form of humans in any ways.
I mean that, for a species to become the most dominant species on its planet(or group of solar systems for that matter) it has to have a highly competitive spirit. Look at our species for example:- sure, there are lots of people who are pacifistic and who love animals, but this isn't remotely stopping the wholesale slaughter of wildlife and destruction of the environment, which is still continuing en-masse.I read your link, and it is just assumptions that these people's witness aren't valid because they may or may not have been in sleep paralysis... It's possible, but IMO not systematic.
And what can be said about the ones that were experienced while awake? Or in mass?
There are various explanations given for UFO abduction stories. One is fraud(eg:- crop circles), the other is sleep-paralysis, still others might be due to psychotic delusions, trance states, drugs, alcohol etc.
Come to think of it, psychiatrists have managed to implant completely convincing but false memories of sexual abuse into their patients:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome
so it is possible for people to have false memories.
[/quote]
-
I mean that, for a species to become the most dominant species on its planet(or group of solar systems for that matter) it has to have a highly competitive spirit. Look at our species for example:- sure, there are lots of people who are pacifistic and who love animals, but this isn't remotely stopping the wholesale slaughter of wildlife and destruction of the environment, which is still continuing en-masse.
Once you surpass the competition, there is no need to use extreme violence anymore. The fact that we now have the luxury to care about and take care of other competitive animals, such as wolfs, lions, tigers, is because we understand that they do not represent a threat to us, at least not in the present days.
Therefore, we can assume that an alien specie that has come to explore our solar system will likely see us as non-threatening beings.
Maybe they are monitoring our mental and conscious development, and waiting for us to reach a point of higher consciousness before safely and officially coming into contact with us.
It is not constantly happening. The evidence for that is vague and lacking in credibility, with alternative sufficient, perfectly logical explanations being given for all UFO sightings.
There are various explanations given for UFO abduction stories. One is fraud(eg:- crop circles), the other is sleep-paralysis, still others might be due to psychotic delusions, trance states, drugs, alcohol etc.
"...for all UFO sightings." Some experts disagree and say not all UFO sightings are explainable. Depends who you choose to believe, who's view fits best your already preconceived idea. Don't get me wrong, we're all guilty of this to various degrees, even if some try really hard not to be.
So you might think that all UFO sightings and alien encounters are imagined or faked, or believe that some people weren't all hallucinating and actually saw or met the E.T.s. You might be in denial of the evidence regarding the inconsistency of these people's accounts , or in denial of the existence of not perfectly rationally explainable experiences.
Right now it's more a matter of belief, and looking for reliable testimonials and evidence to back up one's own claim.
-
Once you surpass the competition, there is no need to use extreme violence anymore. The fact that we now have the luxury to care about and take care of other competitive animals, such as wolfs, lions, tigers, is because we understand that they do not represent a threat to us, at least not in the present days.
Therefore, we can assume that an alien specie that has come to explore our solar system will likely see us as non-threatening beings.
Maybe they are monitoring our mental and conscious development, and waiting for us to reach a point of higher consciousness before safely and officially coming into contact with us.
This yet again a clear example of human hubris. You actually think that a far more technologically-advanced civilisation would care empathetically about us. The point being that our behaviour is determined 80% genetically, and only 20% of our behaviour is determined by our environment. Therefore the aliens likely , just like us, will have their behaviour determined almost wholly by their genetics which arose as a result of natural selection/survival of the fittest, and will therefore be hostile or at least competitive towards other sentient lifeforms elsewhere. Just like us, aliens will want to colonise other planets and so on...
The fact that a very few humans are able to domesticate some wild animals is wholly irrelevant. A few US states allow almost any wild animals to be domesticated, and most of those wild animals therein are fed on wholly unnatural diets and installed in tiny cages which lead to severe ill-health for those very wild animals, and most of the rest of the world forbids domestication of wild animals, anyway.
"...for all UFO sightings." Some experts disagree and say not all UFO sightings are explainable. Depends who you choose to believe, who's view fits best your already preconceived idea. Don't get me wrong, we're all guilty of this to various degrees, even if some try really hard not to be.
Unfortunately for you, there is a significant portion of UFO sightings which have been proven beyond doubt to be false(eg;- crop circles etc.), most of the remaining UFO sightings are easily explainable as being just atmospheric phenomena, with a tiny few being unexplainable. Those tiny remaining few sightings are only unexplainable because our technology is inadequate to explain them. In other words, further technological advance will lead to unravelling those few remaining UFO sightings, and give a sufficient non-alien interpretation thereof.
So, all in all, the evidence is against UFOs...
-
This yet again a clear example of human hubris. You actually think that a far more technologically-advanced civilisation would care empathetically about us. The point being that our behaviour is determined 80% genetically, and only 20% of our behaviour is determined by our environment. Therefore the aliens likely , just like us, will have their behaviour determined almost wholly by their genetics which arose as a result of natural selection/survival of the fittest, and will therefore be hostile or at least competitive towards other sentient lifeforms elsewhere. Just like us, aliens will want to colonise other planets and so on...
This is so hysterical. You accuse me of human hubris, while at the same time doing the same by giving Aliens a supposed aspiration to destroying threatening-yet nonthreatening civilizations, denying the possibility that they may be empathetical beings, curious beings, that either already have the sufficient resources to not have to invade our planet for our own, or don't want to disturb the native ecosystem by doing so, as all reasonable higher minds would do.
This isn't "Mars Attack"...*
The fact that a very few humans are able to domesticate some wild animals is wholly irrelevant. A few US states allow almost any wild animals to be domesticated, and most of those wild animals therein are fed on wholly unnatural diets and installed in tiny cages which lead to severe ill-health for those very wild animals, and most of the rest of the world forbids domestication of wild animals, anyway.
I'm not talking about domestication, I'm talking about natural reserves, where animals roam around almost totally freely (as long as they don't cross the fences etc... ) Maybe Aliens see life on earth that way. Not as pets, but as funny fishes in a big round aquarium. Or maybe they don't exist, or don't care about us humans. It's possible.
Unfortunately for you, there is a significant portion of UFO sightings which have been proven beyond doubt to be false(eg;- crop circles etc.), most of the remaining UFO sightings are easily explainable as being just atmospheric phenomena, with a tiny few being unexplainable. Those tiny remaining few sightings are only unexplainable because our technology is inadequate to explain them. In other words, further technological advance will lead to unravelling those few remaining UFO sightings, and give a sufficient non-alien interpretation thereof.
So, all in all, the evidence is against UFOs...
Well that's all just presumptions, theories. Their are no solid evidence for UFOs, or else they would be generally accepted, but there are some clear holes in some attempts at rational interpretation, which makes their existence quite possible.
It's like afterlife. Their are no solid evidence for it, but the number of amazing (improbable even) coincidence and likely sincere testimonials are such that it is something to consider.
*I can understand that you might believe in emotion-less, empathy-less, conscious-less beings that only live to conquer and propagate throughout space , but that theory is as credible as the other, and probably less so. At least we can assume they haven't come for us yet ;)
-
This is so hysterical. You accuse me of human hubris, while at the same time doing the same by giving Aliens a supposed aspiration to destroying threatening-yet nonthreatening civilizations, denying the possibility that they may be empathetical beings, curious beings, that either already have the sufficient resources to not have to invade our planet for our own, or don't want to disturb the native ecosystem by doing so, as all reasonable higher minds would do.
This isn't "Mars Attack"...*
I simply pointed out the obvious, that even if they had sufficient resources, they would want even more such. I pointed out also, that no matter how alien they were, that they would be similiarly affected by the laws of survival/natural selection, just like we have been, even if they had access to sufficient resources.
I'm not talking about domestication, I'm talking about natural reserves, where animals roam around almost totally freely (as long as they don't cross the fences etc... )
Unfortunately, most such animals are kept in tiny cages and fed on unnatural, processed rubbish, so are very unhealthy.
*I can understand that you might believe in emotion-less, empathy-less, conscious-less beings that only live to conquer and propagate throughout space , but that theory is as credible as the other, and probably less so. At least we can assume they haven't come for us yet ;)
If they have enough competitive spirit in order to be able to travel the vast interstellar distances, then they would, for sure, wipe out any sentient lifeforms on such planets, so that they could colonise them themselves.
-
Unfortunately, most such animals are kept in tiny cages and fed on unnatural, processed rubbish, so are very unhealthy.
What are you talking about? They're basically just roaming in their natural environment, just with a fence around it to protect us, and them for that matter. No humans are feeding them, they eat their natural native diet. Your probably confusing "natural reserve" with "zoo".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_reserve)
-
I simply pointed out the obvious, that even if they had sufficient resources, they would want even more such. I pointed out also, that no matter how alien they were, that they would be similiarly affected by the laws of survival/natural selection, just like we have been, even if they had access to sufficient resources.
Yes, "have been"... Now paraplegics will be able to walk with exoskeletons, and drones will bring your groceries to your doorstep...
I disagree that beings with higher intellects and probably more balanced, perfected civilizations with better resource distribution would want to wipe out other beings in order to potentially extract their planet's resources. But that's just my point of view.
-
Their are no solid evidence for UFOs, or else they would be generally accepted, but there are some clear holes in some attempts at rational interpretation, which makes their existence quite possible.
There is a huge amount of solid evidence, especially since UFO means Unidentified Flying Object! What the unexplainable ones are and where they come from, no one knows: it’s a total and puzzling mystery.
Tyler believes they can’t come from outer space for several assumptions and speculations he infers from Neolithic/modern nevrotic human behavior, way of thinking and current limited, fragmentary knowledge. But it’s not a matter of belief or unbelief — unbelief being a belief as well because a belief can be positive or negative.
The extraterrestrial hypothesis is nothing more than an hypothesis, but it’s the simplest, best facts fitting and most likely explanation that must not be excluded. Nevertheless, Tyler won’t accept the facts (nor even watch the amazing video you posted or read the science paper I linked, pretending he can't access it) because he knows better and he’s mind is definitively set, there’s no way he’ll ever question his own rigid negative belief.
For people understanding a bit of French:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2f336r_dossier-paranormal-les-ovnis-et-le-pouvoir_tv#from=embediframe (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2f336r_dossier-paranormal-les-ovnis-et-le-pouvoir_tv#from=embediframe)
-
What are you talking about? They're basically just roaming in their natural environment, just with a fence around it to protect us, and them for that matter. No humans are feeding them, they eat their natural native diet. Your probably confusing "natural reserve" with "zoo".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_reserve)
You were initially mentioning tigers which are hardly naturally present in the US, where I thought you were from. I already know that many Americans have kept wild animals as pets, but they are usually held in squalid conditions. As far as nature reserves are concerned, actually these are coming more and more under threat. For example, Equador has now opened one big nature reserve for commercial exploitations re mining etc. after environmentalists did not come up with the 2 billion dollars that Equador had asked for. Now, the Chinese are about to pulverise another national park in Nicaragua to make way for a new canal. Elesewhere, wild animals are still being poached even if they are in national parks. So environmental destruction is still happening all the time.....
-
So environmental destruction is still happening all the time.....
Yes, ever since we became able to make fire at will, and even more so when we switched from hunting-gathering to agriculture.
-
Yes, "have been"... Now paraplegics will be able to walk with exoskeletons, and drones will bring your groceries to your doorstep...
Exoskeletons came about because of military research, hardly a peaceful endeavour, drones are being used to wipe out Islamic militants abraod, again not too peaceful....I disagree that beings with higher intellects and probably more balanced, perfected civilizations with better resource distribution would want to wipe out other beings in order to potentially extract their planet's resources. But that's just my point of view.
I am, however, a realist. I do not see aliens as being either wholly good or wholly bad. It simply makes sense that a more technologically-advanced civilisation will wipe out or at least greatly harm a less advanced civilisation after Contact, even if no war is declared. Look at what happened to indigenous types when people started colonising their territories. Even peaceful contact led to mass deaths through disease epidemics etc.
-
There is a huge amount of solid evidence, especially since UFO means Unidentified Flying Object! What the unexplainable ones are and where they come from, no one knows: it’s a total and puzzling mystery.
However, there have been satisfactory explanations given for most UFO sightings. The very few that do not have a simple, non-extraterrestrial explanation are only unexplainable due to lack of enough evidence etc.
The extraterrestrial hypothesis is nothing more than an hypothesis, but it’s the simplest, best facts fitting and most likely explanation that must not be excluded. Nevertheless, Tyler won’t accept the facts (nor even watch the amazing video you posted or read the science paper I linked, pretending he can't access it) because he knows better and he’s mind is definitively set, there’s no way he’ll ever question his own rigid negative belief.
. No, the simplest explanation is that no aliens in Earth orbit have ever existed and that all UFO sightings can be attributed to complex weather phenomena, outright fraud and the like. The aliens explanation is , on the other hand, a very complex explanation indeed to explain away minor things like bright lights in the sky.
Then there are all these weird, laughable claims that so-called UFO abductees routinely make. Such as that aliens always anally probe them or even sometimes have sex with their human captives. Logically, aliens able to travel from star to star would not need to insert metal objects anally into their human captives, they would have access to far superior technology that would allow intense scrutiny of a human body without any invasive techniques needing to be used. As for claims of sex, any star-crossing aliens would be so far advanced that the prospect of having sex with a human captive would just not ever happen, as it would be seen as being bestiality.
I was not pretending, incidentally. I just got this message, among other text, when trying to open the link:-"ADS Access Denied
We are sorry to inform you that your access to the ADS services has been denied. If you are consistently receiving this message, even when trying to access our top-level page, then it means that our system detected suspicious network activity associated with your computer's IP address."
[/quote]
-
Exoskeletons came about because of military research, hardly a peaceful endeavour, drones are being used to wipe out Islamic militants abraod, again not too peaceful....
Because of the havoc and overpopulation caused by the use of fire, especially for cooking, and of the population explosion ignited at the Neolithic along with the aggressive, possessive and materialist behavior characteristic of agrarian civilizations.
Even peaceful contact led to mass deaths through disease epidemics etc.
That’s why an open contact is not desirable. As I already pointed out in previous dicussions with you on the same topic, a destructive society is unlikely to be able to get out of its native planet because it is prone to destroy its own environment and thus self-destroy before being able to develop interstellar travel.
-
However, there have been satisfactory explanations given for most UFO sightings. The very few that do not have a simple, non-extraterrestrial explanation are only unexplainable due to lack of enough evidence etc.
. No, the simplest explanation is that no aliens in Earth orbit have ever existed and that all UFO sightings can be attributed to complex weather phenomena, outright fraud and the like. The aliens explanation is , on the other hand, a very complex explanation indeed to explain away minor things like bright lights in the sky.
Obviously you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Then there are all these weird, laughable claims that so-called UFO abductees routinely make. Such as that aliens always anally probe them or even sometimes have sex with their human captives. Logically, aliens able to travel from star to star would not need to insert metal objects anally into their human captives, they would have access to far superior technology that would allow intense scrutiny of a human body without any invasive techniques needing to be used. As for claims of sex, any star-crossing aliens would be so far advanced that the prospect of having sex with a human captive would just not ever happen, as it would be seen as being bestiality.
Yourself have just mentioned a few posts above that false memories can be implanted, even by our psychiatrists:
Come to think of it, psychiatrists have managed to implant completely convincing but false memories of sexual abuse into their patients:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome
so it is possible for people to have false memories.
Back to your last post:
I was not pretending, incidentally. I just got this message, among other text, when trying to open the link:-"ADS Access Denied
We are sorry to inform you that your access to the ADS services has been denied. If you are consistently receiving this message, even when trying to access our top-level page, then it means that our system detected suspicious network activity associated with your computer's IP address."
Hmmmh, “suspicious network activity associated with your computer's IP address." ! -\
Anyway, that paper is available elsewhere. I found its text here in one minute:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.theosophy/SyrT-VhJF6k
-
Obviously you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I pointed out the obvious that your aliens explanation is a more complex explanation than the simple one that fraud and weather phenomena are more likely causes of UFO sightings. Unless you have solid evidence that aliens exist, your case is disproven.
Yourself have just mentioned a few posts above that false memories can be implanted, even by our psychiatrists
Precisely. If aliens did indeed want to examine humans, they would also by now have the technology to implant false memories. So why then do some humans claim to have witnessed all sorts of stuff on an alien spaceship, when it would be easy for any aliens to wipe out their memories so as to be unobserved. If they do want to be observed, then, logically, why have we not had first contact with the aliens by this time?
-
That’s why an open contact is not desirable. As I already pointed out in previous dicussions with you on the same topic, a destructive society is unlikely to be able to get out of its native planet because it is prone to destroy its own environment and thus self-destroy before being able to develop interstellar travel.
Yes, I read that claim. The great filter theory is the best explanation for why aliens have never come to visit, though. Going into space requires a hefty competitive edge so that it is unlikely that a peaceful species would ever get the urge to cross interstellar distances. Our own space efforts were inspired by the Cold War and now space travel has been minimised in our current, more peaceful age. Colonists to the Americas, such as the puritans, only crossed those vast distances by sea in order to escape persecution, and so on.
-
Tyler... I would like you to formally stuff your ALIENs deflection in this hybridization is POSSIBLE debate.
As I already gave you the simple example of 12,000 years of HUMAN intelligence creating hybrids and making new species via Genetic Manipulation.
How much more of this current HUMAN intelligence will create hybrids and probably new species in the thousands of years more into the future?
And in the FUTURE then in hundreds of thousands of years or even into the tens of millions of years... there will be another TYLER (whether human or some other intelligent species) who will be an absolute DENIALIST that there ever were hybrids or genetic manipulation in the past... that ONLY their current technology is the cutting edge... and everything else in the past was "primitive".
Tyler, your denial attitude is what is known as religiosity with ferver / absolutism / closed mindedness / zero imagination / everything to be known is already known... piss on it all... what is important is we are open to possibilities... and the mathematics of probabilities is not at all difficult to even imagine.
-
I pointed out the obvious that your aliens explanation is a more complex explanation than the simple one that fraud and weather phenomena are more likely causes of UFO sightings. Unless you have solid evidence that aliens exist, your case is disproven.
Fraud and weather phenomena can explain many UFO sightings, but not all. For example when there are physical traces on the ground or when the observers are well respected and highly competent airline or air force pilots, astronomers, police officers, strategic nuclear missiles sites staff, etc., their sighting being in many cases confirmed by radar observations and/or independent and distant other observers. These tentative explanations are totally ridiculous in some very striking cases. Hynek himself was ridiculed by trying to explain a sighting by marsh gas.
If you are interested in this topic, even in view of obsessively wanting to debunk the extraterrestrial hypothesis, you should better inform yourself.
There’s a lot of solid evidence available, for example several Air Force and other very serious reports. Even the Condon Report, which was mandated to the University of Colorado with the mission to prove that UFOs’ sightings were hoaxes or could all be explained by natural phenomena, mentioned some cases that didn’t fit into those categories and could not be explained. The Socorro event, for example.
See, also for example, the striking French COMETA Report (in English here):
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_cometareport01.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_cometareport01.htm)
Precisely. If aliens did indeed want to examine humans, they would also by now have the technology to implant false memories. So why then do some humans claim to have witnessed all sorts of stuff on an alien spaceship, when it would be easy for any aliens to wipe out their memories so as to be unobserved. If they do want to be observed, then, logically, why have we not had first contact with the aliens by this time?
Who knows? They may want to be observed in some blurry way to trigger our curiosity and to try to open our mind, but in the same time don’t want to be openly, officially and unmistakably recognized as aliens, which would be disastrous for our civilization. As you rightly pointed out, an open contact is potentially very destructive.
It looks probable that they erase the real memory of the contact or abduction event and implant false memories about it.
-
Iguana, thanks for the great documentary! A pity not everyone could understand.
It's amazing to see at what length people are ready to go to keep the truth out there. I mean the guy basically sacrificed his prestigious scientist career for the sake of keeping his right to talk about a very uncomfortable theme. He said it himself "I don't think I could've looked myself in the mirror again if I had accepted to put an end to my UFO work". It's also interesting to see all these politicians supporting the UFO theory, and also having their own experience with them. And the secrecy around it too...
-
Who knows? They may want to be observed in some blurry way to trigger our curiosity and to try to open our mind, but in the same time don’t want to be openly, officially and unmistakably recognized as aliens, which would be disastrous for our civilization. As you rightly pointed out, an open contact is potentially very destructive.
It looks probable that they erase the real memory of the contact or abduction event and implant false memories about it.
I have the same idea...
You were initially mentioning tigers which are hardly naturally present in the US, where I thought you were from. I already know that many Americans have kept wild animals as pets, but they are usually held in squalid conditions. (...) So environmental destruction is still happening all the time.....
Exoskeletons came about because of military research, hardly a peaceful endeavour, drones are being used to wipe out Islamic militants abraod, again not too peaceful....
Tyler, you have this amazing ability to take things completely out of context, and make discussions with you very difficult to pursue:
Did I ever say anything about lions and tigers in the US?! Where do you even get these claims from?!
If you hadn't noticed before, there's a little flag under my pseudo-name that looks kinda like the Belgian one. And I think I have made it quite clear several times in the past that I was not a native English speaker, therefore obviously not from the US...
The exoskeleton and drone statement was in opposition to your claim that humans where still in a purely survival/ law of the fittest scheme...nothing to do with army, or violence.
I am, however, a realist.
*jumps out the window*
Yes-yes-yes, a "humans are totally fine naked in the arctic all winter"; "killing people that make sexy-time too much, and cannibalism is the way to stop overpopulation"; and "If a nuclear war could wipe out everyone except me, that'd be awesome" kind of realist. :)
I do not see aliens as being either wholly good or wholly bad. It simply makes sense that a more technologically-advanced civilisation will wipe out or at least greatly harm a less advanced civilisation after Contact, even if no war is declared. Look at what happened to indigenous types when people started colonising their territories. Even peaceful contact led to mass deaths through disease epidemics etc.
It really doesn't make that much sense at all, but it seems to make some to you, so if that makes you happy...
Also If you only look at all the terrible things some humans did, and not the empathetical, caring, generous projects others have put in place (hospitals, non-profit organizations, natural reserves, peace protests, donations...), then of course you're going to believe that any intelligent beings' main intention is to kill and conquer.
Realistic also means being aware of both the bad and the good, and understanding that they can co-exist at variable degrees.
-
*sigh* I now found myself in a sort of useless, pointless argument trying to argue that 2+2=4 while others are calling me closed-minded for not accepting the possibility that 2+2=7 or 3 or even 5.
First, GS and Iguana(to a lesser extent):- your ancient alien astronauts claims are absurd. They assume that ancient ruins such as walls or pyramids or whatever could not have been made by the indigenous humans of the past and had to be created by aliens. I suspect that the above members who subscribe to such theories have been watching too much science-fiction drivel such as the Stargate TV series, a series I mercifully avoided due to its Star-Trek-like sheer awfulness, and which featured notions of aliens having gotten the Ancient Egyptian pyramids built and similiar hogwash.
Basically, my point is that humans are not all that stupid and it is indeed easily likely for humans to have created the pyramids, or drawn the Nazca Lines or built Stonehenge or the walls of Greater Zimbabwe or the ruins on Easter Island etc. No need for aliens to have built those monuments. Mind you, there have been previous attempts to mock history. There were H Rider Haggard's notions re Greater Zimbabwe, almost as bad as the current extraterrestrial myth-claims:-
http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=1108 (http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=1108) . Then there was the recent laughable "Black Athena" book, claiming that Ancient Greece was mostly influenced by Black Africa.
The Condon report, last I checked, made a fundamental conclusion that there was no possible genuine evidence to confirm the existence of extraterrestrials. Yes, there are always incidents for which no explanation can be given due to lack of evidence and so on, but what do you expect? We humans have not fully managed to scientifically analyse. I duly checked your Socorro mention. Err, it seems :o l) that there was only one eye-witness to the whole incident. Now, given that there have been many attempts by fakers to generate false evidence to support UFO claims(re crop-circles etc.), having just one witness to the Socorro Incident does rather invalidate the point, rather:-
http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamora.html (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamora.html)
The COMETA report is not credible. It apparently claims that Easter Island artifacts were of extra terrestrial origin.
Last point:- if aliens are so advanced that they are able to cross vast interstellar distances , why, oh why, would they be interested in a puny, technologically backward civlisation such as ours? It makes no sense. It is the worst sort of hubris to assume that we humans are so important that highly advanced aliens would be interested in us. I mean, what on earth do we have to offer to such aliens? Nothing!
-
If you hadn't noticed before, there's a little flag under my pseudo-name that looks kinda like the Belgian one. And I think I have made it quite clear several times in the past that I was not a native English speaker, therefore obviously not from the US...
Mea culpa, most RVAFers come from the US so I automatically assumed as such, not bothering to check your flag.
The exoskeleton and drone statement was in opposition to your claim that humans where still in a purely survival/ law of the fittest scheme...nothing to do with army, or violence.
The point I made was perfectly valid that exoskeletons and drones were only invented out of military concerns. The pacifistic uses of such weapons were explored much later, and are merely incidental to their main purpose which was as weapons of war.
Yes-yes-yes, a "humans are totally fine naked in the arctic all winter"; "killing people that make sexy-time too much, and cannibalism is the way to stop overpopulation"; and "If a nuclear war could wipe out everyone except me, that'd be awesome" kind of realist. :)
I simply have not found other methods to control overpopulation to actually work as well as more drastic solutions. The point re humans being fine naked in the arctic was also valid, I cited those indigenous tribes in Tierra del Fuego as an example of naked adaptation to the cold, which was a rather good example, among others.It really doesn't make that much sense at all, but it seems to make some to you, so if that makes you happy...
Also If you only look at all the terrible things some humans did, and not the empathetical, caring, generous projects others have put in place (hospitals, non-profit organizations, natural reserves, peace protests, donations...), then of course you're going to believe that any intelligent beings' main intention is to kill and conquer.
Realistic also means being aware of both the bad and the good, and understanding that they can co-exist at variable degrees.
It actually makes perfect sense, it is just that you failed to understand me. My point was simple:- even if a technologically-advanced civilisation were 100% pure and saintly, there are ways in which even the slightest contact between alien civilisations could be fatal to the more technologically-backward civilisation. For example, contact between european settlers and native tribes in the past brought mass epidemics, regardless of any pacifistic intentions or not. Your other examples where you cite natural reserves as being signs that humans are supposedly saving the environment are completely wrongheaded, as I showed in earlier posts, that many current natural reserves are being either laid waste or being widely poached on, and so on. A civilisation can have lots of good intentions but still manage to wipe out entire species because of just a few hostile individuals.
-
One last point:- these ancient astronaut theories and notions that we are descended from pigs and similiar nonsense are, if one thinks about it, extremely against palaeo doctrines re evolution. I mean, the whole thesis of palaeolithic diets is that we are 100% descended from primates, that we are 100% derived from this planet and so do not contain any extraterrestrial DNA, and so on.
-
First, GS and Iguana(to a lesser extent):- your ancient alien astronauts claims are absurd. They assume that ancient ruins such as walls or pyramids or whatever could not have been made by the indigenous humans of the past and had to be created by aliens. I suspect that the above members who subscribe to such theories have been watching too much science-fiction drivel such as the Stargate TV series, a series I mercifully avoided due to its Star-Trek-like sheer awfulness, and which featured notions of aliens having gotten the Ancient Egyptian pyramids built and similiar hogwash.
I never stated that ancient astronauts built the pyramids and such. I think those construction are of human origin.
Concerning the COMETA report, I'm not sure it "claims that Easter Island artifacts were of extra terrestrial origin" and I won't take the time to check now. Maybe it considers that as a remote possibility, but anyway authors like these are certainly better informed and competent than you about UFO sightings :
COMETA members included:
Air Force General Bruno Le Moine, weapons engineer
General Pierre Bescond
Chief of Police Denis Blancher
Those who contributed to the study included:
Edmond Campagnac, former Technical Director of Air France
Squadron Commander Michel Perrier
Air Force General Joseph Domage
-
Yes-yes-yes, a "humans are totally fine naked in the arctic all winter"; "killing people that make sexy-time too much, and cannibalism is the way to stop overpopulation"; and "If a nuclear war could wipe out everyone except me, that'd be awesome" kind of realist. :)
+1 ROFL ;D
-
One last point:- these ancient astronaut theories and notions that we are descended from pigs and similiar nonsense are, if one thinks about it, extremely against palaeo doctrines re evolution. I mean, the whole thesis of palaeolithic diets is that we are 100% descended from primates, that we are 100% derived from this planet and so do not contain any extraterrestrial DNA, and so on.
I totally agree with that point, as I wrote in a previous post.
-
*sigh* I now found myself in a sort of useless, pointless argument trying to argue that 2+2=4 while others are calling me closed-minded for not accepting the possibility that 2+2=7 or 3 or even 5.
Yeah, keep believing...
Last point:- if aliens are so advanced that they are able to cross vast interstellar distances , why, oh why, would they be interested in a puny, technologically backward civlisation such as ours? It makes no sense. It is the worst sort of hubris to assume that we humans are so important that highly advanced aliens would be interested in us. I mean, what on earth do we have to offer to such aliens? Nothing!
Why, oh why, are ornithologist interested in stupid little birds? Why are scientist interested in something that's old and useless such as the big bang theory? Why do people care about paintings, and sculptures? I mean, they're damn useless!
Curiosity, that's why. Maybe aliens have some.
The point I made was perfectly valid that exoskeletons and drones were only invented out of military concerns. The pacifistic uses of such weapons were explored much later, and are merely incidental to their main purpose which was as weapons of war.
Maybe, even if it actually makes you realize that some army equipment become common civil items, such as planes, rockets, computers, and now exoskeletons, drones,...and usually not the other way around. Still it had nothing to do with the subject of the claim I was answering to.
The point re humans being fine naked in the arctic was also valid, I cited those indigenous tribes in Tierra del Fuego as an example of naked adaptation to the cold, which was a rather good example, among others.
Yeah, I remember your argument with the "people of the land of fire l)" which did not prove anything at all, other than the possibility of a minor adaptation to a non-polar non-subzero cold environment, with the help of various external means. Let's not get back to this discussion please, I could not stand another wave of tediously refutable claims...
It actually makes perfect sense, it is just that you failed to understand me. My point was simple:- even if a technologically-advanced civilisation were 100% pure and saintly, there are ways in which even the slightest contact between alien civilisations could be fatal to the more technologically-backward civilisation. For example, contact between european settlers and native tribes in the past brought mass epidemics, regardless of any pacifistic intentions or not.
Granted, and I must say I never denied this, but from what you claimed it seemed that you meant that highly intelligent aliens would of course kill us all because we're a "threat" to their survival, which is not very realistic.
Maybe they're not coming into official contact with us because they don't want to spread their aliens diseases? Could be a reason, even if I doubt it...
-
Tyler: about the Socorro case, you’re wrong, there were several other witnesses, as Wikipedia mentions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora_incident#Witnesses.2C_investigation_and_publicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora_incident#Witnesses.2C_investigation_and_publicity)
Several independent witnesses reported either an "egg" shaped craft or a bluish flame at roughly the same time and in the same area — some of them within minutes of Zamora's encounter, before word of it had spread.
Blue Book conclusion
The Air Force issued their formal report on June 8, 1964. Jerome Clark suggested that the report was "riddled with errors," including the claim that there were no other witnesses (several reported their sightings within minutes of Zamora's encounter), and the claim that there were no disturbances to the soil (manifestly false, based on Jordan's photos of the scene taken less than an hour after the encounter). Noting that they made no conclusion as to the object's origin (other than to rule out the extraterrestrial hypothesis), the "Air Force was continuing its investigation, and the case is still open."
However, in a secret report prepared for the CIA, Project Blue Book's director, Major Hector Quintanilla offered further details regarding the Zamora case, "There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object which left quite an impression on him. There is also no question about Zamora's reliability. He is a serious police officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area. He is puzzled by what he saw and frankly, so are we. This is the best-documented case on record, and still we have been unable, in spite of thorough investigation, to find the vehicle or other stimulus that scared Zamora to the point of panic."[24]
-
I never stated that ancient astronauts built the pyramids and such. I think those construction are of human origin.
Concerning the COMETA report, I'm not sure it "claims that Easter Island artifacts were of extra terrestrial origin" and I won't take the time to check now. Maybe it considers that as a remote possibility, but anyway authors like these are certainly better informed and competent than you about UFO sightings :
COMETA members included:
Air Force General Bruno Le Moine, weapons engineer
General Pierre Bescond
Chief of Police Denis Blancher
Those who contributed to the study included:
Edmond Campagnac, former Technical Director of Air France
Squadron Commander Michel Perrier
Air Force General Joseph Domag
Hmm, not one of the above is a scientist, just being military personnel of various sorts, so this is meaningless. There are just too many credible scientists who have throughly debunked the UFO alien claims over the years. The reference where COMETA is claimed to find extraterrestrial origins on Easter Island is here:-
"Also, the famous “COMETA” report from a high-level French UFO study organization – that is composed of high-ranking French government military officers and officials – points directly to Easter Island as having “evidence for further in-depth studies of the extraterrestrial hypothesis.” taken from:-
http://www.huliq.com/10282/alien-civilization-easter-island-speculated-wild-pacific-tv-series (http://www.huliq.com/10282/alien-civilization-easter-island-speculated-wild-pacific-tv-series)
And I am glad that you are not as enthused with the ancient astronaut issue, more with the current alien astronaut theory, as the latter at least has nothing to do with paleolithic diets.
-
Why, oh why, are ornithologist interested in stupid little birds? Why are scientist interested in something that's old and useless such as the big bang theory? Why do people care about paintings, and sculptures? I mean, they're damn useless!
Curiosity, that's why. Maybe aliens have some.
Curiosity isn't an adequate explanation. Many people are curious and play with objects or animals they are curious about and then leave after curiosity is sated. There are other problems such as why are there no alien abduction stories in the far past, in the 18th century for example? The 1st one in the US is supposed to have happened c. 1961, I believe:-
http://www.livescience.com/3530-alien-abduction (http://www.livescience.com/3530-alien-abduction)
Maybe, even if it actually makes you realize that some army equipment become common civil items, such as planes, rockets, computers, and now exoskeletons, drones,...and usually not the other way around. Still it had nothing to do with the subject of the claim I was answering to.
Actually it did. But, anyway, plenty of pacifistic inventions have been subsequently switched from pacifistic to military use. The point I had made, which you had clearly missed, was that a military(ie hostile) incentive is usually needed in order to keep on advancing technology-wise. Without such an incentive, we humans would never have discovered fire and would probably be still living in the trees like our ancestors millions of years ago.Yeah, I remember your argument with the "people of the land of fire l)" which did not prove anything at all, other than the possibility of a minor adaptation to a non-polar non-subzero cold environment, with the help of various external means. Let's not get back to this discussion please, I could not stand another wave of tediously refutable claims...
I know, you did not at all like being proven wrong at the time and kept on quibbling over minor issues/definitions. Silly really,but it's all in the archives....
Granted, and I must say I never denied this, but from what you claimed it seemed that you meant that highly intelligent aliens would of course kill us all because we're a "threat" to their survival, which is not very realistic.
No, I had stated that any contact, whether friendly or hostile would be a disaster for us.
Maybe they're not coming into official contact with us because they don't want to spread their aliens diseases? Could be a reason, even if I doubt it...
They do not want to come into contact with us so as to avoid spreading alien diseases, yet they happily abduct people on a regular, frequent basis and return them to Earth, thus allowing frequent possibilities for infection. Does not make sense.
[/quote]
-
Hmm, not one of the above is a scientist, just being military personnel of various sorts, so this is meaningless.
- Air Force General Bruno Le Moine, weapons engineer . « Military personel of various sort »…humm.
- Air Force General Joseph Domag. « Of various sort » again ?
- General Pierre Bescond. Yeah, their sort is really various !
- Edmond Campagnac, former Technical Director of Air France. Another unreliable guy, take care to never fly Air France, their technical directors are brainless fools without any scientific qualifications, just as French Air Force generals.
Good joke, Tyler!
The reference where COMETA is claimed to find extraterrestrial origins on Easter Island is here:-
"Also, the famous “COMETA” report from a high-level French UFO study organization – that is composed of high-ranking French government military officers and officials – points directly to Easter Island as having “evidence for further in-depth studies of the extraterrestrial hypothesis.” taken from:-
http://www.huliq.com/10282/alien-civilization-easter-island-speculated-wild-pacific-tv-series (http://www.huliq.com/10282/alien-civilization-easter-island-speculated-wild-pacific-tv-series)
Ah, that is a second hand quote. Why don’t you refer directly to the horse's mouth? Well, I have the COMETA Report in pdf on my hard disc and I dutifully checked. There’s no mention at all of Easter Island in the whole report!
It’s becoming really comical! ;D
-
Curiosity isn't an adequate explanation. Many people are curious and play with objects or animals they are curious about and then leave after curiosity is sated. There are other problems such as why are there no alien abduction stories in the far past, in the 18th century for example? The 1st one in the US is supposed to have happened c. 1961, I believe:-
http://www.livescience.com/3530-alien-abduction (http://www.livescience.com/3530-alien-abduction)
Maybe they believed they were devils instead of aliens. I don't know.
Actually it did. But, anyway, plenty of pacifistic inventions have been subsequently switched from pacifistic to military use. The point I had made, which you had clearly missed, was that a military(ie hostile) incentive is usually needed in order to keep on advancing technology-wise. Without such an incentive, we humans would never have discovered fire and would probably be still living in the trees like our ancestors millions of years ago.
I disagree. I think fire was invented not for war purposes, but to keep warm. There are numerous inventions that have nothing to do with weapons and war, you do realize that? Probably far more than war-related inventions...
I know, you did not at all like being proven wrong at the time and kept on quibbling over minor issues/definitions. Silly really,but it's all in the archives....
You want the true and honest reason why I did not pursue with that discussion?
I was enthusiastic about it, really. But what I quickly realized is that the deeper we got into that discussion, the more I discredited your wrong claims and arguments, and the more absurd they became. There was also Panacea's water-human theory-derived claims I didn't know what to do about, and that kinda added to the mess, even if in itself his theory had more to do with the original subject. I then tired out of having to correct all your wild senseless claims (eg: "the colder, the smaller a person is": what about the dutch, what about the pygmies?!) and decided it was not worth my time and energy anymore.
If I ever come back to this thread, I can promise you I can debunk probably the totality of everything you claimed so far.
But in honesty I know whatever I say, whatever facts I bring forth, your mind will never change.
So I stand on my position that if anyone wants to live naked in the arctic cold, go ahead. Go train your body and mind, bring the rest of your descendants into your adventure, since "in about three generations" they'll be good to go. Prove me wrong. Prove reason wrong.
I dare whoever else on this forum shares Tyler's idea to first present itself, and second show the world otherwise. With solid facts, or with personal experience.
They do not want to come into contact with us so as to avoid spreading alien diseases, yet they happily abduct people on a regular, frequent basis and return them to Earth, thus allowing frequent possibilities for infection. Does not make sense.
I for the moment believe more in the credibility of some mass (more than one person) or expertly examined UFO sighting than most alien abduction testimonials, because they are logically harder to fake. However I stated before that I didn't think Aliens avoided contact with us to spare us from catching supposed alien diseases. But I don't exclude this possibility.
-
Maybe they believed they were devils instead of aliens. I don't know.
That is what I was stating previously, that once people stopped believing in God, the Devil, and divine forces, many would start believing in other things such as extraterrestrials visiting the Earth.I disagree. I think fire was invented not for war purposes, but to keep warm. There are numerous inventions that have nothing to do with weapons and war, you do realize that? Probably far more than war-related inventions...
Current scientific thinking isn't in agreement. For example:-
http://science.howstuffworks.com/war-drive-technological-advancement.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/war-drive-technological-advancement.htm)
https://books.google.at/books?id=HoVwCIIspWIC&pg=PT147&lpg=PT147&dq=do+wars+spur+technological+advancement&source=bl&ots=DvFaKgBitG&sig=t5YCUKFjKXDd9FUEm5IGytK45DE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NpEQVfDYIsbbao-SgdAE&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=do%20wars%20spur%20technological%20advancement&f=false (https://books.google.at/books?id=HoVwCIIspWIC&pg=PT147&lpg=PT147&dq=do+wars+spur+technological+advancement&source=bl&ots=DvFaKgBitG&sig=t5YCUKFjKXDd9FUEm5IGytK45DE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NpEQVfDYIsbbao-SgdAE&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=do%20wars%20spur%20technological%20advancement&f=false)
The Internet is a classic example of a military thing being used only later for peacetime activity.
You want the true and honest reason why I did not pursue with that discussion?
I was enthusiastic about it, really. But what I quickly realized is that the deeper we got into that discussion, the more I discredited your wrong claims and arguments, and the more absurd they became. There was also Panacea's water-human theory-derived claims I didn't know what to do about, and that kinda added to the mess, even if in itself his theory had more to do with the original subject. I then tired out of having to correct all your wild senseless claims (eg: "the colder, the smaller a person is": what about the dutch, what about the pygmies?!) and decided it was not worth my time and energy anymore.
If I ever come back to this thread, I can promise you I can debunk probably the totality of everything you claimed so far.
But in honesty I know whatever I say, whatever facts I bring forth, your mind will never change.
So I stand on my position that if anyone wants to live naked in the arctic cold, go ahead. Go train your body and mind, bring the rest of your descendants into your adventure, since "in about three generations" they'll be good to go. Prove me wrong. Prove reason wrong.
Hmm, a bit overly vehement there. I should add that I have on numerous occasions changed my opinions on various subjects, it's all in the archives it is just that I require a bit more evidence than simple unsubstantiated claims. For one thing, we were both talking about entirely different definitions of cold adaption. For example, you now wildly exaggerate and claim that I had absurdly suggested/implied that if my descendants had gone in for cold adaptation, that they would be fully cold-adapted(ie arctic-levels) within 3 generations. I never suggested that. Obviously , a major cold-adaptation such as the 1 degree celsius higher body temperature of the Tierra del Fuego Indians takes a lot longer than that. All I had stated was that it was easily feasible for hominids over 100s of thousands of years to adapt to Ice-Age climates with minimal to no clothing, and without needing to generate fur via evolution. At any rate, homo erectus managed to migrate to climates ranging from tropical to arctic, before the discovery of fire, and likely before the invention of complex clothing. Here is an article suggesting cold-adaptation as happened with the Neanderthals:-
http://www.thestar.com/business/tech_news/2009/03/11/peking_man_lived_in_neararctic_conditions_study_says.html (http://www.thestar.com/business/tech_news/2009/03/11/peking_man_lived_in_neararctic_conditions_study_says.html)
-
I'm proposing shutting down Off Topic section. Front page does not look like a health site anymore.
-
I'm proposing shutting down Off Topic section. Front page does not look like a health site anymore.
The so-called rationale that was posted before for having off-topic discussions was that the members here who got to "know" each other might want to talk about other topics besides RPD.
I find the off-topic postings to be quirky at best and contentious at worst. For some time now, I have refrained from telling anybody I know about this forum because I don't "trust" the content.
If I were to answer the question, "What do I want this forum to represent?" I would have to say raw paleolithic diet and lifestyle." If a forum with that scope ran out of things to talk about, I would prefer to see fewer posts rather than a slew of off-topic posts.
As far as this thread, which was started with a "tabloid" Daily Mail article about a self-publishing tongue-in-cheek geneticist and went on with the invitation to "let's get the debate rolling, " I don't think this type of thread belongs in a raw-paleo forum. It's the lowest form of palaver. Meanwhile, some of us are willing to practice integrity and hang around for the stray raw-paleo diet seeker, but even the random visitor would be hard-pressed to discern what the forum's original purpose was.
-
I find humor often helps to cope with the more contentious, or inane topics. All paleo and no play makes Durc a dull cave boy.
Im not sure if pig and chimp DNA is compatible, but I know for sure that pig and elephant DNA just wont splice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RztfjHdM-pg. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RztfjHdM-pg.)
I'm proposing shutting down Off Topic section. Front page does not look like a health site anymore.
Dissuasion to limit the off topic section should be based on how much faith we have in the average paleo seeker to separate the wheat from the shaft, and to be able to distinguish the shit from the shinola.
I don't see that its very likely that people who are so far outside the mainstream as to eat raw paleo, are not able to make up their own minds as to what makes for relevant information in an off topic section of a forum that is inhabited to some real free radicals. If you cant stand the stench get out of the manure pile. There are plenty of much more sanitary threads for those whom are strictly serious paleo business.
I skim through the off topic stuff and will participate in discussions which interest me, but for the topics which I don't find relevant to my interest I have learned to ignore. Its just not worth my time debunk info that isn't even relevant to my personal view of the paleo diet, and often times I don't know enough about these subjecst to take a strong stance. After all "THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE"
-
I realize I have began to turn into the thing I really didn't want to become: that forum guy who gets irrationally impulsive and emotional, who must absolutely have the last word, and who keeps worthless, dead-end discussions alive for a matter of ego-pumping.
I apologize for helping in keeping this rather pointless discussion running, and thus polluting the main-page with endless rants.
I should add that I have on numerous occasions changed my opinions on various subjects, it's all in the archives it is just that I require a bit more evidence than simple unsubstantiated claims.
Me too. I know you're not that stubborn, Tyler, but sometimes you're the one who seems to take unsubstantiated claims (which, on a side note, the science of paleo-anthropology and archeology are full of) for solid fact, and conclude that you've definitely proven your point.
-
In the past, when raw, zero-carb was far more popular on this forum and elsewhere, we had several people asking to remove the raw,omnivorous paleolithic diet forum, the wai diet among others. When the raw, omnivorous people started winning out, we had people asking to remove the raw, zero-carb diet forum. And, in past times, some of us long-termers even asked for removal of the primal diet and weston-price diet forums. This is quite wrong, imo. I mean, interests wax and wane. Sometimes, certain forums will have lots of discussion, sometimes virtually none at all, it all depends.
Talking only about rawpaleo matters is quite boring, in the long run, and stifles debate and even can encourage orthorexia if people obsess about diet too much. On the other extreme, if we allow just any old discussion, we may end up violating rawpaleodiet rules. For example, I have no problem with people suggesting that cooked foods may be healthy in some respects, if discussed in the hot topics forum, but it really ruins the forum if people actively promote cooked foods on other forums as well.
The off-topics forum also helps us recognise that while we may have relatively similiar(but still quite different) views on diet, that we all have widely different views on other matters. *Admittedly, I am wholly biased here, as I love posting off-topic forum threads about even vaguely-related raw or palaeolithic matters.*
-
Please, at least change that title completely, not only the "Fermale" with R in the middle!
-
Talking only about rawpaleo matters is quite boring...
Pardon me for snipping your sentence, but if you are looking for the cure for boredom on the internet, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Go make a caveman exercise video or write that raw paleo book or learn how to make obsidian arrowheads or ....
-
Pardon me for snipping your sentence, but if you are looking for the cure for boredom on the internet, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Go make a caveman exercise video or write that raw paleo book or learn how to make obsidian arrowheads or ....
The trouble is that I don't want to overdo my daily association with raw, palaeolithic diet matters. I have seen others obsess too much about diet-related or health-related matters and they can eventually become so orthorexic that their health in the end actually suffers.
Perhaps I should have ignored this thread, but I sort of have seen myself as a sort of rawpaleoforum "policeman" who tries to curb excesses which violate rawpaleo ideas.Speculation on aliens is dodgy, especially any claims re ancient astronauts(most un-palaeo) and I would like rawpaleoforum to be more scientific than New-Age-based.
-
The trouble is that I don't want to overdo my daily association with raw, palaeolithic diet matters. I have seen others obsess too much about diet-related or health-related matters and they can eventually become so orthorexic that their health in the end actually suffers.
What YS was suggesting (eliminating the Off Topic section) would keep the forum on-topic without increasing anyone's daily association with raw, paleolithic diet matters. IMO, an on-topic RPD forum would initially feature less posts but more readers, who may eventually become active members themselves.
People who need more off-topic-ness in their lives can do so in many places without dragging that off-topic content here. As it stands now, this forum is like going into an RPD restaurant and finding only cooked-grains and tofu on the menu: you'd walk out, roll your eyes, and never return.
-
What YS was suggesting (eliminating the Off Topic section) would keep the forum on-topic without increasing anyone's daily association with raw, paleolithic diet matters. IMO, an on-topic RPD forum would initially feature less posts but more readers, who may eventually become active members themselves.
People who need more off-topic-ness in their lives can do so in many places without dragging that off-topic content here. As it stands now, this forum is like going into an RPD restaurant and finding only cooked-grains and tofu on the menu: you'd walk out, roll your eyes, and never return.
To me it looks as if the RPDF has started to become a sort of community, which members are connected by a certain type of diet/lifestyle, but also enjoy discussing other things that may not have to do with health and nutrition...
Another idea might be creating a whole separate page for off-topic discussions, still linked to the original forum, with themes that are generally discussed in the off-topic section (spirituality, Paleo history, paranormals, politics, lifestyle, etc...). This way members of the forum can still join around a discussion that is not specifically paleo-diet-related, while not bothering others.
-
A lot of people here are going through a "questioning the official version of reality" phase in their lives. Threads like this are a natural consequence of that. I personally already finished that phase in my life, and kept only the things that actually were useful and important, like raw paleo, etc..
-
A lot of people here are going through a "questioning the official version of reality" phase in their lives. Threads like this are a natural consequence of that. I personally already finished that phase in my life, and kept only the things that actually were useful and important, like raw paleo, etc..
Interesting, I had not thought of it that way....
-
"the official version of reality"
Is there such a thing?
-
A lot of people here are going through a "questioning the official version of reality" phase in their lives. Threads like this are a natural consequence of that. I personally already finished that phase in my life, and kept only the things that actually were useful and important, like raw paleo, etc..
Is it really a phase though? because I have a hard time assuming you will never ever question official reality again because you supposedly passed a phase.
I know people who are hardline materialists pretty much since the beginning, others who accept that there might be an irrational explanation to certain phenomenons, especially when people with a higher level of credibility get involved, such as politicians, hospitals, scientists and army generals. And there's a bunch who believes in things that supports their rather neurotic view of life, and could for eg feed their paranoia: the lizard-people, illuminati and other far-reached conspiracy theories...
Blessed are those who questioned reality, for we'd be still living on a flat earth with the sun revolving around us ;)
-
I would rather say " the common view of reality" since we are neither in Soviet Union where dialectic materialism was the "official version of reality" nor in communist China where it was Mao's thought.
Blessed are those who questioned reality, for we'd be still living on a flat earth with the sun revolving around us ;)
Absolutely, and we would still be cooking food and burning alive supposed witches.
-
I don't hear many scientists using the "R" word (reality). I hear words like theory and hypothesis. When a reader starts quoting these theories and hypotheses as reality, you can't blame the scientist, who is just observing and theorizing.
True, religions and governments might adopt an official position, but that's different.
-
Obsession with Reality based thinking and concepts of universal empirical truth is sooo not paleo!
-
What is "Reality based thinking" ? I don't understand. Could both of you, Eve and Derek, (briefly please, Derek!) explain what you mean ? Feel free to replace the word "reality" with whatever other word is more suitable.
-
I really don't have much to add to what I said. But, to clarify, expound, and add a few more keystrokes: the western scientific method doesn't claim to define reality. Instead, it investigates phenomena by following a format of hypothesis, prediction, experiment, observation, conclusion. Even JK's example (of when the earth was flat) was merely a conclusion based on certain evidence, such as the human eye's line of sight and ships disappearing at sea. Other scientists of the same era used celestial evidence to determine orbits around the sun. When the so-called Dark Ages were over, former flat-earth scientists were free (of Roman church restrictions) to observe the heavens, so their conclusions changed.
Even if we say the obvious: "reality is reality!" once an observation is subjected to the scientific method, the explanation for reality can change. Add to that the limitations on observations due to space and time, and scientific knowledge becomes seemingly arbitrary.
All that pig/chimpanzee business was just some maverick scientist questioning the discrepancies of evolutionary theory, such as the fact that humans are hairless like pigs, not hairy like primates. Observation of evolution is flawed by time - none of us were there when evolutionary branches occurred - so we are unable to define "reality" as if we actually observed the event happening.
-
Basically the scientific method states "If a hypothesis is verified and approved with calculations, observations and empirical evidences, then it becomes a theory (or scientific "truth") that remains true until it is refuted by another verified hypothesis".
Example: The big bang theory is true, unless it is disproven.
Sometimes theories remain verified for a long time, and thus acquire a new status -which I forgot the name-, describing them as "as close to reality as it can get", such as the law of gravitation, I believe. They still remain refutable, like any other theory.
I'm sorry if it seems like I just repeated Eve's words, my only goal was to make it extra-clear.
I realize this does not answer Iguana's question of "what is reality based thinking according to Sabertooth". He's the only one who can do that.
-
then it becomes a theory (or scientific "truth") that remains true until it is refuted by another verified hypothesis".
Example: The big bang theory is true, unless it is disproven.
And to make is more clear, replace the word true with accepted by [name the authority] as true.
Therefore, various "authorities" may have various "truths." Kinda like the string theory of reality.
-
What is "Reality based thinking" ? I don't understand. Could both of you, Eve and Derek, (briefly please, Derek!) explain what you mean ? Feel free to replace the word "reality" with whatever other word is more suitable.
I was just being a little sardonic, and to the contrary I believe that paleo man focused his attention heavily upon the subject of reality, though it was in a way that was not perverted by the syntax of scientificentric ideology. I speculate that it must of been a more experiential reality, not overshadowed by the ideology of the historical Giants whose words and actions have shaped of our modern world view in a way that in many respects willfully ignores much of the reality of human nature because it cannot be neatly put into a testable theory.
My attitudes have been shaped by the feeling that the empirical truth sought out by science is not the be all end all of the human experience of reality, in the words or McKenna "Science is only a minor art form" and I like Terrence, believe that if we give ourselves over to this machine model of the universe bound into an absolute reality governed by universal law, we end up denying the fundamental reality that the human mind which includes a universe onto itself. This universe of mind if set free, is capable of creating, imagining and envisioning itself into a multitude of plural realities that contain multilateral tapestry's of both confecting truths as well as harmonious unities that are not mutually exclusive.
Truth of one individuals reality compared to that of another's, is not a question of "either or"...It can be" both and". If only we could realize that most of reality is simply a projection of the ever evolving human mind, then we would understand the limitations, laws, assumptions and perceived reality of yesterdays most prominent minds are not set in the stone age. Prometheus is always waiting to steel the fire from the gods who are caught not looking, and the bottom of Pandora's box always contains deeper secrets that have yet to be dug out.
Everything flows and all is transient, so for the human mind to be convinced that there is actually a set reality which is governed by absolutes, and that the mind itself has no control over the process, is in essence not Paleo, and it negates the miracle of the human minds potential to create magic, in the way it goes against the spirit of the mind of man to dream, imagine, and envision what realities may potentially exist beyond the horizon of yesterdays faded truths.
-
Thanks for your answers. Yes, science doesn’t pretend to hold the ultimate and definitive truth: religions pretend that. Scientific theories are always provisional.
I would like to add that our perception of the real is relative to our physical and psychical structure and we don’t know what the reality truly is, or at least we have a very partial perception of it. But we all have the same physical and psychical constitution and we all perceive the world the same way, so our perception of it is objective, although relative.
So we all agree that a wall is a wall and isn’t an submarine, that a fish is a fish and can be eaten while a wall is not edible. ;)
-
So we all agree that a wall is a wall and isn’t an submarine, that a fish is a fish and can be eaten while a wall is not edible. ;)
F, now why did you have to go and say that? Be on the lookout for a Daily Mail article about wall-eating by Neanderthals and a lathe-and-plaster cancer cure.
-
LOL! Because some say « to each his/her own truth », which is not true! Although relative, there is an objective truth. The bore and stroke of my car are 85 x 88 mm and it has 4 wheels plus a spare wheel. It’s true for everyone and it’s not "to each his/her own"!
-
In the fields of theoretical physics where there is rarely the kind of evidence that would qualify as 100% factual , the truly scientifically minded often referred to a plausible theory as being elegant.
There is a recognition that truth is something of a value judgment that exist on a spectrum, that spans from complete and total bullshit on one side and indisputable fact on the other. Elegance comes into play when you are able to present a partial truth in such a way that even though it doesn't illuminate the entire picture, nor does it leave out all room for doubt, it can still cast enough light on the mystery that one has the feeling of being able to perceive a revelation of truth.
Take the monkey swine nonsense for an example of how grains of truth can be present even in the most outlandish of propositions, for those with the vision to see the connections. Even though its preposterous that we were the descendants of bestial relations between chimps and swine, there is still a truth in the fact of how much humans have in common with swine. Human and swine embryos are virtually indistinguishable. Although we diverged some 80 million years ago, we still share a common ancestor. Perhaps because we live in similar environments and our great ape ancestors may have eaten very similar omnivorous diets of roots , shoots, animal remains, and whatever else we could get, that we separately coevolved similar traits. The mutagenic factors in the diets and environment's, triggered similar alterations in both swine and hominid ancestors...Much in the same way both polar bears and artic foxes both coevolved thick white coats as adaptations to the artic, without being directly related.