Humans = Aliens?

Stoic
Stoic's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2009-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Humans = Aliens?

There's no question we've dominated Earth and can easily wipe out all life on this planet, we are the supreme beings of Earth. This doesn't make sense at all, nature has a balance it keeps to allow all beings on it's planet to be equal in a way. For every species there is a ratio depending on the lifespan of the species and the amount of young given at a time to the size and defense of the animal. For example, lions are large, strong, and have claws/fangs, although they live quite a while and give little young, whereas a fly with it's small/fast body it can avoid most conflict to stay alive, however a common fly only lives for nothing short of a few weeks although gives multiple children. These two species are completely different and don't interact, although a balance is kept for both of them to stay alive.

Humans don't follow this balance, humans are capable of making Earth a planet of only humans(of course food would be a problem but we CAN do it). This would be no problem at all. This leads me to think one of three things:

 

1. We are a creation of God.

2. We are aliens.

3. We are a result of the most incomprehensable mutation possible.

 

Now I will stick up and turn down each idea.

 

1. It would explain everything, God can do whatever the hell he wants even make a highly superior species. What if a God doesn't exist though? And if he did so, why?

2. Yes, I understand it sounds ludicrous but it would be reasonable if we are aliens from a more evolved planet where a balance would natrally be kept with us. Human genes have similarities to ape species we pretty much proved that we have evolved from apes.

3. It would make sense, mutations allow either an unfair advantage or a terrible disadvantage for a species. Although, is this even possible? Could a mutation be this dramatic?

 

Overall what I'm trying to say is that we don't maintain the balance, so what the hell are we?


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
The "mutation" you mean is

The "mutation" you mean is an intelligence. Intelligence, combined with animal reactions of run or fight is a very, very dangerous thing.
We're "aliens" to the animal kingdom, from which we originate. And we're in a problematic stage of evolution, when the intelligence is developed enough to create an advanced technology. But our primitive instincts are still not completely under control, so there are individuals among us who use the technology or intelligence destructively. These criminals are in charge of mass media, armies, and finances.

There is one good thing about being a human and not animal. We can evolve extremely quickly, on the basis of culture and mind, not by the slow, random trial-and-fault method of natural evolution. So there is a hope, that we overthrow the few criminals in charge of this world and develop a new culture. I do my best to help in that effort.
Just as we are destructive today, so can we be creative. There is an great potential for technologies - we can repay the debt to the Nature with a creation of new species, for example.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Stoic
Stoic's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2009-05-11
User is offlineOffline
I agree with you completely,

I agree with you completely, primal instincts play too much of a roll in our lives regardless of our intelligence.

Dictated but not read.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I'll have to go with 1] and

I'll have to go with 1] and 3] but with a series mutations rather than mutation

 

2] just leaves the question of how we got from that planet [considering that non of the planets in our solar system support life] to here and also why is there is primitive human  fossils from like a million years ago.

 

 

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Stoic wrote:Humans don't

Stoic wrote:

Humans don't follow this balance, humans are capable of making Earth a planet of only humans(of course food would be a problem but we CAN do it). This would be no problem at all.

I have to completely disagree with this. 

Aside from the fact that you have hundreds of thousands of microorganisms living inside your mouth, I don't think we have the technology nor the resources to completely eliminate small pests. In the event of a nuclear war, we'd go extinct long before the cockroach or the fly. Furthermore, your assertion that "this would be no problem at all" is dubious. Even if we could eliminate all other life, our species is much too dependent on animal and plant resources. Changing to a system where we only consumed man-made products would be an extremely long, arduous, and terribly costly process. If we suddenly eliminated even a dozen basic plants and animals, like cows, chickens, corn, rice, potatoes, etc., millions of people would die from starvation alone.  

Quote:
1. We are a creation of God.

2. We are aliens.

3. We are a result of the most incomprehensable mutation possible.

1. The evidence points to a process whereby we evolved from other apes, and on and on and on, until we arrive at a common ancestor for all living things. Therefore, if God created us, he didn't create us in our present forms, but simply the process for us to evolve into our present forms. So, we're left with the same problem.  

2. Doesn't nature work the same on every planet? Eventually, there must be a planet that we originated on. We still have the same problem.

3. The basic idea is that our intelligence evolved to the point where we could, using our hands, adapt our environment to us instead of adapting ourselves to the environment. Complicated, but not incomprehensible.

Quote:
Overall what I'm trying to say is that we don't maintain the balance, so what the hell are we?

I don't get it. What exactly is this "balance" you keep talking about? I don't think the law that you're implying to be in nature actually exists.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Stoic
Stoic's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2009-05-11
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I have to

butterbattle wrote:

I have to completely disagree with this. 

Aside from the fact that you have hundreds of thousands of microorganisms living inside your mouth, I don't think we have the technology nor the resources to completely eliminate small pests. In the event of a nuclear war, we'd go extinct long before the cockroach or the fly. Furthermore, your assertion that "this would be no problem at all" is dubious. Even if we could eliminate all other life, our species is much too dependent on animal and plant resources. Changing to a system where we only consumed man-made products would be an extremely long, arduous, and terribly costly process. If we suddenly eliminated even a dozen basic plants and animals, like cows, chickens, corn, rice, potatoes, etc., millions of people would die from starvation alone.  

True, microorganisms would be a problem, although I never said "nuke," we can wipe out life various other ways; the same ways we kill each other. Also by "no problem" I mean we wouldn't struggle to kill these animals, a planet-full or a handful, we have guns, gas, explosives, etc. Of course food would be a problem, that's why I stated it, this was merely hypothetical, we can do it, but hopefully we aren't dumb enough to do it. Yeah I understand I may have exaggerated.

butterbattle wrote:

 

1. The evidence points to a process whereby we evolved from other apes, and on and on and on, until we arrive at a common ancestor for all living things. Therefore, if God created us, he didn't create us in our present forms, but simply the process for us to evolve into our present forms. So, we're left with the same problem.  

2. Doesn't nature work the same on every planet? Eventually, there must be a planet that we originated on. We still have the same problem.

3. The basic idea is that our intelligence evolved to the point where we could, using our hands, adapt our environment to us instead of adapting ourselves to the environment. Complicated, but not incomprehensible.

1. God can do anything.

2. What are you implying? I'm stating we're aliens from a more evolved planet, a planet that has lived longer than earth, that has more advanced beasts of all kinds. You're statement against god better fits this one, because evolution would leave this argument in a tight spot, unless somehow these "aliens" genetically altered apes, but that sounds ludicrous.

3. The balance wouldn't create a superbeing. Maybe after humans started to show a mutation happened in the middle. Changing the environment for us would maintain the balance as we have no physical defenses...

Alright I'm not editing anything, but this may sound strange but right after that sentence I just thought of something. We did adapt to our environment, we must have adapted to OUR environment, the environment WE created. This would explain a lot. Without are brains we're useless blobs with thumbs. Maybe we're a different species per se than our GREAT ancestors AKA the first "humans." Our environment provides safety and for a while now - food. We likely can't survive in the wild without proper training for survival or without a group of other humans. Evolution speeds up to how the environment changes - we're constantly changing our environment and our environment is constantly changing us. From this, we can theorize that as our technology advances, we ourselves advance behind it. Not like Speedy Gonzales of course, but at a faster rate than a species in a static environment. And from that we can theorize that WE ARE THE CAUSE OF OURSELVES.

A little bit of crazed unread philosophy right there.

butterbattle wrote:

I don't get it. What exactly is this "balance" you keep talking about? I don't think the law that you're implying to be in nature actually exists.

The balance is the balance that keeps one species from dominating the rest. How many giant genious dragons with fire breath and mighty claws do you see carrying nukes and guns? Evolution won't allow such a dominant species among other species, that's the whole reason I made this post.

Dictated but not read.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Stoic wrote:There's no

Stoic wrote:

There's no question we've dominated Earth and can easily wipe out all life on this planet, we are the supreme beings of Earth. This doesn't make sense at all, nature has a balance it keeps to allow all beings on it's planet to be equal in a way. For every species there is a ratio depending on the lifespan of the species and the amount of young given at a time to the size and defense of the animal. For example, lions are large, strong, and have claws/fangs, although they live quite a while and give little young, whereas a fly with it's small/fast body it can avoid most conflict to stay alive, however a common fly only lives for nothing short of a few weeks although gives multiple children. These two species are completely different and don't interact, although a balance is kept for both of them to stay alive.

Humans don't follow this balance, humans are capable of making Earth a planet of only humans(of course food would be a problem but we CAN do it). This would be no problem at all. This leads me to think one of three things:

 

Humans do follow this "balance." What you're talking about is r-strategies and k-strategies. Organisms fall on a spectrum between r-strategies (produce many young and don't nurture them) and k-strategies (produce few young and nurture them). Humans are k-strategists. We produce very few offspring relative to other animals, and our development time is very long. This strategy is shared by many other large mammals.

As for "wiping out all life" being "no problem at all," I think your claim is a bit bogus. Wiping out life on this planet would be extremely difficult. Even if we used our entire nuclear arsenal, the world would eventually be teeming with life once again. I suppose in the future we could do something absurdly damaging to the planet, like putting mass drivers on a huge asteroid and plowing it into the Earth or something --- but in any case destroying all life on this planet is not an easy feat at all.

 

Stoic wrote:

1. We are a creation of God.

2. We are aliens.

3. We are a result of the most incomprehensable mutation possible.

 

How about 4, we are the result of many millions of years  of natural selection on small, gradual mutations?

Now I will stick up and turn down each idea.

Stoic wrote:

1. It would explain everything, God can do whatever the hell he wants even make a highly superior species. What if a God doesn't exist though? And if he did so, why?

2. Yes, I understand it sounds ludicrous but it would be reasonable if we are aliens from a more evolved planet where a balance would natrally be kept with us. Human genes have similarities to ape species we pretty much proved that we have evolved from apes.

3. It would make sense, mutations allow either an unfair advantage or a terrible disadvantage for a species. Although, is this even possible? Could a mutation be this dramatic?

 

Overall what I'm trying to say is that we don't maintain the balance, so what the hell are we?

1. Is absurd for many reasons discussed on these forums.

2. What do you mean "more evolved" planet? What do you mean "balance"? Yes it is pretty obvious we evolved from apes, but how does this lend credibility to the idea that we are aliens? Explaining humans in terms of an alien species begs the question, because how did we evolve on the other planet? How is it more likely that we evolved on another planet and then were transferred here, rather than simply evolving here?

3. What mutation are you talking about? You have to realize that any traits we have are the result of MANY small, GRADUAL mutations over many millions of years, not a single, large mutation.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Stoic wrote:The balance is

Stoic wrote:

The balance is the balance that keeps one species from dominating the rest. How many giant genious dragons with fire breath and mighty claws do you see carrying nukes and guns? Evolution won't allow such a dominant species among other species, that's the whole reason I made this post.

Evolution is not about "balance." One species can certainly dominate other species. Isn't that the whole idea of natural selection? Advantageous genes incur survival advantages leading to differential reproduction rates, those that reproduce faster become dominant in the population over time. Human genes incurred advantages in reproduction in terms of intelligence and tool use. This allowed us to rapidly adapt to changing conditions -- far faster than other animals could evolve to meet our threat. Technological evolution is much faster than biological evolution -- so even if there was this "balance" that you speak of, it would have little effect on us, since our great strength doesn't come from our biology so much as our ever-increasing sum of knowledge and technological acheivement.