Human origins

[Wizard of Whatever]

Were humans originally generically engineered by Aliens (AKA gods).
Many believe so, and have pointed to the many mythos that claim it is so.
Are there any signs of such in the human genome.

 

[C C]

In the style of 2001: A Space Odyssey? (Black monoliths adjusting the brains of a primate population not being a specific necessity.)

Not sure how one could ever tell, and as a result motivated reasoning or interpretative bias either way could conflictingly construe _X_ as artificially introduced or not. (Because both the fringe party and the mainstream one had pre-existing preferences to accept or reject "wild speculation".)

But since there's no evidence of terrestrial and extraterrestrial non-human civilizations, the onus would be on the fringe party. In addition to various human oddities being perfectly explainable without the intervention of another sapient agency. (Why resort to the fantastic, when the mundane will do?)

The weird, extended noses of humans are just arid climate adapation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3133950

And sexual activity outside of estrous cycles would be an expected result of any species that finally breached a minimal cognitive threshold where it realized that it could break the biological rules and pursue pleasure for the sake of pleasure, whenever it desired. The anomaly of permanent breasts ensued because a blatant visible marker for physical maturity had to arise, once the "traditional indications" had degraded or been socially discarded as relevant. Not to mention that females who retained breasts outside of pregnancy and nursing got more survival aid from the attracted males, just as those who were receptive to sex during pregnancy also did.

One view is that humans both domesticated and physically modified themselves via their choices in mates. Again, that being a consequence of when an animal surpasses a certain level of cognition where it has enough imagination for apprehending possibilities beyond the constriction of the way things appear to be.
_

 

[gmilam]

So, did other aliens design those aliens?

 

[sculptor]

We are made of star stuff
star dust
star fluff

 

[TheVat]

One view is that humans both domesticated and physically modified themselves via their choices in mates.

AFAICT sexual selection is well-established fact esp. in mammals.

I enjoyed the pivot in the first two posts from, were humans alien gentech, to why the prominent boobs. At least an attempt was made to ground the chat somewhat closer to reality.

 

[exchemist]

AFAICT sexual selection is well-established fact esp. in mammals.

I enjoyed the pivot in the first two posts from, were humans alien gentech, to why the prominent boobs. At least an attempt was made to ground the chat somewhat closer to reality.

It’s all Sydney Sweeney’s fault.

 

[gmilam]

We are made of star stuff
star dust
star fluff

We are stardust.
We are golden.
We are billion year old carbon

 

[C C]

AFAICT sexual selection is well-established fact esp. in mammals.

I enjoyed the pivot in the first two posts from, were humans alien gentech, to why the prominent boobs. At least an attempt was made to ground the chat somewhat closer to reality.

One assumes that the very suggestion of human origins requiring alien intervention is trying to revolve around multiple characteristics that are supposedly unique to humans. Since the latter category encompasses more than intelligence, which isn't even radically unique (with respect to lesser degrees). Many animals have rudimentary tool-making skills, and a few even precursors of culture and group behavior regulation.

Also... The enhancement of the Patterson–Gimlin film became a topic in another forum, with part of the discussion revolving around "were there gorilla suits back then that featured mammalian glands"?

But much more to the point, is the glaring fact that other primates don't have permanent breasts. So if "Patty" was real, is she showing signs of being in late stage pregnancy in the film? Or alternatively, where is the infant that "Patty" should be carrying around with her? Did it die not long ago after birth? Was it actually left behind? Questions, questions, for the Bigfoot supporters.

Anyway, the concurrence of that topic with this one is gong to have something carry over, with respect to the putative "uniqueness" of humans.
_

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

One assumes that the very suggestion of human origins requiring alien intervention is trying to revolve around multiple characteristics that are supposedly unique to humans. Since the latter category encompasses more than intelligence, which isn't even radically unique (with respect to lesser degrees). Many animals have too rudimentary tool-making skills, and a few even precursors of culture and group behavior regulation.
_

It isn't only the unique of humans, but the degree to which their skills are above other animals and their own progenitors.

 

[TheVat]

It isn't only the unique of humans, but the degree to which their skills are above other animals and their own progenitors.

It isn't only the unique of dolphins, but the degree to which their echolocation skills are above other animals and their own progenitors.

Therefore, dolphins may have been designed by extraterrestrials.

 

[C C]

It isn't only the unique of humans, but the degree to which their skills are above other animals and their own progenitors.

Ergo, nothing wholly new is being introduced. The area of intelligence has already been instantiated by primitive examples. It's a matter of incremental changes continuing within that general category, which is certainly in the territory of unassisted evolution. The other oddities of humans might accordingly seem more novel (albeit likewise still amenable to natural processes).
_

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

It isn't only the unique of dolphins, but the degree to which their echolocation skills are above other animals and their own progenitors.

Therefore, dolphins may have been designed by extraterrestrials.

Stupid conclusion and you know it. Bats have it and you don't know their progenitors.

 

[TheVat]

Nope, dolphin echolocation is a whole giant leap beyond what bats have - that's why I picked them for my example. And we do know the progenitors of dolphins.

My point was that humans are hardly the only species where one stands out from others in their family (in our case, Hominidae) in respect to certain skills. IOW there is no magical gap which calls for an hypothesis of extraterrestrial engineers.

 

[Sarkus]

Were humans originally generically engineered by Aliens (AKA gods).
Many believe so, and have pointed to the many mythos that claim it is so.

"Many"? Do you have anything to support this claim of "many"? Are we talking 1%? 1 billion? 1 million across the world? And no, "alien" is not "aka gods". For some, perhaps, but it's not as simple as "god = alien".
Maybe you want to offer more than just simplistic naive assertions or questions? You know, actually provide some evidence to support the premise for your question?

Are there any signs of such in the human genome.

No.
To know whether there was any sign of being genetically engineered by an alien species, or even could be any sign, we would need, as a minimum, to know that aliens exist. We don't. We can speculate, sure, but we don't know. Ergo No, there are no signs.

At best there are things we don't (yet?) know.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

"Many"? Do you have anything to support this claim of "many"? Are we talking 1%? 1 billion? 1 million across the world? And no, "alien" is not "aka gods". For some, perhaps, but it's not as simple as "god = alien".
Maybe you want to offer more than just simplistic naive assertions or questions? You know, actually provide some evidence to support the premise for your question?

No.
To know whether there was any sign of being genetically engineered by an alien species, or even could be any sign, we would need, as a minimum, to know that aliens exist. We don't. We can speculate, sure, but we don't know. Ergo No, there are no signs.

At best there are things we don't (yet?) know.

Many is my own assessment from what I have read.

If "god = alien" doesn't tickle tour fancy, try evolved humans from the future.

I only asked a question. Get the stick out of your behind..

We do not need to know aliens exist. Only be willing to investigate the genome to look for possible signs.

 

[Sarkus]

Many is my own assessment from what I have read

So nothing at all to support your assertion. Okay. I'm sure your "assessment" is based on something but if you can't be either bothered or honest enough to provide, I'm sure we will have no difficulty in treating your claim with the academic respect it deserves.

I only asked a question. Get the stick out of your behind.

Questions are normally followed by a question mark. Your post lacked such. Further, even if your first sentence was understood as a question, you also made a claim. To wit: "Many believe so, and have pointed to the many mythos that claim it is so." That is a claim by you, whether you are capable of recognising it as such or not.
So please don't be dishonest, or so stupid, whichever applies.

I also have no stick in my behind. But if at any point you want to support your claims, or actually join a civil discussion, do feel free. At the moment you are simply making unsupported assertions, failing to respond honestly, and insulting people. Where do you think that will get you? Yes, we're a more tolerant site with regard cranks and trolls, but they all end up in the same place eventually. Just a matter of time.

 

[Ken Fabian]

A lot of human uniqueness is probably down to the lack of closely related species. If some of those other hominids were still around, the way eg different species of finches that Darwin studied are... would other upright, bipedal, furless, big brained, clever handed, tool making, language using apes make homo sapiens seem not so unusual that they require magical-miracle grade intervention to explain?

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

So nothing at all to support your assertion. Okay. I'm sure your "assessment" is based on something but if you can't be either bothered or honest enough to provide, I'm sure we will have no difficulty in treating your claim with the academic respect it deserves.

My assessment is based on my own experience. I don't need any other assessment. I trust myself more than your academics.

Questions are normally followed by a question mark. Your post lacked such. Further, even if your first sentence was understood as a question, you also made a claim. To wit: "Many believe so, and have pointed to the many mythos that claim it is so." That is a claim by you, whether you are capable of recognising it as such or not.
So please don't be dishonest, or so stupid, whichever applies.

Ah, poor boy needs a mark to understand.
Not a claim, an experience.
Neither applies.

I also have no stick in my behind. But if at any point you want to support your claims, or actually join a civil discussion, do feel free. At the moment you are simply making unsupported assertions, failing to respond honestly, and insulting people. Where do you think that will get you? Yes, we're a more tolerant site with regard cranks and trolls, but they all end up in the same place eventually. Just a matter of time.

Google is your friend. Do your own homework.

Made no assumption, Just basically asked a question.

So now you're another one calling me a liar. Shove it where the sin don't shine.

You are one of the stupidest and ignorant I have met here and that's saying something. If you think that's insulting take a look in the mirror to see how you began the insults.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

A lot of human uniqueness is probably down to the lack of closely related species. If some of those other hominids were still around, the way eg different species of finches that Darwin studied are... would other upright, bipedal, furless, big brained, clever handed, tool making, language using apes seem so much different as to require magical-miracle grade intervention to explain?

Probably not, but we don't have such mirrors.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Probably not, but we don't have such mirrors.

But we do know they existed. Those other hominids would display varying capacity for those 'unique' characteristics that if even if not directly ancestral are still indicative of these traits evolving.

That doesn't make outside intelligent agency with interventions inconceivable (by critters with extraordinary capacity for conceiving things that don't exist) but given the observed nature of the universe shows no objective evidence of the required magical/miraculous physical processes, or evidence of critters/others with such capabilities there is far more 'evidence' those are imaginary than they are sources for comprehensive explanation for the inexplicable.

I'm more of the view that complex bio-chemistry is a consequence of the physical nature of the universe and no intelligence is likely to have the capability to conceive or make life as we know it. How and why the universe is the way it is (if such questions can even make any sense in this) remains inexplicable.

The apparent human need to have explanation is far from universal - most people spend most of their lives not thinking about it and may only do so with prompting - but it seems easily satisfied without need to resort to evidence and reason; a good story told consistently with conviction seems more than adequate. Some appropriately eerie background musical accompaniment and finishing with a singalong would reinforce the sermon's effectiveness.