------

@WholesomeWoman, welcome to m2!

-----

@m MassageTrade, thanks for the welcome

Earth calling JeannieBean ...

She left this universe a LONG time ago!

Life from something dead. That would be a good trick.

Did they get that out of a cracker jack box or something?

I'm still here. It seems that lately I've gotten what you might call "a life." in spite of the alien situation.....

They have been here (in this universe/galaxy) MUCH longer than humans in any case.

I think my questions are reasonable ones. I KNOW it is likely and very possible.

1. Billions of years of evolution in the the universe....
2. Most planets, if they are similar at all to the earth, would probably begin with reptilian creatures of some kind.

If a monkey, ape or lemur can evolve from the sea, and into a human in the short time on earth that it did, then certainly a fish can evolve into a reptile and an intelligent reptilian humanoid in the universe.

-------->

Draco's are from the constellation Orion. They pretty much are believed to be "in control" of the galaxy. (They are not too friendly for the most part..)



Draco's have wings, sometimes horns, and a tail and they come in black, white and red. The red draco looks very much like what the common idea of what we think of as "the devil."

mg1959,

Its all about what you consider to be "dead" and the scientific definition for "life."

Apparently a cell is not "alive" until it divides and consumes food.

But a frog, apparently encased in a rock for years, is not "dead." It is in hibernation. But it does not eat, reproduce and I can't imagine that it does much breathing.

A cell with no DNA, is alive as long as it has a potential to receive DNA and then "come alive." It is "dead" as a cell, in my opinion when is shrivels up and dries out. But is there any part of it that has any energy left? What kind of energy? Can that energy still react to something? If it can, then it is still "alive" as elemental energy IMO.

People don't want to think about the possibility that mankind might have evolved in a different way in other parts of the galaxy. Mostly because of the teachings of the Bible about where mankind came from.

But I would think that a scientific minded individual would be more open to the possibility of reptilian humanoids given how they are so dead convinced about evolution and knowing that reptiles on earth were here millions of years before the advent of man.

Not only that, stories of reptilian creatures in hibernation for years employ the imagination. Why couldn't a reptilian humanoid hibernate also?

Many scientists are very open to the possibility of sentient life evolving elsewhere.

But the idea that mankind (humans) specifically evolved elsewhere...would that be with or without the other primates? Monkeys evolved here, but humans evolved elsewhere? We are too similar to other primates for that to make sense.



By 'reptilian' you mean 'having qualities of reptiles' ?
And by humanoid you mean 'having the shape of humans' ?

I think that's totally possible. But I don't think there's an particular reason to think its likely. Think of how different a human is from a squid, and both are from a snake. I think alien life is likely to be far more different still. I've heard the arguments for anthropomorphic aliens, but I don't buy it.

I think its very likely.

Billions....... of years.

By reptilian, yes, I mean having the qualities of reptiles.
By "humanoid" I mean having the shape of humans... two arms, two legs, one head, two eyes, hands, feet, etc.

Now if you are into Biblical references... the serpent in the garden of Eden was a reptilian or snake-like creature. It implies that he had arms and legs when it states that afterwards he was then made to "crawl on his belly." (lost his arms and legs)

DNA provides information for the evolution of all kinds of attributes according the environment. If a single celled animal can evolve into a human being that we know today, then it certainly could evolve into a reptilian version of a humanoid being.

Very likely.

The whole problem with this creation-evolution debate is that evolutionists often misunderstand the evidence on which the whole hypothesis of evolution is based. Natural selection alone cannot explain the observed organisms that contain 3 billion DNA largely functional base pairs. To increase the length of the DNA requires mutation. Mutation is nearly always neutral or damaging. In the rare cases when mutation has been favourable, it has not involved any significant increases to the length of the DNA. Thus the whole theory of evolution shouldn't even be given the label of "theory" its merely a hypothosesis based on projecting a few minor observed mutations and absolutely ASSUMING that these mutations occurred in major favorable mutational jumps in DNA length when nothing like that has ever been observed. The sudden observance of massive increases in the length of the DNA during the Cambrian explosion of higher life forms cannot be explained by any observations of mutation and the theory of evolution is merely a hypothesis based on no evidence.

Many people accept the conclusions of a community of other people who have demonstrated, as a community, a minimal level of intelligence and integrity in their work. Its not necessary for every person to fully understand every aspect of science. The modern scientific process is wonderful, though, in the sense that anyone who wants to investigate the reasons for the beliefs of scientists has access to their work. In a world where greedy corporations and ambitious nations rely on secrecy and lies to manipulate people, the transparency of the scientific community (with all its flaws) is really beautiful and wonderful in comparison.

You are correct, though, that many pro-evolution debaters often completely don't understand evolution.



It depends on what you mean by 'natural selection alone'. I'm often taking the position that some darwinists underestimate the importance of culture (many non-human animals have a kind of culture) in shaping the direction of evolution. They respond by saying that the existence of that culture is a result of natural selection, so ultimately it all depends on natural selection. I find this a narrow, but defensible, position.

If you don't consider the mechanism that facilitate the sudden lengthening of DNA (such as viruses injecting genetic material) to be 'natural selection' it is likely that those mechanisms came into existence (maybe indirectly) as a result of natural selection, and people could still make the case that natural selection is the ultimate guiding influence.





You know everything there is to know about all mutations that have ever occurred?

Or did you mean to qualify that statement in some way?

Are you talking about specific mutations that we have studied and documented?




Howzit, you complete disappoint me. Based on the first half of your post, I thought you might actually make an intelligent criticism of evolution.

There was no 'sudden observance of a massive increase in the length of DNA during the Cambrian explosion.

The very fact that you say this, as if it were a fact, suggests you have gotten too much of your 'science education' from creationist websites. Creationist love to act like this is just a fact, whereas the scientific community knows that this is a matter of investigation.

Its not like we have reliable and comprehensive data on the lengths of DNA of all ancestral organisms before the cambrian explosion.

During the cambrian explosion, it appears that there was a huge increase in the number of species that evolved into forms that were better preserved as fossils. Before the cambrian explosion, much of life simply didn't fossilize well.

Taking a form that fossilizes well did not necessarily correlate with a dramatic increase in overall complexity (and certainly not dna length).




Are you trying to argue that your last sentence follows from your previous post? Or are you just pulling that out of your *** separately? Are you really suggesting that there is absolutely no evidence in existence that in any way supports the theory of evolution?

This is quite a leap.

There are valid criticism of evolution. Rarely are they presented properly.

The theory of evolution has itself evolved. The original version said creatures slowly changed to fit their environment to create ever more complex and adapted creatures. It has been determined that periods of drastic change have caused relatively rapid changes in evolution as creatures filled niches left by other creatures.

A good example of the rapid change is when the asteroid hit the Yucatan 63 million years ago which, combined with other factors, lead to the demise of the dinosaurs and opens niches for mammals to fill. These changes did not happen overnight but the rate of change far exceeded the more steady state conditions that existed before the event.

Random mutation has resulted in billions of beneficial changes to creatures and has helped to fill many a niche. Inter-specie breeding makes bigger changes to the genome that we can see today as neanderthal segments of human dna.

There is evidence of many types of pre-humans and the ability of man to "wink" has no current timeline.

He's talking about observed mutations. The scientific method does require "observation", correct? Or are scientists allowed to just make up cool stuff and pretend it happened?

Strictly, no of course not.

Many can argue what facets of science are mandatory, but observation is not one of them.

Objective analysis is required, but observation is only one way to get that data.

What other methods are there to get data?

One would not normally call testing observation. When I think observation I think behavioral studies, not "seeing" the outcome of an experiment.

Would you call the data collected at the large hadron collider "observation"?

Just curious.


We understood the behavior of atoms long before we could "see" them with tech.

Observation: an act or instance of viewing or noting a fact or occurrence for some scientific or other special purpose

Thanks for acknowledging this, but I was referring more to knowledgeable evolutionists correctly observing natural selection and variation and incorrectly applying it to a process that requires beneficial increases to the genome size.


Sure DNA lengthens through whatever process, insertions, duplications etc. However these are nearly always neutral or damaging. The only beneficial mutations I have ever heard of do not involve significant increases to the length of the genome. There are very few (I've heard of one, maybe two) beneficial mutations ever recorded.


Yes I'm referring to observed and documented mutations. I have never heard of a beneficial mutation that involves significant increases to the size of DNA. If you can find a documented case, then evolution could be classed as a theory rather than just an hypothesis (guessing without evidence).


LOL I enjoyed the nastiness :)


You are correct here, I was making assumptions based on the fact that organisms showed an increase from single cell organisms to arthropods.


The evidence that is lacking relates to beneficial increases to the DNA size. This puts into doubt evolution as the source for higher life-forms with increased DNA sizes, which is the essence of the whole creation/evolution debate.

I really don't even understand how creationism is even a thought,i thought we were adults and can have some kind of rational ideas on how things came to be,but to claim some mythical Zeus like wanna be figure poofed everything into existance in 6 days is far from rational thinking.If anything it's a funny joke.

Spider & Howzit,

I enjoyed your posts and look forward to responding, though I may not have time until next Sunday.