You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
April 27, 2017, 12:27:00 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Alien Astronaught Theory  (Read 5940 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HunterTopic starter

Alien Astronaught Theory
« on: November 11, 2010, 08:52:35 PM »
I've been paying attention to this particular subject and it's fairly intriguing irregardless of which side you are on.  For those of you who aren't familiar with it, it's the idea that ETs have influenced human development.

I've noted that the theory runs from DNA manipulation, interbreeding, technological influences, and even the cause of the Black Plague (my personal favorite).

I'm of two minds on this subject myself.  Yeah, it's a convenient way to explain alot of the unknowns but at the same time it really doesn't credit our ancestors with brains much above a rock (I think).

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2010, 09:21:45 PM »
I think it would be arrogant to assume that we were the only intelligent life in the universe (just because it's big.  It's really big.)  However, the thought that some alien race has been using us as a test-tube is arrogant in its own way.  (Weer speshul!)  I'm pretty sure that the whole aliens are manipulating Earth idea sputtered into life around the same time that people were starting to claim science and religion were incompatible, which makes me think it's an attempt to fill the void.

This is, of course, all conjecture on my part.

Of course, I could always be one of those aliens sent to discredit the theory, because we don't think you're ready for the truth.  :)

Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2010, 09:32:36 PM »
That idea goes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back. Look at some of the south / central American cultures pictures, and you get a lot of images that could be 'figure in spacesuit'.

You also have odd little stories like this one

http://www.unmuseum.org/siriusb.htm

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2010, 09:33:38 PM »
It was llamas...and we still live among you.   ;D

Offline Xandria

  • Insatiable Dreamer
  • Dame
  • Enchanted
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Location: Where reality fades into fantasy...
  • Gender: Female
  • Chasing adventure with a cheeky grin.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2010, 10:51:56 PM »
It does make for some interesting reading, but to accept this theory, I personally would need to see some serious empirical evidence.  Though I do agree it's highly improbable that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.   :-)

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2010, 11:26:13 PM »
I would say that it is perhaps possible that other life exists in the universe (although, for the record, the Drake equation is not the way to go about calculating that possibility). However, it is very improbable that other life would A) develop anywhere in reasonable proximity to Earth; B) be anything at all like carbon based life (and it would especially not be anything like us, this is why rubber forehead aliens piss me off so much <_<).

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2010, 11:52:40 PM »
There are excellent reasons for the evolution of a bipedal form with sense organs concentrated in the head.  I also think that carbon-based molecules are most likely to have the complexity to convey genetic information (If I recall, the corresponding silicon-based molecules have different angles, but it's been a while since I pestered my college biology teacher.)

As for developing anywhere near Earth - I agree that would be mathematically improbable.  The set of 'earthlike' planets in this limited corner of space is still too small.

Offline Jude

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2010, 12:34:52 AM »
Given the energy needs of a highly evolved technological society, were they to happen upon a planet in the Goldilocks zone like our own, they would probably conquer it, not spend millions of years tinkering with organisms on it while going through painstaking measures to remain undetectable.

The alien origin theory makes no sense because it provides no motivation.  A race with the technology to travel across the stars and cloak itself from us for all this time would benefit how from observing our development?  We already have computer simulations that model evolution well enough to observe the process, and we can already circumvent it entirely with genetic engineering.

The only plausible answer is that a race of human beings from another planet in the universe seeded earth with the proper life that would eventually evolve into us so that by the time they were ready to subjugate the planet, we'd already have the process started -- which I suppose is something that could happen, but given that there's no evidence... It's pointless speculation.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2010, 02:03:35 AM »
There are excellent reasons for the evolution of a bipedal form with sense organs concentrated in the head.  I also think that carbon-based molecules are most likely to have the complexity to convey genetic information (If I recall, the corresponding silicon-based molecules have different angles, but it's been a while since I pestered my college biology teacher.)

As for developing anywhere near Earth - I agree that would be mathematically improbable.  The set of 'earthlike' planets in this limited corner of space is still too small.

Bipedal creatures with an upright posture and not possessed of tails are absurdly rare and structurally a bad idea in most situations. To the best of my knowledge primates are the sole example in the entirety of history. Further, quadrupeds make up the majority (that extra stability is just too tempting). So our form of bipedalism is an absurd minority of a minority. Further, the selective pressures driving bipedalism (and quadrapedalism for that matter) are specific for our environment.

Carbon works here, and more specifically our form of carbon-based life works here, because of the proportion and availability of other elements. Change that ratio (e.g. by limiting available nitrogen) and something else might become more ideal for the basic information storage and catalytic functions necessary. Once again this is specific to our environment.

And here is the fun thing, it is not just specific to our environment now it is specific to the particular path both life and the planet have developed on since the moment of life's advent. This is an extremely path-dependent process. Which is why looking for Earth-like planets as a source of life is a mistake. If they are like to Earth now, there is no guarantee that they went through the specific phase needed in their past. If they did go through that specific phase then there is no guarantee that life was produced. And if by some miracle longshot both of these things were true there is no guarantee that the path from point A to point B was the same. And if the path is the same then there is no guarantee that life evolved in the same way along that path. And at this point I think it should be apparent that we have limited possibility so much as to make this impossible.

In short:
Alien life = possible
Alien life from an earthlike planet = less possible in proportion to the ratio of earthlike planets to total planets
Alien life similar to humans = so improbably as to be fantasy

Offline Sabby

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2010, 03:52:23 AM »
Jude, I think your looking at it the wrong way. Instead of thinking what they stand to gain from us, perhaps it's better to ask what we're getting. The bear doesn't understand what the reserve workers are doing or gaining when they tranq it, or that it's for their own good. They can't understand. Unless we go extinct, we'll one day reach a level they have, and so it makes sense to watch and, at times, guide us, keep tabs on us...

And another thing I find confusing is people claiming the 'effort' part of it... like, why would aliens visit when they live so far away? Why make the huge trip? To this... well, I really don't think they are still trapped in that old deadlock that is fuel based energy. Whatever it is we use (electricity, coal, petroleum) requires an obscene amount of energy to use, where as there are (at least, this is what I believe) much more efficient energy sources out there, limitless ones that would allow such travel.

I mean, read the reports of UFO sightings by jet pilots. If they're pulling stuff like that off, without leaving any kind of waste, then it's either we don't know how to detect the crap left behind, or they use an energy source that is not at all like anything we know. 

Offline Jude

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2010, 04:40:17 AM »
Why is asking what they would gain from us the wrong question?  If you are claiming that aliens chose to create us, then there had to have been some sort of intent behind that decision.  What could it possibly have been?

Why would they have chosen to seed the planet with life instead of utilizing its resources for their gain when it would've cost them so dearly to make the trip?  Even if they had an alternate energy resource that was incredibly dense, plentiful, and easily utilized, it's impossible for matter to travel at the speed of light.  Considering that we've been unable to locate any habitable planets within a reasonable amount of light years from us, their trip would've taken a very, very long time and would necessitate a place for them to stay nearby -- they can't hover in space indefinitely and how could they have avoid detection?

Assume that they did create us:  then why is there evidence of evolution on this planet that stretches back millions of years when such an advanced creature would be capable of simple genetic engineering that would've produced a result in a tiny fraction of that time?

Is there an answer that avoids all of these problems?  Undoubtedly, but you have to formulate your theory on the alien presence very carefully to sidestep all of these difficulties.  With each dodge it becomes more and more of a religion and less of a theory as you pile on ad hoc hypothesis after ad hoc hypothesis to preserve the conclusion you're working backwards from.  In the end, the aliens you imagine are incredibly advanced, powerful, and cannot be understood logically by our feeble human brains.  That sounds an awful lot like god to me, so I don't think you're speaking of a theory, but a religion.

People forget that UFOs do exist, but that UFO isn't an acronym for "alien craft."  Unidentified flying objects are just that -- unidentified.  There has never been an identified flying object in the history of mankind that was of alien origin -- or even suspected origin of that matter.  Even if a highly advanced craft was observed, there's no reason to believe that it would be otherworldly in design, the most logical conclusion is that it's a highly advanced piece of secret technology, such as the stealth bombers that were manufactured and tested in Area 51 which started one component of the alien craze.

When little green men were the type of extraterrestrial portrayed in films, guess what type of abductors people described?  When ET game out, they became brown creatures with flared fingerprints and a fondness of bike rides (well, maybe not that last part).  And the "gray" stereotype pushed most recently has come into dominance in the last few years.  The bottom line is, these are images created by our imagination that eventually manifest themselves in our dreams.  Even that paralyzed sensation that supposed abductees often experience can easily be explained logically in terms of a biological condition that occurs sometimes during sleep.

Human memory and perception are flawed.  The only real testimony worth anything is something captured digitally.  As such, you would think that with the explosion of digital photography and camera phones there'd be an outpouring of additional documented evidence in this subject matter.  There hasn't been.  Furthermore, every single picture that the alien community has put forth is blurry, out of focus, at nighttime, and generally bad; it's just like supposed bigfoot photography.

Are we alone in the galaxy?  Probably not, but chances are everyone else is just as stranded as we are by the laws of physics which don't promote the transit of matter around the damn-near infinite space of the universe.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 04:46:16 AM by Jude »

Offline Sabby

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2010, 04:57:32 AM »
I... didn't say they created us o.o You wasted a wall of text.

Online Vekseid

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2010, 06:08:24 AM »
My favorite is the 'ancient off-ramp' picture that gets compared to modern off-ramps from the space shuttle. It looks so mysterious when you see it on TV...

...and then you find out, years later, that it's actually a tiny piece of an ancient birdcage or something.

What frauds will do to make a sale.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2010, 09:27:03 AM »
Bipedal creatures with an upright posture and not possessed of tails are absurdly rare and structurally a bad idea in most situations. To the best of my knowledge primates are the sole example in the entirety of history. Further, quadrupeds make up the majority (that extra stability is just too tempting). So our form of bipedalism is an absurd minority of a minority. Further, the selective pressures driving bipedalism (and quadrapedalism for that matter) are specific for our environment.

Okay - had sleep, and now my recall is stronger.  As far as bipedalism, there are several advantages.  It raises the sense-organs above the other creatures in the environment, thus giving an advantage in threat detection.  Binocular vision, with the eyes situated forward on the head gives an advantage in depth perception.  Binaural hearing provides directional sense.  It frees up the forward limbs, which is essential in the use of complex tools.  Yes, birds can use simple tools, notably corvids, but anything comparable to technology virtually requires two hands in the developing stages.

Quote
Carbon works here, and more specifically our form of carbon-based life works here, because of the proportion and availability of other elements. Change that ratio (e.g. by limiting available nitrogen) and something else might become more ideal for the basic information storage and catalytic functions necessary. Once again this is specific to our environment.

Actually, I was able to find a document online that went into the specifics of why another atom wouldn't work.  Short version: I was correct in remembering that the angles are different (case in point, HC≡CH is a straight line, but HSi≡SiH has a more Z-shape), but also, the strength of the atomic bonds in corresponding compounds is a lot weaker.  The resulting molecules (when they can be formed) are more brittle.  You cannot create the equivalent of a benzene ring with Si6H6. In addition, corresponding compounds necessary for cellular activity have different forms between the carbon and silicon varieties.  Carbon dioxide is a gas, where silicon dioxide is solid.  While the article talks about specifically terrestrial conditions, such things as molecular bonds are not going to vary much (if at all) within the parameters necessary for life (and I'm figuring in the critters that live near the deep sea vents.)
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 12:27:57 PM by Oniya »

Offline mystictiger

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2010, 10:59:53 AM »
Quote
Carbon works here, and more specifically our form of carbon-based life works here, because of the proportion and availability of other elements. Change that ratio (e.g. by limiting available nitrogen) and something else might become more ideal for the basic information storage and catalytic functions necessary. Once again this is specific to our environment.

I strongly disagree for three major reasons:

1) The 'specific to our environment' argument is nonsense given that 'our environment' has changed significantly. The 'primordial soup' is a very significantly different environment to what we have now. The very early Earth would've been molten rock bathed in hydrogen and helium. As the crust cooled, volcanism resulted in the spewing of large amounts of amonia (and hence nitrogen) and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Photochemical decay of the amonia resulted in free nitrogen. Don't ask me how the archae came around, but they did. These things ate sulphur. Then after a long period of time, we get photosynthesis. Photosynethic activity then liberated oxygen and sequestered carbon. Biochemistry has a direct impact on environment, just as environment determines biochemistry.

2) Carbon is simply more 'interesting'. Yes, Silicon can form interesting molecules that could carry biologicaly significant information. But Carbon can react to form 'interesting' combinations with a faaar wider range of atoms. To quote an intresting PNAS paper:
Quote
As the structural basis for life, one of carbonís important features is that unlike silicon it can readily engage in the formation of chemical bonds with many other atoms, thereby allowing for the chemical versatility required to conduct the reactions of biological metabolism and propagation. The various organic functional groups, composed of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and a host of metals, such as iron, magnesium, and zinc, provide the enormous diversity of chemical reactions necessarily  atalyzed by a living organism. Silicon, in contrast, interacts with only a few other atoms, and the large silicon molecules are monotonous compared with the combinatorial universe of organic macromolecules

Any idea or suggestion that silicon could be the basis of biochemistry is a non-scientific claim, based on personal preference, that disregards every single bit of evidence we have about life, biochemistry, and chemistry. Be it deep sea thermophiles or cryptoendolithic cyanobacteria in antarctica, life irrespective of its environment, is carbon based. This could be because Carbon makes for a real good way of transfering energy (double and triple bonds, which is something that silicon can't do).

The available evidence we have suggests that irrespective of drastically different environments, different metabolic pathways (e.g. sulphur-metabolising bacteria), we end up with carbon at the core of the system.

Yes, I'm aware that the argument that truly alien biology could be based on something else but it would be so alien that we wouldn't recognise it as being alive. We'd probably regard it as a rock, and they'd probably not actually see us as we'd be moving too quickly.

3) Astronomically speaking, carbon is massively more abundant than silicon, phosphorus-nitrogen (for phosphazene-based biology), and so on.

Quote
And here is the fun thing, it is not just specific to our environment now it is specific to the particular path both life and the planet have developed on since the moment of life's advent. This is an extremely path-dependent process

That's not necessarily true. This goes back to the Burgess Shale interpretation. Gould would argue that anything is possible (see "Life's Grandeur"), but Conway Morris (see "Lifeís Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe")would argue that there are systemic constraints on how we could have developed. Gould says that we could have ended up as anything, but Conway Morris says that we could only ever have been human or something like it. I don't know which way I go. Unfortunately, we can really easily falsify either proposition.

Quote
... something about the Drake equation...

There is no correct way to caluclate the possibility of alien life. The Drake method is just one way of writing down a long list of imponderable variables.

Online Vekseid

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2010, 11:57:33 AM »
When people trot out Earth's 'unique' environment claiming that silicon based life is possible elsewhere, it's important to point out that Earth has a massive overabundance of silicon compared with the rest of the Universe.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2010, 01:10:19 PM »
Okay - had sleep, and now my recall is stronger.  As far as bipedalism, there are several advantages.  It raises the sense-organs above the other creatures in the environment, thus giving an advantage in threat detection.  Binocular vision, with the eyes situated forward on the head gives an advantage in depth perception.  Binaural hearing provide directional sense.  It frees up the forward limbs, which is essential in the use of complex tools.  Yes, birds can use simple tools, notably corvids, but anything comparable to technology virtually requires two hands in the developing stages.
You are describing what is necessary for a life that lives on mostly clear, horizontal planes (e.g. savannah, scrubland, riverfronts, the areas in which these traits developed). Differing biomes have differing requirements. The things you suggest would not be nearly so advantageous in a densely forested environment, which is why mankind deforests areas as it spreads. You also neglect to take into account the things we have given up like speed, stability, and much of our ability to scent. Just because some particular characteristic has advantages does not mean that it will evolve, especially not in environments where those advantages are weak. Technology also is not a requirement for life. It is a requirement for us.

And that is just on our planet. A planet with different salient factors, e.g. a differing day/night cycle, higher or lower percentage of ocean, different heat ranges, different atmosphere, different light color, etc. would produce life suited to that environment.

Actually, I was able to find a document online that went into the specifics of why another atom wouldn't work.  Short version: I was correct in remembering that the angles are different, but also, the strength of the atomic bonds in corresponding compounds is a lot weaker.  The resulting molecules (when they can be formed) are more brittle.  You cannot create the equivalent of a benzene ring with Si6H6. In addition, corresponding compounds necessary for cellular activity have different forms between the carbon and silicon varieties.  Carbon dioxide is a gas, where silicon dioxide is solid.  While the article talks about specifically terrestrial conditions, such things as molecular bonds are not going to vary much (if at all) within the parameters necessary for life (and I'm figuring in the critters that live near the deep sea vents.)
Okay, I think this is the point at which silicon mysteriously crops up in this discussion. I at no point posited silicon based life. I merely said that it is possible that another element has the potential for the information storage and catalytic capabilities needed for basic life (e.g. RNA World level), and that things would evolve stepwise from there creating something on a wholly different path. I never denied that carbon is well suited. Carbon based life sprangs up from a discrete event under precise parameters. This world is well suited for carbon based life because of the path it has taken: life has changed the nature of the planet at the same time the planet has altered the nature of that life. A different life or planetary environment would produce something different. A separate event under widely different parameters could give rise to something distinct from it.



However, my original point is: If we were to encounter other life it would be distinctly unlike us having evolved from a discrete event and possibly with a different elemental basis. We may not even recognize it as life without close observation of its chemical properties.

If you limit the field of discussion to saying that alien life must be human-like then alien life is a practical impossiblity. Only if you broaden your definition do you begin to see the possibility. Given that human-like life is thus not very possible it becomes even more absurd to think it exists within a physically feasable proximity to earth for the alien astronaut theory.

Offline mystictiger

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2010, 01:23:51 PM »
Quote
...but anything comparable to technology virtually requires two hands in the developing stages

Or tentacles!

Quote
Okay, I think this is the point at which silicon mysteriously crops up in this discussion. I at no point posited silicon based life. I merely said that it is possible that another element has the potential for the information storage and catalytic capabilities needed for basic life (e.g. RNA World level), and that things would evolve stepwise from there creating something on a wholly different path

If not carbon, then what? Silicion, phosphorus-nitrogen, boron, or certain metal oxides. Silicon is the most 'obvious' or possible one of these. The counter argument immediately is that not-carbon biochemistry lacks the range of interesting reactions that make life possible.

Quote
However, my original point is: If we were to encounter other life it would be distinctly unlike us having evolved from a discrete event and possibly with a different elemental basis. We may not even recognize it as life without close observation of its chemical properties

The evolutionary point is entirely valid and is supported by all of the available evidence. The elemental one is pseudoscience / science fiction that belongs in Star Trek

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2010, 01:44:31 PM »
I realize that you did not posit silicon-based life.  However, as is mentioned in the article, silicon shares enough properties with carbon (valence number, similar chemical properties based on the periodic table, abundance) to be the reasonable 'next best thing'.  Organic chemistry is very complex, requiring large and complicated molecules and reactions.  (I roomed with a bio-chem major, and I am a compulsive reader.  No text book was safe.)  In order to form those complex molecules, the base element needs to be able to connect with as many other atoms as possible, hence, the valence number is a consideration.  On the flip side, you can only go so far up the table before you run into large (comparatively) atomic radii and atomic instability.  It might be fun to consider a polonium or thorium-based life form, but then you'd have to deal with how the compounds disintegrate as the atoms decay.  Silicon, being the closest element to carbon with the necessary reactivity is simply the first go-to as an alternative base for life.

Offline Serephino

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2010, 06:38:11 PM »
Is it possible?  I think so.  The possibilities are endless.  I agree that it wouldn't necessarily take an Earth-like planet to produce life.  Thinking that it does makes sense based on what we know now, but to think that we know everything about everything is incredibly arrogant.

There could be some element compound on another planet that doesn't exist here that will, and has, also worked.  How can we possibly know about it if it doesn't exist on Earth?  Or maybe different elements come together in a different way and work differently.  Who in the hell knows...

Why would they study us?  Why do we humans study stuff?  I'm thinking it's to learn about it.  Maybe they planted the seeds of life as some great experiment.  And maybe they've discovered some technology that we haven't.

I don't have any of the answers, but I like to think that anything is possible.  To me, discounting something because it currently cannot be understood with modern technology is boxing yourself in.  Where would we be today if some of our ancestors didn't wonder what if?  Some of the greatest discoveries have been made because someone wondered what if what was widely accepted as truth was wrong.  Hell, people used to think the Earth was flat, and the sun revolved around it, and to believe otherwise was absurd.   

Offline meikle

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2010, 06:44:31 PM »
There could be some element compound on another planet that doesn't exist here that will, and has, also worked.  How can we possibly know about it if it doesn't exist on Earth?  Or maybe different elements come together in a different way and work differently.  Who in the hell knows...

I think this is pretty much what the study of chemistry does.

"Anything is possible" is a good, open-minded way to look at things, but it's important not to lose sight of what we do know.

Offline mystictiger

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2010, 07:01:28 PM »
The general assumption is the 'principle of mediocrity'. It means that elements, chemicals, and physics is uniform all over the observable universe, and that the Earth and our experiences of it are pretty much average and par for the course. You're not going to travel a few hundred light years and suddenly find that Pi or the speed of light are different. They're called universal constants for that very reason.

It's an unfortunate term for so wonderful a principle. Or at least I think it wonderful. It means that what we find true here is true everywhere. It means that we can 'explore' the surfaces of distant worlds.

Offline Kate

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2010, 10:19:41 AM »
Not expecting to sway anyone but it is a very interesting topic.

Quote
[if they did exist Why would they.. ]A) develop anywhere in reasonable proximity to Earth; B) be anything at all like carbon based life (and it would especially not be anything like us, this is why rubber forehead aliens piss me off so much <_<).

a) Large distances would mean less to highly advanced species. Faster than light travel is not out of the question. There is some evidence that matter can do so "naturally" under extreme conditions (one fact (not proof but has many scratching their head) is that the universe seems to be wider than 2 times its age in light years accross. So if it was expanding in all directions at the speed of light ... it should be 13 x 2 billion light years across. This isnpt proof of course as calculatiosn for its width and age are still conjecture, but even what we do know has gaping holes in our understanding)

b) carbon vs other stuff - i think talking of carbon vs other elements is a red herring. You all seem intellegent, knowing your views on other points would be more interesting.

Quote
Given the energy needs of a highly evolved technological society, were they to happen upon a planet in the Goldilocks zone like our own, they would probably conquer it, not spend millions of years tinkering with organisms on it while going through painstaking measures to remain undetectable.


Quote
The alien origin theory makes no sense because it provides no motivation.  A race with the technology to travel across the stars and cloak itself from us for all this time would benefit how from observing our development?  We already have computer simulations that model evolution well enough to observe the process, and we can already circumvent it entirely with genetic engineering.

Quote
Why is asking what they would gain from us the wrong question?  If you are claiming that aliens chose to create us, then there had to have been some sort of intent behind that decision.  What could it possibly have been?

Quote
Why would they have chosen to seed the planet with life instead of utilizing its resources for their gain when it would've cost them so dearly to make the trip?  Even if they had an alternate energy resource that was incredibly dense, plentiful, and easily utilized, it's impossible for matter to travel at the speed of light.  Considering that we've been unable to locate any habitable planets within a reasonable amount of light years from us, their trip would've taken a very, very long time and would necessitate a place for them to stay nearby -- they can't hover in space indefinitely and how could they have avoid detection?


Probably conquer it ? Why ? It would be more interestign to them watching, refining anthropological simulations etc. No need to enslave people when you have tech that builds things better anyway ... no need for earths materials when you can get them more easily elsewhere without ruining an interesting study, like digging up silver in a reserve which is the only mating place for 100 endangered species... easily to get silver elsewhere.

As tech gets better - freedom from needs becomes more releavent. luxury, artistic or accedemic desires and endevours can be given massive effort. all you would need is a hand ful of quirky
highly capable beings that were inspired to have some project going - and shazam.

People exist in this world would do something a strange as "I wanna try blending my genes with a dolphin or a swan... wanna create a mermaid or an angle thing. Why ? Pff ! Cause I wanna ok ? Need another reason ? Um no ... not really ... weird but ok... good luck tell me how it goes.

Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Drifting, One Day at a Time
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2010, 10:31:11 AM »
Most of the so-called "Evidence" of "alien astronauts" is the product of inkblotting.  You are probably familiar with inkblot tests that were once used by psychologists, yes?  It's the same thing.  One archaeologist (fake or otherwise) will say said ancient picture on an Egyptian (or Mayan, Aztec, etc) wall looks like flying saucers and helmeted space men.  This interpretation will be picked up by other people who will look at it and see the same thing, since it is prominent in their minds and they are looking specifically for it.  It's also called "matrixing" and relates to how we as humans look for faces instinctively in things that normally don't have them.  It helps to explain blob shapes in mirrors that folks think are the faces of ghosts etc. 

It's also called projecting and a few other technical terms.  I am merely saying there is a perfectly human explanation and that I think, with a lack of evidence, that there are no "alien astronauts" who have taken a personal interest in shaping our society.  Sorry, but our ancestors were just as smart and creative as we are today.  Give them a little credit.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2010, 12:09:02 PM »
It's also called "matrixing" and relates to how we as humans look for faces instinctively in things that normally don't have them. 

I remember seeing another name for it, but all I could find was a website dedicated to the phenomenon.
http://facesinplaces.blogspot.com/