Ancient Astronauts?

[JayUtah]

By that logic I can breed with my cats and produce a new species. Breeding potential is not a matter simply of proximity.

[JayUtah]

I think this is closer to logic than aliens coming here and mating with humans.

When you have only one specimen, the more parsimonious conclusion is that the one anomaly is unique. When they find another "alien" skull of the same shape, then they can argue that it represents a whole new species. We know that Neandertals are a species because we have enough specimens to rule out pathological morphologies.

However, I am still interested in the drawings of ancient civilizations that looked like astronauts, but it is maybe something coincidential.

Of course it's coincidental. Pasting a modern interpretation onto old art, presuming it to be a document of actual observation, is frivolous an unscientific. I saw a whole bunch of conceptual art for the Cirque du Soleil shows in Las Vegas recently. It's pasted up backstage. Does that mean that 1,000 years from now the Zebras in "O" are to be considered a hominid species?

Humans have always been a creative species. Our art is not purely documentary. It reflects things we wish existed, or imagine exist. If you're going to argue that a few examples of all existing ancient art match a few examples of modern real-life, then you have to open the door for all such "correlations," even those that have nothing to do with space aliens or angels. And you have to explain all those modern experiences that fail to have ancient artistic renditions, and all those ancient art renderings that fail to correlate to something modern.

The coincidence-hunters simply deny the harsh reality of statistics. They operate within their small world of preconceptions.

[gillianren]

jayutah said:

I actually have some training in this, believe it or not.

Jay, there is literally nothing in which I would not believe that you have training by this point. I don't assume you've had training in everything, but if you say you do, that's good enough for me. It just doesn't surprise me anymore.

The claim that bacteria should have eliminated the red residue found in the marrow chambers presupposes the reside is marrow, or otherwise palatable to bacteria. It also presupposes an ordinarily septic environment. Not all that's red is marrow.

Actually, there's bacteria that leave a red residue all by themselves. We studied it in a bio class I took in college; we were reproducing claims of "blood" appearing on hosts and things, which were of course called miracles. I don't remember the name of the bacteria, and I doubt I still have my notes for the class (I do still have the textbooks, though!), but someone less lazy than I could look it up.

[JayUtah]

I would believe that bacteria themselves are the red residue. It's one thing to point out that the specimen fails to display the common-case behavior. It's another thing to say it must be extraterrestrial without first considering terrestrial anomalies.

[lionking]

By that logic I can breed with my cats and produce a new species. Breeding potential is not a matter simply of proximity.

if I remember well, they said in tha tdocumentary that there was a species between the Neanderhals and the humans, and they spoke that mating between the two could have occured.

When you have only one specimen, the more parsimonious conclusion is that the one anomaly is unique. When they find another "alien" skull of the same shape, then they can argue that it represents a whole new species. We know that Neandertals are a species because we have enough specimens to rule out pathological morphologies.

maybe the matings were rare between humans and some species. I say maybe of course because it is a theory and we don't have any conclusive proof, but it is good to start with a theory to try to explain anything. Whethear this theory is right or wrong would be set straight by proof.

[lionking]

Did Neanderthals and Humans Interbreed?
Fazale (Fuz) Rana, Ph.D.

Despite compelling evidence,1 a minority of paleoanthropologists still believe (as do some Christians) that Neanderthals made a genetic contribution to modern humans through interbreeding. If Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, then by definition, they must be human.

The case for Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding relies exclusively on morphological (structural, bodily) evidence. The first suggestion that humans and Neanderthals may have interbred came in 1999 when a team of paleoanthropologists reported a fossil find from Portugal (near Lapedo Valley) dated at 24,500 years ago. Researchers recovered the complete skeletal remains of a young male child from a burial site.2 At that time, these paleoanthropologists interpreted the anatomy of the “Lagar Velho child” to consist of a mix of modern human and Neanderthal features. From this, they concluded that these two species must be closely related and regularly met and mated with one another.3

In 2003, the same team of paleoanthropologists claimed to have discovered another modern human-Neanderthal hybrid. This specimen, recovered in Romania, consists of a single lower jaw that dates to about 34,000 to 36,000 years ago, a time when modern humans and Neanderthals appeared to co-exist in Europe. Again, these researchers interpreted the jaw and dental anatomy to be a mosaic of archaic, modern human, and Neanderthal features.4

Most paleoanthropologists dispute the interpretation of the Lagar Velho child and the Romanian finds as modern human-Neanderthal hybrids. Commenting on the Portuguese discovery, Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey Schwartz state, “The analysis . . . of the Lagar Velho child’s skeleton is a brave and imaginative interpretation, of which it is unlikely that a majority of paleoanthropologists will consider proven.”5 Most researchers think that the Lagar Velho child simply was either an unusually stocky modern human child or one with a growth abnormality and that the Romanian find represents a modern human jawbone with unusual features.

New research from the Max Plank Institute provides direct evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans did not interbreed.6 This work compared mitochondrial DNA recovered from four Neanderthals with mitochondrial DNA isolated from the remains of five modern human fossils. The Neanderthal and modern human specimens all date between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago and were recovered from the same geographical locations. Investigators readily recovered Neanderthal-type DNA from the Neanderthal specimens, but only human DNA in the modern human remains. Based on statistical analysis these workers concluded that it was unlikely that Neanderthals made any genetic contribution to the earliest modern humans. In other words, there is no conclusive evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred nor any hint of a possible evolutionary connection

[/size]

www.reasons.org/resources/connections/200406_connections_q2/index.shtml#did_neanderthals_and_humans_interbreed

seems that althaugh many scientists agree, more others disagree.

[lionking]

lionking said:

Did Neanderthals and Humans Interbreed?
Fazale (Fuz) Rana, Ph.D.

Despite compelling evidence,1 a minority of paleoanthropologists still believe (as do some Christians) that Neanderthals made a genetic contribution to modern humans through interbreeding. If Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, then by definition, they must be human.

The case for Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding relies exclusively on morphological (structural, bodily) evidence. The first suggestion that humans and Neanderthals may have interbred came in 1999 when a team of paleoanthropologists reported a fossil find from Portugal (near Lapedo Valley) dated at 24,500 years ago. Researchers recovered the complete skeletal remains of a young male child from a burial site.2 At that time, these paleoanthropologists interpreted the anatomy of the “Lagar Velho child” to consist of a mix of modern human and Neanderthal features. From this, they concluded that these two species must be closely related and regularly met and mated with one another.3

In 2003, the same team of paleoanthropologists claimed to have discovered another modern human-Neanderthal hybrid. This specimen, recovered in Romania, consists of a single lower jaw that dates to about 34,000 to 36,000 years ago, a time when modern humans and Neanderthals appeared to co-exist in Europe. Again, these researchers interpreted the jaw and dental anatomy to be a mosaic of archaic, modern human, and Neanderthal features.4

Most paleoanthropologists dispute the interpretation of the Lagar Velho child and the Romanian finds as modern human-Neanderthal hybrids. Commenting on the Portuguese discovery, Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey Schwartz state, “The analysis . . . of the Lagar Velho child’s skeleton is a brave and imaginative interpretation, of which it is unlikely that a majority of paleoanthropologists will consider proven.”5 Most researchers think that the Lagar Velho child simply was either an unusually stocky modern human child or one with a growth abnormality and that the Romanian find represents a modern human jawbone with unusual features.

New research from the Max Plank Institute provides direct evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans did not interbreed.6 This work compared mitochondrial DNA recovered from four Neanderthals with mitochondrial DNA isolated from the remains of five modern human fossils. The Neanderthal and modern human specimens all date between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago and were recovered from the same geographical locations. Investigators readily recovered Neanderthal-type DNA from the Neanderthal specimens, but only human DNA in the modern human remains. Based on statistical analysis these workers concluded that it was unlikely that Neanderthals made any genetic contribution to the earliest modern humans. In other words, there is no conclusive evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred nor any hint of a possible evolutionary connection

[/size]

www.reasons.org/resources/connections/200406_connections_q2/index.shtml#did_neanderthals_and_humans_interbreed

seems that althaugh many scientists agree, more others disagree, but we certainly have examples in nature were species interbreed, like horse and donkey producing a mule. While those two species resemble each other and could interbreed, it is in theory, I say in theory, that "maybe" humans could interbreed with species that resembled them.

[JayUtah]

...and they spoke that mating between the two could have occured.

I'll grant it's more likely that H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens are genetically compatible than I and my cats. I'm really just pointing out the obvious: that just because you find two skeletons together doesn't mean they were breeding. Proximity and morphology are simply not enough.

I say maybe of course because it is a theory and we don't have any conclusive proof...

You have no proof of any kind that the single "alien" skull represents a new species -- alien, hominid, or otherwise. All you have is one skull. It's pure supposition to believe it's an example of a new species, and wildly irresponsible to believe it's the product of human interbreeding with space aliens.

A skull is just a skull until it is proven to represent something else.

[JayUtah]

...I say in theory, that "maybe" humans could interbreed with species that resembled them.

Then the offspring would resemble humans and not exhibit the significant deformation and other divergent properties of the skull in question.

The proponents of alien or hybrid origin for this skull seem to want to believe that sharply differentiating it from an ordinary H. sapiens cranium adds to their case that it cannot simply be a natural deformity in that species. However by pointing out all the many ways in which they believe it to be different than an ordinary human skull, they withdraw farther and farther from the premise that the mismatched parents were genetically compatible. If this skull is a cross between Homo sapiens and some otherworldly creature, what must the creature look like? And how then is the donkey-horse analogy valid?

[lionking]

It's pure supposition to believe it's an example of a new species

I am not saying other than that. Theories are suppositions, after all.

Then the offspring would resemble humans and not exhibit the significant deformation and other divergent properties of the skull in question.

it does resemble human skulls. The mothr is in fact a human , and the genes found has human genes in them. Based on that alone, without even seeing the skull, the offspring should take some features from humans, and I think it still resembles it.

they withdraw farther and farther from the premise that the mismatched parents were genetically compatible

the supposition is that H sapiens and other species that is genetically compatible with them could interbreed, and maybe it was a rare case and this is why there is not much of this skull.
On the other hand, it might be a genetical deformity.

[JayUtah]

I am not saying other than that.

You imply it when you even consider the possibility that it represents a hybrid offspring.

A donkey and horse produce a mule. As we can produce several examples of mules, we can argue that they represent a species that is a hybrid offspring of a horse and a donkey. A single abnormal equine skull is not evidence that a horse mated with a unicorn or a frog. So to wonder what possible mating occurred to produce a single abnormal specimen is to jump wholly to a premature conclusion.

Theories are suppositions, after all.

Not according to the way science uses those terms. Supposition is supposition and theory is theory; and ne'er the twain shall meet. A theory is a proposition that has demonstrated empirical proof commensurate to the scope of the proposition. A supposition is a statement which has not been tested in any way.

Based on that alone, without even seeing the skull, the offspring should take some features from humans, and I think it still resembles it.

That's not the point. Most non-veterinarians would not be able to distinguish the skulls of a donkey, a horse, and a mule. Donkeys and horses very strongly resemble each other. And they should, since that follows from their genetic compatibliity and relationship.

The errant skull in question resembles a human skull only slightly. If it is assumed to be the middle ground between human and alien, then the alien will clearly appear different from a human. Then the question is how such a morphologically different creature could be genetically compatible with humans. Genetic compatibility suggests physical similarity, since physical form comes from the genome.

The people who argue that this same-but-different skull may be the product of human and non-human interbreeding simply don't understand genetics.

the supposition is that H sapiens and other species that is genetically compatible with them could interbreed...

I'm aware of what the supposition is. I'm arguing that the supposition is self-contradictory. The argument for the skull being a human-alien hybrid tries to have its cake and eat it too.

On the other hand, it might be a genetical deformity.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that rules out the skull's being merely an abnormal H. sapiens skull. The notion that it's a hybrid species is purely contrived and self-serving.

[lionking]

You imply it when you even consider the possibility that it represents a hybrid offspring.

you always take things to unintended ways.

A single abnormal equine skull is not evidence that a horse mated with a unicorn or a frog.

I am not saying either that this is an evidence of hybrid. This is a possible explanation that has yet to be proven. It might be wrong, but it might be true.

The errant skull in question resembles a human skull only slightly.

I diagree. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull

I'm aware of what the supposition is. I'm arguing that the supposition is self-contradictory

No because it resembles a lot to me the human skull.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that rules out the skull's being merely an abnormal H. sapiens skull. The notion that it's a hybrid species is purely contrived and self-serving.

the opposite is true.

Many other explanations that can be true are mentioned in the above site: "Other explanations have included the use of cradle boarding on a hydrocephalic child,[9] brachycephaly, or Crouzon syndrome."

[lionking]

according to Pye's site : "From its extremely shallow eye sockets to the total lack of frontal sinuses, the Starchild skull's morphology cannot be accounted for by any known combination of deformities. The bone is half as thick, weighs half as much, and is at least double the strength of normal human bone--unlike anything currently on the scientific record"

www.lloydpye.com/

also: "The morphology of this skull is so highly unusual as to be unique in my forty years of experience as a medical doctor specializing in plastic and reconstructive surgery of the cranium. Because of its uniqueness, I undertook an extensive review of current literature on craniofacial abnormalities, which failed to uncover a single similar example. In short, it seems to be not only unique in my personal experience, but also unique throughout the past history of worldwide study of craniofacial abnormalities. This is significant."

www.starchildproject.com/

In all cases, I disagree with Dr. Pye that it is of alien origin. Although he says that nothing simiar of human deformities were like this one, it can still be a rare deformity not looked well into.

[lionking]

THE STARCHILD RESEARCH

Amy Vickers, Nov 2006

The Starchild Problem

Any potentially important scientific discovery is invariably met with skepticism and dismissal from a large portion of the scientific community.

One example is the ongoing debate about whether Homo Floresiensis (the "Hobbits" found in Indonesia in 2003 [1]) is actually a new species of "Homo" (human), or simply a bizarre deformity [2]. The Hobbits were discovered under strict scientific conditions [3], overseen and peer-reviewed every step of the way, with a large and ever-increasing body of evidence to support claims of discovering a new Homo [4][5][6][7]. Despite this evidence and the discovery of the partial remains of at least nine other "Hobbits" [8], many skeptics in the scientific community still insist they are not a new species at all, but merely "microcephalic dwarf" [9]. These skeptics insist it must have been a community of dwarf Homo Sapiens, despite the fact that the skeletons do not exhibit features consistent with dwarfism or Homo Sapiens [10]. When an official report published in "Science" revealed that the skull was not the result of microcephaly [11], critics were quick to suggest a new possible explanation: nanocephaly [12].



This parallels the experience of the Starchild Project, which has faced a great deal of opposition to the idea that it might be even a new type of human deformity, let alone anything more contentious. In addition to challenges posed by the skull's uncertain provenance, experts approached with the skull are unimpressed by the name "Starchild," which clearly suggests an unscientific bias toward the skull belonging to a child from the stars. The relatively few experts who have agreed to examine the Starchild skull have given mixed responses. Those who look at the skull only briefly will often dismiss it as a cradleboarded hydrocephalic, or some other well-known deformity, a few of which are discussed further here. Those who have seriously studied the skull and the test results that have been obtained are uniformly unable to explain the skull's composite characteristics [13].



The choice of name was admittedly a mistake, however, the Starchild Project team has always tried to maintain appropriate scientific skepticism and technical diligence throughout the testing process. That testing process has failed to explain the physical composition of the skull, or the unusual bone it is comprised of. Neither has it been able to uncover any similar example anywhere in the world. Respected craniofacial surgeon Dr. Ted Robinson, M.D., LMCC, FRCS (c), in Vancouver, B.C., was one of the few experts who undertook serious and detailed examination of the skull, after which he reported having undertaken "an extensive review of current literature on craniofacial abnormalities, which failed to uncover a single similar example...it seems to be unique not only in my personal experience, but also unique throughout the past history of worldwide study of craniofacial abnormalities."[14] Absent any similar example on Earth, the unusual step of considering the possibility that it may not be entirely native to Earth, becomes somewhat less unusual. However, when the scientific community is so reluctant to accept an apparently obvious new species of Homo, it is virtually impossible to expect them to willingly tolerate the far more extreme notion that proof of intelligent extraterrestrial life may exist in the Starchild skull.



References

1. John Vidal, “Bones of contention, The Guardian (online), 13 Jan 2005.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1388500,00.html> (15 Nov 2006)

2.Michael Hopkin, “Will the hobbit argument ever be resolved?” News@Nature, 6 Aug 2006.
<http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060821/full/060821-12.html> (Nov 16 2006)

3.P. Brown, T. Sutikna, M. J. Morwood, et al., “A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia,” Nature (online), 431: 1055-1061, 28 Oct 2004.
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/full/nature02999.html> (Nov 16 2006)

4.BBC News,“'Hobbit' joins human family tree,” BBC NEWS (online), Oct 27 2004.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm > (16 Nov 2006)

5. Michael Hopkin, “Old tools shed light on hobbit origins,” Nature, 411: 559, 31 May 2006, corrected 2 June 2006.
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7093/full/441559a.html> (16 Nov 2006)

6. M. J. Morwood, R. P. Soejono, R. G. Roberts, T. Sutikna, et al., “Archaeology and age of a new hominin from Flores in eastern Indonesia,” Nature (online), 431: 1087-1091, 28 Oct 2004.
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/full/nature02956.html> (15 Nov 2006)

7. Hillary Mayell, “Hobbit-Like Human Ancestor Found in Asia,” National Geographic News (online), 27 Oct 2004.
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html> (Nov 2006)

8. Discover Magazine, “More Hobbit Bones Discovered,” Discover Magazine Web Archive, 14 Oct 2005.
<http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives-archive/more-hobbits/> (16 Nov 2006)

9. Robert D. Martin, Ann M. MacLarnon, James L. Phillips, William B. Dobyns, “Flores hominid: New species or microcephalic dwarf?” The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology (online), Wiley-Liss, Inc., (2006) vol. 288A, no. 22, Abstract.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ar.a.20389> (Nov 16 2006)

10.Natural History Museum, “Latest in the Homo floresiensis debate,” Natural History Museum Archives 2005 (online), 3 March, 2006.
<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2005/march/news_3734.html> (16 Nov 2006)

11.Paul Rincon, “Hobbit was 'not a diseased human,'” BBC News (online), 3 March, 2005.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4308751.stm> (16 Nov 2006)

12. Ibid.

13.Ted Robinson, “A Preliminary Analysis of a Highly Unusual Human-Like Skull,” StarchildProject, 25 Sept 2004, 3.
<http://www.starchildproject.com/Reports_Robinson.html> (Nov 17 2006)

14. Ibid.

[/size]

www.starchildproject.com/

This might be of interest too.

[lionking]

The mere possibility of interbreeding between human species is discussed by many scientists , so it is definitely a possible theory. read this

Alan Templeton, a geneticist at Washington University in St. Louis who headed the study reported in Nature, has concluded that yes, there was interbreeding between the different groups. "We are all genetically intertwined into a single long-term evolutionary lineage," he said.

To reach his conclusion, Templeton performed a statistical analysis of 11 different haplotype trees. A haplotype is a block of DNA containing gene variations that researchers believe are passed as a unit to successive generations. By comparing genetic differences in haplotypes of populations, researchers hope to track human evolution.

Templeton also concluded that modern humans left Africa in several waves—the first about 1.7 million years ago, another between 800,000 and 400,000 years ago, and a third between 150,000 and 80,000 years ago.

Alison S. Brooks, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University, is more cautious about Templeton's conclusions. "Archaeological evidence supports multiple dispersals out of Africa," she said. "The question has always been whether these waves are dead ends. Did all of these people die? Templeton says not really, that every wave bred at least a little bit with those in Eurasia.

[/size]
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0306_0306_outofafrica.html
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0306_0306_outofafrica_2.html