Off Topic Alien's Are Here

Ok, so I've got a theory and I'm genuinely interested in this. Imagine this - 230 million years ago, amongst other life on earth including sharks and other marine life, dinosaurs appeared appeared in the Triassic period. They roamed around, eating plants and each other, functioning very well, thank you very much.

165 million years later at the end of the Cretaceous Period, something happened, something we don't know 100% but we think is a meteor and it wiped them all out. At the time, dinosaurs were kind of roaming around, eating plants and each other. As the dominant species on planet earth, they managed to get through 165 million years without really changing or inventing anything. It then took 64.8 million years for man to appear, with "adam and eve" allegedly being on earth 209,000 years ago. This is a science claim by the way and still not 100% clear; we're really only 100% on man being around 80,000 years ago for sure.

So let's compare the life of dinosaurs to our own existence. In just 80,000 years, we - the human being - have gone from fire, caves, flint and so on to Facebook, Tinder, Capitalism and mass genocide. We are the only conscious species. We have made over 300 species of animals extinct in just 500 years. We are hugely dominant. We're the only species who procreate for 'fun', who have religion, who fight because of it. We see in a certain way, we talk, our vocal cords are unique, we don't understand the brain, we are incredibly uniquely adapted to the environment we're in and are impossibly resourceful. We're talking about impossible timeframes in the grand scheme of the world; to go from no technology to "mobiles for everyone" and over 1bn users of Facebook in less than a decade.

The cycle of events that had to happen for man to live/thrive on this planet are so deliberate and specific that for them to occur naturally the odds are literally impossible. It's statistically more likely that this planet exists with many others like it, and life makes its' way there than for life to be born out of the planet itself. So I put it to you, sirs, that WE are the aliens. We have spread out from our home planet(s) and found Earth to keep our species going. We are following the same path - exhausting resource, threatening life, pushing boundaries to find new planets to support our habitation. Essentially the Matrix was right - not from the A.I. aspect of life, but from the idea that we are in fact a galactic "virus" (quoting Mr. Smith).

My thesis will be published later this year. An accompanying DVD and live show to follow in 2018.

 

Try telling that to some Isis militants will you mate

 

Ok ok but I'm not letting you probe me no matter how persuasive you think you are

 

Oh, come on - not even for science? Or comedy?

 

There's a well established answer to this called the weak anthropic principle. Basically it states that it doesn't matter how improbable it is that intelligent life arose (everywhere except Sunderland), as the only way that intelligent life can be asking the question of how improbable it is is *if those things have already happened in the first place.*

Improbable events can sometimes lead to counter-intuitive conclusions. A famous one is the following question:

Let's say there's a test for a disease that only 0.01% of the population have got. The test is 99.99% accurate.

You test positive for the disease. What are the odds that you actually have it?




The answer is 50:50.

The reason for this is, by virtue of the test being positive, we know for certain that one of two improbable things has already happened. Either you have the disease, or the test has failed. Given the odds of each of those happening are the same, the chance of it being one or the other is 50:50.

Back to the anthropic principle:

We know intelligent life exists on Earth. [Citation needed] Therefore one of two things has happened:

1) Intelligent life evolved on Earth
2) Intelligent life evolved somewhere else *AND* evolved further, leading to invention of the (impossible according to our current understanding of physics) tech to cross the huge distances required and seed life here on earth.


Given that, almost by definition 1 is much more likely than 2 (given that it's probably equally improbable that intelligent life evolves anywhere - ref, Sunderland - and option 2 requires additional improbable things to happen) then the overwhelmingly likely explanation is that humans involved on Earth.

 

Don't forget to cite me in your thesis

 

Once I've dispelled your ideas, I will. Give me a couple of days.

Think your "odds are 50:50" isn't quite right. That's more a Schrodinger idea, binary of it either is or isn't. That doesn't make the ODDS 50:50 (or 2/1) because the odds of you having said illness are 1000/1 based on a 0.1% statistical chance of having it? Then there's economic factors of the illness, background of those that have it, etc., so 1000/1 is the minimum.

Anywho, that's besides the point. You're looking at the problem from one area. How do you explain that human beings carry so many unique traits, so unfit for this habitat? That our birthing is unique and vulnerable, so by right we should never have been able to get to this point because we're so ludicrously vulnerable at a young age? How do we possibly evolve so insanely against anything else in nature?

We've gone from bashing rocks together to building spaceships in the cosmic blink of an eye. It's crazy. Yet a bird that eats the nut from inside a nutshell has never, in millions of years, developed anything more than a technique of waiting for something else to break it open!!! Bonkers, mate. Everything in nature has balance and reason, the food chain or the statement so prophetic Sir Elton made a song about it (circle of life), except us. We are alien, regardless of origins, on this planet. We seem like a mistake. But surely it's more likely to be a deliberate one than the overwhelming evidence that it simply couldn't be nature's mistake?

 

Mr T has a better theory on aliens....

 

The chances that life doesn't exist elsewhere in the Galaxy, nevermind the Universe is statistically remote. Is someone seriously telling us that we just appeared out of thin air at some point following the demise of the dinosaurs? BS. It's pretty ****ing obvious what is going on. We were put here by some alien race as some weird experiment [unless we did it ourselves], they created these ancient monuments so that we could worship them and the result of this worship is religion. God, Allah, Elvis, whichever mythical being you decide to worship is some ancient alien. Nothing more. The Bayeux Tapestry - Shows Halley's Comet and also strangely enough depicts a spaceship with a man inside it. That is from 1066 ffs.

We are probably still being visited by these sick ****ers so that they can see how their ****ed up little experiment is doing. They are probably flying about and laughing at all the **** they have caused.

 

You see? Windy's got the right idea. It's clearly rubbish that 65 million years ago there was (allegedly) a rodent. 64,999,999,999 years later, there's still fcking rodents. They're not super-sized, they don't build computers, they don't even log on. They do what they did 65 million years ago - fck and eat bugs. They get eaten by larger things that also had ancestors around 50 million years ago. The notion that a dinosaur "evolved" to being smaller and feathery over 200 million years, whilst an ape managed to turn into all-conquering man in about 0.000000001% of the same time, is so fcking absurd I can't understand why it's accepted as solid fact.

 

Can't say I get this crackpot theory Roland tbh. Why couldn't homo sapiens have evolved however many tens of thousands of years ago to develop have opposable thumbs and a brain large enough to problem solve and develop complex language? What about all the other humanoid species that existed before and alongside human beings? It's pretty compelling evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

Think you are confusing development with evolution. There were dramatic changes in the Dinosaurs during the Triassic and they flourished during the Jurassic due to the climate at the time. Significant evolutionary trends also appeared during the break up of Pangaea as they became isolated on different continental fragments but by the Cretaceous they were on the wane anyway. Fact that they survived in the form they did for long periods was mainly due to the lack of predators, particularly for the big ones.
Humanoids have actually evolved very little - we evolved to stand upright so that we could run and hunt properly, our foreheads have got smaller and our brains have got a bit bigger. We have developed because we have the ability to apply logic and deduction. These features are less well developed in apes but there nonetheless.
That unique cycle of events you talk about probably occurred millions of times during the 3.4billion years since the earth formed but the apes hadn't evolved then. I mean what do humans actually need to survive - an atmosphere that contains enough oxygen to allow us to breathe, together with mostly inert gases, water, a food source, a temperature that is not too different to our body temperature and a shield to keep out the electromagnetic radiation from the sun.
Another point is that you accept that humans have developed so much over the last 200000years but we are only just now starting to be able to explore other planets and probably won't send humans there for a few years yet. But in your theory we were advanced enough to travel from another planet over 200000years ago. So why did we then take a huge development step back, requiring that all of that 200000years to discover fire, invent the wheel, build flying machines etc. Doesn't add up to me.

 

It could be that we weren't an advanced race. It may be that an advanced race put us on this planet. That would explain why there have been sightings of so called UFO's. They are visiting the planet to see how we are doing. It's funny that UFO sightings increased considerably once the human race developed radio and nuclear weapons. Our closet neighbouring star is Proxima Centauri, only 4.25 light years away. Could it be that the first radio transmissions alerted our neighbours and they thought that it was time to pay a long overdue visit?

 

Woah, woah, woah professor. Now stating as cast iron, indisputable fact what dinosaurs did 150 million years ago seems a little conceptually impossible, given we have no idea why Egyptians built pyramids or why Mayans built temples in the ways they did, don't you think? I'm just using a couple of examples, but you back up your debunking with "That unique cycle of events you talk about probably occurred millions of times"......it probably did? Says who?

What I'm saying is that dinosaurs evolved, developed, devolved, mutated, changed and so on over a VAAAAAAAST period of time with very little in the way of what we today classify as evolution, right? You're saying that they stayed the same MAINLY because larger predators didn't exist - what the fck difference did that make, we're not larger than many of the things we're successfully killing - what happened to the creatures that were "smarter" than the dinosaurs, how didn't they make an impact in the way we humans have? Mathematically and statistically it doesn't add up, even though you're using vernacular such as "probably" indicating the statistics are in your arguments favour - which they're not? It's such a confusing message.

Your last paragraph kind of misses the point entirely. I'm saying that as a species on another planet, maybe in another solar system, we're massively advanced. We can travel across great expanses and our species, through our in-built "exhaust all resources/kill all life" attitude, is out of options and wants - again, through our in-built need to survive at all costs - to start again. We wouldn't send a ready-made, ready-to-destroy bunch of scientists, wouldn't make any sense. Besides which, politically who would get the right to go? So we sent the beginnings of our species to let it survive. So two things - either the advanced race died out long ago following the successful impregnation of planet Earth, or time is indeed relative and we're still being helped/observed even now. We could even, arguably, be talking alternative reality. The fact is we don't know, nobody does, so let's not pretend like we do!!

All I'm saying is we seem so ill-equipped to live harmoniously and peacefully on this planet, in stark contrast to BILLIONS of years of life, that we don't seem to be "FROM" this planet.

FIN.

 

Just wanna pick up on one point from the original post "We're the only species who procreate for 'fun'" factually incorrect, Dolphins do it for fun too and a lot from what I can remember (I'm not googling dolphin sex on a work computer tho)

But yeah aliens and sh1t, messed up right.

 

No.

 

The rest of what I said is more disputable (at least, involves a certain amount of opinion), but the 50:50 odds thing is established mathematical fact. Think of it like this:

Take 10,000 people. If the odds of having the disease are 0.01% (1 in 10,000) then one of those 10,000 people will have the disease.

Give all 10,000 people the test. One will (most probably) test positive, as he has the disease, and the test is 99.99% accurate.

9,999 people who don't have the disease take the test. Given the test is 99.99% accurate, (i.e. has a failure rate of 1 in 10,000) one of them will most likely get a false positive result.

So you get two positive results. One accurate, one false positive.

If all you know for sure is that you got a positive result, all you know is that you are one of those two people. Therefore your odds of having the disease are 50%.

Mind blowing, isn't it?

(ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem)

 

So if I follow this, an incredibly advanced race arrived at earth 80 - 209,000 years ago, looking for somewhere to colonise.

It then decided to do so as incredibly unsophisticated proto humans rather than as the advanced race they were.

Why ?

 

Don't question the methods of the super-species, mate, you'll not see morning.....

Look, my grant from Cambridge, Harvard, MIT and Oxford hasn't turned up just yet so the testing is in its first phase. But early suggestions are that bringing "alien" advanced technology to Earth so quickly has a number of issues;

1 - resource. There was only really enough power to send embryonic human dna to the planet, not fully advanced people as life support hasn't reached those levels yet. So sending down a million people with all the technology good to go for nuclear power, hydro energy and hoverboards (plus of course self-tying shoes) wasn't possible.
2 - time. The time impact of travelling over such large distances meant there was no guarantee on the state of equipment for that length of space travel.
3 - limitations. What were they going to transport over light years? A Nuclear Power Plant? A City? A huge fcking lego set? Seems to me they already sent information enough to establish civilisations in a relatively short space of time, with seemingly rapid acceleration to the point where today we can see into deep(ish) space.

I mean, come on man - this isn't the "why?" part, surely? These bits are obvious.

 

But why not send highly developed DNA rather than the kind of backward stuff ?