UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 2

Re: Unintelligent Speculation

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:19:54 -0700
Archived: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:16:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Unintelligent Speculation

>From: Bob Shell <bob.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:24:12 -0400
>Subject: Unintelligent Speculation [was: The ETH]

>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:00:40 -0700
>>Subject: Re: The ETH

>>>Such a belief is not only an example of Unintelligent
>>>Speculation, but also of the wild, tabloid variety.

>>But to call it "unintelligent" without a crumb of evidence as
>>why you feel this way, is a great example of unintelligent

>I think the problem is that most people who are doing the
>name-calling have not had any formal training in evolution.
>Most educated laymen have not even heard of convergent
>evolution, much less have any understanding of how it is
>theorized to work.


>Convergent evolution is not wild-assed speculation, it is an
>observed phenomenon in biology. Similar environmental niches
>often create similar creatures or structures of creatures. I
>learned about this in my zoology classes in college, and that's
>been some years ago, and the theory has only gained more
>confirmation during those years.

>To the critics, I say educate yourself first before making

Bob, a pure strawman argument on your part. Nobody is debating
the validity of convergent evolution and most "critics" aren't
nearly as dumb as you think. I for one have had a great deal of
training various aspects of evolution, probably a lot more than
either you or Ed, and I still think the whole bipedal,
intelligent "platypus" argument is pure garbage. Why? Because
there is zero evidence for any of it.

Arguing convergent evolution is a fine way to counter debunker
arguments that aliens couldn't possibly look anything like us.
These are the numbskulls who really don't understand evolution
or the principle of natural selection. Why couldn't aliens look
like starfish, or lobsters, or elm trees instead? Why don't they
have 10 eyes on the end of 3 foot stalks or brains down in their
ass?  The short answer is because creatures like this either
couldn't survive in the real world or could never build a
civlization and spaceships that could eventually visit us,
that's why.

However, you and Ed are instead trying to argue that convergent
evolution somehow proves that there has been another intelligent
species very much like us that has evolved here previously on
planet Earth and is now playing hide and seek with us. No,
convergent evolution doesn't say that at all. All it says is
that under similar forces of natural selection, different
creatures will _sometimes_ develop similar morphological
features that represent one possible optimized solution for
survival in a particular environment.

Thus icthyosaurs, porpoises, and sharks all resemble one another
on the outside despite having very different evolutionary
histories. They are all large predators optimized for speed in
the water. They have similar streamlined shapes and features
like a large dorsal fin and tail fins optimized for thrust. But
that's about as far as the resemblance goes. Sharks, e.g., have
been around a lot longer than porpoises, but still have much
tinier brains.

Also similar environments don't somehow guarantee similar
morphological development. We evolved on the savannah of Africa
but no other creature out there with a different evolutionary
history resembles us. (Baboons don't count since we share a
common ancestor.)

Ed's monotremes are a very small, relatively primitive family of
creatures compared to full-fledged mammals, with zero fossil or
other evidence that they ever evolved into big brained creatures
with hands and a technological civilization.

Even if humans were to vanish and our cities crumble into dust
in millions of years, evidence of our existence would still be
around somewhere. We still find fossils of our rather few
ancestors from millions of years ago or stone tools, fire pits,
etc. But where are the platypus-man fossils, artifacts, etc.?

Or where are the similar monotreme lifeforms? There are hundreds
of living primate species with similar morphological features to
us because of our common ancestory: monkeys, lemurs, great apes,
etc. Where is the analogous monotreme "primate" line? We didn't
spring into existence out of a vacuum and neither would
"platypus man" if he ever existed. There would be similar
monotreme lifeforms around just like our many primate cousins,
or at least some fossilized remains. Where are they?

In short, we skeptics reject Ed's "platypus man" theory not
because we are narrow-minded or uneducated yokels who don't
understand evolutionary theory or concepts like convergent
evolution, but because we understand these things all too well.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the theory even
though there should be if there was anything to it. We're not
talking about creatures that come from another planet here where
hard physical evidence is impossible to obtain (except for
crashes), but creatures that supposedly evolved right here on
planet Earth and should have left some sort of clear physical
traces of their existence around.

None exists.

End of story.

David Rudiak

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast