UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 3

Re: Unintelligent Speculation

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:23:43 -0700
Archived: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:11:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Unintelligent Speculation

>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:19:54 -0700
>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]

>>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,


You have no idea about my training or education, but I believe
you understand evolution to a certain extent although we might
disagree on some aspects.

>and I still think the whole bipedal,
>intelligent "platypus" argument is pure garbage. Why? Because
>there is zero evidence for any of it.

We are being visited by creatures of unknown origin. You favor
ETH as an explanation and I don't. I think star travel is
impossible and "zero" evidence exists that it will ever be
possible. Some scientists believe it may happen in the future,
not one can tell you how it could be accomplished without
resorting to exotic theories. Since I don't believe any of
these, I've considered other possibilities. While there isn't
any hard evidence, except for the creature in the AA, there
isn't any scientific reason to reject the ancient hominid
civilization as being responsible for UFO.

>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.

I have no argument with any of this. Did you think I might?

>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.

Convergent evolution doesn't prove anything. I have suggested
that convergent evolution is an accepted scientific theory that
can account for the possibility that other hominid type
creatures could evolve.

>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.

That's correct; all ant eaters look the same and have the same
basic anatomical tools to extract ants from the environment,
even though they are from different species and even thought
those tools are designed in a different manner.

>Thus icthyosaurs, porpoises, and sharks all resemble one another
>on the outside despite having very different evolutionary

Convergence is not resemblance

>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.)

There is considerable discussion about the savanna theory and
human evolution. But that's for another thread.

>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.

There are only a few monotreme fossils. They were a transition
species between reptiles and mammals and very (almost nothing)
is known about their evolutionary history. The land masses that
now form our continents were all one huge continent when
monotremes first appeared. If they had evolved on what is now
Antarctica, there would be no evidence of their presence.

>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.
Not if it were under miles of ice or one hunderd million years old.

>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.?

If this civilization evolved in Antarctica, there would be no
evidence. If it evolved one-hundred million years ago, there
would be little evidence after fifty-thousand years.

We might not even know what we had, if we did have something
suspicious. Humans have gone from chimps to astronauts in less
than seven million years. We evolved in several different
environments, but it has been our tool making that allowed us to
succeed. I think tool making was also the niche that created the
ancient hominids. As long as they were bipedal at some point,
and adopted tool use, then the tool making would create the
hominid form and eventually lead to civilization. These hominids
could have been quite intelligent and made rapid progress and
may have gone about their business differently from us.

>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.

I agree but there are only a few monotremes fossils at all.
There isn't much of a fossil record for this period. We get a
general idea of what was happening but very little specific
information. But I'm not wedded to only monotreme, since there
might have been several different civilizations during this
period. I decided on a monotreme from examining the creature in
the AA and the features it displayed.

>There would be similar
>monotreme lifeforms around just like our many primate cousins,
>or at least some fossilized remains. Where are they?

An educated guess is that they are under the ice in Antarctica.

>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.

You reason that aliens from other stars are visiting us. You
believe this because you believe the vast trove of evidence that
all points to the fact that we are being visited. You have zero
evidence that these crafts come from the stars. Not one
scientific bit of evidence, but you still support this bizarre
notion. You have theories which account for ETH, but nothing
substantial. And my read of the literature say that it's not
possible, not now, not ever. Yet you cling to this faith. I
don't get 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.

No, not necessarily. They have left their vehicles and a few of
their fellow creatures. And they have been known to other humans
for all of recorded history, but not as neighbors.

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