Teaching The Young

[Seth]

I am a high school educator. I have degrees in and teach earth/space science and biology in the public school system. I have been following and evaluating this and other sources of paranormal phenomenon for quite some time.

One issue I have been searching for is a link between what we currently observe from natural science (99% link between humans and chimps) and the supposed alien interactions. The material I have studied as a biologist and geologist point to a 4.6-billion-old-earth and an evolved race of primates. Regardless of interactions posited by abductees, my own thoughts, or others, this is the evidence that describes modern teachings.

To the question: What evidence can I pose to elicit meaningful conversation in a topic that posits little in the way of tangible support?

***Proud to be new member. I appreciate your refreshing individuality Gene and Dave!***

 

[BrandonD]

That is one of the problems with any sort of subject that's outside the mainstream: people generally want a sound-bite or a few sentences that will convince people of the reality of this "fringe" topic. But there are no such items, anyone who puts one or two lines forward as proof is probably compromising the truth somewhere.

First of all, science is only as good and accurate as the scientists who practice it. And in this world which has become absolutely insane, even our esteemed scientists have blatantly obvious agendas. One of these is to combat the rise of religion. Because of this, contemporary science is not simply a clear-eyed objective look at the natural world (which is what it should be).

For example, the 99% figure that you cited is not exactly set in stone. Every new publication knocks it forward or back a few points, I think according to the National Academy of Sciences it presently resides at about 95%. Next month it may be at 98% or 93%.

This might make you wonder why scientists would publish such a thing when it is clearly not yet precisely determined? The scientific establishment absolutely flayed Pons & Fleischman for publicizing their experiments which they deemed "not precisely verified", and yet it is completely ok in the case of apes. Why is that?

It is because science (meaning the leaders of the scientific establishment) have an agenda! In this particular case, their agenda is to combat religion and prove that we descended from apes.

Science and Religion have become a political race, with their constituents trying to win supporters among the public, truth be damned. It is a sad state of affairs, because I have respect for both of these institutions in their pure conceptual form.

The idea of a 4.6 billion year-old earth sounds pretty sane to me. As for an evolved race of primates, the fact is that the evidence is not nearly as cut-and-dry as you may have been led to believe.

There are no sound bites to convince people, but there are books to read that you might be interested in. For starters, Forbidden Archaeology by Michael Cremo. This is a scholarly book that presents a horde of evidence for the existence of modern homo sapiens and human civilizations literally millions of years before we supposedly "ascended" from our ape ancestors.

Once the door is opened to the idea that what you're being told by our educational institutions is not necessarily the unvarnished truth, you can read other points of view with a properly open mind.

 

[fitzbew88]

I am a high school educator. I have degrees in and teach earth/space science and biology in the public school system....

...To the question: What evidence can I pose to elicit meaningful conversation in a topic that posits little in the way of tangible support?

Am I interpreting your posting correctly: you wish to know how to have meaningful conversation about the paranormal with high school students (14-18 years old) even though there is no tangible evidence supporting it?

I don't understand the connection to aliens in your posting.

 

[Seth]

I don't understand the connection to aliens in your posting.

Well...If there is a contemporary connection to biology or geology with the topics at hand here I would like to know about it. Maybe then, I could incorporate it in modern biology/geology discussions.

 

[Seth]

"everything in between these marks was what BrandonD said earlier"

I agree...[size=x-small]mostly[/size]

 

[fitzbew88]

...If there is a contemporary connection to biology or geology with the topics at hand here I would like to know about it. Maybe then, I could incorporate it in modern biology/geology discussions.

I think I understand, but if I'm off-base just ignore me. Here are some suggestions for raising the topic without causing widespread chaos and disruption (you are well aware of how some parents will react to such discussion):

1) Descriptions of aliens would be useful for discussions on evolution. What types of environments would cause evolution to select for such characteristics? And in the literature, you can find lots of bizarre feature sets.

2) UFO physical trace cases might offer some "tangents" for discussion in the realm of geology. Many claims of bizarre soil features (post landing) might be fun to try and replicate in a lab.

Mainstream science is finally admitting that "they" are out there, perhaps it is time to discuss it in high school classrooms without anxiety.

Off the cuff, I think that trying to wrap ET into a discussion of sociology would be very exciting. When I was in high school, though, sociology was not an available subject since society had not yet formed. (just kidding, just kidding --- it was a college level course.)

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I am a high school educator. I have degrees in and teach earth/space science and biology in the public school system. I have been following and evaluating this and other sources of paranormal phenomenon for quite some time.

One issue I have been searching for is a link between what we currently observe from natural science (99% link between humans and chimps) and the supposed alien interactions. The material I have studied as a biologist and geologist point to a 4.6-billion-old-earth and an evolved race of primates. Regardless of interactions posited by abductees, my own thoughts, or others, this is the evidence that describes modern teachings.

To the question: What evidence can I pose to elicit meaningful conversation in a topic that posits little in the way of tangible support?

***Proud to be new member. I appreciate your refreshing individuality Gene and Dave!***

So you don't have any ideas of your own?

 

[Seth]

So you don't have any ideas of your own?

Of course! But a good teacher is always looking to enhance the experience.

We are currently discussing evolution which inevitably dives in to the existence of god and many issues concerning the validity of religious dogma and influence. We have a structured debate that is always entertaining!

I teach a section on astrobiology which the students find very enlightening. Also, we discuss cultural influences the heavens have imposed in my earth/space class. Sections of Zeitgeist have come in handy, here.

I guess the purpose of this post was to point out that there is overwhelming evidence for particular explanations taught today (human-chimp DNA, geologic models, etc.). Many times I hear theories or explanations for “the way things really are” from paranormal sources but they miss on so many levels and lack needed evidence. For example, evolution is supported both genetically and geologically. These correlations fly in the face of genetic claims about alien intervention.

Also, I am searching for new innovative strategies to incorporate and investigate. Thanks for the replies.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

So you don't have any ideas of your own?

.....I guess the purpose of this post was to point out that there is overwhelming evidence for particular explanations taught today (human-chimp DNA, geologic models, etc.). Many times I hear theories or explanations for “the way things really are” from paranormal sources but they miss on so many levels and lack needed evidence. For example, evolution is supported both genetically and geologically. These correlations fly in the face of genetic claims about alien intervention.

So where is the definitive, evolutionary evidence for the leap from primate to human?
Have we found that yet?
Correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't a chimp have more chromosomes than a human? Also the fact that a vast chunk of our DNA is classed as "junk" DNA , meaning that science still knows very little about our genetic make-up or how any of that affected our evolution.
And when did the giant leap from an almost pack mentality, hunter gatherer societies to societies that began sowing crops and producing weaponry from metal substances occur?
Do we have any definitive date on that one? It seems like that leap happened in a very short space of time compared to the very long time periods observed for the other evolutionary processes.
I realise these are high school grade questions but as i recall this is where it all falls down. The experts seem to have only theories on these topics and they can't seem to agree.
What are your thoughts?

 

[Ron Collins]

I applaud you for having the courage to challenge your students by presenting various theories.

The Achilles heel for evolution has and probably always will be defined not by the primate tree structure but by plants. There is no evolutionary link from non-flowering plants to the more aesthetic variety. Darwin himself understood this but opted to assume that a link would have to be found. Of course there are many examples of natural selection and evolution that quite logically show that the theory does hold some water. We can all debate that until we are blue in the face, the fact is we don’t have any absolute definitive proof either way.

The “Intelligent Design” argument has always loved picking at the small cracks in the façade of Evolution. Rightfully so in my opinion… though probably not for the reasons you are assuming right now. I think what is good for the goose is good for the alternative gander. That we humans are somehow genetically altered by alien entities or “Intelligent Alien Design” is just as provable in the real world as the benevolent bearded invisible man. In fact some will point to scripture as support for confirming this.

Of course you must also consider that there is intelligence behind evolution. Or that a technologically advanced group of scientists found a nice laboratory. The laboratory was filled with creatures going through the slow process of natural selection after creation from the big bang (could be interpreted as the “let there be light” event) and decided to see if they could jump start something.

The thing is, when you stop looking at fossils and start exploring alternative theories they are all just as correct and just as provable. Then your not talking about biology as much as sociology or philosophy.

My suggestion is to ask your students to not to find supportive evidence for these theories, but to provide other theories that are just as provable. Then ask them how they would go about proving that theory. This will show that while science does not have all the answers, it does provide a means to gain empirical evidence to defend or deflate some theories. At very least it will get them thinking, of course if you live in Texas it will most likely get you fired.

Until then, I will go with the “Giant super intelligent diamond covered mites that live in the earth’s core invented all life on the surface on a dare” theory.

Good with the bad I suppose.

Good luck.

 

[Seth]

So where is the definitive, evolutionary evidence for the leap from primate to human?
Physiological and genetic evidence from: common primate cousin-->Australopithecus-->Hominids. We are talking on the order of 40 different identified species used to construct this theory.


Have we found that yet?
It is believed so, according to the short summary above.


Correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't a chimp have more chromosomes than a human?
Yes they do. More correctly they have 24 pairs to our 23. However, this is a similar match to other hybrids namely ligers, wolphins, geep, turken, zedonks, and others. It is believed that humans and chimps can hybridize, which would definitely open eyes. My guess is this has happened already but is extremely controversial to be sure. This is not something a scientist would want to be known for doing.


Also the fact that a vast chunk of our DNA is classed as "junk" DNA , meaning that science still knows very little about our genetic make-up or how any of that affected our evolution.
This is typically considered a fallacy in scientific circles as many genes solely exist to control others. For example, we have genetics to be hexadactyl (six fingered) but other genes exist to counteract this arrangement. Talk about engineered! This idea fits the forums nicely as if we have genes that interact, is it possible some of these genes could have been deliberately manufactured by a superior race? Again, I say yes. We can genetically engineer a goat to secrete spider silk through its udders, we can genetically create glowing tobacco plants from the genes of a firefly...


And when did the giant leap from an almost pack mentality, hunter gatherer societies to societies that began sowing crops and producing weaponry from metal substances occur?
These are behavioral changes which can occur much quicker and be much more pervasive (they can be emulated or taught quickly). All the great apes use tools of some sort whether it is a reed to pull termites out of their holes or rocks to break nuts and fruits apart. A chimp has been filmed using a stick to gauge the depth of a stream before crossing. How different are these mentalities than ours? I have seen two 350 pound hogs trained to stand on their hind legs and summon-wrestle as part of a psychology experiment. Conditioning is very powerful. Individuals can be conditioned by their environment as well.


Do we have any definitive date on that one?
No, archeology is not definitive, no science is. All we can say is this is the oldest evidence of tools being used. That date does not mark the beginning or end of anything it just shows us that at this indicated period this creature was mostly likely using this tool. All scientists can do is summarize the best data they currently can obtain. The earth was once thought to be flat as all the current data at that time pointed to a flat terrain. Eratosthenes was only able to determine the correct interpretation after observing differing shadows being cast on the earths surface. It did not necessarily make the earlier humans "wrong".

An aside here: I feel this is at the very core of the paranormal topics we discuss. We struggle to find correct explanations because we may not have a perspective large enough to see the curvature of the earth.

Let me also conjecture the ideas I support can be equally-perceptively false. It is important for all to realize this when forming opinions or explanations for phenomena.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

This is typically considered a fallacy in scientific circles as many genes solely exist to control others. For example, we have genetics to be hexadactyl (six fingered) but other genes exist to counteract this arrangement. Talk about engineered! This idea fits the forums nicely as if we have genes that interact, is it possible some of these genes could have been deliberately manufactured by a superior race? Again, I say yes. We can genetically engineer a goat to secrete spider silk through its udders, we can genetically create glowing tobacco plants from the genes of a firefly...

So are you saying that you believe the possibility of the human species being "engineered"? And if so, who was responsible?

These are behavioral changes which can occur much quicker and be much more pervasive (they can be emulated or taught quickly). All the great apes use tools of some sort whether it is a reed to pull termites out of their holes or rocks to break nuts and fruits apart. A chimp has been filmed using a stick to gauge the depth of a stream before crossing. How different are these mentalities than ours? I have seen two 350 pound hogs trained to stand on their hind legs and summon-wrestle as part of a psychology experiment. Conditioning is very powerful. Individuals can be conditioned by their environment as well.

Yes but there's an monumental evolutionary difference in the ability of hogs or chimps manipulating twigs and standing on their hind legs, to humans creating the "H" Bomb, for example. I've seen videos of dogs who appear to sing and climb trees (although not at the same time) and cockatoos who were trained to ride miniature bicycles. This doesn't mean that soon we will be seeing Irish Wolfhounds on American Idol singing like Beyonce or 290 pound Galahs riding Harley Davidsons.
What "environment" would humans have been exposed to making the leap from using twigs as tools to making weapons made from copper and bronze and organizing themselves into armies and employing complicated battle strategies.
Rudimentry tool building skills does not equate to the kind of evolutionary leap that we see with the Human species.

No, archeology is not definitive, no science is. All we can say is this is the oldest evidence of tools being used. That date does not mark the beginning or end of anything it just shows us that at this indicated period this creature was mostly likely using this tool. All scientists can do is summarize the best data they currently can obtain. The earth was once thought to be flat as all the current data at that time pointed to a flat terrain. Eratosthenes was only able to determine the correct interpretation after observing differing shadows being cast on the earths surface. It did not necessarily make the earlier humans "wrong".

In other word "science", like the rest of us can only guess and theorise as to how the great advancement of humans has occurred.

 

[Seth]

All I am saying is that the study of genetics in its current state of knowledge has peculiarities about its structure and interaction. Since many genes exist solely to override or correct others, this points to an engineered arrangement. How could this be anything less? Can you convince me that through recombination and mutation that a new gene will form, for who's sole purpose is to override another? This seems very implausible to me. If you don't like the look of your kitchen you don't tear down the whole house and rebuild; you just remodel what you want to change. In this manner, if the phenotypical arrangement does not meet the maker's standard a genotypical adjustment can be made rather than starting completely over.

As for who is responsible: Do gene by gene corrections seam like the work of a god? It appears to be an imperfect or at least a "quick-fix" way of correcting or changing a collective genetic make up. What I mean is, if an all powerful god made humans and therefore a genetic code, why did he not get-it-right the first time. Why all the subsequent genetic material to alter human genetics? This seems like the work of highly intelligent individuals with an imperfect view and methodology for manipulating a genetic experiment.

Tools: My very argument is that there is no difference between the abilities of "lesser" organisms and our own. Essentially, I am saying that the tools organisms use are congruent with their particular mental capacity. The ratio is one to one. A chimp has less logical power therefore he uses a twig. A human has a greater capacity therefore he uses a back-hoe.

Science, as I said earlier is a best guess description of events. Typically, the current scientific model of any phenomena is the one with the most evidence. Is this not true?

 

[Ron Collins]

All I am saying is that the study of genetics in its current state of knowledge has peculiarities about its structure and interaction. Since many genes exist solely to override or correct others, this points to an engineered arrangement. How could this be anything less? Can you convince me that through recombination and mutation that a new gene will form, for who's sole purpose is to override another? This seems very implausible to me. If you don't like the look of your kitchen you don't tear down the whole house and rebuild; you just remodel what you want to change. In this manner, if the phenotypical arrangement does not meet the maker's standard a genotypical adjustment can be made rather than starting completely over.

I never really thought about this. Are you saying that it appears there was once a base code and that code has been increasingly altered and amended to combat issues that arise? Sorry if the question sounds basic. When it comes to biology, I the guy that got straight B‘s.

As for who is responsible: Do gene by gene corrections seam like the work of a god? It appears to be an imperfect or at least a "quick-fix" way of correcting or changing a collective genetic make up. What I mean is, if an all powerful god made humans and therefore a genetic code, why did he not get-it-right the first time. Why all the subsequent genetic material to alter human genetics? This seems like the work of highly intelligent individuals with an imperfect view and methodology for manipulating a genetic experiment.

=+= Heretical Statement Warring =+= Perhaps "God" did create us in his image. Perhaps our creator is an imperfect being whose science was/is considered magic. Yikes, its all very Battlestar Galatica.

Tools: My very argument is that there is no difference between the abilities of "lesser" organisms and our own. Essentially, I am saying that the tools organisms use are congruent with their particular mental capacity. The ratio is one to one. A chimp has less logical power therefore he uses a twig. A human has a greater capacity therefore he uses a back-hoe.

This seems nice on the surface, but what events/necessity would cause only one animal out of a billion species over billions of years to suddenly function at a level of cognition several orders of magnitude greater than all species before or contemporary with it? Conventional thinking is that these abilities come about by the necessity of an organism to adapt to its environment for the grand goal of continued existence. Why do we have a greater logical power? From things I learned in college, I am expected to believe that once man settled into stationary settlements and began cultivating crops and keeping livestock he had more time to ponder and grow intellectually. Yet, it is not sufficiently explained how we got to that point. How did we invent architecture, engineering, sailing, clothing, farming, social rituals, art, etc. How did we acquire these ideas/technology in a fraction of the total time our species has been around? Where is the proof for the gradualism? This is only part of the reason that the intelligent gradualism we are taught makes little sense to me. There simply has not been enough time.

 

[Seth]

I never really thought about this. Are you saying that it appears there was once a base code and that code has been increasingly altered and amended to combat issues that arise? Sorry if the question sounds basic. When it comes to biology, I the guy that got straight B‘s.

Well, this explanation seems as good as recombination and mutation. Today's science points to these as likely progenitors of new genes. Recombination can account for diversity, but mutations are nearly always lethal or negative to the individual. Also, positive mutations have not been observed. Scientists like to point out the malaria/sickle-cell relationship (traits for sickle-cell make you resistant to malaria), but in the long run sickle-cell is not something you really want. Let alone it is hard to say this is a positive mutational occurrence!

[/quote]
=+= Heretical Statement Warring =+= Perhaps "God" did create us in his image. Perhaps our creator is an imperfect being whose science was/is considered magic. Yikes, its all very Battlestar Galatica.
[/quote]

OK. This changes the motives and purpose of an all-powerful omnipotent being now doesn't it? A god with errors, eh? There must be and oxymoron or paradox in there somewhere. If anything it points to creator(s) different than portrayed by the mainstream religions. Errrr, as if we are not aware of that already.

[/quote]
This seems nice on the surface, but what events/necessity would cause only one animal out of a billion species over billions of years to suddenly function at a level of cognition several orders of magnitude greater than all species before or contemporary with it?
[/quote]

Truly, survival of the fittest is still at play. It is a tangible interaction among competitive creatures in competitive environments. Look at the cranial capacity of ancestral hominids and even further back, the Australopithecus. We have nearly tripled the cranial capacity in a matter of 5 million years.

However, I do not think we are orders of magnitude above other creatures. Because we can control them does not make us much smarter. Additionally, if we think chemistry and physics are the toughest things going then we must be the most self-gratifying group ever!

To answer the question holistically, there cannot be one specific answer to "why we are the way we are". If that is what one is looking for, he need look no further than the closest temple. There, they have one sentence explanations that "seem" to fit any paradigm.

I am not trying to over simplify matters by suggesting an "alien" source of genetics. I am just suggesting the addition of new corrective genetic material may be of an alien source (god?...not with the methodology imposed, in my opinion). A source much needed to explain the addition of genetic material. There are major issues with mutation, remember?

[/quote]
Conventional thinking is that these abilities come about by the necessity of an organism to adapt to its environment for the grand goal of continued existence. Why do we have a greater logical power?
[/quote]

Because of evolution no doubt. The ability to problem solve has served us well and allowed us to survive.

All I am commenting on is the addition of new genetic material. This argument is quickly becoming cyclical because one could argue the capacity of our brain is a direct result of phenotypical genetic code (which it is).

[/quote]
From things I learned in college, I am expected to believe that once man settled into stationary settlements and began cultivating crops and keeping livestock he had more time to ponder and grow intellectually. Yet, it is not sufficiently explained how we got to that point. How did we invent architecture, engineering, sailing, clothing, farming, social rituals, art, etc. How did we acquire these ideas/technology in a fraction of the total time our species has been around? Where is the proof for the gradualism? This is only part of the reason that the intelligent gradualism we are taught makes little sense to me. There simply has not been enough time.
[/quote]

Weaver bird nests, hermit crabs using shells, plumage of a bird of paradise, any animal's mating rituals, dolphins hunting with bubble curtains, shrikes and impalement...all of these mark an intelligence congruent with the human examples above, in my opinion.

Gradualism is still taught is academia. However, punctuated equilibrium has gained so much ground that it is the most popular model described today. As I said before, science is only conveying the current model supported by the most evidence.

I am merely conjecturing this "alien source" for the corrective nature and implementation of new genes. It seems to fit a model of abduction activity and provides a link into the creation of new corrective genetics. I my mind, an alien creature would only be interested in implementing new genes or corrective genes into the system. To remove or revamp sections of the code can have disastrous connotations as many genes are linked. It is far simpler to create a gene with alleles that counteract specific traits of an individual. I am certain, have we the technology, we as humans would tackle the issue in a very similar way.

Sorry so long. Thanks for letting me get that out.

[I haven't figured out the deal with the quote reply feature yet, hopefully this posts ok!]

 

[Seth]

Yup, the above looks like shit! Sorry again.

 

[Ron Collins]

Yup, the above looks like shit! Sorry again.

Each quoted area has to have a begining "[" quote=Seth "]" and an end "[" /quote "]"
(just remove the "" from the examples and you'll have it.)

If you want multiple areas, just break them up and make sure each section has your begining, text, and end. Let me know if this is not clear and I will send you an example.

 

[Seth]

Yup, the above looks like shit! Sorry again.

Each quoted area has to have a begining "[" quote=Seth "]" and an end "[" /quote "]"
(just remove the "" from the examples and you'll have it.)

If you want multiple areas, just break them up and make sure each section has your begining, text, and end. Let me know if this is not clear and I will send you an example.

Thanks, Ron. I have two stars for a reason!

 

[The Pair of Cats]

.....I am merely conjecturing this "alien source" for the corrective nature and implementation of new genes. It seems to fit a model of abduction activity and provides a link into the creation of new corrective genetics. I my mind, an alien creature would only be interested in implementing new genes or corrective genes into the system. To remove or revamp sections of the code can have disastrous connotations as many genes are linked. It is far simpler to create a gene with alleles that counteract specific traits of an individual. I am certain, have we the technology, we as humans would tackle the issue in a very similar way.

That depends on what the "Alien"Source" had in mind for humans when the implementations occurred.
One could only imagine what would occur if the average human lifespan was "made" to be let's say 500 years with an immunity to all diseases and an all but bullet proof metabolism.
Mi point is, if the Alien creator knew the inherent nature of humans he may have built in "flaws" for a very good reason i.e for population control.

I essentially agree with your hypothesis. Man is now heading to a point where genetic manipulation and engineering is racing ahead and who really knows what's going on behind the scenes. It's fair to say that if we are heading there, what's the bet that our progenitor(s) had achieved a extremely high level of the expertise the we as humans aspire to.

 

[Seth]

Mi point is, if the Alien creator knew the inherent nature of humans he may have built in "flaws" for a very good reason i.e for population control.

Maybe, but it looks as though they need to revisit the population problem. We are multiplying like bacteria in a petri dish!