In the beginning...reverse evolution.

[Carl White]

If we were descendents of some advanced alien species, we would not share genes with even the most primitive of lifeforms on earth as we are.

Why do you say this? Surely if an alien species turned up and needed quick adaptation for their future offspring, then engineering-in native genetic adaptations in-vitro to their own genes that they knew to bring intellect and sentient capacity would be the way to do it.

You're suggesting that they'd modify their own genomes (assuming they were biologically similar enough for this to even be possible) until they were 98% genetically identical to chimpanzees? There wouldn't be much left that's alien if they did. No motivation.

[alexjrgreen]

I was debating in my thoughts just now why it might be that the original hebrew Genesis begins by naming god as 'elohim', which I understand to be a female plural

'Elohim' 'god' and 'mayim' 'water' can be both singular and plural, like the English word 'species'. In the first sentence of Genesis 'elohim' is singular.

The feminine plural would be 'elohot, not that you can rely on analysis when the words have clearly been handed down from even older languages...

[alexjrgreen]

There is no indiciation whatsover for the existance of a "more intelligent ancestor".

All of the abilities that humans have turn up in old world monkeys and primates. Putty-Nosed Guenons can talk, albeit in morse code. Gibbons can sing. Macacques coo at their babies. Chimpanzees learn to use tools.

What this suggests is permutation of genes from a very bright common ancestor.

[Skipjack]

What this suggests is permutation of genes from a very bright common ancestor.

I would not necessarily say so.

Putty-Nosed Guenons can talk, albeit in morse code

This is a very strechy interpretation of their form of oral comunication.
It is most definitely not Morse Code.

[chrismb]

You're suggesting that they'd modify their own genomes (assuming they were biologically similar enough for this to even be possible) until they were 98% genetically identical to chimpanzees? There wouldn't be much left that's alien if they did. No motivation.

No. I'm suggesting they would modify their own genomes to a creature who is a common ancestor of ours and the chimps, and from that common ancestor, then we've both evolved [that is to say, reverse evolved, so as to harden us up to survive earth] along different paths. (Isn't that what I said??)

[chrismb]

Putty-Nosed Guenons can talk, albeit in morse code.

That's cool! What language do they key in, and how many words (and how many per min) can they tap??

[Skipjack]

Common ancestor of chimps and fruit flies and fish and even slugs then.
As has been suggested, there would not be much of their own DNA be left over, even if there was some sorts of genetic compatibility.

[chrismb]

Common ancestor of chimps and fruit flies and fish and even slugs then.
As has been suggested, there would not be much of their own DNA be left over, even if there was some sorts of genetic compatibility.

Clearly, changing 2% of a creature's DNA really *could* make the difference between true sentience and terrestrial fauna. It's the 2% that is evidently the important difference!

[Skipjack]

Yeah, but what would that give the "aliens"?
I mean the result would not have any genetical resemblance with them. It would not be worth calling "their offspring".
Lets say it is like that: One would probably be able to take this idea apart on so many levels, but one would never be fully able to disprove it, just like one cant disprove the claims of religions or the existance of the "dragon in my garage"
Though if you take a step back and look at all the possible explanations, there are a lot more facts that "prove" evolution, than any of the other explanations, especially those provided by religion and sadly also those provided by dragon that I am keeping in my garage

[alexjrgreen]

What this suggests is permutation of genes from a very bright common ancestor.

I would not necessarily say so.

Then you have to explain how multiple descendants came to have the abilities...

Putty-Nosed Guenons can talk, albeit in morse code

This is a very strechy interpretation of their form of oral comunication.
It is most definitely not Morse Code.

The sounds they actually make are 'pyow' and 'hack'. In principle, no different from 'dit' and 'dah'.

Being so limited in vocalisations, they form utterances by stringing these two sounds together in the same way the morse alphabet is constructed.

[Skipjack]

Well that may be a simillar fashion, but it is not Morse Alphabet. Also, if I may ask: How many different "letters" do they produce that way in the end? How many of these letters are then put together into "words"?
This is where it gets complicated.
Many birds do also have oral comunication, sometimes very complex. Yet, I would not say that they degenerated from a much smarter ancestor that they have in common with us. In fact it is pretty certain that they are decendants of the dinosaurs (I would say it is established, but one can always split hairs, cant one), some even say that birds are in fact dinosaurs.
Whales also have a very sophisticated means of oral comunication.
Are they degenerated from that "super alien" as well?
Bees can comunicate directions and more via their dance. Are they also degenerated descendents?

It seems very unlikely to me.

[choff]

There was a story in the newspapers a year or two ago about how paradoxically it would require a diet of cooked animal protein for primitive homonids to evolve a large enough brain to finally discover how to build a fire. I haven't heard anything about this lately.

Some King James edition biblical fun, Genesis says 'and God created the great whales.' They probably used great whales in the King James edition because in the seventeenth century when it was written, they had no other word for the creature, but they did have a thriving whaling industry. If they were to write it 200 years later, maybe they would have used the word 'dinosaur,' after the recent discovery thereof. Certainly the original authors didn't know what a dinosaur was. Reminds me of the rectangular slab in Stanley Kubrik's movie.

[alexjrgreen]

Many birds do also have oral comunication, sometimes very complex. Yet, I would not say that they degenerated from a much smarter ancestor that they have in common with us. In fact it is pretty certain that they are decendants of the dinosaurs (I would say it is established, but one can always split hairs, cant one), some even say that birds are in fact dinosaurs.
Whales also have a very sophisticated means of oral comunication.
Are they degenerated from that "super alien" as well?
Bees can comunicate directions and more via their dance. Are they also degenerated descendents?

It seems very unlikely to me.

Different species evolve similar abilities in comparable circumstances given enough time.

Only thirty or forty million years have passed since the split between the New World Monkeys and the Old World Monkeys, leaving little time for the development of novel genetic material.

[Skipjack]

Yes, evolve. You say it. Not degenerate. You say it right there.
Degeneration only causes defects, not abilities. So again, Chris can not be right.
Anyway, we can of course play this game for ever.
So I will say this. e.g.:
The fossile evidence provides us with a timeline of how the evolution happened. There is no fossile evidence of the degeneration that Chris is proposing.
I know that you will bring some argumentation to explain that of course.

Its like the story of the "dragon in my garage".
A:I have a dragon in my garage.
B: Ah really, show me!
A: He is invisible.
B: Then does he make sound?
A: He is very quiet.
B: Aha, so we will pour out flower and see his footprints.
A: He is flying
B: Then we will catch him in a net.
A: He is very small, he will slip through.
And so on and so on.
Its the same with Chris' "Alien ancestors".
You can never disprove them, but I say that there is very little evidence to support this claim. It might just as well have been the magic tooth fairy.
I will probably never be able to disprove it.
BUT....
But, there is much more evidence to support evolution. It therefore seems the much more likely explanation.

[Aero]

You can never disprove them, but I say that there is very little evidence to support this claim. It might just as well have been the magic tooth fairy.
I will probably never be able to disprove it.
BUT....
But, there is much more evidence to support evolution. It therefore seems the much more likely explanation.

How does that work? A related example.
There is no evidence that UFO's do not exist and lots of eye witnesses reporting their existence.
So do UFO's exist or not? By the quoted criteria above, it seems that they do.
(Define UFO as: Appearance of an Object flying, appearing to violate the observer's expected laws of physics, and appearing to the observer to be under intelligent control. Oh yea, and also unknown to the observer! (Unidentified in even the most general category.))