I've been somewhat considering or entertaining the notion of the "alien origin" theory. The idea that human beings, in whole or in part, are descended from aliens who came in ancient times. Usually the theory goes that aliens came down and altered human DNA from our original ancestors by inserting some of their own into the mix to create Homo Sapiens.
Among other problems with this theory, the one that sticks out to me the most is the problem of DNA. When you compare the DNA between human beings and chimpanzees, they are 98-99% identical. But that 1-2%, while variant, is largely a matter of different genetic switches turned on or off. That is, the genes are still present, just dormant. When you then spread out from there, or go deeper, while the deviations increase the further up the evolutionary tree you go, all life on earth is still built on the same building blocks of adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine (ATCG) and still has a double helix. This is true whether it is plant or animal life.
Were human beings to have been a kind of hybrid life form between alien and native genetic material, we should see something different, something radically different that no other lifeform on Earth shares, in that 1-2% of genetic variance between us and our closest genetic cousins. What are the actual chances, given the probabilities of evolutionary development to begin with, that life would arise on another planet, no matter how close, with the exact same building blocks and double helix structure as on Earth? Perhaps we might eventually find evidence of a bacteria on Mars which could definitively answer that question (not outside the realm of possibility), but at the moment, it seems pretty far fetched to suggest that.
"Well, what about the theory that Earth was originally seeded with life that didn't originate here, that might explain that." True, it might, but it would totally negate the humans as alien hybrids hypothesis. If that were the case, then that would have happened roughly 2-3 billion years ago. Animal life in particular didn't arise until roughly about 500 million years ago when the oxygen in the atmosphere built up enough to support it. The aliens would have been long, long, long gone by 300,000 years ago when Homo Sapiens first emerged.
The time frames involved don't line up either with all of the ancient aliens theories such as the Sumerian Anunnaki actually being a race of aliens posing as gods (a la Stargate). The Sumerian civilization collapsed and evolved into the Babylonian roughly around 2000BCE. It really only tracks back to about 4000BCE. Homo Sapiens arose around 300,000BCE. You have to understand the shear scale of the time frames involved. Human civilization from start to now is only maybe 15,000 years old, and no one actually knows much less remembers anything for certain about that beginning period of time. Does anyone really believe that the Sumerians, much less any later society, would remember anything about beings from 300,000 years ago? That strains credulity immensely. The only reason we know anything about Adam and Eve is because of prophetic revelation.
So then, how does one explain a relatively credible source such as Joseph McMoneagle's remote viewing of Mars 1 millian years ago, and his insistence that we are descendants of survivors of a Martian catastrophe? (For context, he viewed Martians that had already been dead for a long time at 1mya. When he was asked to go back to when they weren't, there's no time reference to when that was he then viewed. It could have been 1.5mya, it could have been 1bya.) Mr. McMoneagle's remote viewing accuracy is well established, and the credibility of his Mars session transcript is only increased when you understand that he had no idea he was remote viewing Mars until after the session was over. This being said, the first rule of remote viewing is not to attempt to interpret what you're viewing. Mr. McMoneagle viewed that Martian survivors journeyed to a place with a lot of active volcanoes and weird plants. No animal life was mentioned. It was a place which is described a lot like primeval Earth roughly about a billion years ago. Again, the time frames and conditions involved must be taken into account. If there had been any attempt at relocation to primeval Earth, it is highly unlikely that those Martian survivors even survived for any length of time after arrival, and if they did, they would have been limited to the technology and resources which they had on hand like any other colonist or "castaway". The ability to travel between planets does not mean the ability to terraform, or any other fantastic science fiction technology.
So, there are these difficulties with these theories which, in my mind, will prove insurmountable without good evidence otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment