Moontanman Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Elongated skulls after DNA tests show they were not human and couldn't interbreed with humans. Often claimed to be alien human hybrids DNA may show them to be even more interesting... http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/545/DNA-Analysis-Of-Paracas-Elongated-Skulls-Released-The-Results-Prove-They-Were-Not-Human 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unity+ Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Elongated skulls after DNA tests show they were not human and couldn't interbreed with humans. Often claimed to be alien human hybrids DNA may show them to be even more interesting... http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/545/DNA-Analysis-Of-Paracas-Elongated-Skulls-Released-The-Results-Prove-They-Were-Not-Human This may be far fetched, but It would be interesting if they actually came from a different planet. It could give a conclusion that if other planets that show life-like features related to Earth's produce similarly resulting species then it would show that the primate-like features are a very common achieved effect of natural selection for efficiency and advancement in a species while containing their own unique features related to the conditions on their planet. Of course, the species may have just originated from Earth and would make it a mystery as to why a species would have a need for an elongated skull. EDIT: Had to correct a massive grammatical error within my post. Edited February 8, 2014 by Unity+ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Um yeah.....I'll believe it when they actually release the data. 1) No mention of the number or types of mutations. The statement "It had mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) with mutations unknown in any human, primate, or animal known so far." is far fetched indeed. Sure it may have novel mutations, but there is really no way to make the claims he is making from such data. 2) Its mitochondrial....how they can claim that it couldn't even breed with humans is beyond me. That's not something that one can determine easily at a genetic level, especially not from mitochondrial data. 3) Based on the snippets of his interview, it doesn't even sound like he has made a phylogenetic analysis, making his claims of whether or not it will even fit into an evolutionary tree more BS. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arc Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Don't click on the "Source: ADG (UK)" at the bottom of the page, you will likely receive a virus. "The samples were sent to the late Lloyd Pye, founder of the Starchild Project, who delivered the samples to a geneticist in Texas for DNA testing." That is possibly a good indication of the quality of the test results. Edit: spelling error. Edited February 8, 2014 by arc 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Hmm the "geneticists" who sequenced the genome of "Big Foot" is in Texas. In reality the samples were just contaminated, degraded, and then poorly analyzed. Anyone want to make a bet with me that the person doing the sequencing is Melba Ketchum? Its BS. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 Everyone is of course correct to be skeptical, Unity+ you are correct, finding an alien being so close to humanoid would be difficult to explain by natural selection. IMHO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unity+ Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Um yeah.....I'll believe it when they actually release the data. It is good to be skeptic, but let me address your other points: 1) No mention of the number or types of mutations. The statement "It had mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) with mutations unknown in any human, primate, or animal known so far." is far fetched indeed. Sure it may have novel mutations, but there is really no way to make the claims he is making from such data. I was referring to it being far fetched that these are aliens as many people seem to claim. 2) Its mitochondrial....how they can claim that it couldn't even breed with humans is beyond me. That's not something that one can determine easily at a genetic level, especially not from mitochondrial data. The ability to breed is mainly based on chromosome counts of each species. Using genetic information, it can be predicted how many chromosomes the species has. 3) Based on the snippets of his interview, it doesn't even sound like he has made a phylogenetic analysis, making his claims of whether or not it will even fit into an evolutionary tree more BS. I think they made the article for those who aren't very scientifically knowledgeable about the scientific language. Everyone is of course correct to be skeptical, Unity+ you are correct, finding an alien being so close to humanoid would be difficult to explain by natural selection. IMHO... I was actually referring to if the species came from Earth. It would be more difficult to explain the use for an elongated skull since many homo sapience have more of an average-sized skull. If the species came from a different planet it would have a simpler solution to the problem because it would mean the planet most likely had a need for an elongated skull structure, while most human species on Earth have the structure related to our own skull. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 If the being came from another planet it would difficult to explain why it looked that human, no reason to even expect a vertebrate much less a humanoid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) It is good to be skeptic, but let me address your other points: I was referring to it being far fetched that these are aliens as many people seem to claim. The ability to breed is mainly based on chromosome counts of each species. Using genetic information, it can be predicted how many chromosomes the species has. I think they made the article for those who aren't very scientifically knowledgeable about the scientific language. I was actually referring to if the species came from Earth. It would be more difficult to explain the use for an elongated skull since many homo sapience have more of an average-sized skull. If the species came from a different planet it would have a simpler solution to the problem because it would mean the planet most likely had a need for an elongated skull structure, while most human species on Earth have the structure related to our own skull. 1) The claim that there are mutations found in no other known species is far fetched. If they sequenced Mitochondrial DNA then that requires them to have some idea of the composition of the sequence. Most likely they used primers targeted to mitochondrial sequences, amplified it, and sequenced that. The other approach would be to sequence all the DNA and then pull out the known sequences that match mitochondrial DNA. That they sequenced mitochondrial DNA tells you that they are starting with known sequences. Finding new mutations is not that surprising. Furthermore, given the age of these skulls, there is a new problem. DNA degrades overtime and ancient DNA is often highly degraded, requiring incredible care to avoid contamination. The sequences retrieved contain many errors from degradation and even the sequencing method itself. If these were not properly handled or controlled for, then you will have a great deal of false positives. 2) You can't infer chromosome counts from mitochondrial sequence. To be honest, you can't even really get it from genomic sequence alone, not with present sequencing methods. Given todays sequencing methods, unguided de novo assembly will give you many numerous scaffolds, but not entire chromosomes. Chromosome count still requires some sort of visual method, such as karyotyping. This is not really possible with highly degraded DNA, such as that from ancient samples. The article made it very clear that they sequenced mitochondrial DNA. It would be impossible from such data to infer chromosome number or make the claim that there could be no interbreeding. 3) I'm sure they simplified it, but the way they discuss it, it still seems like they haven't even attempted a phylogenetic analysis yet. Never mind my extreme skepticism of all the other claims. This is the "Big Foot" genome all over again. Edited February 8, 2014 by chadn737 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arc Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 It is possibly, and I believe likely, this is the result of a royal blood line conducting extreme selective inbreeding to the point of committing selective infanticide to eliminate undesirable traits and of coarse to promote the ones they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unity+ Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 1) The claim that there are mutations found in no other known species is far fetched. If they sequenced Mitochondrial DNA then that requires them to have some idea of the composition of the sequence. Most likely they used primers targeted to mitochondrial sequences, amplified it, and sequenced that. The other approach would be to sequence all the DNA and then pull out the known sequences that match mitochondrial DNA. That they sequenced mitochondrial DNA tells you that they are starting with known sequences. Finding new mutations is not that surprising. Furthermore, given the age of these skulls, there is a new problem. DNA degrades overtime and ancient DNA is often highly degraded, requiring incredible care to avoid contamination. The sequences retrieved contain many errors from degradation and even the sequencing method itself. If these were not properly handled or controlled for, then you will have a great deal of false positives. 2) You can't infer chromosome counts from mitochondrial sequence. To be honest, you can't even really get it from genomic sequence alone, not with present sequencing methods. Given todays sequencing methods, unguided de novo assembly will give you many numerous scaffolds, but not entire chromosomes. Chromosome count still requires some sort of visual method, such as karyotyping. This is not really possible with highly degraded DNA, such as that from ancient samples. The article made it very clear that they sequenced mitochondrial DNA. It would be impossible from such data to infer chromosome number or make the claim that there could be no interbreeding. 3) I'm sure they simplified it, but the way they discuss it, it still seems like they haven't even attempted a phylogenetic analysis yet. Never mind my extreme skepticism of all the other claims. This is the "Big Foot" genome all over again. 1) You may be correct because we haven't even discovered all species on Earth, let alone in the depths of the ocean where it is almost impossible to go down to the deepest depths because of extreme pressures. 2) I can see your point. However, I think they just made a edumacated guess at this point. 3) You might be right, but until then I think speculations on the credibility of the article will be void until there is more discussion on the topic. If the being came from another planet it would difficult to explain why it looked that human... If the planet was similar to Earth's, wouldn't it at least have similar structures to us with unique differences related to the different conditions that may exist on that planet? It is possibly, and I believe likely, this is the result of a royal blood line conducting extreme selective inbreeding to the point of committing selective infanticide to eliminate undesirable traits and of coarse to promote the ones they want. It might be, but most deformations caused by inbreeding were more related to other conditions besides the structure of the skull. It could be the rare case scenario or the common scenario, but I wouldn't think an elongated skull would be the result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 3) You might be right, but until then I think speculations on the credibility of the article will be void until there is more discussion on the topic. If the planet was similar to Earth's, wouldn't it at least have similar structures to us with unique differences related to the different conditions that may exist on that planet? No, in fact even if the Earth was duplicated precisely in every detail there is no reason to expect vertebrates to evolve again much less the exact animal forms we have today, the slightest change could have drastic consequences. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 No, in fact even if the Earth was duplicated precisely in every detail there is no reason to expect vertebrates to evolve again much less the exact animal forms we have today, the slightest change could have drastic consequences. Increasingly I disagree with this sentiment. We may not get the exact animal forms, but if homoplasy and convergent evolution have taught us anything, its that evolution does reinvent the wheel...quite often in fact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 Once eukaryotes came into existence and then complex animals you might be able to make that assertion with worms and maybe arthropods but vertebrates were on a razors edge for a while after the Cambrian explosion. Even if you assume vertebrates, some vertebrates didn't have a spinal cord, just a stiff rod of cartilage. Something equivalent might have evolved, like huge arthropods but I still say vertebrates were a hit and miss possibility.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arc Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 It is possibly, and I believe likely, this is the result of a royal blood line conducting extreme selective inbreeding to the point of committing selective infanticide to eliminate undesirable traits and of coarse to promote the ones they want. It might be, but most deformations caused by inbreeding were more related to other conditions besides the structure of the skull. It could be the rare case scenario or the common scenario, but I wouldn't think an elongated skull would be the result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding It all comes down to probabilities. These are all locally found together and appear in similar condition giving strength to the idea they were not a far ranging or ancient race of alternative hominid origins. But rather a small, and not particularly old (as in prehistoric) group of very select individuals. It looks like their graves had "normal" humans buried amongst them. http://hiddenincatours.com/photo-sets/november-2012-tour-of-nazca-lines-and-paracas-elongated-skulls/ And looks to be a more successful example of common head binding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation Nothing unusual here folks, just move along! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Once eukaryotes came into existence and then complex animals you might be able to make that assertion with worms and maybe arthropods but vertebrates were on a razors edge for a while after the Cambrian explosion. Even if you assume vertebrates, some vertebrates didn't have a spinal cord, just a stiff rod of cartilage. Something equivalent might have evolved, like huge arthropods but I still say vertebrates were a hit and miss possibility.. Far more specialized and complex adaptations have arisen. The fact that vertebrates may have gone extinct at one point does not mean that they would not have evolved again. After all, we see the same traits evolving time and again regardless of their complexity. For instance, social behaviors and altruism are abundant, despite this supposedly being a very complex trait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 Far more specialized and complex adaptations have arisen. The fact that vertebrates may have gone extinct at one point does not mean that they would not have evolved again. After all, we see the same traits evolving time and again regardless of their complexity. For instance, social behaviors and altruism are abundant, despite this supposedly being a very complex trait. Those traits are found in many complex animals with or with out back bones, you might get animals with internal skeletons but a complex trait like a back bone is not as likely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Those traits are found in many complex animals with or with out back bones, you might get animals with internal skeletons but a complex trait like a back bone is not as likely... Why isn't it as likely? The point is that the same traits evolve multiple times. Homoplastic traits are surprisingly common. You simply can't make such statements "but a complex trait like a back bone is not as likely" without some reason. What is the evidence that it would not be likely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 Why isn't it as likely? The point is that the same traits evolve multiple times. Homoplastic traits are surprisingly common. You simply can't make such statements "but a complex trait like a back bone is not as likely" without some reason. What is the evidence that it would not be likely? Why did it only evolve once in only one tiny group? Arthropods evolved several times into many diverse groups, only one linage for vertebrates... In the Cambrian explosion many different types of arthropods were extant, but only two vertebrates are known, one of them had compound eyes and didn't go on, one of them was a tiny creature that could easily have gone extinct, if it had there would be no vertebrates, no other line was evolving in that direction that we know of but many external skeleton animals were present. it would have been a simple thing to have a world full of invertebrates but no vertebrates. As i said, internal skeletons might have gone on but vertebrates look like a bad bet... I have to admit i am basing most of my argument on the Book, Wonderful Life by Gould... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderful_Life_(book) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Why did it only evolve once in only one tiny group? Arthropods evolved several times into many diverse groups, only one linage for vertebrates... I have no idea. I don't think anyone could answer that question given how little we know of the genetics of it. It may very well be that exoskeletons evolve easily, that still does not make it unlikely for vertebrates to evolve. My entire point is that we can't say that evolution doesn't repeat itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderful_Life_(book) Gould's thesis in Wonderful Life was that chance was one of the decisive factors in theevolution of life on earth. He based this argument on the wonderfully preserved fossil fauna of the Burgess Shale, animals from around 505 million years ago, just after the Cambrian explosion. Gould argued that although the Burgess animals were all exquisitely adapted to their environment, most of them left no modern descendants and, more importantly, surviving creatures did not seem better adapted than their now extinct contemporaneous neighbors. Gould proposed that given a chance to "rewind the universe" and flip the coin of natural selection again, we might find ourselves living in a world populated by descendants ofHallucigenia rather than Pikaia. This seems to indicate that fitness for existing conditions does not ensure long-term survival, especially when conditions change rapidly, and that the survival of many species depends more on chance events and features, which Gould terms exaptations, fortuitously beneficial under future conditions than on features best adapted under the present environment (see also extinction event). Gould regarded Opabinia as so important to understanding the Cambrian explosion that he wanted to call his book Homage to Opabinia.[1] Actually i think we can say that evolution doesn't repeat it's self, can you show two identical groups that evolved separately? Far more specialized and complex adaptations have arisen. The fact that vertebrates may have gone extinct at one point does not mean that they would not have evolved again. After all, we see the same traits evolving time and again regardless of their complexity. For instance, social behaviors and altruism are abundant, despite this supposedly being a very complex trait. Yes but they don't arise twice, behavior and body plans are not the same thing... Edited February 9, 2014 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arc Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Those traits are found in many complex animals with or with out back bones, you might get animals with internal skeletons but a complex trait like a back bone is not as likely... It all comes down to specific needs. A larger or elongated body requires some type of support but it must allow movement for motivation. A cartilage member works well until long ribs are attached, they need a rigid attachment to function correctly in providing a strong protective body cavity, so to satisfy both the rigid and flexibility requirements individual vertebrae are a likely solution. Very early soft body ocean life would head in this direction rather easily I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 It all comes down to specific needs. A larger or elongated body requires some type of support but it must allow movement for motivation. A cartilage member works well until long ribs are attached, they need a rigid attachment to function correctly in providing a strong protective body cavity, so to satisfy both the rigid and flexibility requirements individual vertebrae are a likely solution. Very early soft body ocean life would head in this direction rather easily I would think. Possibly but Pikaia was the only stem vertebrate in a sea full of arthropods, if it had gone it probably would have been a very long time before that body plan tried to arise again and arthropods would have had complete dominance by then, along with cephalopods using the long thin body shape and in direct competition with any other life form with that shape, the when of evolving can be as important as the form... Even if that is a given when you take away the extinction of the dinosaurs which was a random chance event, you don't get primates much less an animal that looks that much like a human. The idea that something close enough to human to resemble it more than totally superficially is remote in the extreme, even primates is remote... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arc Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Possibly but Pikaia was the only stem vertebrate in a sea full of arthropods, if it had gone it probably would have been a very long time before that body plan tried to arise again and arthropods would have had complete dominance by then, along with cephalopods using the long thin body shape and in direct competition with any other life form with that shape, the when of evolving can be as important as the form... Even if that is a given when you take away the extinction of the dinosaurs which was a random chance event, you don't get primates much less an animal that looks that much like a human. The idea that something close enough to human to resemble it more than totally superficially is remote in the extreme, even primates is remote... No, I'm not so much arguing the odds of higher forms duplicating, but back in the beginning the fight was between whether heavy armor or speed and mobility would gain the advantage. Think about how during the first world war both tanks and aircraft appeared at the same time, either of them of little threat to the other. By the second WW the aircraft could destroy tanks at will. The vertebrates "took to the air" so to speak in the oceans, a strong lightweight frame worked well to attach muscles for fast movement. It was an obvious advantage looking back. And easily repeated by even us in our own life and death struggles for superiority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 No, I'm not so much arguing the odds of higher forms duplicating, but back in the beginning the fight was between whether heavy armor or speed and mobility would gain the advantage. Think about how during the first world war both tanks and aircraft appeared at the same time, either of them of little threat to the other. By the second WW the aircraft could destroy tanks at will. The vertebrates "took to the air" so to speak in the oceans, a strong lightweight frame worked well to attach muscles for fast movement. It was an obvious advantage looking back. And easily repeated by even us in our own life and death struggles for superiority. other animals did indeed take this course, cephalopods comes to mind, squid can very fish like in their movement but extant fish suppress the animals that would compete, take away vertebrates and i just don't think it's likely anything similar would evolve... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now