|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 12, 2018 19:02:51 GMT
I find the idea of alien crossbreeding quite fascinating, but rather implausible (again, the DNA would have to be similar enough, considering an alien has a completely different evoltuionary lineage it seems highly unlikely they would have similar DNA).
"I don't see how that would increase the volume."
I don't see why not, again we've seen a smiliar thing happen with neck extensions.
Changing the shape is not the same as changing the volume. A square box 2 x 2 x 2 has the same volume as a rectangular box 1 x 2 x 4, or 1 x 1 x 8. Different shape, same volume. Yes, it seems highly unlikely that aliens would have DNA similar enough for successful breeding with humans, which helps very much to debunk the alien scenario in my mind. volume. Yes but were not talking about the skull of a fully grown human where the skull is already fully developed. Binding the skull of a baby/child for years while the skull is still developing probably causes cranial expansion as the skull is growing.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2018 19:17:17 GMT
Changing the shape is not the same as changing the volume. A square box 2 x 2 x 2 has the same volume as a rectangular box 1 x 2 x 4, or 1 x 1 x 8. Different shape, same volume. Yes, it seems highly unlikely that aliens would have DNA similar enough for successful breeding with humans, which helps very much to debunk the alien scenario in my mind. volume. Yes but were not talking about the skull of a fully grown human where the skull is already fully developed. Binding the skull of a baby/child for years while the skull is still developing probably causes cranial expansion as the skull is growing. Of course. The head gains volume as it grows naturally, and not as any result of binding the head, which merely changes the shape of the skull. I think the head binding was done on humans in imitation of their gods, who were hybrids, not aliens. A tall head probably meant power and a respected position in society in those days. And I was hoping to fix that typo before it got copied.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 19:19:55 GMT
3) You're a conspiracy idiot. Occam's razor... If you can't come up with anything more original than that, clear out. Make me, tinfoil.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 19:20:48 GMT
It changes the shape on the neck, and not the volume that I'm aware of, at least not significantly. 25% is significant. It changes the volume, as it elongates your neck while not narrowing it. I don't know the percentage of volume change, but 25% wouldn't be surprising.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 20:53:01 GMT
"Which one is more plausible?"
As a nonbeleiver, I suppose the second. But I'm not sure how much sense that would even make. I'm not a genetics expert, but I do know that DNA between two species has to be similar enough (I believe over 90%) to produice offspring. To put that into perspective a chimp shares about 96% of DNA with humans and it's not even known for sure if we can breed with them. Um, yes it is. And no, we can't. Not being able to breed with one another and produce viable offspring is the very definition of what a "species" is. If you could breed successfully with a chimp it wouldn't be a chimp, it would by definition be a human. Very closely related species can sometimes interbreed - you get a mule when a donkey breeds with a horse. But all mules are sterile. [/p]
[/quote]Personally I find it very unlikely that aliens would look humanoid at all. Why should they? Intelligent spiders, birds, beetles, etc - any one of them are just as likely, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 12, 2018 21:18:41 GMT
3) You're a conspiracy idiot. Occam's razor... If you can't come up with anything more original than that, clear out. And if you can't even be bothered to read Snopes' debunking provided by @graham , or comment on it...
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 13, 2018 8:40:59 GMT
If you can't come up with anything more original than that, clear out. And if you can't even be bothered to read Snopes' debunking provided by @graham , or comment on it... I read it and it's junk.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 13, 2018 8:44:47 GMT
Well, Sitchin said they don't look like us. We look like them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 11:29:11 GMT
And if you can't even be bothered to read Snopes' debunking provided by @graham , or comment on it... I read it and it's junk. It points out that the claims about the skulls are junk. Another Erjen fantasy fail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 11:30:13 GMT
Well, Sitchin said they don't look like us. We look like them. Then the same principle would apply in reverse. It's very unlikely that we would look like some alien race, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 13, 2018 17:43:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2018 9:26:07 GMT
If you mean L.A. Marzulli, yes, he believes in the Rapture. I don't. Is there a way to get one's finding published in scientific journal without being an atheist? Plenty of scientists who are faithists have managed it. The problems arise when one submits a scientific paper claiming scientific evidence for crackpot claims, when unfortunately the peer-review process kicks in. Of course it could always be the 'science mafia' at work and it suits authors to claim so; it could also just be the poor quality of evidence on such occasions.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 14, 2018 9:31:47 GMT
Plenty of scientists who are faithists have managed it. The problems arise when one submits a scientific paper claiming scientific evidence for crackpot claims, when unfortunately the peer-review process kicks in. Of course it could always be the 'science mafia' at work and it suits authors to claim so; it could also just be the poor quality of evidence on such occasions. Ummm…..looks as if you've got our quotes switched around somehow.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2018 9:32:00 GMT
"Which one is more plausible?"
As a nonbeleiver, I suppose the second. But I'm not sure how much sense that would even make. I'm not a genetics expert, but I do know that DNA between two species has to be similar enough (I believe over 90%) to produice offspring...
Neither is it clear why aliens would necessarily have to have DNA in the first place.
|
|