Assuming Darwinian Evolution to be true (which I don't), the appearance of Carbon based life form appearing was a highly unlikely event. And it took roughly 11 billion years to do it. Certain physical parameters had to be met in order for Carbon based life to appear (Star formation, Galaxy formation etc...). To say that there is ANOTHER "more advanced" life form out there stretches the Darwinian mechanisms too far. Now we wan't to say a more advanced life form appeared by purely natural, unguided, physical processes somewhere else in the Universe?? In LESS time than it took Carbon based life to form?? So now, Darwinian Evolution has happened twice??
Sorry, not enough time in the Universe's life to accommodate that. This is my Natural Philosophy argument for no Advanced Aliens.
What bothers me most about this kind of perspective is that it is very 'human focused' where, by definition, life around another sun would develop a very different perspective on similar lines.
Modern humans have really only existed for ~75k years (might vary depending on where the line is drawn) where dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. If that track had shifted to where dinosaurs would have carried on towards a human-type evolution path, they might have had a human-level society that could be ~60 million years old.
So, frankly, I don't see it as 'impossible' for life somewhere in the galaxy to have evolved 1-2 billion years earlier.
Besides, our understanding of "science" is, let's just say, ridiculously limited. Less so our understanding of what consciousness even is, let alone what it can do and where it can even thrive, so to speak.
There could well be hyper-advanced living beings capable of living joyfully upon the surfaces of stars but our self-imposed logical / intellectual limitations and "boxes" would never as much as be able to comprehend such beings, let alone come to terms with how they even live and whatnot.
We, as a culture, live in a bubble, and most don't even realize it (until it's far too late).
On consciousness; I've always been drawn to the interpretation of quantum physics that the 'observer' is required for the waveform to collapse. Which would mean that the universe could not exist other than as potential without a consciousness observing. Normies tend to oppose that view because the origin of science was to be able to explain the world without appealing to God.
The next facet would be what other lifeforms evolved on other planets would look like; beyond some general assumptions based on life on earth and its variety, there's very little that could be any certainty. What I mean is that we can generally assume that life would follow similar traits (animal, vegetable, or microbial) and that they would be roughly symmetrical. Beyond that would be guesswork, we can't know how life would evolve differently on a planet with more Oxygen, water, gravity, etc...
Most that go about speculating on alien life tend to focus on humanity as the primary success and extrapolate that other life on other planets would evolve similar traits when that's all human-focused projection.
I think the timeline we've been taught is whack. They're finding hammers, wagon wheels, and metal pots deep in the earth "where they shouldn't be" according to narrative. It supports major cataclysm burying ancient civilization. It debunks a lot of layers-mean-years theory. There are questionable surfaces that possess prints of creatures from different alleged eras. People go out of their way to destroy these a lot of times. They are the gatekeepers. The keepers of the know. Secret enforcers.
Oh, absolutely. The 10-12000 year modern history seems to fit far more. Frankly, humanity has been unchanged for at least that 50k-75k years, which at the least implies that there's no real reason why a civilization of comparable technology could have been built and rebuilt from scratch. Nothing genetically should preclude that.
Until that gets established as an equal unknown or estimate, it's generally safe to assume that MSM version.
tall people mating with tall people can create taller people. That is much different than a creature crawling out of the soupy mix and developing eyes to see without knowing there was anything to look at.
They wouldn't "know" there's something to look at and that wouldn't influence evolution anyway. It's all random. When DNA replicates and am offspring is produced to create new DNA, sometimes random errors happen or change. Think like birth defects, except those are negative things and are detrimental to the new individual's survival. But if one of those random errors birthed an individual who had a beneficial "error" to them when they're surviving and let's them reproduce more, they pass on their "errors" more than other regular individuals. Since this living thing has an advantage in surviving and reproducing, eventually their "errors" will flood the population with this new trait. The thing is, when you're talking about like fish walking out of the water, it's all incremental changes over millions and millions of years to get there. You should check out the lung fish. It's technically a fish, but instead of gills it has primitive lungs and even some small legs. It's a prime example of the fish starting to change where after millions of years, their incremental changes are truly reshaping the animal from a full fish to one that has lungs and breathes air and can move slightly on land. But evolution in the end is random, and not all random changes are beneficial for the organism.
Dog breeding is actually evidence of intelligent design. The breeder is doing the selection. Not nature. And the process is anything but random or unguided. On the contrary, the mind behind the whole process (breeder), is guiding the entire process from start to finish.
Furthermore, the end result, no matter how many times you cross breed, is a dog.
Adaptation within a species is not evidence for speciation across species.
Assuming Darwinian Evolution to be true (which I don't), the appearance of Carbon based life form appearing was a highly unlikely event. And it took roughly 11 billion years to do it. Certain physical parameters had to be met in order for Carbon based life to appear (Star formation, Galaxy formation etc...). To say that there is ANOTHER "more advanced" life form out there stretches the Darwinian mechanisms too far. Now we wan't to say a more advanced life form appeared by purely natural, unguided, physical processes somewhere else in the Universe?? In LESS time than it took Carbon based life to form?? So now, Darwinian Evolution has happened twice??
Sorry, not enough time in the Universe's life to accommodate that. This is my Natural Philosophy argument for no Advanced Aliens.
The existence of Demons, however....
What bothers me most about this kind of perspective is that it is very 'human focused' where, by definition, life around another sun would develop a very different perspective on similar lines.
Modern humans have really only existed for ~75k years (might vary depending on where the line is drawn) where dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. If that track had shifted to where dinosaurs would have carried on towards a human-type evolution path, they might have had a human-level society that could be ~60 million years old.
So, frankly, I don't see it as 'impossible' for life somewhere in the galaxy to have evolved 1-2 billion years earlier.
Besides, our understanding of "science" is, let's just say, ridiculously limited. Less so our understanding of what consciousness even is, let alone what it can do and where it can even thrive, so to speak.
There could well be hyper-advanced living beings capable of living joyfully upon the surfaces of stars but our self-imposed logical / intellectual limitations and "boxes" would never as much as be able to comprehend such beings, let alone come to terms with how they even live and whatnot.
We, as a culture, live in a bubble, and most don't even realize it (until it's far too late).
Excellent points, let me parse this a little.
On consciousness; I've always been drawn to the interpretation of quantum physics that the 'observer' is required for the waveform to collapse. Which would mean that the universe could not exist other than as potential without a consciousness observing. Normies tend to oppose that view because the origin of science was to be able to explain the world without appealing to God.
The next facet would be what other lifeforms evolved on other planets would look like; beyond some general assumptions based on life on earth and its variety, there's very little that could be any certainty. What I mean is that we can generally assume that life would follow similar traits (animal, vegetable, or microbial) and that they would be roughly symmetrical. Beyond that would be guesswork, we can't know how life would evolve differently on a planet with more Oxygen, water, gravity, etc...
Most that go about speculating on alien life tend to focus on humanity as the primary success and extrapolate that other life on other planets would evolve similar traits when that's all human-focused projection.
I think the timeline we've been taught is whack. They're finding hammers, wagon wheels, and metal pots deep in the earth "where they shouldn't be" according to narrative. It supports major cataclysm burying ancient civilization. It debunks a lot of layers-mean-years theory. There are questionable surfaces that possess prints of creatures from different alleged eras. People go out of their way to destroy these a lot of times. They are the gatekeepers. The keepers of the know. Secret enforcers.
Oh, absolutely. The 10-12000 year modern history seems to fit far more. Frankly, humanity has been unchanged for at least that 50k-75k years, which at the least implies that there's no real reason why a civilization of comparable technology could have been built and rebuilt from scratch. Nothing genetically should preclude that.
Until that gets established as an equal unknown or estimate, it's generally safe to assume that MSM version.
tall people mating with tall people can create taller people. That is much different than a creature crawling out of the soupy mix and developing eyes to see without knowing there was anything to look at.
They wouldn't "know" there's something to look at and that wouldn't influence evolution anyway. It's all random. When DNA replicates and am offspring is produced to create new DNA, sometimes random errors happen or change. Think like birth defects, except those are negative things and are detrimental to the new individual's survival. But if one of those random errors birthed an individual who had a beneficial "error" to them when they're surviving and let's them reproduce more, they pass on their "errors" more than other regular individuals. Since this living thing has an advantage in surviving and reproducing, eventually their "errors" will flood the population with this new trait. The thing is, when you're talking about like fish walking out of the water, it's all incremental changes over millions and millions of years to get there. You should check out the lung fish. It's technically a fish, but instead of gills it has primitive lungs and even some small legs. It's a prime example of the fish starting to change where after millions of years, their incremental changes are truly reshaping the animal from a full fish to one that has lungs and breathes air and can move slightly on land. But evolution in the end is random, and not all random changes are beneficial for the organism.
Good question.
Dog breeding is actually evidence of intelligent design. The breeder is doing the selection. Not nature. And the process is anything but random or unguided. On the contrary, the mind behind the whole process (breeder), is guiding the entire process from start to finish.
Furthermore, the end result, no matter how many times you cross breed, is a dog.
Adaptation within a species is not evidence for speciation across species.