The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Friday, June 20, 2008

UFOs and Evolution

2darwin.jpg

If Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct – and we think it is, with some caveats about how evolution was generated – then the idea that UFOs contain beings very much like us, from other (extraterrestrial) worlds doesn’t work, and can’t.

The evolutionary process, as Darwin explicated it, is unique to Earth.

The chemical make up, the geology, the vicissitudes of Earth’s history cannot and would not be duplicated elsewhere. The odds against that are 10ⁿ.

The physiology and mental make-up of mankind is a product of this Earth – if Darwin is right – and only of this Earth.

2darwin-worm.jpg

Creatures evolving on other worlds – even on some moons of the Solar System or Mars – would not be subjected to the same chemical/geological interactions that are specific to the Earth.

(The time-traveling hypothesis of some ufologists and/or the concomitant Earth civilization of some – Mac Tonnies comes to mind – might make sense within the Darwin framework, particularly the UFOs-from-our-future scenario, which we’ve addressed here previously.)

http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2007/05/ufo-inter-dimensional-or-time-travelers.html

Since most of the creatures spotted outside and inside UFOs (the Hill abduction is one) have features, physical attributes similar to those of humans – see our previous post -- those beings cannot have come from afar.

Even if we posit the Creationist “theory” of mankind’s rise to ascendancy here on Earth, the UFO inhabitants would be unlike humankind, unless God made them, on their world(s), in His image and He is a “gray.”

2god.jpg

But that’s a stretch, even for us, and Stanton Friedman.

The uniqueness of Earth and its creatures – if Darwin’s theory is true – dilutes the extraterrestrial hypothesis, unless….

…unless the idea that we -- all things on Earth – were seeded by extraterrestrials, which is the SciFi version of Creationism.

2seeded.jpg

Since we are cozy with the idea that UFOs are phenomena – many diverse things – we can allow a number of hypotheses, except for the one that says UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors from galaxies and worlds light years away, who or which evolved in the same way as we have on Earth.

That idea just doesn’t work in the context of Darwin.

5 Comments:

  • Following the theories put forth by Darwin, et al., we surmise that our physignomy is the result of specific traits filling specific needs and niches, creating more successful organisms, which propogate those traits onward. So, if two disparate species share similiar gross morphology, we can surmise that they evolved similiar adaptations to fill similiar ecological niches.

    Increasingly, it becomes apparent there exist worlds similiar to Earth. Perhaps, though alien, they might share similiar ecosystems. I'm not saying that a pine tree here is a pine tree there but only something similiar. After all, a platypus isn't a duck, but...

    Perhaps it is only hubris that prevents us from seeing beyond our own backyard.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Monday, June 23, 2008  

  • Yes, Cullan, there must be worlds similar to Earth in the "boundless" Universe, but the devil's in the details.

    Since I think there was an ouside intervention in evolution, the possibility of life like ours isn't a stretch for me.

    But UFO reports provide material that is too Earth-centric, which makes me surmise that something other than extraterrestrial visitations are at work in the UFO phemomenon (or phenomena as we are prone to say).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, June 23, 2008  

  • Love stumbling upon this blog! Just so much to read, and I only work 8 hours....... darn.

    By Blogger Asphodel, at Wednesday, June 25, 2008  

  • Asphodel...

    Should we send you some coffee so you can stay up later at night?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 25, 2008  

  • My take on this. Francis Krick admitted that 99 % of non-glowing dust in the Milky Way galaxy has the same light frequency as bacteria here on Earth do (I don't remember the name of the term that was used for. Was it refractive index?) Therefore panspermia is quite valid.

    By Blogger Otto Jakobson, at Monday, October 19, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home