Upcoming Interview: Hybrid Humans: Scientific Evidence of Our 800,000-Year-Old Alien Legacy by Daniella Fenton and Bruce R. Fenton

#2
As a start, I will lend subjective support to Bruce here...

One thing which I bring to defense of those non-molecular biologists who speculate on the nature of evolution and DNA is this.

Evolution is not a discipline for molecular biologists​
As outlandish as this may sound, such a distinction holds merit nonetheless. Evolution is both an ergodicity as well as a signal theory discipline. Such is not the domain of the molecular biologist. This is the domain of the information and systems engineering specialist. As an analogue, the sound engineer or expert luthier who built my guitar, are not experts in music. Not a one of them can play my 12 bar blues progression I have in mind. You might say 'but they are experts in the building of a musical instrument! How could they possibly not be experts in music?' The simple fact is that there resides a distinction between medium and intelligence. Woe to those who fail to understand this distinction.

If one contends that there is no intelligence to be had in DNA, only medium - then, the discussion with me will end there. Such a person is not equipped (see the necessary graduate work in the first group below) to understand what I have to say, even if they did possess an open mind.

Evolutionary theory is a theory of computation and constraints, and not simply a discipline of molecular biology nor organic chemistry. To that end evolution in a way, is best understood by information and intelligence specialists, and not biologists.

Becoming a Musician

Probability Statistics & Arrival Distribution Theory​
Information and Set Theory​
Biology and Cladistics​
Hypothesis Testing​
Modeling and Theory of Constraints​
Simulation and Sensitivity Theory​
Philosophy of Organized Behaviour​
Computation​
Data Intelligence and Information Theory​
Systems and Value Chain Theory​
Communications Structure Redundancy and Lossless Protocols​
Communications Security and Cryptography​
Advanced Intelligence Networks/Assimilation/Signal Theory​

and less-so the following

Becoming a Musical Instrument Craftsman

Chemistry & Advanced Chemistry​
Organic Chemistry​
Molecular Biology​
Basic Biogenetics​
Advanced Molecular Biology: Epigenetics and Proteostasis
Molecular and Cellular Bioengineering​
Physiology and Tissue Engineering​
Molecular and Cellular Bioengineering Lab​

If we are to seek answers inside DNA, especially with regard to our ability to answer key questions of deontology - then we need the former skills set and to not be ruled solely by the latter skills set. If I am to engineer an apple to be red for 4 weeks rather than 2 weeks, I need the latter group. But if I am to know how the apple came into being, I need the former skills set more than I need the latter.

Collectively we, as a scientific society have failed to grasp this...

I do not want my studio engineer or guitar luthier telling me how to embellish a minor pentatonic nor interpret the lyrics of a song. That is not his/her expertise.
 
Last edited:
#3
Further, and with this understanding in mind then, there are four key inferential playgrounds, which are the critical path with regard to investigation of evolution:

I. Sequencing versus molecular complexity/size and assignment of the 2nd Letter of the DNA Amino Acid Synthesis Codex XXX​
II. Modeling the computational ergodicity of DNA morphology to proteostasis (Modeling DNA outcomes and outcome lacks by means of game theory, in order to prove out our assumptions/mechanisms about how evolution comes about - this can be done now, whereas it could not be done 20 years ago - so contending that nihilist evolution does not have to prove its case, is now an incorrect skepticism)​
III. Ordination versus speciation (Behe) - it is not 'one thing' now​
IV. Human Accelerated Regions (pervasively successful, no failed trials, contiguous elements, focused, enormously beneficial, and sudden)​
Few molecular biologists possess the skill sets necessary to reduce arguments inside these domains. They can do technical analysis. But don't confuse reductive argument with technical analysis.
 
Last edited:
#4
I am curious about what 'scientific evidence' comprises. If we credit Rodwell (and I see no fundamental reason not to) there is contemporary ethnographic evidence of hybridisation. Its there in mythology too - humans were made - 'created'. The 'Darwinian' theory of human evolution is just a bunch of guesses - there's no actual evidence - just evidence that is interpreted to fit theory.

As an animist I do not buy the proposition that humans 'evolved' through series of chance occurrences that led to them over-developing to a ludicrous degree. Spirit involvement is implicit in traditions and myths - so why not?

The deep mystical/spiritual tradition is that souls enter the human life stream as part of an evolutionary impulse - and we have endless evidences that this evolution of consciousness is assisted, fostered and guided by teachers and guides. At least this is the thought system I have operated by.

So why would we not expect that our vehicles of manifestation should not also be tweaked to accommodate a more refined mentality. But, let's be clear here what is tweaked has to be what amounts to the pre-physical expression of our DNA. This might amount to refining our bodily consciousness. Our bodies have their own consciousness. I explain this crudely by saying that soul consciousness connects with the body via heart and head - and we have a trinity of awareness - the last being 'gut' awareness - so head, heart and gut.

It is reasonably evident that people who undergo the disciplines needed to develop a refined physical consciousness can exhibit desired attributes - and they may not also - I know a few meditating, yoga practicing assholes. But the general rule is that a more refined body is better (better luck next time for most of us then).

So if anybody wants to say this has been going on for 0.8m years why that cut off date? Is this an evidence issue? Here are some other questions I have - assuming I provisionally accept the proposition:
  • For what purpose? Is there a trend?
  • Why is it so damned hard? I mean after 800,000 years we are the best ET can do?
  • If we are talking hybridisation (seems to be the rage these days) what can be discern about the nature of the other agent/s?
  • I don't agree that you can have a useful scientific theory about this with laying out exactly what your metaphysical assumptions are - and what your theory of ET is.
 
#5
So if anybody wants to say this has been going on for 0.8m years why that cut off date? Is this an evidence issue? Here are some other questions I have - assuming I provisionally accept the proposition:
  • For what purpose? Is there a trend?
  • Why is it so damned hard? I mean after 800,000 years we are the best ET can do?
  • If we are talking hybridisation (seems to be the rage these days) what can be discern about the nature of the other agent/s?
  • I don't agree that you can have a useful scientific theory about this with laying out exactly what your metaphysical assumptions are - and what your theory of ET is.
Great points Michael.

I am an evolutionist - finding credible basis for both the track record of phylogenetics and as well, the incremental and gradual introduction of the morphologies (and now DNA sets) which form its basis. As well, in examining DNA, and what we know of proteostasis and epigenetics, it is clear that this mechanism is 'self-regulating'. This very principle dethrones a great deal of our wishful thinking. 'God' seems to be bound by some key laws of self-imposed technical embargo, which serve to produce ergodicity amazingly similar to that of natural laws. This is a big problem for ID and C proponents.

However, as a cryptologist, I do know that hiding signal inside apparent background noise, and in plain sight, is the first best trick of deception. Intent, is the signal in the background noise of evolutionary mechanics. The question is,

1. Can we ferret out Intent??​
(I capitalize this, not because it is God per se - rather a defined doctrine, like the Marshall Doctrine).​
2. All we need is one case study (white crow) bearing falsification of non-Intent.​
∴ Crafting a highly stacked theory (ET/Creator), violates Ockham's Razor and serves to bias the scientific questions being asked from then on. Therefore the null hypothesis must be that 'Intent is absent inside a potential duality'.​
However, a good scientist never believes the null hypothesis - as that is an indicator of bias. His or her job is to falsify the null hypothesis, not promote it. The issue is not one of Intelligent Design, nor Creation. Those are not viable scientific arguments per ∴ above; because it is clear in the evolutionary record, that Creation and Intelligent management were both unnecessary. This does not serve to rule out the presence of Intent however.

Intent is the necessary alternative. If one waves off Intent by means of apothegm and purely skepticism, then one is conducting pseudoscience.​

In other words, one's 'theory of ET' serves to prejudice the entire discussion - so we should not be developing such an idea before asking the critical path questions of disciplined hypothesis development. Such agency serves to polarize and prejudice the playing field, via emotional priming.

Emotional Priming - a process of pseudo-education wherein a popular controversial issue such as Creation-Evolution, or Monsim-Dualism is framed as a whipping horse, posed in a false dilemma, so as to polarize the general public into 'science' and 'woo' camps of belief. The visceral reaction to the woo camp of belief inside academia imbues a type of anchoring bias and emotional agency on the part of those who self appoint or are tasked to 'represent science' - thereafter influencing their objectivity just as severely as would a religion.

When all the task at hand requires is to simply and dispassionately provide one falsifying example of Intent. This is actually very very simple. It is a white crow falsification inference potential. Faking skeptics rule out Intent with a wave of the hand and an apothegm - however most geneticists and scientists I speak with, will casually comment that they have not yet ruled it out (if they understand the scientific argument that is, and are not emotionally primed by the fake arguments). There are some curiosities which do not bear a natural explanation. And they are not 'Gaps', but rather Gapes in theory.

For if both Intent and Natural Self-Regulation are present (and these are not mutually exclusive constructs), this duality comments greatly upon our natural realm and the role we bear therein.
 
Last edited:
#6
Collectively we, as a scientific society have failed to grasp this...

I do not want my studio engineer or guitar luthier telling me how to embellish a minor pentatonic nor interpret the lyrics of a song. That is not his/her expertise.
great point. Never thought of it that way. I hear you saying is that conjecture about the transformation from one massively large random pattern to another would best be understood as an information theory problem, right?
 
Last edited:
#7
great point. Never thought of it that way. I hear you saying is that conjecture about the transformation from one massively large random pattern to another would best be understood information theory problem, right?
Correct.

The signal hidden inside a white noise is not best detected by a communications technician, rather by a cryptologist (information theory) - who might not bear the first inkling the difference between a fixed, polarized or variable capacitor that generate such noise and signal.

But the cryptologist does understand the critical delineation between contrivance and happenstance. Between noise and a 'noise shroud'. Between randomness and signal. Between jibberish and language. Between Intent and non-Intent.
 
#8
So if anybody wants to say this has been going on for 0.8m years why that cut off date?
great point. I don't know if he has already offered an answer.

the other dates that stick in my mind from recent episodes:
- courtney brown's remote view of mars a million years ago (BTW joe mcmonagle has remote viewed the same)
- john brandenburg's evidence a massive nuclear bomb strike 250 - 500 thousand years ago

so I'm not saying that we have to stick to these dates but I agree emphasizing your point about the difficulty in calculating once we stretch the timeline this far
 
#9
Great points Michael.

I am an evolutionist - finding credible basis for both the track record of phylogenetics and as well, the incremental and gradual introduction of the morphologies (and now DNA sets) which form its basis. As well, in examining DNA, and what we know of guy what did they think did they have any thoughts, it is clear that this mechanism is 'self-regulating'. This very principle dethrones a great deal of our wishful thinking. 'God' seems to be bound by some key laws of self-imposed technical embargo, which serve to produce ergodicity amazingly similar to that of natural laws. This is a big problem for ID and C proponents.

However, as a cryptologist, I do know that hiding signal inside apparent background noise, and in plain sight, is the first best trick of deception. Intent, is the signal in the background noise of evolutionary mechanics. The question is,

1. Can we ferret out Intent??​
(I capitalize this, not because it is God per se - rather a defined doctrine, like the Marshall Doctrine).​
2. All we need is one case study (white crow) bearing falsification of non-Intent.​
∴ Crafting a highly stacked theory (ET/Creator), violates Ockham's Razor and serves to bias the scientific questions being asked from then on. Therefore the null hypothesis must be that 'Intent is absent inside a potential duality'.​
However, a good scientist never believes the null hypothesis - as that is an indicator of bias. His or her job is to falsify the null hypothesis, not promote it. The issue is not one of Intelligent Design, nor Creation. Those are not viable scientific arguments per ∴ above; because it is clear in the evolutionary record, that Creation and Intelligent management were both unnecessary. This does not serve to rule out the presence of Intent however.

Intent is the necessary alternative. If one waves off Intent by means of apothegm and purely skepticism, then one is conducting pseudoscience.​

In other words, one's 'theory of ET' serves to prejudice the entire discussion - so we should not be developing such an idea before asking the critical path questions of disciplined hypothesis development. Such agency serves to polarize and prejudice the playing field, via emotional priming.

Emotional Priming - a process of pseudo-education wherein a popular controversial issue such as Creation-Evolution, or Monsim-Dualism is framed as a whipping horse, posed in a false dilemma, so as to polarize the general public into 'science' and 'woo' camps of belief. The visceral reaction to the woo camp of belief inside academia imbues a type of anchoring bias and emotional agency on the part of those who self appoint or are tasked to 'represent science' - thereafter influencing their objectivity just as severely as would a religion.

When all the task at hand requires is to simply and dispassionately provide one falsifying example of Intent. This is actually very very simple. It is a white crow falsification inference potential. Faking skeptics rule out Intent with a wave of the hand and an apothegm - however most geneticists and scientists I speak with, will casually comment that they have not yet ruled it out (if they understand the scientific argument that is, and are not emotionally primed by the fake arguments). There are some curiosities which do not bear a natural explanation. And they are not 'Gaps', but rather Gapes in theory.

For if both Intent and Natural Self-Regulation are present (and these are not mutually exclusive constructs), this duality comments greatly upon our natural realm and the role we bear therein.
great stuff! trying to wrap my head around this:

first off definitions:
- Phylogenetics -- the study of evolutionary relationships among biological entities
--- are you ok with this definition? seems to be putting the cart before the horse... but maybe I'm missing the point... isn't the question at hand whether these relationships are the result of "evolutionary processes"?

- Morphology -- a branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and plants.
--- what's most important about this approach?

- proteostasis?

- epigenetics -- this is a real head-scratcher... what do you think is going on here? I always laugh at the way science has squeezed "genetics" into the label of this phenomenon. creates the illusion that we understand it.

qualities:

- 'self-regulating' -- nice... not obvious until you pointed out, so are you saying the in this case darwin (or should we say wallace) had it right?

- intentional / purposeful / designed -- wow, a lot here.

- tech -- one thing that has stuck with me since the interview with mary rodwell is the observation that our own biomedical technology is reaching a singularity point wherein our ability to exercise our intent into the evolutionary process will intersect with the intent of the others who have done it IYKWIM. any thoughts on this?
 
#10
- Phylogenetics -- the study of evolutionary relationships among biological entities
--- are you ok with this definition? seems to be putting the cart before the horse... but maybe I'm missing the point... isn't the question at hand whether these relationships are the result of "evolutionary processes"?

- Morphology -- a branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and plants.
--- what's most important about this approach?
phylogeny - the study of the relationships between species by means of morphology, proteins or heritability.
phylogenetics - phylogeny, but constrained to heritability, DNA, epigenetics and proteostasis​
morphology - phylogeny, but constrained to relationships between expression, function and form​
computational phylogenetics - phylogeny, but constrained to the game theory of meta-DNA, meta-epigenetics and proteostasis​
The key is this - in order to have a coherent theory, all three sub-disciplines must match (consilience) and be 'singing off the same song sheet'. We actually have not attained this state just yet.
 
#11
- proteostasis?

- epigenetics -- this is a real head-scratcher... what do you think is going on here? I always laugh at the way science has squeezed "genetics" into the label of this phenomenon. creates the illusion that we understand it.
Stanford maintains a fantastic graduate program in Genetics with a focus on proteostasis. The Course Inventory can be found here:
https://exploredegrees.stanford.edu/schoolofmedicine/genetics/#courseinventory

The course prospectus on proteostasis can be found here: https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&q=BIO 104: Advance Molecular Biology: Epigenetics and Proteostasis&academicYear=20182019

Proteostasis, simply put is this. It is one thing to 'evolve' a complex stack functional set. Computational phylogenetics struggles to model this ergodicity alone. But it is another order of miracle beyond that miracle entirely, to stop that set from then further 'evolving' to lessorder. And further to know HOW to do that. Evolution does not have to know what it is doing. It can wander like Walt Whitman. But proteostasis does not bear that luxury - it has to know what it is doing. This second miracle is occulted from our perception. It involves two decision sets which must be reduced

1. How does a computational single-ergodic system which bears no direct feeback mechanism, then determine when to cease protein synthesis?​
2. How does that same system, structured to continue protein synthesis, indeed then stop it, or if necessary, correct it?​
Analogy: A criminal who robs banks, may indeed suffer from a mental disorder. However, a criminal who makes the choice to STOP robbing banks does and can not. The second act is one of deliberacy, and not chaos.

Most evolutionists do not get this second hidden miracle. This is not a gap in our understanding, rather it is a gape. It is THE issue.

Expounding upon the second question of proteostasis in particular is the work of The Kopito Laboratory at Stanford:

The Kopito laboratory seeks a molecular understanding of how cells maintain the fidelity of their proteomes. Unlike DNA, which can be repaired if damaged or incorrectly made, proteins cannot be mended. Instead, damaged or incorrectly synthesized proteins must be rapidly and efficiently destroyed lest they form toxic aggregates. Our laboratory use state-of-the-art cell biological, genetic and systems-level approaches to understand how proteins are correctly synthesized, folded and assembled in the mammalian secretory pathway, how errors in this process are detected and how abnormal proteins are destroyed by the ubiquitin-proteasome system.
When I use terminology, I will typically default to the Stanford use.
 
Last edited:
#12
- intentional / purposeful / designed -- wow, a lot here.

- tech -- one thing that has stuck with me since the interview with mary rodwell is the observation that our own biomedical technology is reaching a singularity point wherein our ability to exercise our intent into the evolutionary process will intersect with the intent of the others who have done it IYKWIM. any thoughts on this?
Intent is a scientific construct. It does not bear the stacked-charged implications which do 'purpose', 'design', 'complexity', 'intelligence' and 'creation'. These terms are too risky in their implications - and tend to bias the playing field and question being asked. Intent on the other hand does not have to bias the question being asked. It is the necessary alternative to non-Intent, and furthermore does not require pervasiveness, as do the alternative terms.

DNA is technology - our religious nihilists are just going to have to accept that Santa Claus is not real. Elves are not real. Their religion is just as dead as is Abrahamism. DNA is technology, plain and simple. Yes it self regulates 99+%. But we have not shown that it has self regulated exclusively. That case cannot be proven - but it can be falsified (Popper Science Demarcation) - so in order to do science, we must examine the necessary alternative: Intent-falsification. IOW 'look for the white crow', which can serve to falsify the Null.

To block the study of Intent, is pseudo-skepticism - and in terms of US Court-defined human rights: Oppression in the name of science.

We cannot create a Universe.
We can manipulate the building blocks of life and perhaps create a life form.

This serves to cleave apart the roles of 'God' into 1. approachable, and 2. unapproachable domains. This is a commentary upon our realm.
 
Last edited:
#13
Bruce has a deliberate presence of Twitter where he spends and inordinate amount of time over-reviewing the Epstein affair so, word to the wise, stay away from that subject ;). Ask him how his viewpoints lock up, or disagree with, the Anunnaki-creation genetic manipulation dialogue (Sitchin-like); why he sympathizes with @tomdelonge & #TTSA when they discuss the need to explain the basics to people before going to a full reveal. To quote "There are things about the structure of civilization and the forces underlying our world, that are so horrific & alien that some minds may break."

That should do for a start.
 
#14
Analogy: A criminal who robs banks, may indeed suffer from a mental disorder. However, a criminal who makes the choice to STOP robbing banks does and can not. The second act is one of deliberacy, and not chaos.

Most evolutionists do not get this second hidden miracle. This is not a gap in our understanding, rather it is a gape. It is THE issue.
great. BTW very interesting conversation with Bruce here:
https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/earth-ancients/bruce-fenton-earths-hybrid-GSLobmCYkn9/
 
#15
Ask him how his viewpoints lock up, or disagree with, the Anunnaki-creation genetic manipulation dialogue (Sitchin-like);
will do. thx W.

why he sympathizes with @tomdelonge & #TTSA when they discuss the need to explain the basics to people before going to a full reveal. To quote "There are things about the structure of civilization and the forces underlying our world, that are so horrific & alien that some minds may break."

That should do for a start.
very interesting. thx would never have thought to go there :)
 
#16
DNA is technology, plain and simple.
I get your point and don't want to unnecessarily complicate / obfuscate, but I think what we're understanding about extended consciousness may contradict this in some ways... spirit guides... life plan... soul groups... angels. not to mention more mundane things like morphogenic fields.

if consciousness is fundamental then technology is a slave to it... everything else is backdoor materialism. your iPhone works as long as the spirits allow it to work. your DNA works as long as the spirits allow it to work. I know that sounds off-the-wall woo woo, but philosophically / logically I don't see any alternative. how many angels fit on the head of a pin?
 
#17
Alex,
I think it would be helpful if at the beginning of the podcast you ask them to explain their thesis and what the evidence for it is. Then let them talk for a while about it. (My preference would be to let them do that for the whole podcast, interrupting only to ask for clarification when necessary.)

When is the interview? The book is available on kindle unlimited so I am reading it. What is the deadline for submitting questions in this thread?
 
Last edited:
#18
"Our hypothesis is that a more advanced extraterrestrial civilization was engaged in creating new life and planting it on various planets. Earth is just one of them. What we see in our DNA is a programme consisting of two versions, a giant structured code and a simple or basic code."- Vladimir Sherbak (astrophysicist) & Maxim Makulov (astrobiologist)For millennia cultures around the globe have claimed to have star origins, passing on stories of an advanced alien intelligence responsible for genetically engineering the first humans. Today we finally have the scientific technologies to explore this claim and bring it to an objective conclusion.Hybrid Humans offers the confirming evidence that Homo sapiens is an alien-hybrid species established by a wealth of supporting scientific data. Hybrid Humans follows in the tradition of trail breaking ancient astronaut books by Lloyd Pye, Erich von Däniken and Zacharia Sitchin. Any fans of History Channel's Ancient Aliens will most certainly appreciate this book! In 1995, an unassuming Australian lady, Valerie Barrow, found herself temporary custodian of an ancient sacred Aboriginal artifact. Unknown to her, the mysterious 'Churinga' object was, in fact, an incredible extraterrestrial device with an on-board consciousness. Today we would know this as a Bracewell Probe, an alien sentinel left here to monitor our world and eventually make contact.The resident alien intelligence introduced itself as Alcheringa, an entity from the Dreamtime, and then began to transfer information directly into Valerie's mind via a voice-to-skull interface. The historical events Alcheringa revealed are destined to profoundly change our understanding of human origins and humanity's place in the cosmos. Hybrid Humans does not require any faith from its readers - every claim is validated by objective physical evidence. Guided by Alcheringa's transmission, Daniella, and her husband Bruce Fenton, successfully tracked down the remaining crystalline wreckage from the enormous mother-ship. The husband and wife team also identified specific anomalies in human DNA, the very fingerprints of the highly advanced extraterrestrial genetic engineers. "Sooner or later ... we have to accept the fact that all life on Earth carries the genetic code of our extraterrestrial cousins and that evolution is not what we think it is."
This is the authors description of Daniella Fenton's new book at Amazon. Since Bruce is a member here, I thought it might be worth basing this discussion on the above description.

Obviously I would like to know just how much of this is is based on solid science. I know this is a bit difficult because most of us - myself in particular - are wary of dodgy science that seems to support the materialist position on everything. However, I'd like more details of these (DNA) " fingerprints of the highly advanced extraterrestrial genetic engineers". I am sure T.E.S would find this even more interesting. I presume there is no DNA dating back 800,000 years to when this event took place.

Obviously the information Valerie obtained from the Churinga can only be judged subjectively - in that it is analogous, I suppose, to the information obtained from NDE's. However, sometimes NDE's reveal information that was clearly not known to the subject before the event, and I wonder if anything Valerie learned can be tested independently.

Bruce and Daniella (do you both post here?) - please don't take this as a dig at you - if you can back up what you claim it is obviously highly relevant to most of what we discuss here on Skeptiko.

I hope Bruce will actually post here - it would help a lot.

David
 
Last edited:
#19
I have read through TES's remarks and they confirm my good sense to not make any serious comments about genetics. I look a the question from a series of completely ignorant perspectives, allied with a deep interest in the spiritual dimension of the proposition:
  • I presume alleged hybridisation has an intent, a plan. What is it?
  • What's in it for ET - service or profit?
  • Is the alleged hydration enhancing or diminishing attributes?
  • The time frames seem inordinately long for a single project - unless it is singularly ambitious. I'd buy a proposition of ongoing tweaking easier than a project based endeavour.
  • I look at the proposition as if a metaphysical ET is tweaking the pre-physical foundation of our physical being - rather than fiddling with physical genetic material. That's like changing the design specs for a BMW rather than modifying an existing car. Evolving design is usually a more sensible way of upgrading models.
  • If this alleged hybridisation is under divine guidance that kind of makes sense. If we start from the proposition that human souls begin to incarnate in early versions of homo whatever, it would make sense that this 'vehicle of manifestation' would be continually refined so as to enable 'higher' attributes to be expressed. So this could have been going on for 2 million years or so as a natural evolutionary impetus on the non-physical level.
  • It is worth noticing that humans have been expected to co-participate, or be co-creators - its all ET tech doing the fiddling on passive recipients. This might alter the discourse, because maybe all this claim means human beings have been evolving - and these guys have glimpsed a small portion of the overall mechanism.
  • We need to be careful of language - something TES alluded to. When a European and an Asian interbreed, is that a kind of hybridisation? It seems apparent that we humans can be seriously mongrel examples of various human types (commonly called races). Do we know that this is just 'random' or accidental? It could be guided by spirit - probably is. So we can talk hybridisation as if all that means is some purposeful tweaking of genetic material - or we can add in breeding freely undertaken, but under guidance - in which case all we are talking is evolution in a deeper sense than the standard materialist model.
  • I would think that a presumption of alleged hybridisation is toward more refined physical bodies that permit the expression of a more refined spiritual character. We are certainly not being bred for muscle, for example. There's a sweet little book called Manthropology, which is stupidly hard to get and insanely expensive for no good reason, that makes it very plain that over the past few thousand years we humans have lost a lot of attributes of our ancestors - strength and stamina come quickly to mind. So what is being favoured in this alleged hybridisation? If its physical it must be the ability to survive and breed in a radiated environment, the ability to eat without becoming morbidly obsess, the ability to retain 'fitness' in consequence of just getting to go to the fridge, and the ability to text whilst walking and not run into things. In fact, and this isn't flippant, can we come up with a list of attributes that future homo techno habilis will need to thrive?
 
#20
Alex,
I think it would be helpful if at the beginning of the podcast you ask them to explain their thesis and what the evidence for it is. Then let them talk for a while about it. (My preference would be to let them do that for the whole podcast, interrupting only to ask for clarification when necessary.)

When is the interview? The book is available on kindle unlimited so I am reading it. What is the deadline for submitting questions in this thread?
the interview is a couple weeks out. I'll be interested to hear yr take on the book. BTW I think I will just be talking with Bruce.
 
Top