Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by tholden » Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:52 am

The basic idea of the Ganymede Hypothesis is not complicated and could be explained in one or two paragraphs if somebody really wanted to.

The thing about the four bodies with the rough 26 degree axis tilts (Saturn, Neptune, Mars, Earth) says to assume they were captured as a group. The sun, Mercury, and Jupiter with axis tilts under ten degrees should be assumed to have been an original basic system. That says that our system was originally a dual system with a very bright part to the North and a very dark part (Earth, Mars) inside that Saturnian plasma sheath to the South. The old creatures of the Earth (Hominids, dinosaurs, lemurs, tarsiers...) all had the same huge dark-world eyes; humans and dolphins with the smallest relative eye sizes of advanced creatures should be assumed to have originated within the bright Northern part of the system. Ganymede, for a number of reasons, would have amounted to an ideal home world for humans and dolphins at that time.

If I wanted to make two paragraphs out of it, I could mention the fact of humans being aquatic mammals (Elaine Morgan's aquatic ape thesis) despite there being no fossil evidence of any kind of an aquatic ape on earth and there never having been a body of water on earth which would be safe for humans to live in. Ganymede, it turns out, would have been a freshwater ocean world some tens of thousands of years ago with both anchored islands and floating bergs of pumice with luxuriant vegetation. The ultralow moment of inertia of Ganymede is due to a deep outer mantel of pumice and not salt water as is commonly claimed.

An original human world would need to be:

1 Bright (the relatively tiny human eyes)
2 Wet (the aquatic adaptations which Morgan mentions) and
3 Safe (both from sea monsters and from cosmic radiation)

Some tens of thousands of years ago, Ganymede had all that.

The Thunderbolts group does not want this subject under discussion at their conferences, even in the breakout room. Nonetheless a couple of business partners and I will be trying to conduct a conference dealing with this and one of the other tabu topics (MSL images) either late this year or in the first half of 2018.

prioris55555
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by prioris55555 » Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:09 pm

Aquatic ape ...
For the Sasquatch (came from part female human / part unknown species) that choose to adapt themselves to the water, they are very powerful swimmers. As an aside, Dogman is a powerful swimmer also. There are humanoid cryptids out there that people have reported seeing coming ashore. Since the ocean is very inaccessible, reports are sparse but I do think there are aquatic humanoids on earth. Mermaids being depicted in ancient art all over the world suggest they are likely real.

Xuxalina Rihhia
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:53 pm

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by Xuxalina Rihhia » Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:26 pm

The Ganymede hypothesis is very plausible to me. Neanderthals had huge eyes made for purplish Saturn light while our eyes can stand white sunlight that was prevalent on Ganymede in ancient times.
Also, Ganymede, like Earth, has continents and (now frozen) seas.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by JP Michael » Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:12 pm

I liked McLachlan's overall cosmological presentation but disagreed with his conclusion that Ganymede could have been an ideal place to find life because it is based upon a well-falsified assumption.

What few here seem willing to deal with is the sacred cow of uniformitarian biology: evolution. And when I say evolution I need to get specific otherwise the equivocation begins: When I say evolution I mean macroevolution, that is, the development over time of one kind of creature into another unique and seperable kind, eg. fish to monkey, amphibian to dinosaur or lizard to bird. I do not mean microevolution, that is, the expressed genetic variability within a biological kind ("natural selection"), eg. freshwater sickleback to saltwater sickleback, or long-thin beaked Darwin's finch vs. Short-Thick beaked Darwin's finch.

Macroevolution has not only never been demonstrated empirically, either by design in a lab or otherwise, it has been routinely falsified empirically. Drisophila have always remained drisophila, no matter how many tens of thousands of generations they have been bred. Mendel's peas remain peas. And so on, from the humble amoeba to the haughty homo sapiens.

Microevolution, on the other hand, has been demonstrated empirically since the days of Mendel and the results of which are routinely and illogically equivocated as evidence of macroevolution. Variation within a creature are plethora. Changes from one creature to another separate and distinct kind are zero.

The logic goes something like this:

Because sickleback fish can adapt to/from a freshwater/saltwater environment, therefore bacterium became brachyosaurus millions of years ago.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. It is intellectual dishonesty and I am calling it out right here, right now. There never was life on Ganymede and never will be unless humans bring it there from Earth.

Life cannot spawn from non-life, neither does existing life cross the fixed genetic boundaries without intelligent interference (ie. genetic modification by an outside agent). Even Velikovsky's Catastrophic Evolution model he set forth in Earth in Upheaval (pp. 212-235) is easier to falsify than the uniformitarian version because at least Velikovsky isn't hiding behind a wall of millions and billions of unobservable years. All one has to do to falsify Velikovsky is submit some living creatures to catastrophic radioactive conditions and wait to see how they will evolve. If they survive they might indeed adapt to their new circumstances, I freely admit, but I guarantee you drisophila will remain drisophila and cockroaches will remain cockroaches no matter how much radiation you pump into them. I will predict that the electroplasma universe model will prove no friend to evolutionary theory either, should biologists decide to add electroplasma to their hypothetical modelling of evolutionary theory. Even Urey-Miller knew electrical current annihilates the organic byproduct of his famous experiment, hence why it was isolated from the reaction chamber in a specially designed trap.

Thus I conclude with the nonsensical rhetoric spouted by Dawkins:

"Oh, evolution has been observed! It just hasn't been observed while it is happening." [1]

Has not been observed indeed!

1. 'Battle over evolution.’ Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network.

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by paladin17 » Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:39 pm

This hypothesis is easily refuted by examining the genomes of living beings on Earth. Humans bear the same genes as apes, mice and all kinds of other species here. So they can't be foreign to this planet.

Xuxalina Rihhia
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:53 pm

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by Xuxalina Rihhia » Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:25 pm

https://www.whalefacts.org/can-dolphins ... reshwater/

are marine mammals and compose about half of the 80 – 90 known species of cetacea recorded so far.

The other half is made up primarily of whales and a few species of porpoise.

Of the 40 + known species of dolphin most species are not known to live in freshwater environments; at least not for long periods of time.

Dolphins that are not considered freshwater dolphins may visit or travel through freshwater environments, but they ultimate return back to their saltwater habitat.

A few species of dolphin such as the amazon river dolphin, Ganges river dolphin and Indus river dolphin are known to reside primarily/exclusively in freshwater rivers, but as stated previously the majority of dolphins live in saltwater environments.

Part of the reason most species of dolphin do not live in freshwater environments is because most of their prey lives in saltwater.

Saltwater also contains certain healing properties, salts and minerals which help to clean out infections and assist dolphins in the healing of various cuts and wounds which may occur due to predators attacking them or injuries from sharp objects in the environment [on Earth at least].

Freshwater environments may lack the healing properties necessary to assist dolphins as quickly when recovering from various wounds and/or attacks [on present day Earth].

Saltwater also allows dolphins to make much deeper dives which are sometimes necessary when hunting for large quantities of food or specific prey.

In fact it would be extremely difficult for dolphins to find large quantities of certain foods in freshwater environments, especially if large pods of dolphins were hunting together and needed to make sure each dolphin had a sufficient supply of food.

When their food migrates to a new location some species of dolphin can often be found migrating to new areas in order to maintain their food supply.

Species such as the amazon river dolphin are known to inhibit the shallow waters of the amazon river during dry season.

Once rain season comes around and floods large parts of the amazon it provides the dolphin with more opportunities to travel further, meet other dolphins and mate.

This traveling and migration period often lasts for several months while the opportunity to leave their local habitat exists.

Once the water begins to reside and the rainfall begins to taper down these dolphins return back to their natural habitats and wait for the next rain season to leave their local rivers and travel out once again.

In saltwater environments dolphins may be more restricted and less likely to migrate than those in freshwater environments.

Some dolphins also prefer to have a lot of space to swim around and in most cases that space can only be found in the salty ocean [on Earth].

To sum this up in one sentence freshwater [on Earth] is too shallow to dive in and/or support large pods of dolphins, lacks large supplies of specific foods which may be required by certain species of dolphin to survive and is too small of an environment for most dolphins to roam around freely.


Perhaps on Ganymede, with few or no predators, dolphins could swim in fresh water with no problems.

Younger Dryas
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by Younger Dryas » Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:06 am

paladin17 wrote:This hypothesis is easily refuted by examining the genomes of living beings on Earth. Humans bear the same genes as apes, mice and all kinds of other species here. So they can't be foreign to this planet.
Ganymede Hypothesis in 2 sentences :)
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by tholden » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:02 am

We share 60* of our dna with the banana. That does not come from having sex with bananas; it comes from humans EATING bananas, pretty much forever.

They say you are what you eat...

Likewise, the first experience modern humans ever had with Neanderthals was watching friends and family members being killed and eaten by Neanderthals. For early humans to eat all or part of a Neanderthal which had been killed in battle would just be sending the Neanderthals a message in their own language.

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by tholden » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:02 am

If any humans actually do have any Neanderthal genes, that is where they would come from.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by JP Michael » Sat Dec 07, 2019 7:25 pm

tholden wrote:We share 60* of our dna with the banana. That does not come from having sex with bananas; it comes from humans EATING bananas, pretty much forever.

They say you are what you eat...

Likewise, the first experience modern humans ever had with Neanderthals was watching friends and family members being killed and eaten by Neanderthals. For early humans to eat all or part of a Neanderthal which had been killed in battle would just be sending the Neanderthals a message in their own language.
Ted, please make an effort to learn at least some elementary genetics before you make unscientific statements like these.

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by tholden » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:45 pm

JP Michael wrote: Ted, please make an effort to learn at least some elementary genetics before you make unscientific statements like these.
You might want to try reading about bacterial insertion of genes.

Henry Gee in The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2001 ... alysispage

The chilling part is that reverse transcriptase is a key feature of retroviruses such as HIV-1, the human immunodeficiency virus. Much of the genome itself - at least half its bulk - may have consisted of DNA that started out, perhaps millions of years ago, as independent viruses or virus-like entities. To make matters worse, hundreds of genes, containing instructions for at least 223 proteins, seem to have been imported directly from bacteria. Some are responsible for features of human metabolism otherwise hard to explain away as quirks of evolution - such as our ability to metabolise psychotropic drugs. Thus, monoamine oxidase is involved in metabolising alcohol.
If the import of bacterial genes for novel purposes (such as drug resistance) sounds disturbing and familiar, it should - this is precisely the thrust of much research into the genetic modification of organisms in agriculture or biotechnology.


What you need to picture is some Cro Magnon war party traipsing around the Alps until somewhere around 4 PM they fight a pitched battle with a Neanderthal family group; those guys are cut, bleeding, dead tired, there are ten or twelve Neanderthals lying around dead, and one of the Cro Magnons says something like:
“Man, this has been a hell of a day! I’m so hungry I could eat just about anything and I’m way too tired to go off hunting right now, what the hell is there to eat around this place??”
You shouldn’t need to be Albert Einstein to figure out what those guys are eating that evening and, unless those early humans were to cook a Neanderthal very thoroughly, which is highly unlikely under the kinds of conditions which would have been in question, you'd still be talking about bacterial content and the possibility of bacterial insertion of genes:

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by tholden » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:58 pm

Other than for that, for Paabo's idiot claim of Neanderthal genes in humans due to cross-species interbreeding to make any sense, that sort of interbreeding would have to have been COMMON, which is ridiculous. Even one such event to have ever happened is basically impossible.

That amounts to thinking that a Neanderthal male could/would rape a woman and, rather than cooking and eating her afterwards as usual, somehow or other keep her alive long enough to bear a cross-species child, raise that child to reproductive age, and have him/her breed back into human populations without anybody catching on, i.e. the claim is ridiculous.

In real life:
• Neanderthal females would kill that woman the first time her new owner left her alone for ten minutes.
• The woman wouldn't fare any better than the subjects of the commie attempts to breed humans and apes into super workers in the 1930s.
• Humans would notice the child was different (really different...)
• And humans would kill that child and everybody else like him as part of the same program which killed out the Neanderthal. They would not need DNA tests to determine who to kill for that sort of reason, it would be exceedingly obvious.

https://www.google.com/search?q=vendram ... isW3N2V53M:

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by JP Michael » Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:34 am

That first article is riddled with fundamental errors, such as the commonly paraded nonsense that "95% of the human genome is rubbish."

I find it significant that both introns and Alu retroelements were invoked as evolutionary evidence which is now arguably lacking:
L.K. Walkup wrote:In evolutionary studies, DNA sequence comparisons are used to try to build phylogenetic trees to trace ancestors to descendants. Since introns are generally believed to be free from the constraints of functionality when mutations cause changes in their sequence, introns in a particular gene are often compared between organisms, with the bp differences seen between their sequences supposedly indicating the degree and time of divergence since they last shared a common ancestor. In some instances, the assumption that an intron is likely to have mutated freely and extensively during the presumed millions of years of evolutionary history has proved wrong. Koop and Hood found that the DNA of the T cell receptor complex, a crucial immune system protein, is 71% identical between humans and mice over a stretch of 98-kb of DNA. This was an unexpected finding, as only 6% of the region encodes protein, while the rest consists of introns and non-coding regions around the gene. Does it follow then that we have a recent common ancestor with mice? Since this does not fit in with evolutionary theory, the authors conclude instead that the region must have specific functions that place constraints on the fixation of mutations. This illustrates that DNA sequence comparisons to establish evolutionary relationships are not the independent tests that they are claimed to be. If the data do not support the desired evolutionary theory, ad hoc explanations of altered rates of mutation, functional constraints, etc., can be brought in to explain away discrepancies.[1]
Furthermore, just because certain prokaryotes and viruses utilise various methods of cellular hijacking in order to replicate themselves, it does not follow that complex eukaryotic cells developed from genetic incorporation of failed attempts of viral/prokaryote genetic 'hijacking'. Despite claims to the contrary, random insertion of DNA sequences cannot produce evolutionary novelty, even in prokaryotes, even when forced to do so under intelligent, guided, laboratory conditions.[2] I wonder why that might be?

Lastly, neanderthals are 100% human and reproduce 'according to their kind', just as the Bible has always claimed.[3] No evolutionary fairytales, such as the myriad in this thread, are required to explain their existence.

[1] L.K. Walkup, "'Junk' DNA: evolutionary discards or God's tools?" Journal of Creation 14(2):18–30 (Aug 2000). Emphasis mine.
[2] R. Carter, "Can biologically active sequences come from random DNA?" Journal of Creation 31(3):82–89 (Dec 2017).
[3] R. Carter, "Neanderthal Genome just like ours."

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by tholden » Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:30 am

Lastly, neanderthals are 100% human.....
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

The Neanderthal was a very advanced bipedal ape with huge dark-world/Purple Dawn eyes whose DNA was closer to that of a chimpanzee than to ours. That's about as far from human as you can get. These images are what Neanderthals looked like:

https://youtu.be/mZbmywzGAVs

I'm not gonna try to post images on forums with broken or inadequate software but Danny Vendramini's video gives you the idea. His reconstructions match perfectly with everything we actually know about Neanderthals.

Other than that... Another way you could look at the thing is that horses and donkeys are very much closer one to the other than humans ever were to hominids, and all mules are sterile. There basically isn't any way you could explain Neanderthal genes in modern humans as past interbreeding.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Ganymede Hypothesis in one paragraph

Unread post by JP Michael » Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:36 am

tholden wrote:The Neanderthal was a very advanced bipedal ape with huge dark-world/Purple Dawn eyes whose DNA was closer to that of a chimpanzee than to ours. That's about as far from human as you can get.
Congratulations, you've just ignored 100% of the evidence from genetic studies so you can continue to believe a delusion.

I'm not surprised certain members of this forum avoid threads such as these when proponents simply ignore falsification of their hypotheses and continue to spout tripe. I'm going to join them.

Please do not bother replying. I will not be reading it.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests