Let's Go Deeper and Harder
into the Pros and Cons
For those who feel I've been pitching softballs but want some hard balls, here are some for you. Grab some coffee because I'm going to throw them at you fast and furious whether you're ready or not:
Our current scientific theories are not much better, but there is some hard evidence backing them. Unfortunately they are all based on the assumption that the very earliest humans were primates who developed an upright stance and large brain size and that alone was sufficient reason for becoming human.
Those are physical characteristics, however, that also belonged to the primates we evolved from, i.e., primates who had existed for hundreds of thousands of years with the same upright stance and large brain size and would continue to exist for hundreds of thousands of years after the first "human" primates evolved from them. That is to say, for a very long time, both before and after the advent of a human primate, the two would have been physically identical.
What we need is a quality that really distinguishes the human animal from the animal we evolved from (as well as all other animal), because physical characteristics really do not define what a human is, and therefore can't supply the reasons why some primates became human. What I am proposing is that something else occurred that distinguished the two, and that is the human primate developed an ability (and desire) to create stories.
The role of this physically-invisible ability is never really accounted for in mainstream evolutionary thinking because that thinking is bogged down in the quagmire of the physical realm.
For example, recent studies of chimpanzees show that while they can use tools such as sticks to dig out termites and the like, and will pass the requisite motions on to a companion while they are doing it, they don't have the means, or interest, to pass the idea on to others afterwards.
That is because they cannot reach back into memory and create stories. They can only express current emotions or actions. Only humans can create stories. I suggest you take a look at the Appendix of ALICE HICKEY: Between Worlds ( Excerpts 12-25 ) on this , as it is the human's ability and desire to create stories that really separates us from all other animals.
I thus see it as highly improbable that such an alien/human creation theory will ever gather enough hard evidence to outweigh the current scientific theory on the natural evolution of the human species. For one thing, the Alien theorists have never defined what being human means, i.e., have never defined the exact nature of the genetic change. What kind of thinking is that? I'll tell you what kind it is: sloppy thinking.
I say this recognizing that the existing scientific evidence itself is itself sketchy and still limited to factors such as upright stance, walking stride, thumb, and brain cavity size and shape. Yet it can’t be ignored. It's a question of which theory (and supporting evidence) is stronger. Right now, I'd side with conventional science (as sketchy as it is) that some form of primates eventually evolved into humans.
My deepest conviction, however, is that the reasons for our transition to human will always be in the mysterious realm of myth. Always. Myth is not fable. Myth is a story that reveals the mysterious nature of something though the use of metaphor. Got it?
The great metaphoric creation myths were story poems— metaphoric stories issuing from the collective unconscious of early humans. These ancient metaphoric stories are as illusive as dreams when it comes to interpreting them. We can only feel their
Here is another widely held Alien theorist position:
Alien Theorists Position: UFOs and Alien
Visitations/Abductions are based, in part, on a belief that Aliens
Assisted Humans Once Humans Came Into Being
