case for why humas aren't from earth?

Question

you ever see those "which one doesn't fit questions" like apple orange banana and peanut....well if your were too look at the animals of earth, which one would you think doesn't fit....
the one who has no natural defenses, the one who could not survive in the wild w/o protection, the one who is by far the most superior, the only one susceptible to diseases, and there probably are a few others.
i know this is a dumb question but someone raised it in my philosohy class. i choose not to believe but does anyone out there agree?

Answer 1

Yes, humans do seem out of place. Saying this on all days (This being Good Friday and all) makes me feel uneasy, but then again, it is partially true, humans seem out of place. Most animals have their unkeen sense of knowing when a disaster would strike, while humans rely on machines for most things animals do without outside aid.

Answer 2

It's not a dumb question at all. The question you posed though is erroneous.

You postulated that we didn't have any natural defenses. We can bite people the same as dogs. We can outrun poisonous snakes, etc. We couldn't fend off every beast on the planet, but we'll do ok.

We could survive in the wild without protection if the environment was suitable. As we crafted tools and made clothing, it enabled us to spread out beyond where we crawled out of the primordial ooze.

You also wrote that we were the only ones susceptible to disease. That's incorrect. If so, there wouldn't be any vets. There are things that are immune to things, like sharks don't get cancer, etc., but that's true of every species. We don't die from avian flu, but your bird will.

It's an interesting theory that we aren't from earth though. If we weren't from here and we don't have the ship that brought us here, someone put us here. Why haven't they checked on us? Are we just an alien ant farm? Possibly, but that's strange too.

If you ever want to know how little people matter and how insignificant you are in the universe, watch the end of Men In Black. I know it's a comedy, but it really puts all of this in perspective.

Answer 3

I don't think that this is necessarily a "dumb" question (I really don't believe that there is such a thing), but I do think that it is based on a flawed assumption which is in turn based on a flawed analysis. That assumption being that human beings are "odd man out" in the animal kingdon.

To see why that assumption is flawed, lets look what's wrong with the analysis that led to it. The following were cited:

*humans have "no natural defenses" -- False. It is true that humans in MODERN form do not have great huge fangs, claws that be used as direct weapons, or even the strength to use those tools if we had them. However, all that means is that we're not a top preditor. That in and of itself does not mean that we're anymore defenceless than say a cow. Our weapons and our defenses are more subtle; they involve our brains and our hands. Do they work 100% of the time, no, but they do work the vast majority of the time.

*humans can't "survive in the wild w/o protection" False. We do it every day. The problem is that all of our modern conveniences tend to mask the fact that we are still living in the "wild". Add to that the fact that for the majority of roughly the last 50,000 years, modern humans lived and thrived without any modern conveniences whatsoever. That we've gotten to the place that we are and have been able to go from living naked in caves and trees to the place we're at today says that we do quite nicely in the "wild".

*humans are "by far the most superior" Both true and false, it really depends on what you mean by "superior". Remember, that until the last maybe few hundred years, we couldn't be counted in the ranks of top predators. Even today, we can still be killed by other predators if we're not careful, unlucky, or are caught without the tools that have promoted us into the ranks of high level predators. Only our ability to modify our own environment makes us "superior" to other members of the animal kingdom and I think that distinction opens another question about whether we're really all that "great" in that respect.

*humans are "the only one susceptible to diseases" False. If that were true, there'd be no need for veterinarians. Yes, we are susceptible to quite a number of diseases, but so are alot of other species: just about any mammal out there can have a cancer; influenza is an avian disease that kills birds more frequently than it does people; anthrax is a disease that livestock usually get; cats, cetaceans, and other great apes have their own unique forms of an immuno deficiency virus; bubonic plague can kill just about anything it infects (which is pretty much any mammal and no small number of species in other phyla.) Disease is hardly unknown in the greater animal kingdom; we just rarely hear or care about it.

On top of all of that we just share too much biochemistry with the rest of the species on this planet. Yes, there are some odd things about our make-up, but they don't argue for extraterrestrial evolution. If you want to look for something living on this planet that may have come from somewhere else, look at insects (and even that's a stretch, the same Hox genes that code for part of your spine code for thoracic structures in a number of insects.)

Answer 4

I'm sorry, did you say that human are the only creature susceptible to diseases??? Are you out of your tree?

Can't survive in the wild without protection? Ridiculous. A fit, smart human can use tools to survive. It happens constantly.

No natural defenses? Did you know that man can run farther without stopping than any other animal on the planet?

By far the most superior? Not in strength, endurance, speed, adaptability, we aren't. Only in intelligence. 'Superior' is a subjective term.

You're right, it wasn't the brightest question.

Answer 5

I certainly don't agree. Everything biological about us DOES fit perfectly with our having evolved from earlier species on earth. Had we evolved elsewhere, it is very unlikely that we would have the same genetic code, comparable proteins, or comparable anatomy and physiology with every other organism on earth. Additionally, the fossil record very clearly shows our descent from ancestral species. While many of us would have a very difficult time surviving in the wild, many humans essentially do--just consider hunter-gatherer tribes around the world. We are not the only species susceptible to diseases--other species suffer from many (most) of the same diseases that we do. So, I don't think there is any evidence at all to support the contention of the question.

Answer 6

Humans have natural defenses, they can think, they can run, they can make tools and weapons, don't you think this is better than a gerbil, or a garter snake , or a frog, or an otter?

I think they survived for millions of years in africa, w/out protection as you call it. Superior, only buy use of the most adaptive brain, And susceptible to desease?? All life forms have their deseases, plagues of algae kill fish life, Bird flu, all the different deseases dogs & kats get, And A vet would be unemployed without animal desease. So while man is remarkable in his accomplishments, he just fits right into the scheme of things along with other life forms on earth.

Answer 7

As a biology student in college, your friends have raised some points that are simply wrong.

Humans are not the dominant animals when you compare them to worms, insects and bacteria. For overall success, bacteria by far with the race.

Many other creatures have far fewer defenses than humans. I could say that garden slugs have none whatsoever; at least humans can run and use weapons.

Humans can too survive in the wild without protection. They'd have to live in tropical climates, which is what they are evolved to do. There are still various stone-age cultures in the world who wear no clothes and build no effective shelters.

As for being susceptible to disease, there is no reason to think that humans lag behind any other animals. Animals of all kinds catch infections, have cancer, and even experience mental illness. There is no proof for this statement.

I hope this helps....

Answer 8

"the one who has no natural defenses" - using our brain and strength is not natural? Because we have the ability to create tools and weapons, we do not need claws or fangs.

"the one who could not survive in the wild w/o protection" - have you ever seen a bird's nest, a beaver damn, a wold cave, a squirrel hole...most animals use a type of home or protection for survival.

"the one who is by far the most superior" - you are biased. Our superiority is debatable.

"the only one susceptible to diseases" - I'm almost positive that the shark is the only animal that is NOT susceptible to cancer. And where did HIV/AIDS come from again? I also spend about $200 a year getting annual shots for my dogs...

So there it is. This doesn't mean that we unequivocally did not come from another planet - but it certainly is no proof.

Answer 9

Humans do have defenses... and we can survive in the wild without protections. And we weren't always this susceptible to diseases.

The reason we seem a lot weaker than our "wild" ancestors is because we've evolved to use our brain and we've grown to a level of comfort that makes it unnecessary for us to develop skills to survive in the wild. But look at cavemen, for instance. They lived in the wild and survived all right. Of course they used tools and such, but so do other animals, such as chimpanzees (I'm not saying chimps are related to humans in any way, simply that they are wild animals and also use tools to survive).

Answer 10

It makes sense but what sets us apart form animals is that we have awareness of everything around us. We also are able to show, process, and control our emotions. These types of things set us apart from animals so technically we cannot, or should not, go in the same category as animals just because of little things like that. We are also the only species that kills for pleasure. Little things make a big difference when comparing species and such things set us on the other end of the spectrum from animals. But I do see what point that person was making in your philosophy class. It is very logical and makes a lot of sense to me.

Answer 11

What has happened to humans is that we have evolved in intelligence, and therefore we started building dwelling places so we had no need then to live in the wild and our ability has gone. Although there are some people who know how to survive in the wild like the Abouriginies. (and Ray Mears!)