Is This Where Evolution Is Taking Us?

Look what we found in the Irish Sun, yet another UK tabloid. Their fascinating headline is Aliens ‘may be HUMANS’ as scientist argues UFOs are piloted by time-travellers from Earth. They have a comments feature, but we don’t see any yet. Here are some excerpts from the news story, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

ALIENS may already be walking among us… Because they’re actually humans. That’s the bonkers claim [bonkers?] made by one scientist, who argues that UFOs may be piloted by people from the future.

From the future? Egad! Then the tabloid says:

In thousands of years’ time, humanity will have access to all kinds of bonkers technology [“bonkers” again], argues Dr Michael Masters. The anthropologist, who plies his trade at Montana Technological University, believes time and space travel, for instance, will be commonplace. [Wowie, time travel will be commonplace!] It’s therefore entirely possible that humans will “visit” modern day Earth – visits which could explain previous accounts of UFO sightings and alien encounters.

This guy is real, dear reader. Here’s his faculty page at Montana Technological University: Michael P. Masters, Professor of Anthropology. If he says time travel is “entirely possible,” then you gotta believe it. After that we’re told:

“The phenomenon may be our own distant descendants coming back through time to study us in their own evolutionary past,” Dr Masters told KXLF.com in Montana, USA.

That’s the best way to study evolution — go back and watch it happen. Then no one can dispute you by asking “Were you there?” The tabloid continues:

Dr Masters specialises in human evolution, and says his theory is backed by decades of UFO sightings. [Solid evidence!] People who claim to have seen aliens often describe human-like features. The creatures are often said to communicate with us in our own languages, and possess technology advanced beyond, but clearly built upon, our own gadgetry.

Yes, the time travelers’ technology is “clearly” built upon our own. Let’s read on:

Dr Masters reckons this is evidence they are an advanced form of time-travelling human that he calls “extra-tempestrials”. [Clever name!] “The extra-tempestrial are ubiquitously reported as being bipedal, upright-walking, five fingers on each hand and foot,” he said. [Five fingers on each foot?] “They have two eyes, a mouth a nose, and they can communicate with us in our own languages,” he added.

You gotta admit, dear reader, this guy’s theory is built on solid evidence! Here’s another excerpt:

The scientist wrote about his bonkers theory [their third “bonkers”] last year in a book titled “identified flying objects”. He hopes his book gets scientists talking about the possibility that alien and UFO sightings may in fact be legitimate events involving extra-tempestrials.

Why not? Darwin’s book got everyone talking about evolution, so this guy’s book may do the same for his theory. We looked for the thing at Amazon, and here it is. Only $22.95 in paperback! The publisher is something called Masters Creative LLC, but we can’t find any information about them. That’s very strange.

Here’s one last excerpt:

The creatures’ humanoid form and advanced technology is the result of sustained human evolution here on Earth, long into the distant future. But the scientist admitted that even he wasn’t sure his bonkers theory [bonkers #4] was correct. “I continue to remain vigilant in my own scepticism. I do not have a staunch unwavering devotion to this notion, and I do not claim to proclaim a truth,” he said.

Well, if he isn’t convinced, we don’t know what to believe. How about you, dear reader? Do you think this is where evolution is taking us?

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

20 responses to “Is This Where Evolution Is Taking Us?

  1. Looking forward to his next book: Why Einstein was wrong. And the one after that: Time travel for dummies. All backed by decades of solid evidence gleaned from who knows where.

  2. FYI: “bonkers” is standard Britspeak for “crackpot”, “swivel-eyed loon”, “barking mad”, “Tory”, “Brexiteer” &c &c

  3. Professor of Biological Anthropology. Interesting subject I’m sure.

  4. Dave Luckett

    Although, Megalonyx, one also hears it as a synonym for “internationalist”, “globalist”, “multiculturalista” and “woke”. It rather depends on one’s point of view.

  5. Michael Fugate

    You can get your fill here where the author is speaking
    https://contactinthedesert.com/

  6. chris schilling

    This is, indeed, the Shape of Evolution to come.

    But we won’t know for sure until we capture one of these time-travellers from the future — these “extra-tempestrials”– and probe them anally, forcing them to give up all their advanced technology secrets. That’s the only way to ellicit real information. (They may even have evolved an extra anus by then, so that’s two for the price of one).

    I’m currently writing a book on this very subject — “Riddle of the Sphincter” — but it’s still all highly speculative. I lack hard physical evidence for the UFOs’ and their pilots.

    Think of it! The long-dreamed of answer to that eternal creationist stumper “Where [sic] you there?” may finally be answered in the affirmative: Yes, I WAS THERE, and I have a time-travelling UFO pilot’s licence to confirm it.

  7. Aha !! Ol Hambo is a time traveling alien. This explains everything !!!!!!

  8. Michael Fugate

    So were Adam and Eve – fits perfectly in the Swamidass hypothesis; they reinfiltrated the existing human population on earth

  9. Isn’t a more simple hypothesis that people report “aliens” that look like them because that’s what they are likely to imagine? I’m would guess that when the Curmudgeon’s dog dreams of space aliens, they have four legs, a tail and like to chase chipmunks.

  10. “the Irish Sun, yet another UK tabloid.”
    Technically this is correct, because it’s an edition of The Sun. But then “yet another” doesn’t make much sense, because The Sun is the most famous tabloid = crappy newspaper from that nation. Still the Irish Sun, as the name suggests, is the edition from the Republic of Ireland, which since 100 years ago doesn’t belong to the UK anymore. It’s published in Dublin and despite the infamously poor educational system in the USA I can’t believe our dear SC thinking that city resides in the UK.

  11. DaveL hits the nail on its head:

    “one also hears it as a synonym for “internationalist”, “globalist”, “multiculturalista” and “woke”. It rather depends on one’s point of view.”

    Indeed, when confronted with hard but unwelcome facts the first word a
    “crackpot”, “swivel-eyed loon”, “barking mad”, “Tory”, “Brexiteer” &c &c utters is “bonkers” or some variation. Sometimes they stop here, sometimes they follow up with fact free bla bla, like pseudo-apocalyptical prophecies regarding the future of Europe. Yours still makes me smile.

  12. Dave Luckett

    Glad to be of service, FrankB

  13. On the term ”bonkers”, our Dave Luckett notes

    one also hears it as a synonym for “internationalist”, “globalist”, “multiculturalista” and “woke”. It rather depends on one’s point of view.

    Well, perhaps one hears those somewhere—but I was restricting matters to terms which appear in our redoubtable British tabloids (for which we owe an everlasting debt of gratitude to your splendid countryman, Rupert “Dirty Digger” Murdoch), and I’m not sure your synonyms qualify.

    ”Internationalist” has far too many syllables for a punchy tabloid headline, and in any event hasn’t really had much currency since Trotsky broke with the Comintern. Similarly, ”globalist” I’ve never seen in the tabloids, only on internet forums where it is a do-whistle for anti-Semites of both the far Left and the far Right.

    ”Mutliculturista” is cute and, IMHO, deserves general currency, but again, it’s way too complicated for our beloved tabloids, which prefer short, sharp phrases like =”Enemies of the People!”, which is how The Mail characterised High Court judges who ruled that the UK Government required the consent of Parliament to trigger Brexit (even though, according to the Brexiteers, Parliament had long before surrendered sovereignty—or had it been viciously stolen?—to those shifty Eurocrats?)

    Other popular tabloid terms of course include, in full war font, like TRAITORS!!! and of course, BRITAIN FIRST!!!. These, by the by, were the same words subsequently shouted out by the bonkers swivel-eyed loon as he murdered Jo Cox MP.

    Does it all really only ”depend on one’s point of view? Does there exist a ‘point of view’ which holds it is not at least a teensy bit of the bonkers about June Mummery, the Brexit Party MEP mocked for complaining UK will no longer be represented in the EU?

    Or, if not “bonkers”, surely at least perversely ironic? Rather like someone who can intelligently articulate and rightly decry the deleterious phenomenon of Goebbels Big Lie yet can himself promulgate such demonstrable falsehoods like the EU is ‘an expansionist empire’ complete with autonomous ‘armed forces’ and yadda-yadda…

  14. Megalonyx, my concern wasn’t with the meaning of “bonkers,” which (absent temporary and local political implications) is the same on both sides of the Atlantic. I was remarking about the tabloid’s use of the word four times in that one article.

  15. @ our Curmudgeon: Ahh, ok: my bad.

    But perhaps you didn’t fully appreciate the limited vocabulary of the average British tabloid reader, for whom one must keep things mind-numbingly simple, e.g., “Take Back Control!”, “Get Brexit Done!”, or–if the French are even tangentially involved in a story, “Hop it, Frogs!”.

    And bless our tabloids for keeping WWII alive and well! But for their regular coverage, no one would know of the fierce battles between British and German (in tabloid speak, “Krauts” or “Fritz”) to reserve sun-loungers by covering them with towels in Spanish resorts!

    We shall fight them on the beach recliners, indeed!

  16. MegalonyxAh yes. The well known Battle of Mallorca and the landings on Ibiza.

  17. Dave Luckett

    I was going to keep quiet, going on the advice of Napoleon Bonaparte: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”, but I reflected that this is not a battle, and these are not my enemies, only persons of opposed views to mine on this issue. They and I are far more alike than we are different. I do not wish to see them, or any person, a permanently embittered antagonist, smarting from what they perceive as an unendurable defeat. Terrible effects arise from such causes.

    I will therefore say this: remember Bob Geldorf? Brave Sir Bob, yelling abuse from his millionaire’s motor launch on the Thames at fishermen who had the gall to protest the destruction of their livelihood? He might, by that one unforgettable passage, have done more than anyone else to get Brexit across the line, to cause the resignations of two Prime Ministers, and to cement the Tories into power for what looks like a decade at least. Of course he intended no such thing. But there you are. The law of unintended consequences is a bear.

    Megalonyx, FrankB, that bear will bite you, too. Of course you don’t mean to sound like effete elitists, smugly certain that what you want is what everyone really wants, and that only insane people, scum, racists, fascists, and lower-class oiks think otherwise. FrankB, of course you don’t mean to imply that authoritarian government is completely unthinkable now in Europe, that it couldn’t happen, no matter what history has thrown up, and no matter what the actual structure of the EU. You’re better educated than that. Megalonyx, I don’t think you revile Britain and the British as much as you make out. Or, in fact, at all. You have actually said – and I honour you for it – that you would reform the EU, if you could, and I am certain that you are uncomfortably aware of the problem in the last three words of that statement. I know better than to think that you inhabit a different reality when you dismiss the expansion of the EU or its acquisition of armed forces as gross lies, when you know perfectly well that they are facts.

    I am as certain as I can be that you are not, and do not intend to give the impression that you are, snobs, would-be members of the urban intelligentsia completely dismissive of anyone who doesn’t see the immediate benefits of large scale immigration, because from your point of view it’s all good. What you want is cheap nannies and good baristas, and what the hell do you care about yobs who can’t get a traineeship in the building industry, or scrubbers who can’t get into a veterinary nurse’s course because immigrants do all that kind of work now – and cheaper! I know that is not what you mean. But that is the effect of what you write.

    For your own sake, for the sake of the cause you advocate, understand that ranting about the newspapers or their readers only makes you look bad. Many actually want to be British people living in a British community, with neighbours they can communicate with in English, who share their values and behaviours and customs. Calling those people racists and fascists only ensures that you won’t be listened to. Dismissing a concern for truly representative and sovereign government by the institutions evolved by a people for that purpose, only makes you look like authoritarians, would-be gauleiters in the new Europe. And here’s the thing – if you haven’t got the common dog to avoid making such stupid tactical errors, why on Earth would you think that your political judgement is to be respected?

    But now I have said all I am going to say here on this subject. My evil nature would invite you to go on as you have been, because every sentence you write in that vein is pure gold, from my point of view. But please don’t. Believe it or not, I dislike extremism as much as you do, and all the effect you are really having is to stoke it.

  18. @Dave Luckett – we might note that Sir Bob is actually Irish-born. He comes from Dun Laoghaire, formerly Kingstown, formerly Dunleary.

  19. Jeepers! Spend less than a week off-line, and one misses such gems! To wit, Dave Luckett:

    I have said all I am going to say here on this subject.

    But you have yet to offer any evidence or data for your unsupported emotive assertions, which you continue to repeat with the same sound and fury of a Creationist who eschews engaging with the science but endlessly quacks on that ‘Darwinism’ is the root of all modern evil.

    There are simple choices here. One can choose—as I had hoped you would—to undertake an empirical examination of the cases for and against UK membership of the EU. If the EU actually were the ‘expansionist Empire’ that had stripped the UK of its sovereignty, wielding over it virtually unlimited power to impose whatever legislation a secret euro-cabal wished in order to enslave Britannia, it should have been easy to itemise, from nearly half a century of our membership therein, a massive list of deleterious laws imposed on us from Brussels without parliamentary oversight or consent, and a woeful catalogue of human rights suppressed by this tyranny—but instead, it fell to me to offer you (on a previous thread) solid facts about the sharply limited scope of legislative power in Brussels and the ECJ, all instituted and overseen by UK Parliamentary consent. If the EU was the monster you claim, then nothing should be easier than to point to an overwhelming consensus to that effect by economists, industrialists, constitutional lawyers, City traders, scientists, doctors, academics &c &c—but instead we find the opposite, with only a tiny fringe of experts arguing for Brexit (rather like the DI’s notorious signers of the ‘Dissent from Darwin’ schtick). To be fair, though, one can point to a handful of international cheerleaders for Brexit: Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and (I think, but am not certain) your own Scott Morrison.

    Or: one can choose (and this is my preference) to consider, on the basis of evidence and data, what is effective and beneficial about the EU and also what is deficient and in need of reform. This is no different from the process one applies (or should) to any form of governance, be it a national state, an international treaty organisation (whether the UN, NATO, or the WTO), or in fact any corporate body (there are serious questions to be asked about the governance of Boeing!). This is no different from saying—as readers of this blog generally do—that science does not give us complete or perfect knowledge, and that it sometimes errs, but that is no reason to abandon it in favour of mindless oogity-boogity. Science has built-in mechanisms for correction and improvement, just as do enlightened forms of governance.

    Or—and this is the pity of your posts on this topic—one can opt for the Creationist option, which is to ignore the science (because it doesn’t accord with their a priori beliefs) but instead engage in the emotive rhetoric of phoney ‘Culture Wars.’ And man, do you give us a text-book example of this ploy!

    Brave Sir Bob, yelling abuse from his millionaire’s motor launch on the Thames at fishermen who had the gall to protest the destruction of their livelihood?

    Yes, let’s make it about personalities! You know, that Richard Dawkins can be an arrogant git, so the science must be wrong!

    But seriously: I’m not aware that ageing rock stars had any particular claim on our attention in political matters, though that doesn’t stop them claiming it—as have, inter alia, Brexit-enthusiast multi-millionaires Ringo Starr (from the sanctuary of his Beverly Hills mansion) and Roger Daltrey (from his Scottish estate, where are also filmed his occasional commercials for American Express). And Starr and Daltrey make the compelling argument that they had a lot of fun when they were young in the 1960’s, so who needs the EU? That’s a tough one to counter!

    More to the point, let’s look at the falsehood smuggled into that rhetorical sleight-of-hand: let’s stick to the “fishermen who had the gall to protest the destruction of their livelihood” , because that is an issue of substance, and subject to empirical questioning.

    Because UK fishermen are indeed right to worry about the destruction of their livelihood. Many come from generations of fishermen and can tell tales of the bumper hauls of cod their fathers used to bring ashore in Grimsby and Hull—but the threat to their livelihoods is not from the EU, but from the earlier introduction of industrialised harvesting using super-trawlers and many decades of resulting over-fishing. And that’s a problem extending far beyond British and European waters, indeed right into your beloved ‘Anglosphere’ (see Collapse of the Atlantic northwest cod fishery; for the UK, see ‘Profound’ decline in fish stocks shown in UK records and the LSE’s . Don’t blame the EU for the decline in some British fishing ports For a global picture from 2002/04 data) General situation of world fish stocks (UNFAO).
    The problem is not of the EU’s making; it’s one the 28 (shortly, 27) member states of the EU have attempted to solve collectively—and it’s a problem that can only be solved via international co-operation because, remarkably, fish don’t recognise invisible maritime borders. They spawn in one place and migrate to other waters quite oblivious to who claims to own them—which is jolly inconvenient.

    [BTW: for an account of Geldof & Nigel Farage’s contretemps on the Thames: Nigel Farage and Bob Geldof fishing flotilla clash. Spoiler alert: neither Geldof nor Farage do themselves much credit 😊. Farage, as an MEP, sat on the EU Parliament’s Fishing Committee, but only attended 1 of its 43 meetings. And, a point which rather spoils Farage’s lie on fishing: under the current treaty, EU members are allowed to place limits on who can fish in their territorial waters! See Is the EU ‘pinching our fish’?

    Does anyone really need to have it pointed out that continued overfishing leads to the extinction, not only of the fish, but of fishing? Does anyone have a solution to the problem other than limiting by annual quota the catch by species?

    On the other hand, does the EU currently have a good solution? Probably not: see Fishing: New EU rules could have ‘grave’ impact on UK industry (2018). Note that the article points out the real difficulty with the EU rules is the ease with which they can be ignored (though one wonders why the phantom EU Navy, which you imagine exists, isn’t up to the job). But the basic problem is overfishing, and there is no way of reducing that without severe consequences for the industry—that’s a constraint of reality, not politics in the UK or the EU. It’s the working of the Invisible Hand of the Market, just as it was for the UK coal mining industry in the 1980’s. The political issue is, what role does government have in mitigating those market effects on communities previously dependent on an endangered industry? The Thatcher government thought ‘no role at all’—but that’s a different argument altogether; in any event, coal mining really had reached the end of viability. But fishing is a necessary industry going forward, but can only do so if methods are found of maintaining sustainable stocks. A nation v. nation free-for-all created the problem in the first place; a return to that condition is not going to solve it. To claim that Brexit will restore UK fishing to its glory days of 100 years ago is yet another Big Lie.

    Blaming the EU for problems in the fishing industry is like a smoker (and I know just such a one) who blames the doctors for discovering that tobacco is carcinogenic. What a killjoy those medics are! Our grandfathers didn’t have to worry about stuff like that!

    And yet, as if all the above weren’t already straight out of the Creationist playbook, you go on to say, with all the assurance of a Creationist who assert that ‘Darwinists’ know “perfectly well” that evolution is false but promote its doctrines because they hate Baby Jesus and want to fornicate, or something:

    I know better than to think that you inhabit a different reality when you dismiss the expansion of the EU or its acquisition of armed forces as gross lies, when you know perfectly well that they are facts.

    No, I know—from examination—that they are gross lies. Big Lies.

    An international organisation bound by mutually-agreed treaty of sovereign democratic states that have (a) chosen to co-operate on matters of mutual interest, (b) must meet strict criteria of democratic governance, rule of law, human rights, fair economic competition, and (c) can leave that organisation at any time of its own choosing can in no wise be characterised as an ‘empire’–unless one has an agenda for so doing. I know—from examination—that there is no EU Army, EU Navy, or even—god forbid!—an EU Space Force—except in the imaginations of folks with a specific agenda in repeating that Big Lie.

    No need to comment on your remarks about “effete elites”; I agree with your basic observation, that is indeed how the tabloids have caricatured the Leave campaigners, just as the DI and Hambo caricature ‘Darwinists’ as amoral hedonists. The funny part is how these same sources go on to present Eton-and-Oxford educated Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson as ‘men of the people’, and that Dulwich-college alumnus and commodity broker Nigel Farage as the ‘voice of the working man.’

    Demagogues are an inherent threat to any democracy, and their method—the Big Lie—is hideously effective, particularly in times of social upheaval. I do not doubt that, when the history of early 21st century Britain is written, a defining event will be, not Brexit itself, but the impact of the 2007-8 global financial crisis and the decade of sharp austerity that resulted; the parallel with the Great Depression of the 1930’s and the resulting emergence of totalitarian states in Italy and Germany is, I think, compelling. A scapegoat was needed, and the EU was pressed into that service by a series of Big Lies. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu once observed,

    The one thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.

    Brexit will be a step backwards–but my, aren’t we all subject to nostalgia! Bring back the golden Edwardian Age! In less than a year now, we shall find out what Brexit actually means. Will British fishermen again enjoy unlimited and bounteous catches? Will Brexit make Britain Great Again? Or are we in for renewed strains on the Union? The Scottish Nationalists have never had a stronger hand, and a good kick has been given to the potential hornet’s nest that is Northern Ireland. Some outline of what Brexit means is becoming clear: it means, in large part, English nationalism. And that, I suspect, is rather at odds with what we previously thought were British ‘values and behaviours’ of tolerance, open-mindedness, and honesty.

    And finally: having offered you the evidence indicating that the repeated Big Lies of the Brexiteers and their screaming tabloid headlines of ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE! contributed to the murder of Jo Cox MP, do tell me: what part of shared British “values and behaviours and customs” is that?

    None, of course, I am sure you agree. And yet, you charge me and FrankB with ‘stoking extremism’?

    To which I can only respond, in the British fashion with which PM Thatcher conclude her final Cabinet meeting:

    It’s a funny old world.

  20. “an empirical examination of the cases for and against UK membership of the EU”
    In fact the cases for are not so hard to point out: Norway and Switzerland. The difference of course is that those countries have leaders who value honesty and integrity and try to act in the best interest of their countries. Already in the early 1980’s the Swiss-French border was very easy to cross for young Dutchie me.

    “And yet, you charge me and FrankB with ‘stoking extremism’?”
    Did he? BWAHAHAHAHA!
    See, I actually side with him, albeit for completely different reasons. It’s folks like him who turned me into a supporter of the Brexit last year. The sooner the EU gets rid of England the sooner it can focus on serious problems again. And we all agree there are several. I’d be curious to learn about some polls, but I suspect my view is common in all western and many central European countries. Before this change I was lukewarm, because I erroneously assumed the politicians involved would negotiate a reasonable, pragmatic and sensible deal, resulting in a smooth transition. Could I have known that the creme de la Brexiteer creme, with unvoluntary support of Jeremy Corbyn, would produce an absurdity even Monty Python could not have dreamt of in their best days?
    But I’ve been wondering. The “arguments” of DaveL (indeed his “arguments trump evidence” approach is very christian and especially creationist-like) equally if not more favour the independence of Scotland. Of course Bojo the Clown being as hypocrite as say Ol’Hambo wants nothing of it. What about DaveL? Does he support the Scottish effort to shake off the chains of an evil Empire that even about 150 years ago seriously harmed three of its constituent countries (plus the colonies)?
    Or is DaveL as brave and admirable as the English conservative elite and totally willing to make the people from Gibraltar, Northern-Ireland/Ulster and Scotland pay for something their majorities totally don’t want?