Two original basic human groups?

Mantel? Ganymede has a fireplace?

English spelling is a joke. It's either mantle or mantel, one or the other.

There's a big joke in this thread, but it has nothing to do with orthography.

Maybe you meant Micky Mantle. He could have been dropped off just like the Cro Magnons, but we just didn't notice. Man, you crack me up. If Cro Magnons came from a different planet, why is the composition of their DNA as well as that of their descendants based on the same chemical structures as all the other DNA on the plane? You just don't think through this goofy **** before you start promoting it.

What seems to be the case is that we're seeing pieces of a double living world, including creatures originally from this world which was a very dark world, and creatures including ourselves from one of Jupiter's large moons, which was originally bright. All of the creatures are based on the same RNA/DNA information system, which probably means that the RNA/DNA system is universal at least within our own galaxy, and all of the advanced creatures are tetrapods with a mouth, two eyes, two ears, and two nostrils.

There IS a problem for evolutionists in that, i.e. you'd have to believe that the same DNA/RNA system evolved in two different places identically, by chance...

Another impression I get from this is that if you went looking for new worlds around isolated dwarf stars, you'd mainly find Neanderthals and other hominids and the information content would be sort of low. You might could learn how to nap flint spear points, but you could learn that in Chicago. If you wanted to find other human worlds, you'd go looking for moons of gas giants in close orbits around main sequence stars.

The situation we have in our own system in which rocky planets orbit a main sequence star directly appears to be an aberration, and not common at all.

Either you're just taking the piss, or you're even loonier than i thought. I'll be charitable and assume the former.

why not have a double helix crystalline form be precipitated in other worlds and solar systems. We see spectrographic dta of several of the nucleotides (ACGT and U) from star clusters waaaay out there.

That means that these nucleotides (and several proteins , are ubiquitous throughout the galaxy (and maybe the universe), but lets at least recognize the similarity of chemical components in our own
galaxy.
Yo wouldn't sniffle at CO2 or NH3 or CO or H2O as common compounds throughout space. AO why not several nucleotides??

"Evolutionists don't have problems" we look for evidence and not bask in the dark of some stupid fuckin fairy tales.

Believe it or not that idea doesn't really bother me much, assuming you have some idea as to how far it can get you and how you'd go about it.

Part of the problem is stellar distances. If you scale our own system to have the radius of Pluto's orbit be about a yard, then the sun would be the width of a human hair and Alpha Centauri, the nearest thing involving main sequence stars, would be a bit more than four miles out yonder.

Thus, if your plan is to have the ingredients of life spread throughout our galaxy by floating around between star systems, it might take a sort of a long time...

Having ideas and archetypes float around from place to place might be faster and some claim that might be all it takes:

http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/morphic/

Rupert Sheldrake is another one of these guys you ought to know about on general principles.

Back to the book I was talking about and the theory in question... The claim is that our system was originally in two parts, a sun/Jupiter/Mercury part with spin axes (still) roughly perpendicular to the plane of the system, and a Saturn/Neptune/Mars/Earth part with spin axes now all roughly 26 degrees from perpendicular. The Sun/Jupiter system would have been bright, and the Saturn system would have been dark. Venus and Uranus of course are special/oddball cases.

The claim is that what we see on this planet now are remnants of what used to be a double living world: humans and dolphins and other creatures with smaller eyes for the bright world, and dinosaurs and hominids and others with much larger eyes adapted to life on a planet orbiting a brown dwarf star, with just a pale purple light.

What's funny is that the creatures of both parts of the thing are not only DNA/RNA based, but entirely similar in that the advanced creatures are/were all quadrupeds with two eyes, two nostrils, two ears, a mouth, a tail... In other words, a dinosaur or a hominid might look strange enough to us, but they don't really look "alien". And if you want to believe that both of those original living worlds evolved, then you need to explain how they evolved into roughly the same kinds of things by random chance.

The obvious conclusion appears to be that all living worlds, everywhere, are information-driven.

I guess those dark worlds were just lucky enough to have human caused global warming to make them hot enough to actually support life since their sun didn't give off enough energy to warm the planets.

Funny. How then does our own fossil record show the step by step deposition of all these organisms through time? AND we don't see ANY initial mammals until Triassic sediments and NO placentals until the late Cretaceous. Then, we don't see anything like proto ape mammals until the Paleocene?Life doesn't show any evidence of "Living together". It shows a rise of species.

AQll sorts of "Bauplans" for animals and plnts were tried and many had their days in the sun. Most (99.9999%) became extinct BUT, left their trcks in seiments.
Bilteral symmetry is one of a few competing bauplans that were tried and found to be "just right" There are a very few trilateral nd one or two higher symmetry bodyplns but these are only in swamp critters, like hydra .

You are busy searching for a possibility when a probability already exists