Adam's Ribs - possible proof of super civilization

originally posted by: Timpaak2
When did modern man appear?

As somebody with an old Sociology degree, I tend to think "modern man" is one who learned how to live in cities with each other peacefully for common benefit. So that would put it around 10,000 - 12,000 years ago, after the Younger Dryas. Genetically, I think the commonly accepted date is around 200,000 years ago. Most of that time they were migrating in small family groups and tribes. Seems like a long time for people who were definitely as smart as us to be wandering around, but life is hard when you're being attacked by saber-toothed tigers and stuff.

Anyway, truly modern man has existed essentially since the invention of beer and wine.

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: FlukeSkywalker

LOL That's actually a good name for a BBQ restaurant

Its been done on a MASH episode. Season 3 Episode 11 Titled "Adams Ribs" en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: CromCruachh
a reply to: peter vlar

Right, you pretty much convinced me. I incorrectly thought Cro Magnon was the oldest AMH! I hadn't seen the Omo and Afar fossils in East Africa. Thanks, I'm glad you took the time to share that information. I was wrong.

Are you an anthropologist? You know your Sh!t don't you? lol
I want to ask; what is Cro Magnon's ancestor?, I've always been intrigued by that fossils traits. Why does he look so different from the other AMHs and why is his brain so much bigger?

A appreciate the candor in your reply. I'm not used to that on ATS. It's typically. Tooth and nail
Back and forth lol and I'm glad that our were open to new information.

My background is in Paleoanthropology but I don't work in that field anymore but I try to keep up on what's going on. Forgive me for not using the term cromagnon because it's an anachronistic phrase in this field, but the differences in EMH in Europe around 40 Ka and far more archaic remains like the Omo 1 and Omo 2 remains is fairly consistent. There's actually a fairly large leap in morphological traits between Omo 1 and Omo 2 and they're separated by about 50 Ka if i remember correctly. It's important to note that climate across the flavor was considerable different just 100 Ka let alone 200 Ka. There are huge differences between the Omo remains in E. Africa and H. Naledi in South Africa. A lot ignorance it comes down to localized adaptations in ecological niche. In terms of what led to the differing cranial capacity, I can't do more than speculate but approximately 100 Ka some of the first AMH began their way out of Africa and into the Levant and actually cohabitated sites with Neanderthal there. The global climate was a little cooler and at this point Neanderthal had moved as far south as present day Iraq. Perhaps the leap in cranial capacity is a result of admixture with the cousins the African AMH met in the Middle East. Or perhaps it was just a matter of localized eco-niche adaptations in E. Africa. I'll have to go do some digging to see if i cak find a more concrete answer for you on that

Hmmm....interesting. Thanks.

a reply to: peter vlar

Well no one likes to be wrong lol, but my main goal is gaining more knowledge. I just want to get to the truth!
I do appreciate your long, informative replies by the way, it's good to speak to a paleontologist!
I thought humans were the only species with fused chromosomes, but i guess not!

(Down below I'm just stating my understanding of certain fossils and if I'm wrong anywhere could you point it out? I'm still uncertain about certain aspects and would like your knowledge on some things if you have to time.)

When I say Cro magnon, i'm referring to a certain type which is found in Europe, North Africa and the Middle east.
They were called Mechta Afalou in North Africa and Cro Magnon in Europe, they came in both continents in waves-solutrean/oranian-Magdelanian/Mouillian -but aren't they the same anatomically?
They both appeared at the same time with the Aterian wave (Africa) and Aurignacian wave(Europe) 40k years ago, as if from the west and then spread out further east. I noticed modern anthropologists they call these types Early modern humans,and bunch them in with alot of different AMH types, so what should these mechtoid fossils be called? Their latest descendants were the Guanches (off an island chain near northern africa) And the 1000 year old skulls of these Guanches were just like the Mechta Afalou skulls of 40k years ago! The climate was changing around that area, with the Sahara drying up into a desert, but these Mechtoid peoples anatomically had not changed in those 40k years? I thought with the climate change of the incoming inter glacial period would speed up their evolution?
So the younger Omo fossil was 150k years old? that gives him 110k years to evolve into that EMH(Cro Magnon) which entered north africa and europe. Are there any more fossils between Omo 2 and EMH? There are alot of different traits between these two, but i don't see the evolutionary advantage of alot of these traits? Why did the eye orbits change from round to rectangular? Judging from the bones, why did we get so much weaker? We did we lose our prathagonism of the jaw? All those Hominins look similar, but the EMH jjust looks so different. What evolutionary advantage could a larger chin have? or a smallar brow ridge? or larger mastoid bones? or shorter arms? or weaker, frailer feet? The main question which bugs me is; is there any human bones in any of the pre-humans?

I'm not arguing with you here, these are genuine questions. I was leaning toward intervention theory, but after seeing the Omo fossils i'm on the fence lol.
Also, however unlikely, it's not impossible that something interfered with our evolution, is it? I mean, yeah evolution makes sense, but you can't deny the possibility, however strange it is, inter dimensional or extra terrestrial intelligences interacted with primitive man. Imagine if it took Omo 2's grand kids and tweaked with them?

Anyway i just ordered some books on this, I want to see every damn fossil and artifact and see how it all adds up.

originally posted by: Timpaak2
To expose the problem I ask this question:

When did modern man appear?

That's actually a twofold question. Are you referring to modern anatomical morphology or modern behaviors? Because in Anthropology the two are very different concepts.

a reply to: CromCruachh


If you could bare with me until tonight or tomorrow, I'll gladly tackle your questions. I'm sick as hell today and haven't moved off my couch in about 20 hours lol. But I promise to address your questions ASAP.

It's a genuine pleasure to have a discussion on here with someone who just wants to find the truth and the right answers and as such, I will endeavor to provide the best answers I can with citations.

I agree that CromCruachh (huh?) deserves no less.

Plus, I'm waiting to read about this too, so I will appreciate the citations. Please link them when you can.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I agree that CromCruachh (huh?) deserves no less.

What was the "huh?" directed at?
What Crom Cruach means? if so it's a name from the ancient Celtic religion

originally posted by: CromCruachh
a reply to: Harte

I agree that CromCruachh (huh?) deserves no less.

What was the "huh?" directed at?
What Crom Cruach means? if so it's a name from the ancient Celtic religion

I was wondering - thanks.

Harte

a reply to: Triton1128

A quaint but misleading tittle, I find adding quote on quote

Final

to anything, most especially videos, does not necessarily denote there being any final say on anything. Who is to say that is the final answer to that? Not that guy that's for sure, but to play with finalities is silly, since after the fact, then the facts are made.

I find that video as interesting, but also equally as stupid as the opposition to such theories. Look here, another who has found the mystery of the pyramids and how they were made. But considering that even in this vid, they did not yet get to the whole trying to drag 2 ton rocks up steep and high hills, using only ropes, a few thousand humans, and oh water on sand. Nope just making some rivers and caring said blocks to location by boat.

Gee! Going by all these methods, seems that they still would likely be building pharaohs tomb to this day.

And what union would allow such harrowing work? Also the costs would far exceed the pay off, even with slaves. And if they did all that back then, then the pyramid builders guild would still be but a phone call away, for those who could afford a # load of stones over there head. And can you imagine if one of the workers forgets about the crack, and failure on stone number 23341, well then the whole thing just might split and fall on your head, like so much 2 ton dominoes stacked over your head. Would be quite a law suit right?

It is just so much more easier to just build skyscrapers me thinks.

I think one should make a vid or write a book titled. "How to move 2.3 million 2 ton blocks 20 feet in the space of 30 years, using only muscle power, sticks, and stones and donkeys" It would be much more believable, maybe even doable. But not likely.

Anyways, my gripe with your vid, as you can guess is the word "final" strewn haphazardly in the tittle. Am I to take it that is the final say on that subject just because your video says so? As for that whole rib's stuff, chromosomes, DNA and all of that. Sure why not, as plausible as any theory. But how likely is it? Now that is the question.

Did you happen to notice the title of this thread?

I was not a fan of the word " final " in the video title either. But the idea/theory was still inspiring!

a reply to: Triton1128
Unfortunately I can not remember if I actually watched that video or not. But then I went back and re watched some of it just a few moments ago. And unfortunately it was the vid that made me read the thread tittle!

Yup, just now.

But either way, I would say possible is plausible, but only in some circles. Lets just say there are whole lot of holes in this history thing, but hey. That's why I think history itself is but a theory. And the two things they both have in common is that there constantly changing.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Triton1128

lets go with the invalid idea that all men have less ribs than all women and the bible as a factual story.

So the aliens had the tech to create man, but couldnt create s women unless they stole or shrunks a mans rib?

so whos rib did they steal to create man?

Nice to see someone on topic. However I think this is missing the point.

The OP's idea, if I understand it right, is that some old priest is looking at an ancient diagram/manuscript describing the human genome.

But he doesn't know what a genome is, so he thinks he's just looking at a detailed diagram of the human rib cage. (Which just so happens to have 24 ribs, just like a genome would..... which might be why he thought it was a rib cage?)

The diagram points out that one of the man's chromosomes is smaller (or missing). Furthermore there might be some arrows pointing from the man's missing chromosome over to the woman's side, which he misinterprets as meaning one of the man's chromosomes (which he thinks are ribs) is being taken out and added to the female.

So he's doing his best to figure out what it all means, and he concludes that the manuscript must be telling him that Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs.


It's just a simple misunderstanding. The diagram probably did not intend to say anything of the sort. It was just a medical text, with no higher "creation myth" type intentions in its content. But how the heck is this priest from a comparatively primitive, low tech, culture, supposed to know that?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
The OP's idea, if I understand it right, is that some old priest is looking at an ancient diagram/manuscript describing the human genome.

But he doesn't know what a genome is, so he thinks he's just looking at a detailed diagram of the human rib cage. (Which just so happens to have 24 ribs, just like a genome would..... which might be why he thought it was a rib cage?)

The diagram points out that one of the man's chromosomes is smaller (or missing). Furthermore there might be some arrows pointing from the man's missing chromosome over to the woman's side, which he misinterprets as meaning one of the man's chromosomes (which he thinks are ribs) is being taken out and added to the female.

So he's doing his best to figure out what it all means, and he concludes that the manuscript must be telling him that Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs.


It's just a simple misunderstanding. The diagram probably did not intend to say anything of the sort. It was just a medical text, with no higher "creation myth" type intentions in its content. But how the heck is this priest from a comparatively primitive, low tech, culture, supposed to know that?

That's pretty awful (the idea, not your post.)

* we have 23 pairs of chromosomes - not 23 chromosomes.
* the "medical symbol" of THAT time was NOT the cadeuceus - it was the Staff of Asclepius, which has only one snake.
* nobody knew about genes until recently. In fact, they didn't know that cells existed or had structure.
* Eve existed before Adam did. Contrary to the Bible (there is such a thing as "virgin birth" (parthenogenesis) - but no genetic male ever produced ova and self-fertilized them and produced offspring.


...and it goes downhill from there.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
The OP's idea, if I understand it right, is that some old priest is looking at an ancient diagram/manuscript describing the human genome.

But he doesn't know what a genome is, so he thinks he's just looking at a detailed diagram of the human rib cage. (Which just so happens to have 24 ribs, just like a genome would..... which might be why he thought it was a rib cage?)

The diagram points out that one of the man's chromosomes is smaller (or missing). Furthermore there might be some arrows pointing from the man's missing chromosome over to the woman's side, which he misinterprets as meaning one of the man's chromosomes (which he thinks are ribs) is being taken out and added to the female.

So he's doing his best to figure out what it all means, and he concludes that the manuscript must be telling him that Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs.


It's just a simple misunderstanding. The diagram probably did not intend to say anything of the sort. It was just a medical text, with no higher "creation myth" type intentions in its content. But how the heck is this priest from a comparatively primitive, low tech, culture, supposed to know that?

That's pretty awful (the idea, not your post.)

* we have 23 pairs of chromosomes - not 23 chromosomes.

I looked it up to see that is definitely correct. There are 23 pairs, not 24 pairs.


Another way a chart could have been misinterpreted would be if there were an arrow going from the male's X chromosome, pointing over to the the female.

* the "medical symbol" of THAT time was NOT the cadeuceus - it was the Staff of Asclepius, which has only one snake.

I'm not quite seeing the relevance here. DNA physically has a spiral shape. That's not an abstraction. It's a literal reality.

Also the 23 chromosomes are pairs. Not singles. So two snakes or one, a chart of human DNA should still show 23 pairs.

* nobody knew about genes until recently. In fact, they didn't know that cells existed or had structure.

Clearly this is an Atlantis (or very old high tech civilizations) thread.

* Eve existed before Adam did. Contrary to the Bible (there is such a thing as "virgin birth" (parthenogenesis) - but no genetic male ever produced ova and self-fertilized them and produced offspring.


...and it goes downhill from there.

Right, but monotheism was invented by a highly patriarchal society.

If this priest were simply looking at a map of the human genome left over from an older, very advanced culture, and thought Men were the natural masters of Women, then of course he would assume Man was created first.