Man's Genetic voyage. Fact, Speculation and Theories...

reply to post by heffo7


I've purposely left the "New World" connection vague for a reason.

reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel



I agree there is more to the story than what we think we know.

Humans were androgynous in between 70-120 thousand years ago - there was just one gender. Right?

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

While their descendants certainly became close intimates, Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve are separated by tens of thousands of years.

How does that fit into your picture?

The study of archeology and the many amazing theories (and eventually accepted facts) it generates are undeniably fascinating.

It reminds me how brief our lives truly are. And, when taken in the context of many thousands of years, the data paints a picture that tells us a great deal about the history of human beings over the millennia.

One can only hope that the data is never manipulated to better fit the status quo, but to always allow it to tell the true story (to the best of our understanding) no matter what.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Ah, yes with everybody #ing everybody in today's world with global transportation, evolution doesn't quite work the same with us anymore.

I have always thought about that, four and a half billion years of survival and struggle it seems improbable that there wouldn't be some kind of mechanism for adaptive mutations in our genes, or maybe they have all just been narrowed down to the successful ones being a lot more prevalent on a large timescale? Maybe that's what all that 'useless filler' in our DNA is for?

interesting thread.

we have now come to the end of our genetic advancement, and soon we will transcend this dimension to a alternate density, giving the appearance of apparitions to those remaining here in the 3rd density while they will become flaky and earthy in comparison to the ascended. Hope that clears things up.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Great thread. Only glaring mistake I noticed, and it's not just you slayer, is you use of the word "hominid." H
The correct term for anatomically moden humans and our ancestors would be hominin. Hominid are apes, monkeys and prosimians. This is a recent change in terminology. Yes I am an anthropologist.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by heffo7

 

I've purposely left the "New World" connection vague for a reason.

Well I'll be reading on with great interest to see why.

Originally posted by Logestar
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Great thread. Only glaring mistake I noticed, and it's not just you slayer, is you use of the word "hominid." H
The correct term for anatomically moden humans and our ancestors would be hominin. Hominid are apes, monkeys and prosimians. This is a recent change in terminology. Yes I am an anthropologist.

Good point, and correct. I didn't bother pointing this out since 'hominid', 'hominin', and 'hominan' can get confusing to the non-anthropologist and "hominid" is still used as a more generic term.

S & F

Thanks SLAYER Once again another great thread.
nicely laid out and easy to follow. Makes good sense to me.

reply to post by FIFIGI


Appreciate the links and info.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thank you for creating this thread. I had read the book Germs, Guns and Steel but I didn't know there was a video version of it. It greatly added to my understanding to say the least! The same questions I have pondered myself in drinking a coffee over at the local cafe, but you now have brought it to our attention in this forum. For that I wish I could give you all my reserve of stars. Good work my friend, but keep doing your research.

Cheers!....

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by ArchaeologyUnderground

 

Thanks for the input.

I've read some material and seen some video discussing the "Arthritic Neanderthal" Could it simply be that those they have found were riddled with Arthritis just like some modern man? If I were to dig up a corpse who was afflicted with Arthritis does this mean that all humans are arthritic?

As it turns out Neanderthals were almost as diverse in appearance as modern man.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5b44632e10af.jpg[/atsimg]

edit on 26-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

I will tell you what. I hope this does not confuse the matter even more. In my past years working for a major pharma company I met a very smart, tall, nice, articulate frenchman. His head features resembled that of a Neanderthal. A very pronounced brow and and a strong jaw. So, did this guy have Neanderthal DNA? I think I still have his contact information, but I would hate to elucidate my intentions.

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with everyday survival, species don't evolve over time. Darwin's theories weren't bad, but unfortunately he was seriously mistaken.

Have you ever heard the expression, What good is half a leg, half a fin, half a wing, etc?

The idea that a species living in the ocean slowly developed the capacities to walk on land over a million years is actually in total contradiction of survival of the fittest.

The reality of evolution is that it's murderous, it's extinction, it's brutal mutation. The reason there isn't any transitional animals in the fossil record, is because there aren't any. Evolution is driven by solar radiation bombardment. It's the brutal reality of the extinction, evolution cycle.

Although we can surmise based on migratory patterns and physical characteristics that are common to that route, we can't conclusively say anything. We now have aircraft that will carry humans (and their genetic material) across the world. Take for instance the following example. Half Japanese/Half Algerian:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6e5898f9ec76.jpg[/atsimg]

Beautiful girl, but yet she is ostracized in Japan, because she is not full Japanese (Erika_Sawajiri).

She looks Japanese to me. Genetics works in some mysterious ways. As a whole, we are becoming homogenized, and as a molecular biologist I must point out that this will be an issue in about 2000 years. But that is another thread for another time.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Byrd

 

I appreciate the feedback.
I left a few things out. Many regarding the other threads I've worked on. Too many details would have probably overloaded the piece

Possibly, but if you're trying to make a viable theory (duck! here comes the scholar!) you *have* to acknowledge the extra details to show that you're aware of it and you're not just basing all this on reading 8 websites and coming up with an idea.

Best way to show that (having dealt with this on other boards) is simply to put a list of references (usually books and journal articles) at the bottom of the page with links (like... "More on H. Erectus encounters with H. Sapiens" and a link.

This also prevents smart alecs from saying, "Hey! ya overlooked my favorite alternative theory and so forth!"

...but as I said, I'm a scholarly nuisance.

reply to post by SLAYER69

John you never cease to amaze !!! Excellent work here...Do I smell a book in the works ?

reply to post by SLAYER69


Great presentation. I'm sure that there will be other groups of homo species that are not yet discovered which will explain why that part of the world has those distinct features.

reply to post by Kratos40


I thought the book was amazing and I received the DVD as a Birthday gift.
I wasn't aware it either at the time.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Regarding Neanderthals "Primitive Nature"
The idea that they were brutish will take some time to do away with. Remember we are dealing with an entrenched academic portrayal...

Slayer, my friend, who do you think is doing the conferences and papers and journals and discussion groups on Neanderthal culture, brain size similar to modern humans, the "not just a naked ape but wore clothes and used environment, physical characteristics, ability to cook food (www.gwu.edu...), behavior (journals.cambridge.org...), and more?

I think evidence suggests that popular culture is at fault for portraying them as "brutish" and that scientists are not at all in agreement with popular culture's concept of them as stupid apes. I have noticed popular culture references (including creationist references such as this one Neanderthals are actually closer to Adam of the Bible ) are finally changing their ideas to incorporate Neanderthals into the family of humans. Jack Chick seems to remain unconvinced.