It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Neandertal trait in early human skull suggests that modern humans...

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: knoledgeispower

You can click on the map and look at the legends. But here is why you should not take any kind of dating where the dates are close seriously. According to the history of England, the first humans existed there 800,000 years ago, that's way before out-of-Africa theory. Of course, one also has to wonder how those humans got into the U.K(and all the various bodies of water on the map above).

In addition, the blonde hair blue eye gene only existed 5000-10000 years ago, but, how did this gene get to the UK?
It is said that English is derived from the West Germanic tribes, who invaded the UK. We can conclude from this
that the modern humans and English existed only after the invasion of those Germanic Tribes. Basically, we can clearly see that there were 2 species of humans on the UK(and IMO, the one that existed 800,000 years ago has nothing to do with the current one), unless of course, you can show me that the blonde hair blue eye genes evolved independently, i.e once on mainland Europe, and once on the UK.

Finally, according to scientists, all the continents were connected 300 million years ago(which I'm not opposing, it's entire possible that God created all the land and then split them asunder), then they used dinosaurs fossil evidence as one of the reasons to support the idea, in other words, the idea is that the dinosaurs evolved from something, then spreaded out, the only problem is, the dinosaurs existed 230 million years ago, after the continents already broke up.

To me, if evolution happened, then it did not evolve from random chance, but rather, every time a "special event" occurs, it triggers "similar mutations", that is, some species evolved into a different species of various kinds of dinosaurs, some species evolved into mammoths(in North America)/elephants(in India), some species evolved into dogs/cats/lions. I'm not too familiar with taxonomic terms, but basically, you could say a class of animals evolved into another class(made up of different species) all at once. This means that in order to prove evolution, you would have to find transitional fossils for each species on EACH continent.




posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

It should be noted that just because we found remains of humans 400,000 years ago doesn't mean that we "evolved" from them. Unless we can prove conclusively that we are descendants of the Cro-Magnons(and there is doubt that we have Neandethal DNA), and using "DNA-similarity" is not proof, because our DNA is pretty much similar to everything. It has to be an exact copy for us to be sure(99.99% is not enough, because let's say he changed a couple of traits to make us say more civilized and intelligent, then that still means we were created).



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: knoledgeispower

originally posted by: NthOther
The incessant revisionism practiced by mainstream anthropologists and evolutionary biologists makes me less inclined to believe a single word they say.

What's the point of the OP, anyway? Are you simply using this story as a platform from which to launch an assault on Christians?
I don't understand why some people are more concerned with the "other side" being wrong than they are with their own side being right.


I started it because it's an interesting article. Some evolutionist's have thought that the evolution of man was a simple evolutionary line but this shows it was more complex than we thought.

I believe a higher power created everything & evolution is the natural process that has taken place since then.

There are Christians that believe in evolution.


The equivalent of putting square tires inside of round ones. The square tire doesn't actually do anything except console your sense of loss and inequity over the fact that physics trumps your fashion sense.
edit on 11-7-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: flyingfish

DNA evidence shows that every race and nationality originated from Iraq, possibly corresponding to all the tribes of Noah(if you trace the Chinese back to the state of Chu, now take away all the territories that Chu annexed, their true kingdom is probably as small as Germany, France or the UK. Basically, you can see that every tribe seems to be very equal in size initially). Now look at the map of the Dian Tribe, NanYue Kingdom, Minyue Tribe, Thai Tribe(and if you do the same for India, it's probably the same), and you can see it is remarkable that all of these tribes seem to have different languages, and all similar in sizes(if you see the name Empire or a large kingdom, then it's a collection of tribes formed by force).

The answer is clear, they could not have been one or a few large groups, but rather several small, but different groups that all must have started at one point in time, breeded very equally, and spreaded out very equally.



Interestingly enough, the theory of evolution hypothesizes that modern humans first emerged in Africa and spread through the Middle East via Egypt. Seems that your theory possesses just enough parallels with evolution to be plausible. Coincidence?



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: np6888

I sort of agree. That is, I doubt some of the assumptions and presumptions made when H. xyz are found and then further insultingly presuming because those were the oldest yet found that the specific geographical location the presumed place of the origin of the species.

Basically making 'solid' theories as to the origins of humankind using DNA from ancient archaeological finds is like presuming a picture from opening 10 doors of a 1000 piece advent calendar jigsaw puzzle.
edit on 11-7-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

The lines and DNA are not based on fossils. They are taken from modern humans. You cannot track DNA migration using human fossils, as they are extremely rare(1 in 1,000,000 chance), and often times, it's really just a bone or a tooth.

It's the dates that are based on fossil evidence, and this is why you have all of these contradictions(where humans existed way before they migrated out of Africa, or in North America before the last Ice Age), they try to prove a theory out of very flimsy evidence.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Barcs

The lines and DNA are not based on fossils. They are taken from modern humans. You cannot track DNA migration using human fossils, as they are extremely rare(1 in 1,000,000 chance), and often times, it's really just a bone or a tooth.

It's the dates that are based on fossil evidence, and this is why you have all of these contradictions(where humans existed way before they migrated out of Africa, or in North America before the last Ice Age), they try to prove a theory out of very flimsy evidence.



And as mentioned earlier, they are at least willing to revise their theory or discard it entirely, given the emergence of sufficient evidence. At this time, it is the best theory we have to work with, and it will no doubt be subject to changes both major and minor as time goes on. That's how science works.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Moresby

People have accepted all sorts of bizarre theories throughout history, though now humanity is evolved enough and there is sufficient information available to research theories.

Hence, the OOA theory IMO and in the opinion of many respected scientists is dubious and highly questionable. I prefer the truth in my science theories and facts so I refute OOA as a theory.

As has been shown, based on the OOA equation, OOME would now be the new OOA, and if another older h. Sapiens find with corresponding DNA then that would be the new OOA, so effectively OOA should be renamed OOME or OOTBC.


As I said, most scientists reject the standard Out of Africa model in favor of the Recent African Origin model.

I'm not clear what you're objecting to or supporting. What are you claiming? That modern humans evolved in Asia?

Personally, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I was just stating the current popular theories and their weaknesses.

Frankly, I'm more interested in the cultural evolution in this late hominid period than the biological evolution. Most of the heavy lifting on the biologic front was finished around 200,000 years. And after that the cultural stuff seems more interesting.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: knoledgeispower


I clicked on the map but there is no explanation for the legend. What does each letter represent? Why are there letters like CR or R1b? It doesn't make sense so if you could post the full explanation that would be great.


Of course, one also has to wonder how those humans got into the U.K(and all the various bodies of water on the map above).
Boats


According to a team of researchers from Copenhagen University, a single mutation which arose as recently as 6-10,000 years ago was responsible for all the blue-eyed people alive on Earth today.

The team, whose research is published in the journal Human Genetics, identified a single mutation in a gene called OCA2, which arose by chance somewhere around the northwest coasts of the Black Sea in one single individual, about 8,000 years ago.

The gene does not "make" blue in the iris; rather, it turns off the mechanism which produces brown melanin pigment. "Originally, we all had brown eyes," says Dr Hans Eiberg, who led the team.

Another suggestion is that the strange skin, eye and hair colours seen in Europe are down to ancient interbreeding with the Neanderthals, who died out about 25,000 years ago.

Maybe the Neanderthals were blonde or red-haired and it is their genes which we have inherited. The trouble with this theory is that there is no evidence, from the scraps of Neanderthal DNA that have been recovered from bones, that there was any substantial interbreeding between them and Homo sapiens at all.

Perhaps the most plausible theory is that blonde hair and blue eyes arose because of a mechanism called sex selection.

This is where males and females choose as their mates those who have one unusual physical characteristic, not necessarily associated with "fitness" per se but simply something unusual.

All blue-eyed people can be traced back to one ancestor who lived 10,000 years ago near the Black Sea

Some believe that the blonde hair and blue eyes was spread because of Vikings and Anglo Saxons.


Finally, according to scientists, all the continents were connected 300 million years ago(which I'm not opposing, it's entire possible that God created all the land and then split them asunder), then they used dinosaurs fossil evidence as one of the reasons to support the idea, in other words, the idea is that the dinosaurs evolved from something, then spreaded out, the only problem is, the dinosaurs existed 230 million years ago, after the continents already broke up.

God had nothing to do with why the continents separated, it's because of plate tectonics.


Evidence for the movement of continents on tectonic plates is now extensive. Similar plant and animal fossils are found around different continent shores, suggesting that they were once joined. The fossils of Mesosaurus, a freshwater reptile rather like a small crocodile, found both in Brazil and South Africa, are one example; another is the discovery of fossils of the land reptile Lystrosaurus from rocks of the same age from locations in South America, Africa, and Antarctica.[22] There is also living evidence—the same animals being found on two continents. Some earthworm families (e.g.: Ocnerodrilidae, Acanthodrilidae, Octochaetidae) are found in South America and Africa, for instance.

The complementary arrangement of the facing sides of South America and Africa is obvious, but is a temporary coincidence. In millions of years, slab pull and ridge-push, and other forces of tectonophysics will further separate and rotate those two continents. It was this temporary feature which inspired Wegener to study what he defined as continental drift, although he did not live to see his hypothesis become generally accepted.

Widespread distribution of Permo-Carboniferous glacial sediments in South America, Africa, Madagascar, Arabia, India, Antarctica and Australia was one of the major pieces of evidence for the theory of continental drift. The continuity of glaciers, inferred from oriented glacial striations and deposits called tillites, suggested the existence of the supercontinent of Gondwana, which became a central element of the concept of continental drift. Striations indicated glacial flow away from the equator and toward the poles, in modern coordinates, and supported the idea that the southern continents had previously been in dramatically different locations, as well as contiguous with each other.

Continental drift


To me, if evolution happened, then it did not evolve from random chance, but rather, every time a "special event" occurs, it triggers "similar mutations", that is, some species evolved into a different species of various kinds of dinosaurs, some species evolved into mammoths(in North America)/elephants(in India), some species evolved into dogs/cats/lions. I'm not too familiar with taxonomic terms, but basically, you could say a class of animals evolved into another class(made up of different species) all at once. This means that in order to prove evolution, you would have to find transitional fossils for each species on EACH continent.


Evolution happened because they needed to happen, watch the BBC documentary series "Planet Earth". It gives examples of why some species needed to evolve, like some animals that live in dark caves had to evolve in order to adapt to their environments, they no longer have eyes.

Evolution of animals didn't happen all at once because not all animals needed to evolve.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: knoledgeispower

originally posted by: NthOther
The incessant revisionism practiced by mainstream anthropologists and evolutionary biologists makes me less inclined to believe a single word they say.

What's the point of the OP, anyway? Are you simply using this story as a platform from which to launch an assault on Christians?
I don't understand why some people are more concerned with the "other side" being wrong than they are with their own side being right.


I started it because it's an interesting article. Some evolutionist's have thought that the evolution of man was a simple evolutionary line but this shows it was more complex than we thought.

I believe a higher power created everything & evolution is the natural process that has taken place since then.

There are Christians that believe in evolution.


The equivalent of putting square tires inside of round ones. The square tire doesn't actually do anything except console your sense of loss and inequity over the fact that physics trumps your fashion sense.

Not sure what you are trying to get at so why don't you just say it instead of dancing around it.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Moresby

Originally, I was making the point to another poster, who mentioned OOA as the accepted theory, that such formulas for determining human origins is flawed and on such a hypothesis OOME would be more apt.

Neither the archaic nor modern OOA theories makes sense when all other factors are considered.

My own theory is that there is a far more complex picture that is gradually emerging and science should let it unravel elegantly instead of clumsily jumping on the first remotely feasible (though easily toppled) possible scenario and flying it's flag in a ruthless ad campaign that would make McDonalds jealous.

The masses are gullible and have lapped it up with all their Lion King, Madagascar stuffed toys etc. Whilst I am all for showing the good things about Africa, it is obviously a vast and diverse land of many wonders, and I am sure the African populations might offer the world things of value, I prefer that it isn't sold as some sort of mythical 'motherland' the stuff of Disney's dreams in some sort of media spin agenda when OOA could be OOjust about anywhere.

Essentially misleading the masses is probably not very good and means now when the truth is emerging, the 'motherlanders' are hiding under rocks and spouting denial using accusations of racism. And the world does not need that.

If anything, OOA is racist as it excludes other OOX possibilities, such as the finds in the ME, Spain and China, that could equally or more so make such grandiose claims.
edit on 11-7-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Barcs

The lines and DNA are not based on fossils. They are taken from modern humans. You cannot track DNA migration using human fossils, as they are extremely rare(1 in 1,000,000 chance), and often times, it's really just a bone or a tooth.

It's the dates that are based on fossil evidence, and this is why you have all of these contradictions(where humans existed way before they migrated out of Africa, or in North America before the last Ice Age), they try to prove a theory out of very flimsy evidence.


Could you refer me to the website where that picture is from? I don't see how you can trace DNA geographically without using the fossils as markers. Am I missing something? The dates and locations should both be based on fossil evidence right?

I don't consider fossils to be flimsy evidence, btw. It may not be complete, but there have been quite a bit of fossils found.


But here is why you should not take any kind of dating where the dates are close seriously. According to the history of England, the first humans existed there 800,000 years ago, that's way before out-of-Africa theory. Of course, one also has to wonder how those humans got into the U.K(and all the various bodies of water on the map above).


By 'history of England', you are talking based on fossils found in that region, correct? Hominid species go back 2.5 million years, so it doesn't seem to contradict the idea that hominids first evolved in Africa. I don't see that as a reason to ignore the dates at all.


Finally, according to scientists, all the continents were connected 300 million years ago(which I'm not opposing, it's entire possible that God created all the land and then split them asunder), then they used dinosaurs fossil evidence as one of the reasons to support the idea, in other words, the idea is that the dinosaurs evolved from something, then spreaded out, the only problem is, the dinosaurs existed 230 million years ago, after the continents already broke up.


pubs.usgs.gov...

Here is the timeline based on tectonic plates. Dinosaurs existing 230 million years ago doesn't cause a problem. Obviously they spread out as the continents did. That's why we find that the early dinosaur fossils are located all over the world, but when looking at the Triassic era, different types of dinosaurs are common to different continents for the most part.


This means that in order to prove evolution, you would have to find transitional fossils for each species on EACH continent.

That's not what that means at all. There have been dozens upon dozens of transitional fossils found, but I believe you said it yourself that fossilization is very rare, so we'll never have the complete absolute picture. Evolution, however, has already been proven and isn't really up for debate other than the minor details like certain time frames and certain common ancestors.


should be noted that just because we found remains of humans 400,000 years ago doesn't mean that we "evolved" from them. Unless we can prove conclusively that we are descendants of the Cro-Magnons(and there is doubt that we have Neandethal DNA), and using "DNA-similarity" is not proof, because our DNA is pretty much similar to everything. It has to be an exact copy for us to be sure(99.99% is not enough, because let's say he changed a couple of traits to make us say more civilized and intelligent, then that still means we were created).


Cro Magnon is just a term that means older homo sapien. I think it's pretty safe to say that homo sapien sapiens(modern human) evolved from homo sapiens(Cro magnon). Human is a very encompassing term. It can describe just homo sapiens or it can refer to the entire homo genus. I'm with you that god could have created evolution or used it as a tool, but we don't see sudden changes in species. We see very small changes over hundreds of thousands of years. If you line up all of the skulls from Ardipithicus ramidus to homo erectus to homo sapien sapien, you see slow change. The cc of the skull slightly increases (and in some cases decreases)in each new species. Like I said, evolution isn't up for debate anymore. How closely a species is related to another can definitely be determined by DNA. Neanderthal and Human DNA is virtually the same. It's been highly debated as to whether Neanderthals are actually homo sapiens because they are more of a cousin species.

Anyways, I'm not trying to knock you or anything, just curious where you're coming from. Evolution denial does not have any validity today, but that doesn't mean god couldn't have used it as a tool or created it originally with life on earth knowing where it will go in the future.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: knoledgeispower

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: knoledgeispower

originally posted by: NthOther
The incessant revisionism practiced by mainstream anthropologists and evolutionary biologists makes me less inclined to believe a single word they say.

What's the point of the OP, anyway? Are you simply using this story as a platform from which to launch an assault on Christians?
I don't understand why some people are more concerned with the "other side" being wrong than they are with their own side being right.


I started it because it's an interesting article. Some evolutionist's have thought that the evolution of man was a simple evolutionary line but this shows it was more complex than we thought.

I believe a higher power created everything & evolution is the natural process that has taken place since then.

There are Christians that believe in evolution.


The equivalent of putting square tires inside of round ones. The square tire doesn't actually do anything except console your sense of loss and inequity over the fact that physics trumps your fashion sense.

Not sure what you are trying to get at so why don't you just say it instead of dancing around it.


It has always appeared to me that Christians who believe in evolution are doing their best not to look at stupid as their fundie cousins while still carrying on the family practice. "Yeah, I believe in God, but hey, I also believe in this. That makes me not a total idiot, right?"


edit on 11-7-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: knoledgeispower

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: knoledgeispower

originally posted by: NthOther
The incessant revisionism practiced by mainstream anthropologists and evolutionary biologists makes me less inclined to believe a single word they say.

What's the point of the OP, anyway? Are you simply using this story as a platform from which to launch an assault on Christians?
I don't understand why some people are more concerned with the "other side" being wrong than they are with their own side being right.


I started it because it's an interesting article. Some evolutionist's have thought that the evolution of man was a simple evolutionary line but this shows it was more complex than we thought.

I believe a higher power created everything & evolution is the natural process that has taken place since then.

There are Christians that believe in evolution.


The equivalent of putting square tires inside of round ones. The square tire doesn't actually do anything except console your sense of loss and inequity over the fact that physics trumps your fashion sense.

Not sure what you are trying to get at so why don't you just say it instead of dancing around it.


It has always appeared to me that Christians who believe in evolution are doing their best not to look at stupid as their fundie cousins while still carrying on the family practice. "Yeah, I believe in God, but hey, I also believe in this. That makes me not a total idiot, right?"



I disagree.
I'm not a Christian, ftr. I do believe in a higher power but I don't believe in anything religions have to say because they have been twisted & corrupted.

For other Christians who believe in Evolution, they do so because they can't deny the evidence. That being said, they don't see a reason to stop believing in God/Jesus just because they believe in evolution. Usually those Christians also hold a bit of a different belief than the traditional, or fundie as you call them, Christians and not just because of evolution



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: knoledgeispower


For other Christians who believe in Evolution, they do so because they can't deny the evidence. That being said, they don't see a reason to stop believing in God/Jesus just because they believe in evolution. Usually those Christians also hold a bit of a different belief than the traditional, or fundie as you call them, Christians and not just because of evolution


They don't see a reason because they're not looking for one. They are looking for a way to make creationism look less stupid in comparison with science. Failing that, they'll do their damnedest to make science look at dumb as they do. Which is okay, because as this thread indicates, science will gladly take any excuse to refine its understanding and perfect its grasp of worldly knowledge.
edit on 11-7-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: knoledgeispower


For other Christians who believe in Evolution, they do so because they can't deny the evidence. That being said, they don't see a reason to stop believing in God/Jesus just because they believe in evolution. Usually those Christians also hold a bit of a different belief than the traditional, or fundie as you call them, Christians and not just because of evolution


They don't see a reason because they're not looking for one. They are looking for a way to make creationism look less stupid in comparison with science. Failing that, they'll do their damnedest to make science look at dumb as they do. Which is okay, because as this thread indicates, science will gladly take any excuse to refine its understanding and perfect its grasp of worldly knowledge.

Why does it have to be that if you believe in God you can't believe in evolution and vise versa. That just doesn't make any sense.

I believe that a higher power started to create things & evolution is the natural process that takes place.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: knoledgeispower


Why does it have to be that if you believe in God you can't believe in evolution and vise versa. That just doesn't make any sense.


Because an unnatural power doesn't require natural processes. Why walk if I have a Porsche 911 at my disposal? Why write a letter if I can dictate to my phone? Why bother with a process involving billions of years of trial and error if the universe instantly obeys my every command?

But this thread isn't about creationism...or is it?
edit on 11-7-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Moresby

Originally, I was making the point to another poster, who mentioned OOA as the accepted theory, that such formulas for determining human origins is flawed and on such a hypothesis OOME would be more apt.

Neither the archaic nor modern OOA theories makes sense when all other factors are considered.

My own theory is that there is a far more complex picture that is gradually emerging and science should let it unravel elegantly instead of clumsily jumping on the first remotely feasible (though easily toppled) possible scenario and flying it's flag in a ruthless ad campaign that would make McDonalds jealous.

The masses are gullible and have lapped it up with all their Lion King, Madagascar stuffed toys etc. Whilst I am all for showing the good things about Africa, it is obviously a vast and diverse land of many wonders, and I am sure the African populations might offer the world things of value, I prefer that it isn't sold as some sort of mythical 'motherland' the stuff of Disney's dreams in some sort of media spin agenda when OOA could be OOjust about anywhere.

Essentially misleading the masses is probably not very good and means now when the truth is emerging, the 'motherlanders' are hiding under rocks and spouting denial using accusations of racism. And the world does not need that.

If anything, OOA is racist as it excludes other OOX possibilities, such as the finds in the ME, Spain and China, that could equally or more so make such grandiose claims.


So all those hominid and proto-hominid fossils we find in East Africa are the evidence of species who evolved in the Middle East? And then some of these species went to Africa and didn't leave?

That seems the only way to exclude any out of Africa explanation.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: coastlinekid
What a nice main-stream scientist way of saying: "we still have NOT found the missing link that explains modern human conscientiousness"...


Huh? Conscientiousness? Not ever Human being is conscientious, so not sure what your point is here...

Surely you mean consciousness? Which is equally baffling anyway, as that isn't the point of this study at all.

And quite why those against evolution keep clamouring for this "missing link" is a mystery as well. There is no "missing link".



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: coastlinekid
a reply to: boymonkey74

I think you need to review the timeline:

It took MILLIONS of years for hominids to figure out a rock can be used as a tool...
It took MILLIONS more years for them to figure out that chipping it into a sharp tool was more effective...


No, it didn't actually. Tool use has been found as far back as 3-4 million years and even today, the Great Apes have been observed using tools.

As an author I like once said: "The mills of evolution grind very slow"...


originally posted by: coastlinekid
All of a sudden,.. during the last ice age... a time when most creatures hunker down and just try to survive, MODERN HUMANS showed up, BAM!!
(at least that is what the main-stream scientists say)


No, they didn't and no, they don't. The last Ice Age ended some 10,000 years ago, yet "modern humans" have been around for far longer, in fact surviving through several Ice Ages. The first identified Homo Sapiens fossil dates back too 200,000 years ago with genetic evidence showing that Humans and Neanderthals diverged some 500,000 years ago, proving their (or their ancestors) existence at least as far back.

See, basing your opinions off a false premise only leads you further down the path of foolishness. Perhaps it would be wise to actually learn what Scientists say themselves, rather than either making stuff up or taking their info from 2nd hand sources - you're doing one or the other, you can't possible follow the science at all from what you have said.




top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join