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.

 

The origin of humans....

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
There seems to be a lot of different opinions and ideas on this forum of how we got here today as a species and where we originated. Everything from aliens seeding the planet, to evolving in Africa, South America, or even China. There is even specualtion that races of humans evolved completly seperatly and only in the past milenia that we have mixed.

I believe modern man originated in South America and blood typing is my evidence. Forget about the Rh factor and look at the ABO blood types. Type O is considered the universal donor and is the likely blood type of the first humans, type A, B, and then AB are belived to have originated through mutations early in the history of mankind. Taking a look at these links which break down blood types by race origins and it shows 100% of native South Americans have type O blood.
www.bloodbook.com...
anthro.palomar.edu...

More evidence that early man originated here is all of the advanced ancient civilization ruins that have are still being found to this day in Central and South America.

I believe the widely accepted belief that man crossed the land bridge from Asia to America is backwards, early man crossed from the Americas to Asia.




posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I'm more along the line of Creation by God, but whatever floats your boat...



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Theres no eveidence to creation by God, even if it were the case he/she/it put the first humans in South America.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
Theres no eveidence to creation by God, even if it were the case he/she/it put the first humans in South America.


Of cours God created everything. He just put the first man in Africa



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Good post JROD. The Natives themselves have something to say about this; my own People claim to have come down from the stars to a location in the Americas when they first arrived on Earth (to my continuing embarrasment: I didn't believe this origin legend at first, but with years of study I now say it might be true, and my Elders have instructed me to share the story whenever possible, so I do). They were singing these legends when Columbus arrived here, so it's not Star Trek bleedover.

Its the combination of the geoglyphs on the Altiplano, the origin legends of the Native People, the possession of anomalous astronomical information by the Natives, the astroarchaeological finds, and my own aerospace work that have brought me back humbly to my Ancestor's words: In the long, long ago, the People From The Stars came to Elohimona, the Land of Atlantis...



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Don't agree, how do you explain the various legends and beliefs that tall bearded white men arrived in their distant past and taught the natives better way of life, like advanced techniques in farming, and road building, etc?
Or the various statues and giant Olmec heads, purportedly depicting Africans and Europeans? If the human race started with S America, should they not have been seeding and teaching the rest of the world, and not the other way round?

I believe that various civilisations around the world came from one advanced civilisation of unknown origin. People like the Mayans, Egyptians, Far Eastern civilisations, etc, all their structures are too similar, their knowledge of the stars, and their writings, too close. Their beliefs all sound too similar as well, their myths are basically all the same story of how they came to be, most involving foreigners arriving and ushering in a new dawn in their culture. Why would the peoples of S America have these exact same beliefs if they were the ones spreading the knowledge?



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   
They have the exact same beleifs because it is proven that ancient civilizations in south america traveled across the ocean to africa and back. Well before 2000 years ago.

People weren't as primative as people think.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
Of cours God created everything. He just put the first man in Africa

Correction: Woman


Its quite interesting that science prove the Bible completely wrong in that aspect. Or are we so strong, that since Creation we have inverted our own creation??? That would be surprising. In Gods image indeed...

And if you wonder about the logic behind my statement: We are all created female. Until some freak events in the womb decide to make us males.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 02:51 AM
link   
I can't remeber the exact number at the moment, but I think it was thirty something human genomes which have no genetic predecessor at all. That is what largely what biologists and anthropologist mean by the 'missing' link. would be interesting to find if these genomes are related to the development of the Pineal gland.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
"They have the exact same beleifs because it is proven that ancient civilizations in south america traveled across the ocean to africa and back. Well before 2000 years ago. "

Anyone have links or sources that will back up this claim? It seems very interesting, but yet as of now, pretty unrealistic. I'm hoping someone can prove me wrong.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   
If you are going to trace human origins by blood type you need to consider selection and founder populations. It is possible that there is some genetic favorability of an O bloodtype in south america, though I think this unlikely. It is much more probable that a small number of people founded the population in South America and among these people, there was a high percentage of O type blood. After a few generations thanks to genetic drift, it could be very possible for other blood types to fade out, leaving almost completely O blood type.

Much more credible, genetically speaking, is the out of africa model which relies on mitochondiral genotyping. Mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited and hence lineages can be directly tracked. To play devils advocate, the intrinsic flaw in this theory is that mitochondria are highly mutable, meaning that a rather large number of mutations can occur because there mutations here are far less damaging than in nuclear DNA. This complicates the matter of tracking and comparing mtDNA.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by contraa]



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   
I saw a program on the history channel about South American civilization and they did prove that they traveled to Africa and traded with the Africans. It stated that they even had hot air balloons. They have found Coke plants in ancient Egypt that trace back to South America.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by celticniall
Don't agree, how do you explain the various legends and beliefs that tall bearded white men arrived in their distant past and taught the natives better way of life, like advanced techniques in farming, and road building, etc?
Or the various statues and giant Olmec heads, purportedly depicting Africans and Europeans? If the human race started with S America, should they not have been seeding and teaching the rest of the world, and not the other way round?

I believe that various civilisations around the world came from one advanced civilisation of unknown origin. People like the Mayans, Egyptians, Far Eastern civilisations, etc, all their structures are too similar, their knowledge of the stars, and their writings, too close. Their beliefs all sound too similar as well, their myths are basically all the same story of how they came to be, most involving foreigners arriving and ushering in a new dawn in their culture. Why would the peoples of S America have these exact same beliefs if they were the ones spreading the knowledge?


Not necessarily. Just because something may have originated somewhere, does not mean that is where it excelled in certain areas. It is easy to acknowledge that if man originated in South America he would have at some point left and returned, and multiple cultures advancing at varying rates with different thought processes and environments would evolve differently.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
I can't remeber the exact number at the moment, but I think it was thirty something human genomes which have no genetic predecessor at all. That is what largely what biologists and anthropologist mean by the 'missing' link. would be interesting to find if these genomes are related to the development of the Pineal gland.


www.sitchin.com... details a little more about the genes that had no predecessors



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Nairod, great link, just wanted to sayt hanks for the post, my numbers were way off. Interesting reading.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
What about early evidence of the evolution of mankind found outside of South America dating to the middle to late Pliocene? Whereas all South American evidence is late Pleistocene.....What happened to my 4 million years in there??

[edit on 2/2/2005 by EnronOutrunHomerun]



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by celticniall
Don't agree, how do you explain the various legends and beliefs that tall bearded white men arrived in their distant past and taught the natives better way of life, like advanced techniques in farming, and road building, etc?


We are told that these Peoples are the Children of the Ancestors returning to their point of Origin to visit their Brothers. As far as 'teaching a better way of life' goes, that is a matter of opinion. We are quite satisfied with our way of life, and we taught the returning White Brothers how to grow corn, beans, squash and other 'unknown' crops using advanced irrigation and fertilization techniques they knew nothing about. Our bridges were longer than anything in the Old World. For more info see Indian Givers by Jack Weatherford.

One thing most moderns do not understand: when we did not do something that we knew we could (such as use the wheels on our toys to mobilize everyone) it was because the Ancestors had forbidden such use of technology in the Original Instructions. Disobedience, it is said, brings disaster through the operation of natural law in the biosphere.

Enronoutrunhomerun, your four million years are right there under our sands. They have never been thoroughly excavated, and the finds we have are dated using pseudoscientific methods that are admitted to be inexact best guesses. Eurocentric bias demands 'New World' finds to be of lesser age than 'Old World' finds, and so they are. To most. We don't buy that.

Neither did LSB Leakey; most science students don't know that he became doubtful about the 'out of Africa' theory in his latter days, and that he began digs in America that are 'not talked about'.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Enronoutrunhomerun, your four million years are right there under our sands. They have never been thouroughly excavated, and the finds we have are dated using pseudoscientific methods that are admitted to be inexact best guesses. Eurocentric bias demands 'New World' finds to be of lesser age than 'Old World' finds, and so they are. To most. We don't buy that.

Neither did LSB Leakey; most science students don't know that he became doubtful about the 'out of Africa' theory in his latter days, and that he began digs in America that are 'not talked about'.


It's not that I don't see that as a possibility, nor as something I could easily live with and understand, Chakotay....rather...it's just not making sense to me based upon what we know today...

Louis Leakey made a heavy impact on modern day archaeology...and I respect his natural concern to question his own work....but I don't see that simple fact as a key stone to a seemingly abstract method of thought - and I'm sure there are plenty of other resources related to this that would go into great length and detail about how it makes perfect sense...

I just don't follow down that path of thinking....And I'm not conservative by any means....

I think it's acceptable to remain open to outside opinions...but one has to remain focused in the archaeology of here and now to respect it for what it is and how it came about...

Following the current path of thought, submerged coastal boundaries of the pre ice age epoch is one of the most natural places to look for earlier material....anything Pre-Clovis will give us a hint as to where to search more extensively next....

Archaeology is a giant puzzle...one that's one dimension wide and millions of dimensions long....and we have to order each piece temporally, culturally, geographically...and make the most agreed upon decision as to where to take the next stab....

That's why we don't have evidence of mankind being in South America prior to the Pleistocene....b/c we don't have anything linking us there that people of any worth in the field are going to make public....

And those are simply the boundaries of our firmly based findings.....Free thought is welcome, and pleasing to the mind...but offers no real support to stand upon....

But that's just my personal opnion...I'm not trying to sound like I'm being forceful of my beliefs...In fact, quite the opposite....



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Good post JROD. The Natives themselves have something to say about this; my own People claim to have come down from the stars to a location in the Americas when they first arrived on Earth (to my continuing embarrasment: I didn't believe this origin legend at first, but with years of study I now say it might be true, and my Elders have instructed me to share the story whenever possible, so I do). They were singing these legends when Columbus arrived here, so it's not Star Trek bleedover.

Its the combination of the geoglyphs on the Altiplano, the origin legends of the Native People, the possession of anomalous astronomical information by the Natives, the astroarchaeological finds, and my own aerospace work that have brought me back humbly to my Ancestor's words: In the long, long ago, the People From The Stars came to Elohimona, the Land of Atlantis...


No offense to your beliefs, but the idea that humans are 'alien' totally flies in the face that we are related to life on this planet. Unless vertebrates with the exact same DNA and mirphology evovled on some other world and transplanted your ancestors with a mind-wipe, then it's just another legend. If ideas about how the usn and moon work and how the world was created are incorrect, then why believe the one about your origins?



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
What about early evidence of the evolution of mankind found outside of South America dating to the middle to late Pliocene? Whereas all South American evidence is late Pleistocene.....What happened to my 4 million years in there??

[edit on 2/2/2005 by EnronOutrunHomerun]



I know you have some links to share that view on the question so if you got the time please share them. I have a few more arguments for the origin of humans in South America that I'll post later when I have the time.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join