It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 04:22 AM
I know that there were civilisations around 11,000BC , what dates can you give for the origins of civilisation in S America?

I know that there were pockets of civilisation in N Africa(ie, Egypt and Ethiopia), Middle East(Sumerians), China, India, and Meso-America all aound the same time.

Where these originated, I don't think there is any proof that any of these were the mother of all civilisations. All I can give you is my thoughts, and it may be possible that all civilisations came from Meso-America, however I am skeptical. If you believe that Atlantis was in Bolivia, then maybe that is the place of a distant civilisation that spread throughout the world. I would be more inclined to believe that Atlantis was somewhere around where the Azores are today, I think that the Azores are situated on the peaks of the huge mountain ranges described by Plato, and that as sea levels rose due to melting of ice caps, that Atlantis "sank" leaving just the tops of the mountain ranges visible.

Just a couple of interesting links.

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 09:31 AM

Originally posted by jrod
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.

Monte Verde of now...the oldest prehistoric site in the new world...Which causes mass confusion in the archaeological chronology of pre-Clovis cultures, b/c that same time frame roughly coincides with early Clovis sites found in Beringia!

Clearly there is a missing gap...but it's yet to be found...My argument is that we'll find the next clue on the coastal boundaries of the southern US....

the preponderant view has held that no unequivocal evidence for the peopling of the New World exists before the Clovis horizon, most recently described by Taylor et al. (1996: 517) as ranging between 11,200 b.p. and 10,900 b.p. Given this seemingly late date for the arrival of the so-called 'First Americans', conventional wisdom has also maintained that the initial migration through Beringia to the Americas could not possibly have occurred before c. 12,000 b.p. (e.g. Haynes 1966; Martin 1973; Willey 1966). The open site of Monte Verde in south-central Chile (Figure 1), on the basis of its exceptionally well preserved organic materials and artifacts from an occupation with 14C determinations averaging 12,500 ­- 13,000 b.p. (Dillehay 1989; 1997), may prove to be the seminal archaeological site that will finally prevail over the Clovis-first model. It has yet to be seen, however, whether the findings from Monte Verde will achieve a broad consensus and, ultimately, transform the New World archaeological community's collective conception of pre-Clovis and Clovis.

Monte Verde and the antiquity of humankind in the Americas

That's what we have in front of us....the cards have been dealt - lots of cards left to go around...but conclusions have to be made logically based off of what we know - not what sounds the best...

It's no difficult task to prove that man existed outside of South America prior to 13,000 BP....

Olduvai Gorge is on of the most consistent archaeological sites that shows steady advancement...beginning somewhere around 2 million years ago...

Obviously, what makes us scratch our heads is...hey wait...Europe was in the Magdalenian in 12000BP (The last stage of the Paleolithic).....whereas South America was being populated at the same time by a seemingly more advanced culture....

That's undeniable - and it fosters us to think and ponder a great deal of what may have happened or could have been.....but until we find that evidence that joins the two pieces of the puzzle together - the evidence for structures, the middens, the remains....Then we can only go off of conjecture....

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 09:42 AM
There's a couple of things that I can see that knock holes in your idea.

First, the presence of human (homo sapiens) bones and modern-looking homo erectus bones found elsewhere in the world -- bones that are MUCH older than any human remains in the US.

The oldest verifiable sites in the Americas are a mere 20,000 years old.

Sites in Africa go back five million years (5,000,000,000 years). That's considerably older.

Originally posted by jrod
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.

Actually, that last one is totally bogus. If we evolved from separate species,then we could not interbreed any more than horses and cougars can interbreed.

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.

They are "advanced for their time." They would have been considered "backwards primitives with no technology" by your average Roman, Greek, Egyptian, or Babylonian citizen because they had technology and advances never discovered by the South Americans.

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.

Your idea doesn't explain how the darkskinned people developed suddenly and within 20,000 years, doesn't account for all the older traces, and doesn't account for the fact that by the 1700's, humans were found in EVERY part of the world except in places where there is no water. They were on all the continents except Antarctica and the only islands that were not inhabited by some human civilization were islands with no plants and no water.

posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:48 PM
Im no expert but maybee humans popped up in many places at once,or slightly diferent times due to the fact the the ingredients for life and creation are favorable for this in more then one area of the planet. Im not tottaly convinced all men and creatures evolved from 1 global position.Just look around .If all of humanity can be traced back to one global spot can also trees be subject to this same theory. Just a thought.

posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:01 PM
i also ponder the idea of the posible evolution and de-evolution of man.or maybee deep under layers of earth highly advanced societs have been burried after a meteor strike and in combination with other elements .Who knows maybee the old idea of aliens gentically creating us from thier dna and apes is also plausable. These are all great mysteries which we well all have much fun getting to the bottom of.

posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 10:44 PM
There is big money in dogma. Ask the Pope. The way to a professorship in Archaeology is still dogma plus money. This combination relieves that burning sensation in the forehead when you really think.

The rebels discover things.

Leaky's New World heresy was effectively covered up before the Internet. In the old days, we all hid a copy of Science Frontiers Archaeology Anomalies in our desk drawer for laughs. We do not have enough data to dogmatically state that 'man evolved here and not there' and anyone who tells you differently is suffering from hubris. Origins remain an open question.

posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 04:23 PM
My argument for human origin being on the South American continent is a longshot and even if it is true like any new theory will take a lot to convince others who believe another way must be true. The thing that got my attention of course is the blood types, with type O considered the original blood line of humans and the others being a result of mutations. Like I stated in my first post there are tribes in South America where 100% of the population is type O, and the Mayan civilization is almost 100% type O. This could mean that the Mayans were the first advanced civilization and people spread from the America's to Asia, possibly Europe, and even by boat to Australia and further. Perhaps ancient tales passed on from ancient times could be a key on where we came from.

Some abstract ideas citing the bible, just the first few chapters of Genesis, does point to our origin being the Americas. The Bororo, Nicobars, and Peruvian Natives are the people,whom have 100% type O blood are from area that are overwhelmingly beautiful and rich with all the things early man needed to survive, this area could very well have been Eden. The Great Flood tale is likely stories passed on when the glaciers were melting, sea levels were rising rapidly and the Earth may have been active geologically speaking meaning earthquakes and tsunamies plagued the people. It is possible there were many Noah like figures who had great arks that in the turbulent times could have brough people and animals great distances which when all said and done helped bring humans out of the Americas around the world by means of the great arks.

Now this is really a long shot. I do not like the New Testament to much, it is written nearly as creative as the OT but the book of Revelation does has some interesting stuff, and if any of the NT has divine insight this book is it IMhO. There is some stuff in there about the rider on the white horse and a new Heaven and Earth being foreseen. This rider on the white horse was the downfall of the Aztecs when they though the white men on horses were Gods according to their mythology so they embraced them and it led to their demise. The passages refering to a new Heaven and a new Earth is when the white Europeans find the America's, the 'New World' and the land is like Heaven compared to many of places the white settlers came from.

Of course I can be way off with these ideas but 100% of anything is rare and there has to be something significant with the Native South American tribes being 100% type O and the Mayans being 98%. Maybe one day I can go on an archaelogical mission in that area for more concrete evidence if it there.

***I typed this in a rush and have to go to work so I wont be able to edit it throughly so please excuse and overlook my typos and other mistakes, I just hope you all can get an idea of what Im getting at, it may seem way off to some so please re-read with an open mind if you dont like it***

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:06 PM
Another piece of evidenct that may point to ancient civilization in the Americas before ancient Egypt's civilization is a possible lost city that is underwater off the coast of Cuba.

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:47 PM

Originally posted by jrod
My argument for human origin being on the South American continent is a longshot and even if it is true like any new theory will take a lot to convince others who believe another way must be true. T

Partcularly since the oldest human remains in the Americas are considerably younger than the remains elsewhere. The oldest human remains are found in Africa.

Furthermore, no human ancestors are found in the Amercas.

Like I stated in my first post there are tribes in South America where 100% of the population is type O, and the Mayan civilization is almost 100% type O. This could mean that the Mayans were the first advanced civilization and people spread from the America's to Asia, possibly Europe, and even by boat to Australia and further.

A bit of history might help. There were three to five waves of immigration into America across the Bering Strait (and some from Europe.) The Aztecs are among the first ones to come into the New World and their language is a derivative of the original AmerInd. Other groups follow, including the Na-Dene and the Athabascans at much later time periods. The

So you're trying to compare blood types of first immigrants with those who entered thousands of years later, and perhaps from a different region.

Here's an excellent site about history and culture of the American Indians of California. It will give you some sense of how the different waves of people coming into the land (some as late as 500 BC) affected the first people to arrive (20,000 years or less ago)

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:37 PM
Darnit Byrd, you pretty much debunked this thread. I still am going to go with the Mayans being the first advanced civilization and if I come across anything else that supports this I will post

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:04 PM
OK, You honestly want to know what happened and how we ended up sitting at keyboards typing messages to each other? Well, here it is:

A long, long time ago there was a Neanderthal named Groog that was the smartest and brightest Neanderthal of his age. He was a Neanderthal scientist cause he could actually count to eight.

One day Groog noticed a really smart female Neanderthal named yuccas that could count to four and decided to mate her with another bright Neanderthal named Mucus who could count to three. The result was a Cro-Magnon child that could count to a billion.

Groog was so impressed he had them do it again. Soon he had Cro-Magnon children popping out all over the place.

What Groog the Neanderthal scientist didn’t understand is that his experiments were now out of control. The Cro-Magnons would take over the world and destroy the Neanderthals. Thru scientific experimentation Groog had destroyed his own people.

That’s how we got here. The same fate awaits us.

Cheery thought, isn't it

Love and light,


posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:25 PM
Very cute.

We will never know for sure the details of where and how we came about.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in