the origins of humans

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
We also share a percentage of DNA with everything else the fact that we share 98% with chimps means we share 98% with chimps. We also share 97.5 % dna with mice. Do we look like mice??


www.genome.gov...
To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.

In it's correct context:

www.newscientist.com...
Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA, just one per cent less than chimps and humans. The new estimate is based on the comparison of mouse chromosome 16 [how many chromozones do they have?] with human DNA. Previous estimates had suggested mouse-human differences as high as 15 per cent.

The new work suggests that neither genome has changed much since we shared a common ancestor 100 million years ago. "The differences are going to be few rather than many," says Richard Mural of Celera Genomics, the Maryland company that compared the mouse chromosome with human DNA.

In fact I believe they are talking about base dna. I'd research it further but I do not think you are interested in understanding it past making your 'so there' point.

I did say "most animals" you dont see a dog or a cat chewing its food do you.

eh- yeah I do. Hey.. I just thought of something! That might explain why he has teeth!!


So why haven't other animals went hairless???

Pigs are hairless, elephants, rhinos etc.
That water theory mentioned earlier has merit too. Less water resistence is kind of a must when learning how to migratel over waters. Bit pointless evolving the knack for making canoes if you can't swim when you fall out of them.

So your saying that 20,000 years ago man being a hunter gatherer wouldn't quickly eat his food but would chew away leisurely? Agriculture gave us easy to collect food not easily digestible food.

Then we learnt selective breeding. Humans also have apendix from when they use to have to digest rougher materials.

[edit on 15-10-2005 by riley]




posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Im not trying to make a " so there" point, all Im suggesting is that human evolution is not as clear cut as you seem to think. I mean what 'homo' did we evolve from? Most pre Sapien 'homos' are radically different than us so what type of mutation occured to change erectus(supposed ancestor) to sapien so fast in a evolutionary timescale. Brain size, skeletal differences, muscular differences, migration of voicebox etc


G



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Im not trying to make a " so there" point, all Im suggesting is that human evolution is not as clear cut as you seem to think.

It's extremily complex.. one of the reasons why I find it so intriguing- it is a massive jigsaw and I like watching the scientists looking for all the pieces and putting them together.

I mean what 'homo' did we evolve from?

Homo erectus [unless they find something transitional between the two].

Most pre Sapien 'homos' are radically different than us so what type of mutation occured to change erectus(supposed ancestor) to sapien so fast in a evolutionary timescale. Brain size, skeletal differences, muscular differences, migration of voicebox etc

I'd say it would be the intellect.. once we started developing it we were basically in charge of our own evolution and could make the enviroment adapt to us instead of the other way around like other animals [excluding nest building and burrows etc]. Regarding the voice box.. scientists suspect the hobbits probably had language.. they certainly had culture.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Riley
About Homo Erectus, I found that they were supposed to evolve into Sapiens from whom we (Sapiens Sapiens) evolved. The problem I have is with the timescale. I mean great evolutionary leaps in a short space of time doesn't add up. Even evolutionary scientists have problems with human evolution.




G



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Riley
About Homo Erectus, I found that they were supposed to evolve into Sapiens from whom we (Sapiens Sapiens*) evolved.

Yes.. and is that* a typo?

The problem I have is with the timescale. I mean great evolutionary leaps in a short space of time doesn't add up.

It took several thousand years. What doesn't add up? Please be more specific and provide sources for your arguments. Homo erectus is not a great evolutionary leap IMO.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by riley]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
yes Sapiens Sapiens check this out:
www.wsu.edu:8001...

I know the timescale is a bit out but it shows the main players

Another theory I have found is the Soul Substance Theory which consists of a soul-substance being a driving force behind the process of evolution.

"A possible scenario is that soul-substance, present in the DNA of all living organisms, senses any changes to the organism’s environment and reacts intelligently to ensure its survival. This mechanism would lie dormant for the vast majority of time, only to be activated in times of acute crisis. Members of a species might thus acquire a new characteristic – one key to its future survival – virtually overnight. And this essential genetic improvement would then obviously be favoured by natural selection. In this way, evolution, seen as a whole, would occur not via descent with modification driven by statistics and chance, but rather via descent with modification driven by intelligence – the intelligence that was immanent in the soul-substance."
"The soul-substance theory is complementary to existing Darwinian theory, and might help to explain how Homo erectus became Homo sapiens virtually overnight in the evolutionary scheme of things. Intriguingly, it would imply that man’s gift of intelligence, artistry, music, et cetera, is not unique, but is rather shared by all other species as an innate potentiality.
"
Quotes from www.eridu.co.uk...

What do you think?



G



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
yes Sapiens Sapiens check this out:
www.wsu.edu:8001...

I've never heared that before. I think it's to differentiate from homo sapien and neanderthal.


Another theory I have found is the Soul Substance Theory which consists of a soul-substance being a driving force behind the process of evolution.

"A possible scenario is that soul-substance, present in the DNA of all living organisms, senses any changes to the organism’s environment and reacts intelligently to ensure its survival. This mechanism would lie dormant for the vast majority of time, only to be activated in times of acute crisis. Members of a species might thus acquire a new characteristic – one key to its future survival – virtually overnight.

That makes sense.. thanks for the links.

And this essential genetic improvement would then obviously be favoured by natural selection. In this way, evolution, seen as a whole, would occur not via descent with modification driven by statistics and chance, but rather via descent with modification driven by intelligence – the intelligence that was immanent in the soul-substance."

I suspect this is inferring to a 'higher intelligence' [god].. life by it's own design adapts and mutates to survive in it's enviroment. I see no reason why it would need a god to to it.. that seems overly sentimental.

"The soul-substance theory is complementary to existing Darwinian theory, and might help to explain how Homo erectus became Homo sapiens virtually overnight in the evolutionary scheme of things. Intriguingly, it would imply that man’s gift of intelligence, artistry, music, et cetera, is not unique, but is rather shared by all other species as an innate potentiality.

I agree with this but I think this can be explained with chaos and 'fractel theory' rather than something supernatural.. basically everything in the universe evolves and becomes more complex.. not just organisms. When you really think about it you'll start to see this pattern in everything. From memory.. part of the theory also has to do with creation and distruction.. they go hand in hand and distruction nurtures creation. You'll notice these kinds of things when societies recover from war for instance.. or when you add food scraps to the compost and notice seedlings growing in the decay.
flatrock.org.nz...
www.crystalinks.com...


www.mathjmendl.org...
Chaos on the Large Scale
One of the most interesting issues in the study of chaotic systems is whether or not the presence of chaos may actually produce ordered structures and patterns on a larger scale. It has been found that the presence of chaos may actually be necessary for larger scale physical patterns, such as mountains and galaxies, to arise.

And the evolution of collective species.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
All right I just want to say something. I know that most of you will think that this is ridiculous but from the research that I have done and all of the books that I have read I have come to the conclusion that another species of humanoids from another planet came to Earth and helped make early man into homo sapiens. Through breeding. In every old cutler there has been so much evidence that they were visited by these aliens. Take for example the Greeks..their beliefs were that the earth was complete chaos until Zuse came from the heavens and helped make their lives easier. In my opinion most antient civilizations dating back to god knows when. Most describe gods coming down out of the sky. But because the were not so smart they assumed that these humanoid creatures were god, gods, In actuallity they were aliens. Aliens have helped us grow in to the people that we are today. we are their ancestors of sorts. In the next 20-30 years most of these things will become apparent and there will be a lot more evidence to support my theory. I hope that most of you will learn to have an open mind. You can take my theories and think what you want but I PROMISE that you will see the evidence in the years to come.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnicholas21
All right I just want to say something. I know that most of you will think that this is ridiculous but from the research that I have done and all of the books that I have read I have come to the conclusion that another species of humanoids from another planet came to Earth and helped make early man into homo sapiens. Through breeding. In every old cutler there has been so much evidence that they were visited by these aliens. Take for example the Greeks..their beliefs were that the earth was complete chaos until Zuse came from the heavens and helped make their lives easier. In my opinion most antient civilizations dating back to god knows when. Most describe gods coming down out of the sky. But because the were not so smart they assumed that these humanoid creatures were god, gods, In actuallity they were aliens. Aliens have helped us grow in to the people that we are today. we are their ancestors of sorts. In the next 20-30 years most of these things will become apparent and there will be a lot more evidence to support my theory. I hope that most of you will learn to have an open mind. You can take my theories and think what you want but I PROMISE that you will see the evidence in the years to come.


write in to a science magizine saying that and if your right you'll rake in the money!



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
The problem I have is with the timescale. I mean great evolutionary leaps in a short space of time doesn't add up. Even evolutionary scientists have problems with human evolution.

I know what ya mean...it's like human evolution was steady and paced and then one day BAM!!!! it just kicked off fast as hell. I mean think about it....it took millions of years for homo erectus to come about and then it took a very short 1.8 million years to bring us to the point where we are today.

2 million years in evolution is not that long at all....especially for changes such as skin color, body hair, brian size and skeletal structure. Evolution cannot be dismissed just becuase of a few unanswered questions (Ok, alot of unswered questiones). Just look back 100 years, compared to now.....we knew nothing about this. And 100 years from now....people will look back and say the same about us.

[edit on 16/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnicholas21
I have come to the conclusion that another species of humanoids from another planet came to Earth and helped make early man into homo sapiens

What do you base this on?

but I PROMISE that you will see the evidence in the years to come

If the evidence doesn't exist yet, then by definition your theory is a baseless and irrational one no?

the Greeks..their beliefs were that the earth was complete chaos until Zuse came from the heavens and helped make their lives easier.

The greeks didn't beleive that. I don't see how you can site ancient mythology as supporting your ideas, but get the mythology wrong.

Originally posted by shihulud
Such as evolution says we evolved from Homo Erectus but the genetic differences between the two are so great that a macromution would have had to occured.

There are no genetic samples from erectus, and hte differences are extremely slight, they're differences of degree, not a difference of kind.


Also Humans seem to have evolved without pressure, i.e environment

What are you basing that on?


Such as lack of hair

Humans have as many hair follicles as a chimp, the hair is simply thinner. What exactly is problematic here for evolution? That there aren't other apes that have such a thin pelt? There also aren't other apes that walk across vast stretches of the african savanna. Man has had a unique evolutionary history, why shouldn't it be different from other animals?

The fact that the human female is on 'heat' constantly but shows no sign of when conception is likely.

Why is this, or any of the items you note, a problem for evolution??


There is a possibility that the whole of life on Earth was put here by and advanced race so therefore our ancestral genes would be related as our ancestors also were created by this advanced race. Just as we can now manipulate genes so it happened to us.

There is no 'break' in the genetics between man and other organisms that would indicate that at some point there was interference. THere is nothing about man that requires alien or godly intervention.

The point here is that we as a species seem to have had an easy evolution to get to the stage we are at just now but it is known that humans did not have an easy time therefore evolution cannot adequately explain the emergence of humans in the space of 5-6 million years

The logic of that conclusion does not follow the argument nor its evidences.

Most pre Sapien 'homos' are radically different than us so what type of mutation occured to change erectus(supposed ancestor) to sapien so fast in a evolutionary timescale

Why do you think it was too fast and too much for evolution to account for? I'll agree that the differences between homo sapiens and homo erectus are large, but they're not so large that they can't be crossed by simple evolutionary processes; increase the brain size, reduce the bulk of the teeth, alter the chin, make the limbs more gracile, etc.

I mean great evolutionary leaps in a short space of time doesn't add up. Even evolutionary scientists have problems with human evolution.

It was not a great leap and it was not so short a time span. What evolutionsts are you talking about as having problems? There is debate, sure, but no one thinks that aliens or god are required.

The soul-substance theory is complementary to existing Darwinian theory

Its antithetical to it, becuase its mystical mumbo-jumbo and it states that evolution is insufficient to cause these changes, whereas Darwinian evolutionary theory states that it is sufficient. Darwin's theory is that you don't need anything like vitalism or outside direction to have evolution.

resistance
What is so different about these humans that would preclude them from breeding with modern man?

There are numerous osteological characters and correlates that are dramatically different, and these differences are great enough to qualify them as different species. The breeding-test, called the Biological Species Concept, is the 'hard' test, but its rare that it can be performed, and usually morphological characteristics alone are used to differentiate species. This method ends up being rather accurate, as in cases where it can be compared against the 'breeding' test.

Is it not true that some species can interbreed and others can't, and sometimes the progeny is fertile and sometimes not, and this is not the same in all instances?

Yes, this is true. Why is it relevant?

Do you think that whoever made up this system of classification was smoking something at the time?

? Why? Please name the differences between apes and man. All I see are differences in brain size and modifications due to bipedality. Man is obviously very similar, physically, to the ape, and that, along with the genetic and fossil data, is why they are grouped together.

We also share 97.5 % dna with mice. Do we look like mice??

Compared to crabs, we sure do, lo and behold, man is more closely related to mice than crabs.

So why haven't other animals went hairless???

Why should they? It was beeficial for man during the course of man's evolution, that doesn't mean its beneficial for all animals at all times. Many animals that live in hot regions retain their hair, because it protects them from the sun and keeps their skin cooler than without it. Man, however, doesn't cool this way, man cools by sweating. Man, infact, excells at sweating, amoung the animals. Having a thick furry pelt interferes with this excellent cooling mechanism.

how did "domesticated" plants come about for use in agriculture?

Primitive man is thought to have collected some types of plants, and then to have habitually come back to natural local 'stands' of more nutritious plants, eventually becomming less nomadic (ie less willing to leave these natural stands of plants), and tending to these plants. During that course, they'd naturally throw away the crappy little plants and favour the thicker and better ones. This means that the next generation of plants in the stand will be offspring of the thicker better ones. That process amplifies with each generation.

sportymb
it took millions of years for homo erectus to come about and then it took a very short 1.8 million years to bring us to the point where we are today.

What do you mean by 'it took' a long time 'for' erectus to appear? Because you have to keep in mind that australpithecines and the rest were striving torwards homo erectus. From the chart below, erectus existed for around a million years before the first sapiens show up, that doesn't mean that it 'takes' that long for an erectus to become sapiens, who knows if and when any new selection pressures were put on what populations of erectus that resulted in it becomming sapiens. Best, perhaps, to merely consider a species that is long lived as a well adapted and successful species. Australpithecines, as shown below, continued to exist, even after some of them had evolved into homo habili, they were still successful.




posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
{Quote: What do you base this on?}
{Quote:If the evidence doesn't exist yet, then by definition your theory is a baseless and irrational one no?}


First off I base this all on the facts that if you really look in to history books there is plenty of concert evidence. Many old civilizations had cave painting that showed a man descending from the sky in a ship like capsule.
Most of the old civilizations did not understand what they were seeing therefore it was easier for the aliens to come to and from earth.

Second-My theories are not irrational. Only to those who do not have an open mind such as you. This is why aliens will not show themselves for the next 10 years. Would you want some a$$ hole probing you just because you are from somewhere else? What you do not realize is that aliens already live among us.

Last but defiantly not least... Where is your proof to prove me wrong? There is a lot more evidence that supports my theories. It just seems to me like you are uneducated and you don't think for yourself.


[edit on 17-10-2005 by mnicholas21]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnicholas21
First off I base this all on the facts that if you really look in to history books there is plenty of concert evidence. Many old civilizations had cave painting that showed a man descending from the sky in a ship like capsule.

Well, it's debatable whether any society that paints in caves could be called a "civilisation", but that is perhaps a matter of semantics. Would you like to give me any links or references to this "concert evidence" that shows man descending in a ship "like a capsule"? Or should be just take your word for it?



Most of the old civilizations did not understand what they were seeing therefore it was easier for the aliens to come to and from earth.

So you say.



What you do not realize is that aliens already live among us.

Is there a reason why I don't know about these aliens and you do?



Last but defiantly not least... Where is your proof to prove me wrong? There is a lot more evidence that supports my theories.

How exactly are we meant to prove a negative? It is up to you to provide evidence of your claims. I will prove you wrong on this as soon as you prove I am not the King of Spain.



It just seems to me like you are uneducated and you don't think for yourself.


Perhaps you just believe everything you read on websites without "thinking for yourself".



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
First of all, Luke is the King of Spain.

Second, "aliens" do not "live among us." You cannot prove otherwise. I will give you a hundred thousand magillion dollars if you can prove this to me within the next week.

Zip

EDIT: I spoke with my accountant and I think I'll reduce my position and I'll just bet you a thousand dollars.

[edit on 10/17/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnicholas21
Many old civilizations had cave painting that showed a man descending from the sky in a ship like capsule.

There are paintings of weird things on rocks and caves and some people interpret them to be astronauts, yes.

Only to those who do not have an open mind such as you.

If you have no real evidence nor a logic for your conclusions then they are by definition irrational.

This is why aliens will not show themselves for the next 10 years.

Because of "meanies" like me? I'm flattered to be sending shockwaves of fear to a species and people that have master the mechanics of the universe and traverse great distances of space and time, flaunting the myraid dangers of the raging galaxy, but still trembling before me.

Would you want some

Please don't try to circumvent censors on the board, its something you agreed previously to not do in the TnC

What you do not realize is that aliens already live among us.

I thought you said that they lived in terror of me and prefered to stay off planet? Which is it?

Last but defiantly not least... Where is your proof to prove me wrong?

Prove what wrong? You haven't presented anything to 'prove' wrong, you've merely stated an opinon and didn't bother to present any evidence.

There is a lot more evidence that supports my theories.

And that would be......?

It just seems to me like you are uneducated and you don't think for yourself.

x infinity MWA HAHAHAHAHA now yer sunk!



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
After watching a program on 'Biological Adam' (which states through analysis of the 'Y' chromosome that all human life alive today is descended from 'Adam' who lived around 60,000 years ago) I have revised my position on Evolutionary timescale. This program showed that skeletal change and therefore muscle change can occur in a relatively short time.
However I now have a problem with anomalous archaeological evidence (Forbidden Archaeology) which suggests that humans might have been around for a LOT longer than what is now believed. I do agree that some of these anomalies will be fakes or mistakes but some do defy all of todays evolutionary notions.
Another thing is the idea of Panspermia which if you have never heard of it is the idea that life came to Earth from space. This could either be from the delivery of complex organic compounds from comets etc to give the primevil soup some ingredients OR life (microbial) coming from another planet on meteors OR life was put here by aliens.
Another idea panspermia gives is the use of viruses as gene transfer vehicles i.e turning chimps to humans using gene transfer would take a lot less time than evolution.
What does anyone think???



G



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
However I now have a problem with anomalous archaeological evidence (Forbidden Archaeology) which suggests that humans might have been around for a LOT longer than what is now believed.

The problem with cremona's book is that it ends up not being very well researched, apparently, and doesn't follow up on any of the claims it makes in detail.
What anomalies are you thinking of?



Another idea panspermia gives is the use of viruses as gene transfer vehicles i.e turning chimps to humans using gene transfer would take a lot less time than evolution.

Gene transfer from what tho? The genetics don't indicate that weird genes were inserted into chimps and that this lead to humans. Also, how is this a problem for evolution? Pan Spermia just moves the source of life, it doesn't affect evolutionary theory.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   


The problem with cremona's book is that it ends up not being very well researched, apparently, and doesn't follow up on any of the claims it makes in detail. What anomalies are you thinking of?

Unknown at this time, I would need to research them. However it is highly unlikely that all the claims in the book are falsified or mistakes.


quote:
Another idea panspermia gives is the use of viruses as gene transfer vehicles i.e turning chimps to humans using gene transfer would take a lot less time than evolution.



Gene transfer from what tho? The genetics don't indicate that weird genes were inserted into chimps and that this lead to humans. Also, how is this a problem for evolution? Pan Spermia just moves the source of life, it doesn't affect evolutionary theory.

Gene transfer from an ET source perhaps. The point being that if panspermia is true then ET life would use the same DNA/genes as we do and would be indistinguishable from our own and therefore there is the possibility that we (humans) were genetically manipulated by aliens. As you say panspermia doesnt affect evolution but it could affect the origins of humans. IS that not what this threads about?



G





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join