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.

 

Mankind Older Than Previously Beleived

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by greydawn
I've been resarching what may be called the lost history of mankind, and I have found that mankind may have been around for up to one hundred million years.

Your research? Or just reading other people's research?
Although I have not listened to Alan Watts, but by what your saying it sound's like his own 'research' is based on Donald Glut's. But there is something you should know 'Prof Glut'.
Along with human litterally walking with dinosaurs, He writes 'non-fiction' books about vampires and werewolves. He also wrote the fiction book for one of the Star Wars movies.
Personally, I doubt that he has any credibility. Either way, I think it's crude to believe it. I'll just leave it at that.


Originally posted by greydawn
The average person does not realize that mankind has not been here for one million years like we are taught.

For obvious reasons.


Originally posted by greydawn
Mankind has been on earth for so long because we are so adaptable.

Adaptable to what exactly? Constantly changing environmental conditions? I don't see any native humans living on Antartica, where other life has flourished. If you ment 'adaptable' in the sense of a biological state, then your mistaken. Humans carry more diseases or illness than most other species.
Theoretically if humans were around with the dinosaurs, and humans were adaptable, then why is our technology only advanced as far as it is?
Either we would be fantastically 'advanced' or become extinct about 200,000 years ago. Perhaps from greenhouse gases?



Originally posted by BlaznRob
Tell me, have you been reading The Hidden History of the Human Race, by Michael Cremo?

Have you read the works of Hans-Joachim Zillmer? Alot of his work is impossible or impractical theories, but he does manage to discredit Miceal Cremo's theories on a scientific basis.


Originally posted by soficrow
What's human?

Well at the moment it depends on the point of view.
Country Soul believes that our ancestors become humans with the change in the skeletal structure, as seen +/- 65,000 years ago. I on the other hand say it is the change in mitochondrial DNA, as seen +/- 150,000 years ago.





posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gear

I on the other hand say it is the change in mitochondrial DNA, as seen +/- 150,000 years ago.




So just like that, you blow off maternal RNA?


What are you? Some kind of chauvinist or something?




posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Maternal RNA?

What has that have to do with...Anything?



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlaznRob
It's a decent read, and it talks about a lot of the hard empirical evidence that has been found which dates human beings (in their current form) for hundreds of millions of years.

The problem is that cremo and others like him are pretending that these 'evidences' are solid, when they're not. What usually happens is that the 'finds' haven't been properly collected, so we don't even know where/when they are really from, or they are simple frauds, or they are being improperly interpreted, etc.


country soul
nothing indicates Gorgo the caveman ever fought a dinosaur.

Well, not gorgo, no, he's a wussie.



soficrow
I believe we will adapt simply because we have so many times before

Humans' haven't proven to be all that hardy. There's only been one, maybe two, really big 'hits' that we had to adapt to, there appears to have been a winnowing down of our numbers in the extremely distant past, which resulted in the 'genetic bottlenecking' of our species. Seems like dumb luck spared us from complete destruction. And after that, its really smooth sailing until maybe the Black Plague (at least it was something that made a significant impact on our population). We didn't need to evolve to that either. Any species that is alive today IS a survivor, every species comes from a long unbroken line all the way back to the begining, so humans aren't at all special in that respect. And the vast majority of species that have existed have died off. There's a 100% chance that the species, homo sapiens will dissapear, eventually, it will split off and evolve into other species. And there is a perhaps a 99% chance that the species homo sapiens will die off before it can split off, given past performances of species.


okrutniki
Just the few that happened to get caught in tar pits or tree sap or the few cought in some environmental cataclysm

It does not require a catastrophe for a fossil to form. Though I agree, we can't say that, because there are no human fossils from 65 million years ago, that there MUST not have been any humans. Of course, we can't say that there were either.
More importantly, because of what we do understand of the fossil record, we CAN'T say that its likely that there were humans, and infact CAN say that its incredibly unlikely and improbable that there were. Nothing, of course, is, theoretically, immpossible.

Money, time spent researching, credabitily, and academic titles are all great reasons to fudge, cover up, or disregard data.

MOre importantly, they're all good reasons to make incredible new discoveries. Any researcher who found stunning evidence about man's origins would quickly publish it. There'd be heckuva lot more money in doing that that covering it up.


speakeroftruth
Let's be honest, things that do not support the status quos' agenda does not get funded.

Thats bogus. There are lots of sources for funding. Research that has no credible basis is what doesn't get funding. There's no money flowing into research like cremo and others (not to harp on cremo, he was just brought up is all) because there's no evidence to support it.


marduk

okrutnikiConsidering our very limited knowledge[/quote
speak for yourself

I don't know about you, but he speaks for me.

[refering to okrutniki]
I think what you should bring in future is silence

And what, pray tell, are you bringing to the conversation??



don't buy fully into evolution. It doesn't work very well, at least not as a standalone theory, when you factor in all of mans experiences and discoveries here on this planet.

Such as????

I still seek the "in-between" ape with language skills and human vocal cords

Why? Why does the fact that we don't have a living ape, besides man, with human vocal cords, mean that evolution, in man and other animals, doesn't occur??



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Gear, I am speaking of Alan Watt, not Alan Watts as you mentioned.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I read a recent article about epigenetics. It's a new concept to me, so I'm sorry I can't explain well, but I gather that there are molecules named methyl donors found naturally in foods that attach and effect genes when consumed. It this particular case, a dominant gene in mice that causes yellowness, obesity and increased susceptibility to disease, was able to be 'turned off' and didn't affect the offspring. The pregnant mouse was given a diet change that was heavy with these methyl donors. Her offspring weren't affected by the gene, and were born brown and as normal as mice can be.

With this new science, our history and the theory of evolution may change dramaticly.

I understand it to be implying that our diet may evolve us from one state to the next.

Exciting to see where these studies may lead.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by nygdan

Originally posted by soficrow
I believe we will adapt simply because we have so many times before



Humans' haven't proven to be all that hardy. ...Any species that is alive today IS a survivor, every species comes from a long unbroken line all the way back to the begining, so humans aren't at all special in that respect. And the vast majority of species that have existed have died off. There's a 100% chance that the species, homo sapiens will dissapear, eventually, it will split off and evolve into other species. And there is a perhaps a 99% chance that the species homo sapiens will die off before it can split off, given past performances of species.




I manage to keep smiling because I define "human" and "survival" differently than you, dear Nygdan. But agreed, homo sapiens is not that special.




Originally posted by nextguyinline
I read a recent article about epigenetics.

With this new science, our history and the theory of evolution may change dramaticly.

I understand it to be implying that our diet may evolve us from one state to the next.

Exciting to see where these studies may lead.



Yes - topics like RNA interference and DNA adduct formation are interesting.


Speaking of diet, check out the cellular and genetic impacts of mycotoxins like aflatoxin contaminating our food.


...Although I sometimes think the "It's a natural evolutionary process" line is just a scam to avoid the costs of clean-up and liability.





posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NygdanThe problem is that cremo and others like him are pretending that these 'evidences' are solid, when they're not. What usually happens is that the 'finds' haven't been properly collected, so we don't even know where/when they are really from, or they are simple frauds, or they are being improperly interpreted, etc.

I agree that that usually happens, but what about the times when they were collected properly, by accredited archeologists? BG 13


okrutniki
Just the few that happened to get caught in tar pits or tree sap or the few cought in some environmental cataclysm

It does not require a catastrophe for a fossil to form. Though I agree, we can't say that, because there are no human fossils from 65 million years ago, that there MUST not have been any humans. Of course, we can't say that there were either.
More importantly, because of what we do understand of the fossil record, we CAN'T say that its likely that there were humans, and infact CAN say that its incredibly unlikely and improbable that there were. Nothing, of course, is, theoretically, immpossible.


You can say that, I can't. What makes it so incredibly unlikely? Finds such as the Burgess shale deposits have shown that we can discover a whole new group of organisms previously totally unknown. And although there are many ways fossils form, it usually results from some sort of disaster or natural catastrophe like a volcanic eruption, flood, landslide, earthquake, etc. The vast majority of the organisms that die never become fossils. BG13


speakeroftruth
Let's be honest, things that do not support the status quos' agenda does not get funded.

Thats bogus. There are lots of sources for funding. Research that has no credible basis is what doesn't get funding.


There is some truth to what speakeroftruth says. I have read cases where the status quo did far more nefarious things in order to silence a peer who had found artifacts that seriously contradicted the accepted theories about how long America had been inhabited. There have been similar examples of such tactics claimed by other qualified researchers whose peers turned on them when they came forward with controversial new finds. BG 13

[edit on 11/15/2006 by BlackGuardXIII]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think I fixed the quotes



[edit on 15/11/06 by masqua]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   


More importantly, because of what we do understand of the fossil record, we CAN'T say that its likely that there were humans, and infact CAN say that its incredibly unlikely and improbable that there were. Nothing, of course, is, theoretically, immpossible.

so what you know of the fossil record tells you that
what other people know is far more extensive than your knowledge obviously
would you crae to refute that
you claim that there being no fossils of humans from 65 million years ago doesnt neccesarily mean that there were no humans right
so you're saying that a total absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence
well sorry thats exactly what it means
i could claim on the same strength that your home is inhabited bu invisible beings from another diemnsion who watch your every move each day and then beam it back to their home where it is made into a tv show called "what the monkeys did next" and you couldn't prove i was wrong

the fact is this
the evolution of mankind is very well known
we even know which creature was responsible for the divergence between apes and monkeys
we are descnded from the ape lineage
so the creature that procedded this split would have to have been around prior to 65 million years ago for us to be presnt then
and guess what
it wasn't
. en.wikipedia.org...(genus)
you people making ridiculous statements based on your personal beliefs and lack of understanding are the reason that more people don't know more
they waste their time having to trawl through the rubbish looking for the facts
when the real truth is readily available
shame on you



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by greydawn
I have listened to Alan Watt mp3's extensively on cuttingthroughthematrix.com, you should check it out if you want a new look at history and the study of human behavior. There are over twenty hours worth of mp3's at that site.


That is not reliable ... anything.. science.. history.. anthropology.. it is bunk BS

Honestly.. go to the library.. or better yet go get a PHD in what ever field of history or anthropology or archeology and then go prove that man walked with the dinos.

god. The stuff somepeople take for truth is amazing.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
the fact is this
'the evolution of mankind is very well known
we even know which creature was responsible for the divergence between apes and monkeys
we are descnded from the ape lineage
so the creature that procedded this split would have to have been around prior to 65 million years ago for us to be presnt then
and guess what
it wasn't
. en.wikipedia.org...(genus)
you people making ridiculous statements based on your personal beliefs and lack of understanding are the reason that more people don't know more
they waste their time having to trawl through the rubbish looking for the facts
when the real truth is readily available
shame on you'
Marduk
So there is not a chance at all that the real truth you 'know' might end up to be dead wrong? What happened 65 million years ago is well enough known to discount the development of humans, just like they did in the last few million years, completely? It might be that they had six fingers, or blue skin, or were covered with hair... but for the most part, due to the laws of physics, natural selection, and evolution, they turned out very much like us? That is just wild conjecture, based on nothing. But, the point is, there is no good reason to conclude that there was definitely no humans, or something very similar, 65 million years ago. It has been claimed to be preposterous, but based on what?
It was called ridiculous, but I say that it is not for you to say that. It is possible. If you know of proof that it is not, or evidence that makes it impossible, I'm listening.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   


It might be that they had six fingers, or blue skin, or were covered with hair...

I think its more likely that some of them evolved to be able to talk complete crap on internet forums



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
While not trying to belittle archealogical history, here is my perspective on things.

Of all the depth, and breadth of the earth, roughyly 80% covered in water, we've dug and found fossil and geographic evidence, in which I would boldly hazard a guess, exponentionaly less than 1% of accesible areas.

To begin to believe that any theories on human history and development are even close to being 100% correct is in my opinion absurd.

Less time should be given to discussing what has been found, and moretime to finding more stuff to discuss about.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
While not trying to belittle archealogical history, here is my perspective on things.

Of all the depth, and breadth of the earth, roughyly 80% covered in water, we've dug and found fossil and geographic evidence, in which I would boldly hazard a guess, exponentionaly less than 1% of accesible areas.


(wicked grin) Care to make a bet on that?

Actually, that's not a good guess. You may not be aware of fossil material, but it's around in abundance... there's a lot of good material that's still jacketed up in storerooms that hasn't been analyzed, and certain kinds of fossils are so darn common that museums won't take any of them.

I volunteer once a week as a fossil preparator at the local museum. I'm working on *part* of a dinsoaur vertebra; it will take our team until 2007 to finish cleaning up the thing (it's about the size of a "comfy chair" and belonged to a huge sauropod. Meanwhile the director makes yearly trips to an Alaska site... he had to cut his trip short this summer and only came home with 3 *tons* of material. He can pick 'em up faster than we can clean them!

This doesn't count the microfossils in some formations (the Buda limestone is made entirely of microfossils... bazillions of them). Coquina limestone is made up of shells cemented together
www.strombergarchitectural.com...

It's SO abundant that it's cut and polished into building stone:
www.alibaba.com...

There's an amazing number of fish fossils as well.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



It might be that they had six fingers, or blue skin, or were covered with hair...

I think its more likely that some of them evolved to be able to talk complete crap on internet forums

I called it wild speculation based on nothing, but complete crap works. Nice reply, so what was your position on the possibility that you might be wrong? You did seem to say it was not possible, in any realistic sense. What is that based on, and what supports your views? Is none of the evidence claiming to support the possibility that human-like beings lived 100 million years ago possibly genuine? Are there any studies done which found that your position is virtually proven to be correct?



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   


Of all the depth, and breadth of the earth, roughyly 80% covered in water, we've dug and found fossil and geographic evidence, in which I would boldly hazard a guess, exponentionaly less than 1% of accesible areas

interesting
so you are suggesting that we evolved from the ocean and because we havent found or collected enough data about our evolution from oceanographic sources we can't know where we came from
this is just absurd
what is this crank week on above top secret or something
mankind never evolved from the sea
our evolution shows that for the most part we also evolved inland and away from the sea. we evolved from a known arborial creature and then moved to the plains
so you can go look if you like, maybe hire yourself a diving bell and see if you can find Eden
good luck with that



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
lol. actually I was saying that since 80% is covered in water, we cant reach it to dig.

Hope you didn't put alot of effort into that post.


:edit: im not a crank


[edit on 15-11-2006 by nextguyinline]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlaznRob
It's a decent read, and it talks about a lot of the hard empirical evidence that has been found which dates human beings (in their current form) for hundreds of millions of years.


I'd dearly love to see some of the evidence. I've seen a lot of frauds (the Ica Stones... the perpetrators did confess) and cherry picking (selecting the few tracks in a sequence that look somewhat human and saying "humans walked here!".


I still seek the "in-between" ape with language skills and human vocal cords

Speech was not one of the first things that apparently developed in bipedal hominids. One of the things that's required for speech is the evolution of the hyoid bone from the simple version the apes have to the more complex one that humans have (allows for more mobile tongues for speech.)
en.wikipedia.org...

The earliest one we have is from Australopithecus Afarensis (3.3 million years old) and it's not developed enough for speech.
www.newscientist.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ByrdYou may not be aware of fossil material, but it's around in abundance... there's a lot of good material that's still jacketed up in storerooms that hasn't been analyzed, and certain kinds of fossils are so darn common that museums won't take any of them.

I volunteer once a week as a fossil preparator at the local museum. I'm working on *part* of a dinsoaur vertebra; it will take our team until 2007 to finish cleaning up the thing (it's about the size of a "comfy chair" and belonged to a huge sauropod. Meanwhile the director makes yearly trips to an Alaska site... he had to cut his trip short this summer and only came home with 3 *tons* of material.


That sounds very interesting. I hope one day to do something similar, maybe work a dig, or something. Three tons! What is it all? Sounds like you'll be busy for some time.
While I am convinced fossils are abundant, is it not true that very few organisms, as a percentage of the whole, become fossils? That was my understanding.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   


he had to cut his trip short this summer and only came home with 3 *tons* of material.


Not to nick pick, but since im cranky
but was all 3 tons, actual fossil material or material that had pertinent info to evolution?

I'm sure my guess is pretty close if it was measurable, but I'm not a convicted man in most things, and I respect your experience, therefore your opinion; so of course I may be way off.

The only true device i have to measure are eyes mine own. Digs are not in abundance in any measure, certain spots around the globe for sure, but that is infantecimal. IMO
Not to mention 80% is unaccessible. Isn't that right Marduk?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join