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.

 

Homo civilisation pushed back 400,000 years

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd The answer is "from one group of homo erectus." If we'd evolved from separate clans, each race would be very genetically different from the other. For instance, tigers evolved all over Asia, and the different groups are just different enough (genetically) that they're listed as separate subspecies.


Which begs the question of why this particular group surged ahead on the evolutionary ladder?

It would be useful, though not determinative, to know the original location geographically of this group. I doubt that we will ever know the exact reason for the surge, though it could be something as accidental as diet.

Perhaps the ingestion of some hallucinate plant could have caused higher cognitive abilities to develop in some of the group, which exposed the offspring to a more critical way of thinking.

Such a line of reasoning would also set some to wondering if it might have been a "tampering effect" as postulated in the movie "2001".




posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Circumstance... its all about circumstance.... you don't need alien tampering... a regular abundance of food, and more important, easy access would be enough.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736


Perhaps the ingestion of some hallucinate plant could have caused higher cognitive abilities to develop in some of the group, which exposed the offspring to a more critical way of thinking.

oops another devotee of Hancock
taking drugs does not make you smart buddy
it makes you dumb



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Drugs of various types have been used in a religious context for thousands of years.

Your drugs make you dumb comment was.

[edit on 1-7-2007 by grover]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
so youre saying that religious ceremonies utilising drugs came before the increase in brain size between erectus and sapiens then ?

doesn't add up when you examine it does it
most of Hancocks theories are like that
drug fueled rubbish



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I hope this question isn't too far afield here, but I'm wondering why large amounts of edged stone tools are found at ancient sites?

Is it simply because they wear out, the edge loses sharpness and it's easier to flake a new tool out rather than try to flake a new edge?

Seems that a good knife is a good knife whether stone or steel and would be valuable enough to carry as well as the owner taking reasonably good care of it.

I carried one pocket knife for about 25 years before changing to a different style.
Seems that ancient man would feel the same way about his tools.

Anyway . . . good post.

Posts of ancient man and lost civilizations are the main reason I frequent this site.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
so youre saying that religious ceremonies utilising drugs came before the increase in brain size between erectus and sapiens then ?

doesn't add up when you examine it does it
most of Hancocks theories are like that
drug fueled rubbish


First off I have never read a word of Hancock's.
Second: There is the theory yes exposure to such things as Amanita Muscaria (fly agaric) and other potent hallunigens played a major role in the development of human consciousness. If not that, then our notion of a separate, spiritual world. Be that as it may these drugs have been used extensively (as has alcohol and tobacco) in religious rites for thousands of years from the rites of the Rig Veda to the Elusian mysteries and beyond. Dr. Andrew Weil has written extensively about it.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
so youre saying that religious ceremonies utilising drugs came before the increase in brain size between erectus and sapiens then ?

doesn't add up when you examine it does it
most of Hancocks theories are like that
drug fueled rubbish


I wouldn't say it's so far-fetched, Marduk.
Let's say a troupe of hungry H. erectus end up eating some fermented fruit, perhaps ergot-infested grains, or even, let's go for the whole tamale, something like datura or agaric mushrooms. presuming members of the troupe survive the experience of poisoning themselves in such a manner, perhaps one or two of them are curious about the "events" that happened while they were sick. If you have no clue that eating purple rye is going to make your brain freak out, then the first time you eat it is going to be an exceptionally jarring and bizzare experience.

Now this curious hominid hasn't "gotten smarter" through drugging itself. In fact it's probably killed a couple of those brain cells. But it's had what amounts to a cultural experience. it nibbles on a little more, does some experimentation to determine just what the hell turned the sky so darned blue and made his hand leave a contrail. It becomes an addictive experience, one he shares with his family and friends. Some "Get it" others don't - much like the modern drug culture.

Over enough time, this becomes part of the troupe's culture, and this culture favors those who can "get it" - the druggy H. erectus that can zone out on their rotten berries and contemplate what it all means are spiritual leaders of the group - they have visions, can understand the "weird world", know the dosages, etc.

The drugs themselves have no effect on the genetic development of these people. Rather, the culture generated by them does. Abstract thinking and curiosity become favored traits over, or in addition to, more physical concerns. it's not too different from our own culture, where rather than physical ability and mental acumen, the western world favors men who can politick their way into good paychecks, and women with more tits than brains.

Really, Marduk, you're a smart guy, you should know the effect culture has on breeding and genetic progress. Is the "rotten berry" theory what happened? Who knows. But it's entirely possible. H. sapiens has been around less than two hundred thousand years. H. erectus existed for ten times longer than we have - surely they had plenty of time to chow down on some wacky weeds and develop their own Pleistocene Timothy Leary.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox


Really, Marduk, you're a smart guy, you should know the effect culture has on breeding and genetic progress. Is the "rotten berry" theory what happened? Who knows. But it's entirely possible. H. sapiens has been around less than two hundred thousand years. H. erectus existed for ten times longer than we have - surely they had plenty of time to chow down on some wacky weeds and develop their own Pleistocene Timothy Leary.


okay so you got this happening simultaneously worldwide wherever Erectus is
you also got them having to learn agriculture about a million years early because as per your hypothesis the whole tribe ends up eating them then the supply won't last long
your ergot idea is very far fetched as ergot wheat poisoning only effects a breed of grass that hadn't actually come into existence yet
you also apparently have erectus living in huge groups when evidence suggests familial relationships only
you also need to explain how being spaced out half the time is an evolutionary advantage (it isn't, ever tried hunting while spaced or something comparable like driving)
and finally and this is the realy big one
you need to have some evidence of how the homo species as a whole has been doing drugs since we came down from the trees which is the actual real point that our brains started to develop above the rest of the fauna because we had to learn to adapt to a new environment.
Basically although to you this may seem a good hypothesis it only explains (until you ask for evidence) the ability observed in the evidence left by Erectus
what about Homo :-
Habilis, rudolfensis, georgicus, ergaster, heidelbergensis, rhodesiensis,
sapiens archaic.... they all big for drugs too, all at the same time worldwide ?
and what about poor old neanderthalensis, wasn't his gear good enough ?
he get pushed out because he couldn't compete with the great stuff that had flooded the market with the emergence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens



when it comes to the theory of evolution
there is no space in it for drugs
not until the advent of agriculture
not until the advent of money even
imo the only people letting their progeny become a result of drug taking are those people who's progeny frequently get taken by the social services as a result of it



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I was wondering because most television, including alot of the musical programming is focused more on propagateing homosexuals. so would it be a shade of irony that humanoids had temporary sex changes. because everydude that I see on TV seems more focused on accenting his testicles on TV. Thats why I started walking around in my underwear. However it seems severly innapropriate to expecially to children that someone focus there camera on someone elses balls.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Please do note I'm not saying "This happened". I'm simply saying there's plausibility to it.

Agriculture? Not at all. Nomadic tribes of Australia managed to make use of pituri without farming the stuff. The Sami used fly agaric, and certainly didn't have mushroom farms. And you can't really grow a field of peyote or mescal, yet it was used extensively in the American southwest and Mesoamerica. Same with ayahuasca in South America. For some of these - such as ayahuasca - there are even cultural taboos against farming the stuff.

Saying that the tribe would eat them all up is kind of like saying Catholics endanger the grape's existance... But it's not implausable that it could have happened. There was a grass that grew in the east Mediterranean region (can't remember the name of it) that was very successful as a contraceptive - so successful that it was harvested into extinction (whether by worried women or men who wanted to ensure kids is totally up to debate)

Ergot: Whatever. Tell you the truth, I'm not an ethnobotanist here, Marduk. I dunno what the hell weird little hallucinatory plants might have even around in the early Pleistocene. I do know there's plenty of plants and fungi around that can have hallucinatory effects. Just for the record, though, ergot can affect a large variety of grasses, not just rye.

What part of "troupe" implies a large group? I would imagine that familial groups or tribes would have contact with others - stone tool technologies had to spread out somehow.

All the time? Again, where did I say that? And we are talking humans here. Maybe they didn't have as many cubic milliliters of brain-goop as their descendants would, but they were still human. They created tools, they cared for their ill and elderly. It's not implausible, to me, that in a given family unit, there might be some dude who's role in the unit is to ensure a successful hunt or expedition via a mystic trance of some sort. This guy would be well-fed if successful... and probably get the crap kicked out of him if he wasn't. A successful shaman would likely have his choice of the honeys, too.

My point in that, is that developing a cultural caste would have likely made that caste more desirable as mates, passing on the traits that made them part of that caste - and in this hypothesis, those traits would be abstract thinking (say, making rain into a personified entity rather than "water that hits me on the head") and curiosity ("Wonder what THIS magic-looking berry will do...)

What about all those other species? I have no idea. I'm simply proposing a hypothesis of some sort of cultural development in one of our ancestors. Quite frankly there's no way to give it a yes or a no - Barring perhaps finding a slab of rock that says "Fat Broad's Diary"

As for your anti-drug spew? Quite good, makes Barbara Bush look like a tie-dyed hippy. Doesn't really take into account the many, many, many pastoral and hunter-gatherer cultures that use hallucinogenic and narcotic plants in their religious practices.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I don't see the problem with this announcement. Professor Zeigert shows his proofs and the methods of dating, and is publishing in a Archeology journal. Obviously he is confident that his work will survive peer reveiw.
He didn't say civilization, which would infer large groups of cooperative social structures. He said community, which is what all groups of hunter/gatherers form eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if this type of communal living went back 1 million years or more. The species Homo Erectus is an ancestor of modern man, and a good deal can be inferred from this fact alone. That they had fire and used stone tools is a verified fact. Using stone tools also means that they used wood and bone tools, and gives them the utility to make what they needed from the enviroment.
The stone huts would mean that the "village" site was a stable one. Using stone would give the huts a permanence and strength. Other more easy to use materials were readily availiable, so this shows that a choice was made to build in this spot and a certain way.
People make the assumption that Homo Erectus was a naked ape living much like chimpanzee or gorilla do today. Were that the case, we would have no record of their impact on the world. I would think that they were not all that different than the isolated tribes of modern humans that were found by the European exploration and conquest missions. They were at a stone age level of technology, which made them easy meat for the Europeans advanced technology.
The other mistake is thinking that Homo Erectus went extinct all at once. There was no global extinction of Homo Erectus like the dinosaurs. The species simply phased out of existance as they evoloved into the new species of man. And this ocurred all over the world at different times and rates. They developed into intermediary forms that in turn developed into Modern Man.
The largest mistake, by far is beleiving that there are no sub species of Modern Man. This is meant in a scientific manner, and any other interpretation is a result of your own prejudice.. Just as there are many sub species of Finch, with no generic Finch at the head of the list, there are several sub species of Human with no generic Human heading up the list. The genetic differences and physical atributes that are consistant in the so called races of man are proof of the separate evolution from a common parent stock. This parent stock was most likely Homo Erectus.
The big question for me is not how advanced Homo Erectus was, but what caused the evolution and phasing out of Homo Erectus. What was the genetic or enviromental factor that caused the "sudden" evolution of the species? And is this factor still around and viable? Is this something that is going to force our species into another round of evolution?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Civilization is a correct term in this case. The term comes from the Latin civis, meaning "citizen" or "townsman." It does not necessarily mean huge cities and advanced agriculture. Belonging to a group that works together to produce tools and to hunt together qualifies.

There are established incidences of animals getting high on plant matter. No evidence that this has lead them to evolve a greater conscious nor to physically evolve in a specific direction. Drugs are not the answer to human evolution. They may well be a part of Cultural distinction, but not of evolution. Having lived with "primitive" tribesmen who have a well developed medicinal and spiritual pharmacopoeia, I can assure you, that drug ingestion has nothing to do with evolving a more capable brain.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join