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.

 

Study: Human evolution had rocky start

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
The fact that we are here , allowed to exist until this day and age, is phenominal in it's self. But "Why are we here?" enthuesists are really breaking down the "Question" barriers to how it all could've been evolution and not done by the acts of an almighty creator, "Or could it prove that it was?"
Seems to me we have more questions than answers, but the flailing attempts may be paying off for the results that have'nt been contiplated or looked into yet. I , for one, am a full believer in the "Evolutionary" belief system of explanations, not to minimize the religions of faiths and the areas of believing there is an "Omni-potent" creator, but when push comes to shove, and the evidences are put on the table, I would have to believe the facts established by the scientist of this "Possible" extrapulation of how we are what we are, and where it all began.


Geology may be a long-overlooked, major factor that created conditions favoring the evolution of modern humans.


There are explanation's of this all coming to a true form of enlightened reflection. I hope you enjoy the read, and even more so, get a fresh new look into an ongoing question of most of us,; "Where did it all begin?"

Source of Info.:

www.msnbc.msn.com...




posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
interesting read, there is no doubt that geological changes which induces climatic changes, directs environment diversity or selective pressures.

this may be a little off topic but it reminded me of the sudden diversity of dinosaur species coinciding when the super-continent begun to break up causing new environments and species to be left in isolation and so on.

very interesting and unifying how geological changes and biological changes are interconnected so gracefully.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Allred5923
 


I agree mostly with the article but i dont believe it was that simple, i think it was a combination of not only geological and biological enviroment changes but also social changes, not necesarily bought about by the other two. If not for our unique, quirky differences to other hominids we'd still be just another upright ape on the evolutionary tree.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I dont understand the article. Evolution, by definition, require an enviroment. So of course geological factors (which an obvious subsection to enviromental factors) plays a vital role. Yet this article states its overlooked???



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale
If not for our unique, quirky differences to other hominids we'd still be just another upright ape on the evolutionary tree.


I wonder about this.

How do we know that our ancestors were all that different from other hominids that were around?

I don't think we were. Not until I can see where any evidence of this difference has been found.

I suppose it depends on how far back you go, though. Maybe.

I think we're not so different now from what we were 250,000 years ago. I also have a suspicion that we differ only subtly from Erectus.

Just a feeling though.

Harte



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I guess i'm thinking more 27,000 to 50,000 years ago.
Something seperated us from Neandertals, a totally unrelated hominid species which we coexisted with and who became extinct, and from that period on compared to previous hominid species we seemed to have evolved, not just physically but socially as well, at a fairly rapid pace dont you think?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mojo4sale
 

According to wiki, something seperated us from Erectus between 250K and 400K years ago... With "modern" man dating back 160K years.

Regarding the "rapid" pace of human "evolution", I dont think its been very rapid. You really have to define what your idea of evolution is. As people, we're just the same now as say 3000 years ago. There's just more of us. Why is there more of us? Because we breed like we're in constant heat


If anything, our pace of "evolution" has DECLINED simply because we live longer: Those 3000 years ago, there where 2 generations for every current generation (or 3 for that matter)



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Regarding the "rapid" pace of human "evolution", I dont think its been very rapid. You really have to define what your idea of evolution is.


This probably explains what im trying to say better than my foggy brain.




Compared to all the other hominid species which had all been around a hell of a lot longer than Homo sapiens sapiens it seems to me that we have come a long way in a very short space of time.
Thats what i mean by our rapid evolution. That does not exclusively mean physical evolution but social and cognitive evolution as well.
Perhaps adaption is a better word, cut me some slack will ya, its 5am here and ive had a couple.


[edit on 21/12/07 by mojo4sale]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Well some people would argue that there where civilizations long before us


What this is "rapid evolution" of yours is really about, is the foundation of cities and the introduction of writing: recording knowledge was suddenly a factor... And it changed the world.

Is it possible that none of this occured for the other humanoid species? Yes! People often ask "why not?" but "why?" is an equally valid question. Status Quo exist, as visible by primitive tribes still living today!

Could geological changes be the reason people started bunching together in the thousands, which kicked off the current human era? Its quite possible. This is why I dont see it as an over-looked factor.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale[/i
Something seperated us from Neandertals, a totally unrelated hominid species which we coexisted with and who became extinct,


there has been some evidence to suggest that neanderthals and homo sapiens actually interbreed as of the time of there disappearance around western europe. so maybe neandethrals never actually went extinct and our species merely merged various genes together. they could even be our best qualities.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheeser
there has been some evidence to suggest that neanderthals and homo sapiens actually interbreed as of the time of there disappearance around western europe. so maybe neandethrals never actually went extinct and our species merely merged various genes together. they could even be our best qualities.


Yes i've seen those reports and discussed them in this thread, Why did the Neanderthals disappear? There has been no dna evidence to back up that claim only the alledged discovery of a hybrid fossil from a cave in Spain i think, but it is still a possibility until there is evidence to show otherwise.

cheers mojo.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:53 AM
link   
mojo4sale, its pretty certain there was interbreeding. I mean think on it. If there's something a man can f**k he will. I mean in the ancient hunterer/gatherer society we're talking about some basic things you could do:

Sleep
Eat
Hunt
Have sex
Sit still
Walk or run around

And that's pretty much it aint it? Removing the walking and running around, along with sleeping and sitting still leaves eating, hunting and having sex. So in short, what does a man do when he isnt hungry and doesnt need to hunt?



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


Are you speaking from experience or fantasizing.


Like i said i think its a possibility but apart from the one set of skeletal remains there isnt much else in the way of evidence to back up the claim. I mean why werent we screwing apes they were probably better looking than Neandertals.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale
I mean why werent we screwing apes they were probably better looking than Neandertals.


Because the ape would kill you.

There is no DNA evidence mostly due to gene incompatibility.

It may be that the DNA of the neanderthal degraded after centuries of inbreeding and venereal diseases (they didn't have doctors).

It may be that it became taboo to breed with the neanderthal and the young were killed outright and the families driven far from their group.

There are people walking around today with obvious "throwback" features, those genes surface from somewhere in the family tree.

It is very much likely that the more modern man developed his racist tendencies early and found that he could enslave and dominate the neanderthal and thus prevent them from continuing to breed by throwing them down into mines or some such and killing off the females.

All speculation until those guys from the insurance commercials tell us what happened to their family.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4saleI mean why werent we screwing apes they were probably better looking than Neandertals.

Apes wouldnt meet you with the same type of equipment and possibly try to communicate.

I'm not so sure the ape would outright kill you as I give their intelligence more credit than that, but lets face it: there are animals that are brighter than others.

Go to a lion, stretch out your arm and say "hello", chances are you'll be one arm less of a man. Do the same with a Neanderthal and chances are it'll be at least curious... if not to the point of understanding a non-hostile act. Well they arent alive now so its not possible, but you get the idea. An ape would come close I suppose, but its just not similar enough to us, especially not modern man.

I dont know if anything came out of such mix, but I think it most certainly happened. I mean, men even turn to animals in times of dire "need" (its taboo today, but we KNOW it has happened throughout history), a humanoid female that may even show interest of her own is even better


[edit on 24-12-2007 by merka]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
two reply's to a nonsensical comment, im going to have to try that approach more often.


if you check out that other thread i posted a link to i think there are many more obvious reasons for a Neandertal extinction than interbreeding.

The geoligical changes are just one of many things that happened in a relatively short space of time that affected who and what we have become imo, and i believe that my original comment that some fairly minor quirky parts to our make up meant that in the end we were the species that was able to adapt and survive.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join