It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You also stated something about genetic interference by higher powers. This would be genetic engineering, not evolution.
Babi was a fierce, bloodthirsty baboon god who was ancient even in the realm of Egyptian gods. We find him mentioned as early as the Old Kingdom, when Babi "bull (i.e. dominant male) of the baboons" with his supernatural aggression is an attribute to which the monarch aspires. He controls the darkness and will open up the sky for the king since his phallus is the bolt on the doors of heaven. This virility symbol is carried over into a later spell where in order to ensure successful sexual intercourse in the Afterlife a man identifies his sexuality with Babi. Perhaps it is not entirely fortuitous that the Underworld ferryboat uses Babi's phallus as its mast.
This dangerous god lives on human entrails and murders on sight. Hence spells are needed to protect oneself against him, particularly during the weighing of the heart ceremony in the Hall of the Two Truths. where a person's fitness for paradise is determined. Naturally this hostile aspect of Babi leads to an identification with Seth. Conversely Babi can use his immense power to ward off dangers like snakes and control turbulent waters. Understandably in the Book of the Dead the deceased makes the magical progression to become Babi who in turn transforms into the "eldest son of Osiris".
But the two species have spent those millions of years evolving and adapting to fit very different lifestyles so researchers needed to find a less specialised primate as the model for early humans.
Baboons seemed to fit the bill. Although more distant relatives of humans, baboons share our African origins and spend most of their time out on the savanna, presumably dealing with the same problems our ancestors faced. Researchers discovered that baboons, and many of the 40 other African and Asian monkey species in their order, the cercopithecines, share a common pattern of behaviour. In their typical social system females remain with their mothers while males leave at sexual maturity and enter new groups. As adults, these unrelated males do not form strong social bonds and they must also actively compete for females in heat. Females, on the other hand, form close ties because they stay put. Both male and female cercopithecines interact through a network of social status, where one monkey ranks over another, and males outrank females. This pecking order is reinforced on a daily basis; they push each other from favoured places, turn their rears in a sign of submission to more dominant baboons and groom each other to bolster important connections
Old World monkeys and baboons in particular, soon became the anthropologists' "model primate", the best-guess picture of an ancient blueprint from which we humans evolved. Now some researchers are suggesting that for the past 30 years this "baboon bias" has warped the story of human origins. As Rendall points out, "Everyone latched on to the cercopithecine model because they were so well studied and they all seemed to be alike, and so everyone called that the normative higher primate." So the "female-bonded" system has become the standard monkey pattern against which all other systems should be compared. The apes, where females are most often solitary, were considered specialised - branching out at some point from the more basal baboon pattern
Originally posted by Astyanax
Shouldn't this thread be in the Origins & Creationism Forum?
Or does the OP wish to share with us some scientific evidence that humans and apes don't descend from a common ancestor? Or that baboons are our descendants?
Would you like to share evidence of evolution.
Why didn't some humans advance further than others?
Why don't some humans look like fish?
* * *
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by cutbothways
'All humans are apes' isn't the same thing as 'all apes are humans'.
That's like saying all mothers are women, therefore all women are mothers.
Nothing wrong with dave420's logic. Re-check your own and see if you're still satisfied with it.
The word "monkey" itself gives us an interesting play on words. "Mon" refers to Montu, Montauk or the earlier definitions provided for that phoneme while "key" refers to the "key to Montauk". Although there is some contention about it amongst scholars, "Monkey" derives from the Dutch word monnekijn which traces back to the Roman word monne, the origin of which is uncertain. The handwriting is on the wall. Manikan means little man or an imitation of man. Monne is intimately related to the root words already covered.
The word "ape" is said to be borrowed from a Teutonic word yet there is argument and some say it is really from the Celts. It all becomes clear when we consult the derivation of the word " apex". This means several interesting things. It is the highest culminating point of time and also refers to the vertex of a triangle or the conical top of a pyramid. Apex strongly suggests the concept of the Tower of Babalon or the mountain aspect of Montauk. The word itself derives from tip, specifically referring to the tip of a flamen's cap. (A flamen was a priest or magician in ancient Rome, the word deriving from the Sanskrit word brahman.)