The term falls outside the usual naming conventions for early humans and is used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe, though also a specific (but very frequent) subtype among their fossil remains

while Cro-Magnons were well in the average of modern Europeans. mtDNA retrieved from two Cro-Magnon specimens was identified as Haplogroup N. [5] Haplogroup N is found among modern populations of the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, and its descendant haplogroups are found among modern Eurasian and Native American populations.

from your own source

quote mining is bad m'kay

cro-magnon is a slang term for early european settling humans

they are the first europeans and have slight structural differances in the same way caucasions negroid and mongaloid skeletal structures do, on the out side there is minor change and nothig to make a deal out of

its like asking if the germanic tribes thought romans were gods because they had slightly smaller frames and had darker eye and hair or vice versa

and even the tool use is wrong

its not like the concistadors turning up in central america riding horses wearing metal armour with metal weapons and boom sticks as opposed to runing around in wood armour with stone tools

the differance is if a tribe that spear fishes meets a a tribe that net fishes would they think each other gods


so nope

Originally posted by noobfun

The term falls outside the usual naming conventions for early humans and is used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe, though also a specific (but very frequent) subtype among their fossil remains

while Cro-Magnons were well in the average of modern Europeans. mtDNA retrieved from two Cro-Magnon specimens was identified as Haplogroup N. [5] Haplogroup N is found among modern populations of the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, and its descendant haplogroups are found among modern Eurasian and Native American populations.

from your own source

quote mining is bad m'kay

cro-magnon is a slang term for early european settling humans

they are the first europeans and have slight structural differances in the same way caucasions negroid and mongaloid skeletal structures do, on the out side there is minor change and nothig to make a deal out of

its like asking if the germanic tribes thought romans were gods because they had slightly smaller frames and had darker eye and hair or vice versa

and even the tool use is wrong

its not like the concistadors turning up in central america riding horses wearing metal armour with metal weapons and boom sticks as opposed to runing around in wood armour with stone tools

the differance is if a tribe that spear fishes meets a a tribe that net fishes would they think each other gods


so nope

Yes. As I said, a race of humans, and in my example I used Eskimos and Ethiopians to highlight what I meant - how two groups of humans can be very different. I don't know why you are beligerantly labouring the point that I did not make.

So don't sit accusing me of quote mining, because I am not presenting the argument you are accusing me of.

This is basically the same thing I was thinking. I mean, how do we know homo sapiens sapiens came out on top of the evolutionary chain on this planet? What if a more advanced "type" of hominid evolved first, or a certain "subspecies" within our own species?

I've been studying cultures, civilizations, societies and what they are made-up of, and such (their building blocks, or the formula they are comprised of). I'm slowly growing suspicious that "God" is actually our term used to describe what we previously did not (and still do not) understand to be "the system" and/or the people running it, since it is also quite obvious that the entire formula is set-up to benefit the few (look at money and economics for instance).

Suppose that modern man was taught agriculture by this more advanced species or subspecies that evolved right here on earth. We'd look at them as gods and goddesses, and we'd also think they kicked us out of the Garden of Eden, if we did something to offend them (such as disobeying them). If they were a subspecies they would have even been capable of interbreeding with us (or the gods coming down to mate with humans). They could have been any number of supposed mythological beings who supposedly just disappeared and so are called mythological. Well, what if they did exist and they really did "just disappear" because they managed to become technologically advanced enough to either leave the planet or go into hiding while we do their work for them? If this theory were correct, one might ask if perhaps there hasn't been a much more "practical" reason to ruling families interbreeding.

In other words, why does Huxley's Brave New World with its concept of the elites creating a subrace of human have to be something which takes place in the future? Why couldn't it have already happened once? Or have once happened on its own?

Everybody who entertains theories such as these, always jump to "space aliens" were our ancient gods and goddesses. Well, why can't it be something much less impressive like homo sapiens sapiens simply didn't come out on top like we were led to believe? In reality, we were really #2 (or even #3 or lower), and we've just been led to believe we were the smartest and most advanced cookies in the evolutionary jar because, well... We're arrogant! So long as our arrogance is fulfilled and we think we're "tops", we're dumb enough to work our tails off for the benefit of a few, who just so happen to not even be from the same stock.

Or worse yet, what if that more advanced species that evolved right here on earth, has been breeding us all along, planning a harvest like we are nothing more than livestock and beasts of burden? Where they are going to tuck away the "choice" of the herd into their ark and process the rest of us for god only knows what?

I any event, my point is, why is it that all supposed branches on the human evolutionary tree failed and we came out on top? Why do we have to assume that's what happened? Because we supposedly have no evidence that that wasn't the case? We have evidence of hominids "believed" to be extinct, that is all we really have. That's all the evidence really shows. When you get down to it we have just as much evidence they died out as we do that they might have just suddenly decided they didn't want anyone to know they were around.

My only point here is that I think the theory presented here in this thread should be given more attention because it probably makes more sense than most others. At least, it seems plain to me that eventhough the theory may not be completely correct, there may very well be something to the idea.

The problem with 'advanced humans teaching us agriculture' is two fold - one who taught them, second the type of farming initially done by man was terribly inefficient and ultimately destroyed the soil in Mesopotamia - why no concept of crop rotation, diverse crops, etc.

unless CroMagnon had space ships or wings and a supernatural ability to manipulate the human mind and genome, as well as the ability to interact with many dimensional realities. I highly doubt anyone would think they were Gods

you gotta be more than tall and good looking, I would think.

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
unless CroMagnon had space ships or wings and a supernatural ability to manipulate the human mind and genome, as well as the ability to interact with many dimensional realities. I highly doubt anyone would think they were Gods

you gotta be more than tall and good looking, I would think.

Bull. All you have to be is a few thousand years more advanced. If you went back to 10,000 BCE when they began agriculture and you started to teach them what you know, they'd think you were god and you know it,especially if you taught them everything they know because they are copiers and not thinkers (much like people today who do what they learn rather what they think).

Anyone from today could go back 10,000 years and convince the ancients they are a god. I think you are alone in your thinking otherwise.

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
you gotta be more than tall and good looking, I would think.

Makes me wonder, are you speaking from experience?

Harte

Originally posted by Hanslune
second the type of farming initially done by man was terribly inefficient and ultimately destroyed the soil in Mesopotamia - why no concept of crop rotation, diverse crops, etc.

probably they came from a loess plain. you don't need to manage your crops when the soil is magic. the soil isn't magic in mesopotamia.

Originally posted by Parta

Originally posted by Hanslune
second the type of farming initially done by man was terribly inefficient and ultimately destroyed the soil in Mesopotamia - why no concept of crop rotation, diverse crops, etc.

probably they came from a loess plain. you don't need to manage your crops when the soil is magic. the soil isn't magic in mesopotamia.

True, but such soils suffer from erosion problems which I believe the Chinese were the first to figure out how to control.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Parta

Originally posted by Hanslune
second the type of farming initially done by man was terribly inefficient and ultimately destroyed the soil in Mesopotamia - why no concept of crop rotation, diverse crops, etc.

probably they came from a loess plain. you don't need to manage your crops when the soil is magic. the soil isn't magic in mesopotamia.

True, but such soils suffer from erosion problems which I believe the Chinese were the first to figure out how to control.

just as there is magic soil, there is magic geography where wind erosion isn't an issue... but in it being very well watered, the need to remove the water certainly would leave us with the skills necessary to import it if needed.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
you gotta be more than tall and good looking, I would think.

Makes me wonder, are you speaking from experience?

Harte

You caught me speaking from experience!! (not gonna fall for that again)