Oldest Americans 1.3 millon years???

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Here are some interesting articles on diversity of human like "beings".

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.livescience.com...

And a time line:

anthropology.si.edu...

This presentation shows that homo erectus was parallel to homo heilderbergensis, Neanderthals and modern humans.

It is unclear, althought indicated that somehow Heidelberg man is our most recent ancestor.




posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: That’s not quite accurate. I started out with a Precambrian ocean brimming with single celled organisms. I was seeking the point before these proto-organisms created the first plant(s) and animal life forms. I suggested that it was possible that such proto-organisms (i.e. more than one) could have evolved their own (similar but different) forms of life elsewhere on the planet that could – ultimately – have led to a lineage of intelligent species not unlike humans, developing elsewhere in parallel (or even long before our own lineage).


Okay... that's the standard Theory of Evolution. That's not Panspermia or parallel evolution from multiple point sources. What you're talking about is another lifeform evolving to "intelligence."

However, you're not defining "intelligence" (as I commented several pages ago) and I would argue that it's a "no-brainer" given our current definitions of intelligence. Cats, dogs, pigs, chimps, crows, and anything with an organized nervous system exhibits SOME form of intelligence.

There are multiple loose definitions of intelligence. You'd have to pick one to fully explain what you mean.


The main objection I think you have to such a scenario occurring is that we would see the precursor species in the fossil record even though you agree that the fossil record is incomplete. Who knows what fossils might be found under the Arctic or Antarctic ice when these areas were much warmer millions of years ago.


No. I don't have that objection, actually. I'd have to find out what you meant by "intelligence", though. T-rex certainly was intelligent, as were ancient ammonites if by intelligence you mean the ability to sense the environment and make decisions.

If you mean "capable of having complex language with abstract ideas and capable of forming complex tools by combining many simple tools (a wagon created from wheels, axles, etc)" then I believe that humans are the only species (so far) to exhibit this kind of behavior.

And I certainly do not believe that any species native to the Americas ever evolved this type of behavior; certainly not within the past 1.5 million years.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Byrd]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Wow their certainly seems to be an extreme lack of respect for Native Americans in this thread.


Originally posted by Byrd


No. I don't have that objection, actually. I'd have to find out what you meant by "intelligence", though. T-rex certainly was intelligent, as were ancient ammonites if by intelligence you mean the ability to sense the environment and make decisions.

If you mean "capable of having complex language with abstract ideas and capable of forming complex tools by combining many simple tools (a wagon created from wheels, axles, etc)" then I believe that humans are the only species (so far) to exhibit this kind of behavior.

And I certainly do not believe that any species native to the Americas ever evolved this type of behavior; certainly not within the past 1.5 million years.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Byrd]


I think this is quite possibly the greatest insult to Native Americans I have seen. I sincerely hope that someday the hard evidence is found that shows people with this ideology once and for all just how wrong they are.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I'd stick to the definition of intelligence as creativity.
The ability to reflect and calculate is not necessarily creative intelligence.
The ability to project is a tool, rather than intelligence.
Many animals have this ability, which differs from human depending on the senses they are mostly relying onto. Smell, sound, etc.

We usually apply our own standards as means of comparison and, of course, because of that, we like to believe that we are the only intelligent species on Earth (at least
).
I think that things are very different from this self imposed and limited view.


[edit on 11-6-2009 by DangerDeath]

[edit on 11-6-2009 by DangerDeath]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 





I think this is quite possibly the greatest insult to Native Americans I have seen. I sincerely hope that someday the hard evidence is found that shows people with this ideology once and for all just how wrong they are.


Now, this is what I'm talking about. Applying one's own standard on others with intention to "degrade" them in respect to "not being like us".

This is the most discriminating ("criminal") ideology that is being pushed in the known historical times.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 
Hiya Neph, I've gotta wonder if you've read the thread? The point you make in response to Byrd seems to indicate that you haven't...


Wow their certainly seems to be an extreme lack of respect for Native Americans in this thread. I think this is quite possibly the greatest insult to Native Americans I have seen. I sincerely hope that someday the hard evidence is found that shows people with this ideology once and for all just how wrong they are.


There is no lack of respect whatsoever. The point is that Native Americans originally came from early migrations into the Americas. That they became 'Native Americans' is because they were the first to settle and populate the place. If you've read the thread, you'll be familiar with the haplogroups that link Native Americans to populations that can be followed back through populations towards Africa. As a 'Native Briton' I take no insult from genetics telling me that my distant decendents came from everywhere but the British Isles.

The earlier suggestion that Native Americans have 'brothers and sisters in the stars' might be correct if they also have decendents originating from Africa. There's a huge amount of resources online created by Native American historians that fail to mention a 'galactic immigrant status' for Hopi Indian or others



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 


What are you talking about,
In the staement referenced there is no metion of any native americans or any kind of disrespect.
Remember native americans are not native to america, they are immigrants just like all the rest of us.



its a disscusion as to how long humans have been in the new world, and some peoples ideas that a wholly separate line of intelligent humanoids developed separately from the very beggings of life and other reasons why that couldnt be.



[edit on 11-6-2009 by punkinworks09]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks09
 


we are NOT immigrants. We have no legends that tell of us coming from some other land. As I stated previously.. why is it that scientists are OK with life developing into modern man in most areas of the world EXCEPT the americas?

You have no proof that we are not from here. There are many races that share similar genetic markers but that does not mean they are related.
We are still working out the science of our origins. To give a definitive answer as cut and dry as Native Americans are all immigrants is premature.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I understand.. the migration is exactly what I am arguing here. There are no stories or legends passed down that relate that we came here from another land. All of our stories put us here from the beginning. And being that we are still figuring out the scientific truths of the origins of man, and they are not yet solved beyond doubt, I have serious issue with the notion that modern man developed nearly everywhere but here. Everyday we make new discoveries and everyday we change what we know now, from what we knew yesterday.
As we learn more in time I believe you will find that we did not come here from some outside land. We have always been here.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 
I'm not against the idea that people have lived in the Americas for longer than thought. Whether they have or have not, the progress of people from Africa over to the Americas is still a fascinating explanation. I like the idea of the human story. I can picture a small group (of many groups) of related humans overcoming daily adversity as they head south to a better place from Beringia. It'd make a hell of a 'fly on the wall' documentary



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 


With all due respect for your heritage, which I most likely share to some degree( I have found that I might be 1/4 Mono), legends are just that legends.
To come to your conclusion you have to ignore the whole body of scientific evidence for how humans have migrated around the planet.

And I'll say it again the evidence is very clear there are no native humans in north america. We all came from somewhere else, there is planty of evidence for the species we know as being native to the americas, the fossil record gives us a good picture of animal development in the new world.
Im not going to get into the whole subjest again, theres several pages of post by someone hanging on to the idea that humans evovled separately in the americas, an idea that has been thouroghly refuted.
I applaud the fact that you have retained the links to your peoples past, which ever tribe that be, but to deny the facts of your past because it doesnt fit into the legends that have been preserved, only serves to further ignorance.
You can be proud of your heritage and preserve the legends and mythos, while accepting the facts of your ancestory.


besides if humans did eveolve in the new world neither you nor I or any native american is descended from them, the genetics and dentition bear absolute witness to such, they all dies out without leaving any contribution to the gene pool let alone to the fossil or archealogical record.

And I have a feeling in the future we will find that modern humans werent the first homonids to migrate to the new world and that homo erectus made it here first but was unable to get a serious foothold.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks09
 

Hello Punkinworks,


PW: ...there's several pages of post by someone hanging on to the idea that humans evovled separately in the americas, an idea that has been thouroghly refuted.


SC: I guess that would be me.

The idea may have been refuted in this thread but that does not been it has been disproved or debunked. Fact is, the science of evolution - as we presently understand it - simply cannot preclude the possibility that an intelligent life form - different to but not entirely unlike humans - could have evolved its own independent lineage on this planet long before our own lineage and become extinct many millions of years ago, when our lineage was still lemurs flying about trees.

There is nothing in our present understanding of evolutionary theory that precludes such a species from having evolved somewhere else in the world (not necessarily the Americas) long before our species arose.

Anomalous artefacts (anomarts)? Many incnclusive.

The fossil record? Incomplete.

So, the possibility may be refuted but the science MUST allow the possibility. So, as far as I am concerned, the issue must remain open. Evolution, as we understand it, demands it.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 11/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,


Byrd: If you mean "capable of having complex language with abstract ideas and capable of forming complex tools by combining many simple tools (a wagon created from wheels, axles, etc)" then I believe that humans are the only species (so far) to exhibit this kind of behavior.


SC: You "believe" this to be the case, Byrd, but can you prove it?

I also note your caveat here - "so far". If evolution permits intelligent species simillar but different to ourselves to arise in the future (as per you "so far" caveat), I see absolutely no reason to suppose that intelligent species (different to but not entirely unlike humans) could not also have arisen in the past (along an entirely separate lineage to our own) and become extinct. You simply cannot use the fossil record as proof against such a conjecture since the fossil record is far from complete.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Tool making? Hmmm....
Can this so advanced tool making species reproduce a simple biochemical evolutionary achievement of the so called algae - photosynthesis?
Algae is a prototype of plant life. So the highest achievement of plant happens at the assumed beginning of plant evolution.
I think something is upside down here.

Our understanding of toolmaking is so limited by our own practice, that it has rendered us totally blind to other possibilities and paths of advanced evolution. All this kind of limited science is looking for is its own image in the mirror. That is all they are doing when they are classifying species and their accomplishments in this fashion.

Ultrasonic tools have been invented and biologically utilized by many fish and water mammals. They don't need hands to use these tools. Also bats have this Doppler tool, what more do they need for their advancement? They are totally advanced, as bats. I'm sure they enjoy it.

The whole human self-importance apparatus is about the worst possible outcome of evolution. It is such a horrible and humilating fixation.

And besides, the whole thing about theory of evolution proves only correct when applied to one species at a time, as it takes note of changes. There is no proof that any species just turned into another species. There isn't even proof there is something like species, it's just a statistical category.


The fact that we don't know how one species is begotten, only proves - that we don't know.
Theory of evolution, as is understood by most, is nothing but speculation and a screen for all kinds of agendas to be projected onto.

Humanoid evolution proves that linear succession didn't happen. Many different "species" of humanoids lived at the same time.
Mammoths and elephants lived at the same time.
The "missing links" will be missing forever.

The importance of who came from where and at what time is purely for political purposes.

How are we going to understand ourselves better if we prove that we originate from some lemur? What is the real meaning of that?
I think that its meaning is totally empty of contents. Only opens lots of space for all kinds of speculation and agendas. And that is our truth, admitted in broad daylight by "scientists". We don't know who we are, that's what science claims. Yeah, right! I know who I am and I don't need to know this evolution thing at all, because personal evolution has nothing to do with it. My personal evolution is my own responsibility. It has nothing to do with my place of birth, not even with my parents.

So, American Indians are descendants of Tibetans, Japanese, Mongols, Samoyed, anything but themselves. Science has the answer of who they are, they themselves don't. This is all so unconvincing!

The fixation on genetics originates from the military industrial "intelligence", and scientists are so happy with this "origins" toy, they don't see what they have been used for.

Genetics can be used and will be used for "creation" of monsters. And only from this it is clear that genetics has nothing to do with purposeful evolution. Purposes are not determined by chance. They are intended.
This kind of motivation which clearly exists among humans is totally unnatural and in my opinion is a deviation and certain way to the self destruction of this "most successful" species on Earth, and God knows, of the whole Universe.

The near future brings us myriad of very dangerous, poisonous, destructive alterations to human physical and psychical form. Many of such accomplishments are already in place and working at full steam. Genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, bioengineering, nanitoid technologies, electromagnetic technologies - all will destroy human bodies and put such pressure on human minds that this species of ours isn't going to last much longer. And all of that is deemed as the result of some extraordinary evolutionary development, as if nature itself picked us for some specific and extraordinary purpose.
Perhaps it would have been so, if one thing was not forgotten, and especially by scientists - the ethics. I'm sorry, but it isn't going to work. We have abandoned what nature gave us, we have blinded ourselves to at least half of the picture.

Ancient people were much more aware of the importance of ethics, and they did not disappear because they were "outcompeted" by the more advanced humans. On the contrary, what we have now is the lowest point of human evolution, not its peak.

We, the survivors of this so called "evolution" are in a very big trouble and about to fully understand the impact of ignorance which brought us here, as a "species".

Spiritual advancement is personal achievement, it is not social achievement.
But it is neglected and denied as such by society and institutions, and especially by science which is mostly a tool of social engineering.

None of us, individuals and personalities, came from anywhere and have nothing to do with our ancestors. We don't have to comply to this kind of trickery which tries to bond us to causality as is presented by the idea of dependent origination and importance of tradition. The identity of personality is within its own personal knowledge end ethical effort, not within its physical species.

I am convinced that every living being can accomplish personal quest. So what does it matter what species it belongs to? I have seen enough proof for this, there is plenty of evidence, provided even by science, only it is in most cases misinterpreted in the most vicious way.

The fact is, we cannot understand animals or plants if we rely on science. But we can if we rely on ethics and knowledge of personality. Nothing easier! And especially, by using the "medium" of ethics, we can understand ourselves in others, in the first place.

Personalities do exist parallel and they are source of each other. They are not enemies and they don't compete in order to survive. The only way they can live is in this unity, sharing, which is not species, or race, or nation dependent. There is no conditioning in interpersonal relationship.

Personalities do not come from this or that geographical position. It is a total mistake to believe that. Science observes human beings only through such oculars, determined by space and time, and never admits spirituality and metaphysical quality. They say there's no proof for that. They label it as "creationism". They denounce it.

What a shame. All science has is a promise that at one time in the future it will eventually find the important answer. That's too little, you know...



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath

Ancient people were much more aware of the importance of ethics, and they did not disappear because they were "outcompeted" by the more advanced humans. On the contrary, what we have now is the lowest point of human evolution, not its peak.


Ethics? Does that include the part where they ate each other? There was no noble savage, and I'd say that in spite of all the wars and misery, the value of a human life has never been higher.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by DangerDeath

Ancient people were much more aware of the importance of ethics, and they did not disappear because they were "outcompeted" by the more advanced humans. On the contrary, what we have now is the lowest point of human evolution, not its peak.


Ethics? Does that include the part where they ate each other? There was no noble savage, and I'd say that in spite of all the wars and misery, the value of a human life has never been higher.


People of today are eating each other as well. Eating each other is a technology of survival, isn't it? If you remember, the survivors of the crash in the Andes, who ate dead passengers, were all removed from society - not because of cannibalism, that is interesting. They were eliminated, and in a quiet way, because of "scavenging". Scavenging of both animals and humans is what is not tolerated. If you kill someone to eat him, you will be prosecuted for murder, not for cannibalism.

If you measure the value of human life by the price of the bomb that has killed him - I will agree with you - the price of human life is high. But authorities kill people simply for disobedience - how is that better than what some savages do to those who are "not like them"? This has never changed. There is no improvement in this respect.

I have also read that some think that Neanderthals have been eaten by humans and so exterminated. There are no proofs for this to be the reason of their disappearance. Cannibalism existed among many groups and ti has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics is not the same as ideology, a set of rules, a code. The source of ethics is knowledge. Those who succumbed to the rules of society can easily become cannibals if the authority demands that of them. Ideology can justify anything. Those who are ethical can never turn into cannibals. Ethics comes before reaction, it doesn't need to be justified. On the contrary, unethical behavior always needs to be justified and it is the source of "laws" and "codes". Their only purpose is to justify criminal activity of the ruling class. This is strictly human thing and doesn't exist in nature. It is certainly degradation of life.

Take a glimpse on how war propaganda works and you will see how easy is to degrade your opponents to the "below human" level, so it's OK to kill them, carpet-bomb them, or even eat them. Many tribes/nations believed they were the only real "people". From that position was possible to create society based on slavery . And that "accomplishment" is the starting point of human (known) history. And, in my opinion, demise of humanity.

The development of this particular feature of reason which results in mass delusion existed at all times, and it is easily confused with "advancement" and is a source of unjustified pride. This state of delusion is pursued by all societies, because otherwise the "law and order" can never be implemented and society as a medium of distribution of responsibility would not be possible.

I understand that you and many others believe society is important, but I can see where it springs from and therefore, for me, it is the greatest source of evil. The delusion of being "successful" if very strong and is resistant and it cannot be suppressed by "logical" argumentation. The reaction of society to criticism is intolerance of the critics. It has been proved so many times in history by all kinds of oppression and persecution.

One doesn't argue with authorities. Authorities reserve the right to "act" and the other side can talk as much as it wants, as long as it is "allowed". The implementation of ethics in such conditions is impossible.

Therefore, ethics is lost in society. And without ethics, human beings are nothing. From the evolution's perspective, unethical beings are a disaster.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
People of today are eating each other as well. Eating each other is a technology of survival, isn't it?

I'm referring to practices of eating each other for ceremonial purposes, or because they make a yummy snack...not out of necessity. Tell me it's not a matter of ethics, but it speaks to a certain skewed (skewered?...as in kabobs? ) measure of the man.

We may not look like it at times, but I still insist that this is closest the human condition has ever been to grace. There are dark sides to modern society, but on the whole we have never been more aware of universal human rights, and therefore a sense of brotherhood. I'd suggest, though, that this is the wrong discussion for this thread.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by DangerDeath
People of today are eating each other as well. Eating each other is a technology of survival, isn't it?


I'm referring to practices of eating each other for ceremonial purposes, or because they make a yummy snack...not out of necessity. Tell me it's not a matter of ethics, but it speaks to a certain skewed (skewered?...as in kabobs? ) measure of the man.

We may not look like it at times, but I still insist that this is closest the human condition has ever been to grace. There are dark sides to modern society, but on the whole we have never been more aware of universal human rights, and therefore a sense of brotherhood. I'd suggest, though, that this is the wrong discussion for this thread.


Exactly, ceremonial purpose is social activity. "Ethics" is a personal experience not social. But there is a tendency to use wrong words for actual practices. Public speech is always Lies. Speech is a mass media, its purpose is manipulation. Yes, social behavior is called "morality", but what is its source? That's where you should look.

Universal human rights is a hoax. So, when you die, all you have to do is call upon your rights to live, and will be resurrected. It's totally empty. That is a good example of delusion.

In society, instead of freedom you have rights. And you have been conditioned to accept this surrogate "willingly". But you have no ask in this since the moment you start going to kindergarten or even before that, and you're so brainwashed into accepting the "values" you never bother to question them.

The argument for society is very strong: there are many thieves and criminals, it would never work without "protecting" mechanisms of society. But the fact is, society produces such people. It is a vicious circle.

In my opinion, it is too late to change anything on that level.
The only way one can save himself from ignorance is to avoid messing with mass media of society.

Acquiring knowledge is truly personal quest.


If you want to really be critical of society, and that should be a scientific approach, since science relies on analytical method by definition, then you have to distance yourself from society. It's the only way you can see what is really going on and how much corruption there is.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I understand.. the migration is exactly what I am arguing here. There are no stories or legends passed down that relate that we came here from another land. All of our stories put us here from the beginning. And being that we are still figuring out the scientific truths of the origins of man, and they are not yet solved beyond doubt, I have serious issue with the notion that modern man developed nearly everywhere but here. Everyday we make new discoveries and everyday we change what we know now, from what we knew yesterday.
As we learn more in time I believe you will find that we did not come here from some outside land. We have always been here.


The truth will be released that has been hidden and surpressed for centuries from mankind that the American Indian tribes originated from the Americas. There is an American Indian tribe I call the Gate Keepers that hold the sacret secrets to the ancients, their forefathers.

Other races will be found to have originated in the Americas along with the American Indian and I am not talking about the descendance of the Vikings, Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro. What I am talking about goes back 1.2 million years.


[edit on 12-6-2009 by amari]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by amari
Other races will be found to have originated in the Americas along with the American Indian and I am not talking about the descendance of the Vikings, Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro. What I am talking about goes back 1.2 million years.


Well...I for one can hardly wait for you to cite your sources...
I mean, it's not like you can make this stuff up, right?





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join