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.

 

A Skull that rewrites the History of Man!

page: 2
62
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
it is well known that homo erectus inhabited the area in question.


no big discovery to rewrite history

it doesnt really change anything




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks
it is well known that homo erectus inhabited the area in question. no big discovery to rewrite history. it doesnt really change anything


Yeah, it changes a lot. These are not homo erectus, the new find pre-dates homo erectus. What this suggests is that a group of hominids evolved in Eurasia for perhaps a million years separately from the hominids that later migrated out of Africa.

It means we don't yet know the true history of human evolution, and that our "out of Africa" theories may be worthless drivel. And that is a very big deal.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
yeah and it'll sure change the black panther's views on things too.

2nd line



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I was just about to post this.

Good job on reporting on this.

Star and flag.

Bob



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Well, I'm not sure this discovery has any racial connotation. Even with the current "out of Africa" theories, there's no definitive evidence that the original African hominids were black or white or any other color.

At the time our primitive ancestors were evolving, the climate of the Earth was very different than it is now — it was much more temperate than in very ancient times, a lot cooler, interspersed with some badass ice ages. Everything we know about skin pigmentation suggests that race is based solely environmental conditions. Pale pigmentation is typical of temperate and colder climates with less direct sunlight, and darker pigmentation is typical of warmer, more tropical climates with more direct sunlight.

If Africa was a very temperate or cool climate millions of years ago, our earliest ancestors were probably pale or pinkish in pigmentation. Several primates in Africa today — including many chimpanzees — still have pinkish pigmentation, indicating their evolution from pinkish ancestors right there in Africa. Even many of the "black" humans indigenous to Africa have pinkish pigmentation in the palms of their hands and soles of their feet, again indicating a pinkish ancestry.

This may be indicative that Africa was, indeed, a temperate climate during the earliest days of human evolution.

So, the original human-like hominids that evolved and migrated out of Africa may have been pinkish in pigmentation, or even reddish, like orangutans, or even dark-skinned. Nobody knows. We can't point to modern-day Africa and say "Africa is a Negroid continent and has always been a Negroid continent," anymore than you can point to modern-day Asia and say that it has always been a Caucasoid or Mongoloid continent.

That perspective is totally racist. We can't determine the "race" of our most ancient ancestors based on the modern Earth climate or even the climate of the last hundred thousand years.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I have a few things to say and ask

firstly, it should be known to all that when you are looking at these skulls and even dinosaur bones you are looking at rocks, not bones.
They aren't skulls or bones anymore, they are now rocks after being buried for so long it goes to many transitions until it finally becomes a rock.

So while comparing a human skull to these skulls found centuries later remember this.


The skulls, jawbones and fragments of limb bones suggest that our ancient human ancestors migrated out of Africa far earlier than previously thought

I would like them to go into greater detail on how it suggests this.
What suggests this? Trace fossils and trackways?
I want to know!



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
firstly, it should be known to all that when you are looking at these skulls and even dinosaur bones you are looking at rocks, not bones. They aren't skulls or bones anymore, they are now rocks after being buried for so long it goes to many transitions until it finally becomes a rock.

Not true. Fact is, modern Science doesn't know how fossilization takes place. It's a mystery. All we know is that a few bones fossilize for some reason, but most bones do not fossilize. Beyond that, even bones that we think are fossilized have turned out to still contain organic material from the original bone. Most famously, a fragment of T-Rex bone (over 65 million years old) was found to contain flexible organic tissues from the original T-Rex.

Scientists are baffled. As usual.


Originally posted by ModernAcademia

The skulls, jawbones and fragments of limb bones suggest that our ancient human ancestors migrated out of Africa far earlier than previously thought

I would like them to go into greater detail on how it suggests this. What suggests this? Trace fossils and trackways? I want to know!

That's just the problem. There is no way to link this new find to Africa. The skulls (5 of them) found in Eurasia resemble 2 million-year-old skulls previously found in Africa, but those early hominids never left Africa, as far as we know. We have no evidence of them migrating out into Eurasia, there's no trace evidence at all. So how did they get there a million years before Science says hominids left Africa??

See, it's not a fossilization problem, and it's not a migration problem. It's a Science problem.

Here's a little graphic to illustrate. What appears on the left is a mock representation of what scientists think they know about Human evolution. It's sort of an evolutionary "tree" depicting one species of hominid evolving into another over time and distance. Some of the species just die out, others branch out and survive.



Suddenly, on the right, BOOM, a new set of skulls is found FAR from where they should be, and FAR OLDER than they should be. This discovery is so far off the map, there are no arrows pointing the way to or from our evolutionary tree!

Scientists are baffled. As usual.

The only way to resolve this problem is to sweep the new finds under the carpet, OR rewrite the evolutionary history of man. Hence the title of this thread.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
This dates from the beginning of the (Cenozoic era) Pleistocene epoch, Calabrian Stage. The entire Pleistocene is defined by cycles of glaciation and interglaciatial periods.

Glaciers that reached tremendous heights, and came down as far as the 40th parallel, with then periods of high oceans.

That is probably not coincidental. A distinct geological period marking a very out of place primitive Erectus is just the sort of thing that begs to be looked at.

The World looked much as it does today in terms of continental drifting.

en.wikipedia.org...

It would be interesting to note that the last magnetic pole reversal happened at the end of the Calabrian (781,000 years ago). This is about the time that Erectus can be found in Asia.

What is also interesting to note is that the explosion of modern mammals occurs during this same time. But the other mammals, and the fauna expand East to West. Only for some reason we think that early humans expanded South to North, then North to South, then South to North again.

It would seem a bit disingenius to make the assumption that early humans moved in a totally different manner than the animals they hunted and the animals that humans have co-existed with.

So, the Earth started to cool and early humans moved up to the Caucus. If they did indeed get pushed back down into Africa again, the obvious answer is that they were moving away from a glacial cooling and into warmer climes. Then proceeded out of Africa again once that glacial period receeded. There were at least 17 of these cycles in the last 1.8 million years.

This perhaps habilius is not the precursor, but a side line. Perhaps habilius was replaced by their changed descendents coming back into Africa.

The group that stays in the "good" environment has no reason to evolve quickly. It is the challenge of change that spurs evolution. The groups that moved around into varied environments could have changed at a different pace than their ancestor races.

The other potential - perhaps we are still the Out-of-Africa group and this is the predecessor of the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and where that split happened.

[edit on 2009/9/9 by Aeons]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by El Davicho
Just one step closer to evidence that man originated in South America

Do you even know where the Caucasus is or am I not following what you saying?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


I am inclined to believe that this speices if not some or all of the pre-man hominids may have been nomadic and it wasn't just Neanderthal and etc that went..... um.... walk about?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
This discovery makes it that Erectus was around for a long time with homo heidelbergensis. I'd say this directly challenges the idea that Erectus come from heidelbergensis.

The main assumption seems to be that modern humans came from heidelbergensis because it was similar and had a comparable brain capacity to modern humans. Whereas if heidelbergesis and erectus are co-existant lines, as erectus and neandrathal are you'd have a totally different view of the past.

Perhaps heidelbergensis is only the ancestor of neaderthal, and erectus diverged long before.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


So how did they get there a million years before Science says hominids left Africa??


Wow... Unreal the changes this could make - the impact it could have...

 


These have got to be the best responses to a thread I’ve read here in ages.

I’m learning so much from you all and I thank you for the time and effort you’re putting into this.

It’s just such incredible stuff!

I’ve got so many questions but my computer is acting up horrid (again).

Will be back ASAP (I hope) in the mean time thanks again all!

peace



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Is it just me, or are these types of discoveries becoming more frequent as of late?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


I bet religious fanatics will say...

" God put the skull there to test our faith"



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Humanly-Imperfect
God, if only people from 1.8 million years ago thaught to record all of this stuff then we wouldn'tr have such a job doing it now, pfft. they didn't see that one coming did they, i just supose they were a bit lazy


Yeah, that - or they had a very limited vocabulary ... not to mention no comprehension of what written language was.

There's a reason why Homo sapiens are 200,000 years old, yet we only have a "recorded" history of about 6,000 years.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by tyranny22]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


How dare you make a thread that does not mention Alex Jones


Thanks for the article. I've always found this very interesting. Every few years it seems something comes along that changes beliefs about the past. Shows our arrogance in thinking we know much of anything.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Wow, an amazing find and a terrific post... thanks for that!
It's mind boggling how much we've yet to discover...



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Sorry if this throws a spanner in the idea of help and cooperation but it doesn't have to mean anything of the sort.

This individual may have been particularly intelligent, and realized that grinding or mashing food and mixing with water into a broth or gruel, was a way to eat without having to chew, enabling him to survive without the ability to chew large pieces of food up to swallow.

Teeth or lack of teeth, need not be a matter of life or death for our friend.

It is a nice thought that they did help each other though..but may not be the case.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Well, Wolpoff has been raging against the out of africa scenario for many years now. This could be evidence in favor of his position. The problem with his ideas, and any multiregional evolution hypotheses, is DNA. Genetics have become a powerful tool in biological anthropology and have given much credence to the out of africa theory.

I didn't see it in the article (i may have missed it), but I would be interested to know how old they think the individuals were. Age at death is very important to skeletal analysis, mostly because of certain changes within the bone structure that occur.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Sorry, this is not proof for the evolution of man, or of the thousands of other parallel evolutions of species we are led to believe evolved.

Nice find, but the earth, and life on it, was created. This thread (link below)offers some interesting proof that many have not considered. www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join