It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by Doc Velocity

Good post!

And yes, I encourage for people to avoid any racial connotations since in reality we are all cut from the same fabric and at this point I agree we are all so interspersed all of today's arguments concerning race are kind of stupid.

I hate the word "evolve" it's too vague a word, even though it's a widely recognized term. It implies changes made over a long timespan from how I gather. But how do we know changes didnt happen in a lot shorter timespan?

I like to use the word mutate. Evolution is really only a broader term for a long drawn out series of mutations. At this point we are all hosts of tons of mutations.

All it would take for example is one say maybe mentally underdeveloped male "hominid" to breed with a few females in an isolated region. Over time the possibility exists for a pocket of homo el stupidos.

If we took some modern-day examples of that and compartmentalized and isolated them from one-another, in 100k years people would be sitting here speculating on maybe things like why swimmers developed broader shapes with flipper like hands and feet, how runners developed light builds and skeletons, and how danish women dressed like men and got really ugly.

We eventually mutate to adapt to our surroundings, sometimes in a very short time relatively speaking from things we do, things we eat, and our surroundings...and it will speed up quite a bit now that we have done the things we have done to alter our surroundings in recent history.

I often wonder how things like DU poisoning, flouride, processed food and genetic modifications etc will affect how we mutate, or evolve over time.

Anyway, this discovery and hypothesis ought to create quite a stir! It will definitely be entertaining to watch.

Good thread people! Finally something interesting instead of annoying.
How refreshing!

Interesting subject.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by silo13

Thanks OP for the thread. But...

I don't know why this has made the headlines. I'm also surprised that ATSers don't seem to know how old this story is either. I thought we were more intelligent than the average bear. It seems that Lordkipanidze has a habit of repackaging his old work as new. Even the New Scientist were puzzled:

"'s not clear whether Lordkipanidze was presenting new data, or simply wrapping up the story so far..." (

This is a rehash of the 2002 stuff which can be found...

Lordkipanidze regurgitated it again in 2007...

Even Spain has found similar remains that cast doubt on the conventional theory of 'out of Africa'.

Jewellery was also found in 2002 that disputes the 'Out of Africa' hypothesis.

Despite these facts I think this thread is worthwhile because there are obviously ATSers on here who knew nothing of this, and we are all trying our best to deny ignorance.


edit: to add link

[edit on 9-9-2009 by sharps]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by sharps]

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:33 PM
This is pretty cool. I'd be curious as to what the Leaky's view on this was.

I'm just waiting on some "PC" scientist to say that these findings are "racist" because they dispute the notion of life beginning on the African continent. Nevermind continental drift.

Not to mention that the skulls color is "white".

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:38 PM

Originally posted by John Matrix
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.

What you are calling proof is nothing more then hope and fear all rolled up into a nice little ball , and it is all yours to enjoy but please do not try and debate science you will loose everytime.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:38 PM

Originally posted by yadda333
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.

Minor similar changes in isolated groups from common mtDNA have been seen before. Where two isolated groups develop the same mutations.

DNA is a fantastic tool. However, there are assumptions attached to it as well. Rates of mutational change or sustainability without change being out for even a few groups would drastically change expections.

Further, you can see evidence in early modern humans of concurrent evolution. There were late Cro-Magnon in South America, and in Asia, and in Africa. Without interbreeding they all developed into modern humans. Each isolated group as a whole proceeded to develop the same advantageous changes, and those changes can be seen in their skulls all over the world. Without population replacement from a single source for the indigenious population.

The change I mentioned before, in finding that hypervariability of change in DNA perhaps being misunderstood could be challenged by the very existence of the modern European. Under current theory, the immense amount of variability in the European population in terms of types, eye colour, hair colour, pigmentation, size, is far more deep than can be accounted for right now.

But if other factors could influence the rate of change, speeding it up or slowing it down, then the current expectation of a slow plodding methodical change that can be plotted consistently could be fundamentally wrong.

Some animals don't change much. Other animals are consistent variations on a theme - the same type of thing occurs in the same niche over and over. Analogues.

Humans and our co-lines and ancestral lines seem to be consistently progressively and in many ways, vastly different over quite small periods of time. Our analogues popping up, being absorbed, being extincted, in impressively small time frames. With impressively similar analogues between lines of homonids developing in very similar ways in isolation.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:45 PM
reply to post by sharps

I've known about a couple of these other finds. The ones in Spain are quite interesting.

However, what I find interesting is that these finds have NOT challenged the OOA theory. Nor has it seriously challenged the accepted time line of human development.

I find that astounding.

Instead, they seem to have decided that these early erectus were just replaced by later groups.

There is also this ongoing odd lack of understanding or application of what modern humans DO when "take over" another group. The pattern of how modern humans take over in an area is quite clear, and can be established. This social paradigm is ignored - like entire groups just wipe out every individual of a previous group and take over. This is simply incorrect. It never happens/happened that way.

I have to admit that what humans actually do is WAY messier to follow than a straight out replacement theory. That doesn't make it correct to ignore it.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:50 PM
Is it possible there is a flaw with carbon dating that is yet undiscovered?

I'm not saying that I disbelieve this, just that it points to something in such great opposition to current accepted timelines that, it may be an indication of a problem with our dating science.

If I carve a stone skull out of 1.8 million year old rock, does it date to the day I carved it or the day the rock was formed? Did they break open a tooth and do some internal research and testing for bone formation or is it safe to assume that nobody is going to allow the thing to be destroyed to prove its actually fossilized bone and not an exquisite piece of art from earlier ancestors?

...and the verdict is still out on these forgotten crystal skulls right?

...I haven't heard anything else on the discovery of the crystal skulls that call into question our origins... Personally, I think we are all stuck in an eternity of circular birth, life, death and rebirth... everything we dig up probably been there alot longer than carbon dating is able to tell us.

Still... I look at this skull and it makes me want to slap the dog vomit right out of a Darwinist... as soon as it is discovered that other life forms exist on other planets, Darwinism is right out the window. This skull could have landed here 1.8 million years ago and saw no threat or challenge to self or same, and lived and died here already knowing all it needed to know about survival, but deciding not to populate the Earth with humans (yet) for climate reasons or resource deficiencies...

Who cares where they landed... we got ONE (1) skull dating 1.8 mil on a timeline separate from all known or accepted hypothesis... surely, if they were part of our line we would see more of them yes?

Question: Did monkeys or apes even exist 1.8 million years ago? SO, my suggestion that Earth was populated by other means fits the timeline of earths geological climate potential as discerned by intelligent seeders... NOT darwinistic theories on the evolution of apes. Maybe this ol boy came here and snagged a hole in his oxygen suit or knocked out all his front teeth when he fell face first into a pile of fossilized dino dung? Who knows...

"Ground heave" year after year can wear erosion marks into solid rock, so the idea that this chap was gumming his grubs and sucking termites from fishing twigs is kinda stretching...

When y'all find the space ship, please let me know...I'd be real interested to know if it is made of Iron.

As for brain size and intelligence, we still have no clue what makes intelligence. Certain animals have proportionally larger brains, than humans, so, brain size is no clear indication of intellect...

You might also note that (proportionally) the larger the animal, the less food intake needs to be to survive, so, there is a factor of energy conservation yet unexplained. Add 1.8 million year old climate scenario and who knows what you get... Brain size in those days might have been completely irrelevant and, if this chap came from another world completely, what we call intellect might even be irrelevant.

Two very basic functions of procreation are inherent in all species across the spectrum, 1) recognizing wether or not to eat it or have sex with it might be all that is required. and 2) self preservation "fight or flight" instincts do not require higher math and architecture... if this beast had 4 feet arms and fists like sledgehammers, or legs capable of 60 MPH, it might explain why he wasn't ate by dinosaurs. Then again... maybe he was and what we are looking at here is the turd that killed T-Rex.

Send me the communicator Scotty... we forgot to beam this one up...

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 06:12 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong ... but ... doesn't the Project Blue Beam includes something about the breakdown of all archeological knowledge as one of its first steps.

To be honest I didn't even check the link yet, but somehow "Project Blue Beam" was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the title of this thread.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 06:14 PM
reply to post by RocketScientist

Carbon dating wouldn't have been used on the skull, it's much to old. Carbon dating is good to about 50,000 years. Carbon dating also doesn't work on inorganic objects, like rocks or fossils.

They would have used a combination of dating types, as well as comparative dating against the material it was found in, to date it.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 06:21 PM
I'm not buying this as some sort of breakthrough by any means. The diversity of DNA proves the out of Africa theory almost beyond doubt and much more so than one single skull that might be dated 1.8 million years ago.

This is interesting no doubt... shows that humans have roamed the globe outside of Africa even longer than we thought, but nothing groundbreaking. Interesting read however.

I find it hilarious how Eurocentrist will make such conclusions just to distance themselves from Africa. European DNA proves that you came from a much older human DNA that came from Asia, and originated out of Africa. Just except it and move on. Why is it so hard to for some to accept that Africa is the cradle of human evolution. Europeans decided to completely re-write history as soon as they got rid of the Arabs and Moors. Europeans and more specifically, modern White people have been on top for a very small part of human history, and have done the most to destroy anything that doesn't coincide with that viewpoint. This is another example of shooting the nose off the Sphinx.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:11 PM
I have no doubt that conventional main stream science doesn't have, or isn't telling the truth, about our past.
We are a lot older than we think...
But this skull... is it Homo Sapien? or Homo Sapien Sapien, what we are today?

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:19 PM

Originally posted by silo13

A Skull that rewrites the History of Man!

The conventional view of human evolution and how early man colonised the world has been thrown into doubt by a series of stunning palaeontological discoveries suggesting that Africa was not the sole cradle of humankind.

Experts believe fossilised bones unearthed at the medieval village of Dmanisi in the foothills of the Caucuses, and dated to about 1.8 million years ago, are the oldest indisputable remains of humans discovered outside of Africa.
(visit the link for the full news article)

This discovery somewhat throws religous texts, scientifical debates, and other insignificant theories right out the window.

Makes you really wonder what this planet that we live on really is......

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:14 PM
Just cause another skull was found, supposedly dating back 1.8 million years ago, doesnt mean its human. Well, Human ancestor. there are other creatures on this Earth with similar skull structure. Maybe it was an early apes. They need to evolve too, they werent always as they are now.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:25 PM
All this proves is that modern science isn't as advanced as we would like to believe. Or maybe it is and they choose to hide the truth from us.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:25 PM
reply to post by jsizzle21

I'm sure that in some cases your concern about "Eurocentrism" is correct.

This "one skull" isn't, just one. And the few others in other areas aren't that numerous either.

There is quite possibly more than one group that contributed to the modern human.

Propping up a theory by ignoring contrary or out of place evidence doesn't actually strengthen the case. That's just bad science.

And, the area you are saying is Europe is in Asia.

Noting that current theory doesn't account for European diversity isn't claiming that there is a different ancestor race. It does point that current theories have plenty of room for improvement.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:34 PM
According to this site, they used an "argon-argon" dating method.
Institute for Oriental Discovery, Thane: Surprising Finds Bust the Theory of When Humans Left Africa

The age of our find horizon has, however, been quite accurately assessed. Our colleagues Paul v. d. Bogaard and Carl C. Swisher III agree that the basalt underlying the horizon dates to about 1.85 million years ago. This is based on the argon-40/argon-39 dating method, which utilizes the decay of radioactive potassium-40 to argon-40 as a time-scale. Additional paleomagnetic analyses were undertaken by Swisher, who concluded that the intruding sediments must have been deposited around 1.75 million years ago.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:44 PM
All four main species lived at the same time - parallel. Erectus, Heilderbergensis, Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens. There is no evidence of a linear succession - on the contrary. The slow morphing theory of evolution is totally groundless. Look at other species, there are so many varieties. Why would humans be an exception?

Nevertheless, some people can never give up their never proven assumption that the whole goddamn Universe developed in a linear fashion.

Mr. Spock: Fascinating!

In this time line it is assumed that Heilderbergensis is the predcessor to both Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. Proofs? No proofs, just linear thinking stubbornness.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by DangerDeath]

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:28 PM
reply to post by RocketScientist

One possibility is that during the Ice Ages (which changed the climate of the planet along with the land depopulation of animals and plants) migrating bands of primates/humans where moving north to south and back again because of the climate and many of the animals migrating from the horrendous cold. As this back and forth happened, some died where they where some where probably able to eek out an existance in not to nice places (Caves in Spain, etc. etc.). The caucasus could be just the dead of one or two migrating bands of early primates/humans that lived in that area with food for millenia and when the Ice sheets started to come back again they did the north to south and back again routine leaving dead ones along the way. Also I will post a link on the Pleistocene era from wikipedia that somebody posted earlier that showed how much the planet was changed during that time as the Ice ages where happening.

I'm from the opinion on top of the migration, that there where a super civilization that was on this planet a very long time ago and that we are digging up bits and pieces of that world and not seeing it for what it could be.

Also Rocket Scientist, why do you theorize that a spaceship would be made of Iron.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Odessy
But this skull... is it Homo Sapien? or Homo Sapien Sapien, what we are today?

Modern Man (that's us) is Homo sapiens (The Wise Man). Our immediate ancestor, of about 200,000 years ago, was Homo sapiens sapiens (The Old Wise Man).

This new set of skulls discovered in Georgia, "...represent the most primitive population of the species Homo erectus to-date. They might be ancestral to all later Homo erectus populations, which would suggest a Eurasian origin of Homo erectus," according to Professor David Lordkipanidze, general director of the Georgia National Museum.

That is to say, these newly discovered bones appear to be the immediate ancestors of Homo erectus. Meaning that Homo erectus himself didn't "come out of Africa," but that he evolved in Eurasia.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:35 PM
reply to post by revdrdrsunshine

Wow, very interesting video, thanks for posting this. I have a friend who is a genetics scientist who likes to debunk stuff like this, so I left him a VM to see if he would like a link to the video.

I'll get back to you all if he chooses to watch the video and has any comments he would like to make.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in