200,000 Year Old South African Civlization! color me amazed

reply to post by frozenspark


Y-chromosomal Adam.

Thank you.

Good bye.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by fixer1967

 

40,000 years is enough time for 5 iterations of civilization up to the atomic age and destroying themselves. There's plenty of room for your theory without science being wrong. And as far as I can tell, history books haven't been that wrong in a while. People claim, but have no proof.

Thank you. You just helped me prove my point. History books can be wrong in two ways. One by the data in them being just that wrong and second by the data being missing. I guess a more correct way to put it would be to say "incomplete" instead of wrong. You are right about the 40,000 years deal but is there any history data about the 5 iterations of civilization? NO, there is not. But does that mean there did not happen? NO, it does not. We just do not know. That is what I mean when I say keep an open mind about history. Anything is possible not matter have crazy it sounds. We will just have to wait and see what is found next is they even tell us about it .

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


My post was directed at Gorman actually.

I look at stuff the same way you do.

Originally posted by frozenspark
Gorman.. evolution is a theory, not a fact...

Please Google the word 'theory' as it pertains to scientific nomenclature.
That ought to provide a little enlightenment on the subject.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Its very difficult for stuff to survive even 1000 years, not to mention 200 000. This is great news if true. Those who claim we were apes 200 000 years ago wont like it though...

Human evolution spans roughly 4-7 million years. Anatomically modern humans have been around roughly 200,000 years. We ARE apes, to this day.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Anything older than 200,000 years ago had the same intelligence as man. This is because we copied and learned from each other, a la the same way Orangutans have been documented using saws and boats and soap by watching us.

However, Humanity exterminated anything that survived along side us by 20,000 years ago, not a few centuries ago. Our species is one born in fire and blood. We left Africa 50,000 years ago. This is also when the ice age started melting and Behavioral modernity finished up its affects. Thus 50,000 years ago was the last "universal man and woman". The father and mother of us all. Or more accurately, their families.

Indeed there was a third humanoid in Europe. They were a hybrid of Neanderthals and man and could breed. Like a wholphin, if you will. This was actually a species created by our breeding with Neanderthals. We raped and pillaged them. Such an outcome was destined. We killed them off with the Neanderthals. Thus 20,000 years ago ended the First human world war against anything not part of its own species.

reply to post by Gorman91


I don't see you refuting an isolated island community.

Recent studies suggested that a lot more of Neanderthal lives on inside of us. What would mean we didn't killed them all. We mixed up with them.

reply to post by Gorman91


Humanity has been around for 200,000 years. Genetics proves this via the mitochondria DNA. LOL no wonder humans build things on lies. They can't handle the truth.

reply to post by fixer1967


There is considerable evidence for a Roman-like Empire 10,000 years ago, or several of them, which lived along the coasts of the world and were killed off in flooding. Read up on it. Many claim alien visitors. But as always, why would aliens do that? Why not just give them good technology all together.

Archaeology: Man's Oldest Dwelling

www.time.com...

"Position Is Important. There, beneath layers of clay and stones, were the unmistakable traces of a dwelling built by man on the shores of the Mediterranean 200,000 years ago. "It is certainly the oldest organized human dwelling yet dug up," says Sorbonne Prehistorian Andre Leroi-Gourhan. France's fore most authority on paleontology, Profes sor Jean Piveteau, is equally emphatic. "It appears to show that prehistoric man already had a certain social organization 200,000 years ago."

"Before the Nice discovery, the oldest known man-made dwelling, dating from around 150,000 years ago, was unearthed in southern Italy, but it contained far fewer and less interesting remnants. "

This now proves part of sitchin's theory as well.

Interesting article indeed.

reply to post by dragnet53


That is known as mitochondria eve, again. The human body evolved 200,000 years ago. The human brain evolved 50,000 years ago.


reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Not refuting anything. And they've proven that in modern day we have no shared genes to indicate surviving traits. Humanity killed them off or simply through them to the tigers. We know that humans raided caves of Neanderthals and raped them. However we also know humans did not accept Neanderthals as their wives, and the women humans never left their caves to go and get a Neanderthal husband. Thus, in addition to the low chances of a fertile hybrid, they would not last that long. We have found said hybrids. But we have nit found anything to indicate they live on within us.

reply to post by Come Clean


ah, but not cave paintings. Because our minds did not evolve that much yet.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Gorman91]

Well lets put our history to the test.
What Non indigenous race first landed in the Americas?
We don't know we have theories each way but no conclusive evidence.
When did Humans Migrate to the Australian continent?
Again we don't know.
On and on, We actually only have theories. People love to use the bible as a Historical reference, What proof do we have that it is? Somethings are supported, however that doesn't mean we have the slightest clue or evidence of a time line. Just Theories thats all we have. Unless we have indisputable proof there will be arguments, and that is something we will never have. Be a little more open minded, and a little less Wiki happy. Twenty years ago Most people KNEW that Columbus discovered America, now....?

Wheres Cremo when you need him

reply to post by UnlawfullPriest


At a certain point something becomes so probable that it is safely certain. If it is proven wrong, so be it. If not, who cares? oh! And Australians were the first to land in America. And Africans first came to Australia.

This makes perfect sense considering it would be some time until we would adapt to other climates. So the fastest route, west and east, is where we went first. As science has proven.

reply to post by frozenspark

evolution is a theory, not a fact

In science theories are stronger than facts. A theory is a framework for a field of study.

In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

Scientific Theory

Evolution is a theory based on a myriad of facts and observations that all point toward one conclusion - that biodiversity is the result of a biological process not of aliens or magic. The fossil record, genetics, behavior studies, morphology, all point toward one answer, Evolution.

unless you have a time machine you cannot prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that intelligent beings were not here 200,000 years ago.

The burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those making the claim. If someone makes a claim that aliens WERE here 200,000 years ago manipulating the DNA of organisms on Earth they had better have some evidence to back up that claim.

Also one doesn't need a time machine to figure out what happened in the past, otherwise every murder case that doesn't have an eye witness would go unsolved.


As for the OP: I'm still waiting on a source more reliable than Dan Eden and Viewzone. Until then I take this "discovery" about as seriously as I would take any pseudoscientific claim in a tabloid newspaper/website.

Originally posted by UnlawfullPriest
Well lets put our history to the test.
What Non indigenous race first landed in the Americas?
We don't know we have theories each way but no conclusive evidence.
When did Humans Migrate to the Australian continent?
Again we don't know.
On and on, We actually only have theories. People love to use the bible as a Historical reference, What proof do we have that it is? Somethings are supported, however that doesn't mean we have the slightest clue or evidence of a time line. Just Theories thats all we have. Unless we have indisputable proof there will be arguments, and that is something we will never have. Be a little more open minded, and a little less Wiki happy. Twenty years ago Most people KNEW that Columbus discovered America, now....?

"In Red Earth, White Lies, Vine Deloria, Jr., masterfully challenges the accepted but grossly inaccurate scientific theories of evolution, radiocarbon dating techniques, and the Bering Strait migration hoax. He warns coming generations of scientists, both Indian and white, not to repeat the ethnocentric omissions of the past by ignoring Indian oral tradition.... I have been waiting for this book all of my adult life.",

--Renee Sansom Flood

Absent of verifiable dating I'm a little skeptical about this find. But I am not opposed to believing mankind has been destroyed several times over since the planet FIRST became inhabitable.

Originally posted by dragnet53
This now proves part of sitchin's theory as well.

Interesting article indeed.

Well, first of all, the hypothesis that this is actually a 200,000 year old civilization needs to be proven first -- and the evidence for that being the case is circumstantial at best and highly suspect.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

 

Incorrect. 200,000 years ago, humanity was one of several human species. We were barbarians living in caves. and we were NOT, I repeat, NOT psychologically the same.

Again, we call this Behavioral Modernity. It is a fact that our bodies are older than our minds. Behavioral Modernity is the time when we started using that intelligence like we do now. When the biochemistry of the mind, and the mind itself, evolved to open the keys to imagination and art and science. It is when the cave paintings began and when we started developing.

This was 50,000 years ago.

Humanity is 50,000 years old as we are now. 200,000 years ago we were busy killing Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo Erectus and various other groups. No society. We were still animals.

200,000 years ago anatomically modern humans existed. This means that the VAST majority of our genetic code was the same as it is now, even mentally. Humans were not barbarians living in caves, they likely lived in bands and/or tribes in a variety of environments. I'm also suspicious of your use of the word "barbarians" to assert that they were somehow stupid, brutish, and violent. The reality is that to this day WE STILL KILL EACH OTHER in farrrr more barbaric manners than during prehistory. And the level of violence in prehistoric society is still not fully understood and even can be downplayed in its incidence the more we learn. Many modern tribes aren't very violent at all, most tribal warfare causes few casualties and serves mostly as a ritual/symbolic release of inter-tribal pressure.

As I point out below, the Toba cataclysm seems to be responsible for "behavioral modernity" however there is still scientific debate about the term and its implications in separating humans before and after that point. I'm not sure that it was a divisive enough event to label humans before that time as stupid or incapable of language/culture. Primitive language, tool use, clothing, and cooking of food developed even BEFORE modern humans. Due to severe climate changes, environmental forcing may have had a significant amount to do with the development of more advanced culture 50kya as well.

Humans practiced society before 50kya, they had collective forms of socialization, family, and culture. Perhaps they were more technologically primitive, but this does not mean they were merely "animals". The TRUE explosion of technology occurred 10,000 years ago during the agricultural revolution and this certainly doesn't mean that humans are mentally more capable now, as it was a drastic CULTURAL shift. The fact also remains that humans are not somehow magically NOT animals, we are still animals (barring a future trans-humanist 'artificialization' of humans), except we have the largest neocortex and an inflated sense of self-worth and domination over other species. A larger neocortex does not mean we are necessarily more civil than other species, especially considering the fact that we are causing the planet's sixth great extinction event.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Gorman91

 

Modern man were the surviving members of a population bottleneck from an estimate of 90 to 70.000 years ago from a natural cataclysm that could have wiped us of the planet as it caused the population to drop to only an estimate of 2000 members. The eruption of lake Toba, a super volcano has been pointed at as probable cause of this event.

The Toba cataclysm and subsequent human population bottleneck seems to be the best explanation for the development of "behaviorally modern" humans 50,000 years ago.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by NoHierarchy]

reply to post by MrsBlonde


OMG you just made me read an Internet infomercial...

[edit on 25-7-2010 by rozetta]