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.

 

First Homo-Sapiens were from Israel ! but we heard they were from Africa ?

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I am totally amazed with what is happening in the field of Human Evolution research, first there was a discovery of new species humans called Homo Florensiensis (Hobbits) in 2004, than there was this recent discovery of yet another new human species in denisova cave of siberia in 2008, scientists named them the denisovans and were saying they were offspring of interbreeding between different human species.
Now, there is another discovery of early Homo-Sapiens in israel, eight teeths of prehistoric humans were found in qesem cave and are more than 400,000 years old but we know that the oldest known remnants of modern man were 200,000 years old and were from Africa and later migrated to middle east and not vice-versa.

Scientists could be forced to re-write the history of the evolution of modern man after the discovery of 400,000-year-old human remains. Until now, researchers believed that homo sapiens, the direct descendants of modern man, evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago and gradually migrated north, through the Middle East, to Europe and Asia.

Source



This is an amazing discovery which backs up all those folk-ores in various texts, that points to supposedly alien beings landing in that region and creating first human beings Adam and Eve. I am not the one who is saying that stewart swerdlow also thinks that way:

According to the Israelis, if they discover more skeletal remains in the cave of a modern human person, then it may mean that modern man actually developed in Israel and not Africa, as the current theories hold. The scientists are confident that they will find more remains and more proof of who and what these people were. In a way, this backs up information coming from mysterious sources in the 1970s that claimed alien beings first landed on Earth in what is now Israel, indicating why Biblical stories seem to speak of alien beings being so prevalent in this region in those days. It also would corroborate the Adam and Eve allegorical story of humans being created in this area by non-Earthly entities.

expansions.com... ( This news would become unavailable on this link soon.)

The fact is whether you admit it or not, the alien intervention theory in human evolution would always come up whenever you dig deep in to evolution from apes theory presented to you by conventional sources. What are your thoughts on these recent discoveries, will you would start believing in Aliens now.

edit on 29/12/10 by vinay86 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Those of you who want to know my thoughts on these discoveries and the alien agenda can head to this thread of mine:
What ! Another Human Species found in Siberian Cave.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
The first thing that came to mind was "seeding" if you want to go on the track.

Would be interesting to map mitochondrial DNA based on this.
S+F for teaching me something today.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I find it amazing that we as modern humans do not know why when or how, humans populated the Earth. The out of Africa theory never rang true to me. The 2 main theories, was that first man came from Africa and migrated the world, the second theory is that 1st man migrated out of Africa and interbred with indegengous beings around the world, this theory, always made me wonder then who were these indeginous peoples? Personally, I believe in ET intervention, and planetary migration, this is my theory, that beings migrated to Earth from more likely Mars, as their planet became less inhabitable(though I do think in some areas Mars is still imhabited).



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Very interesting

S & F

I hope this thread gets read by many ATS'ers.

Would be interesting to see what else they find in the cave... maybe some paintings of what life was like back then.

Peace HMHA



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by vinay86
 

Um...ancient astronauts aside...and the fact that the original head line at least presented an interogative...

Did first humans come out of Middle East and not Africa? Israeli discovery forces scientists to re-examine evolution of modern man

www.dailymail.co.uk...


...let's not forget that such a discovery indicates that the Israeli artifacts pre-date any modern human remains yet found in Africa.

And I would also like to add that the publication of this material in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology kinda contradicts that popular maxim about new discoveries being suppressed.

Unless it's because the principal investigators are Jewish...in which case it's a totally different conspiracy, right?


Star and a flag for an interesting article...raspberry for the astronaut nonsense.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Project Bluebeam



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Scientists now are so confused with all those discoveries, they are now explaining them by saying this is the result of co-existence and interbreeding among various species. which they have never ever have said in recent years.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 





Project Bluebeam


I almost have to agree with you. Project Bluebeam mentions using archaeological finds to manipulate public opinion. There have been many finds that contradict modern science's version of our origins but have been swept under the rug. What made this find different? They have not even done DNA testing yet and carbon dating is not always accurate going back as far as 400 thousand years.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a skeptic, and I do think that we have been around much longer than we have been told. I just find it odd that they find something all of a sudden that rewrites history and all of a sudden modern science is willing to accept it as truth.

I think we should wait until DNA results come back and also look into getting a proper date on the artifacts before we get too happy.

These are just my thoughts and not fact.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by vinay86
 

Good find OP. I try to keep up with the latest finds, but I haven't read this one. As much as I distrust the modern science establishment, and their consensus reality agenda, I'm not much for alien intervention either. I'm not saying it's impossible, just not likely from my perspective at this point in time. IF. And that's a big IF, the dating is even close to the truth, It doesn't really change things so much. All it does is move things backward a few hundred thousand years. It still fits with the present paradigm. And it still says evolution is king of the hill. So it really doesn't contradict the "the popular maxim" and "discoveries being suppressed". And it still says man has progressed physically and societally in a linear fashion. So all is well, and our delusion is still intact.

S&F&
BTW



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by vinay86
 


i can see now all the religious folks saying see, man started where the bible said it did

but the bones are 400,000 years old, most religious folks always complain about carbon dating not being real, so the teeth can be hundred years old, after all earth is a few thousand years young, hahahahahahaha
it can come back on them for once and they will still say, see we told you so

and being 400,000 years old does not make them jewish or prove that they really do own that land from god,
hebrews or habiru or hyksos are not that old of a "people", NOT A RACE, the are semetic, the only thing that makes them israel is the imaginary man in the sky deemed it so and anyone can join at anytime or like joshua they will wipe you clean out of history (so the book says), just need to cut your manhood and keep the feasts, so why are only jewish people allowed to live there and return and not proselytes? hmmmm

its all so ridiculous

weird how nothing from 200,001 to 399,999 years old does not exist, thats a LONG time



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
it's 8 teeth. thats the sum of the evidence. Show me some evidence of primates in palestine, er...Israel. otherwise that just means that humans migrated earlier than we think. that's what i took away from the findings. How are you ppl drawing radical conclusions from this/?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Electric Crown
How are you ppl drawing radical conclusions from this/?


Do you really need to ask this question? On a conspiracy site no less?

Why does everyone seem to ignore the word "may" in the article in question. The archeologists note that their findings "may" cause us to re-think some previously accepted theories. Terrific, that is what science is supposed to do people. And not all of the scientific studies surrounding these findings (and not to mention additional digging at the site in question) are or have been completed as of yet. Give it time. Eventually, we will have the answers we seek IMO, but anyone wanting those NOW will be disappointed for several decades, if not longer.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
How many threads do we need on this? Here's one. Here's another, albeit closed, still has some information. And here's a third.

One point. Even if this find is proved true, it does NOT throw out the Out of Africa theory at all. All the Out of Africa theory says is that we are all descended from Mitochondrial Eve, who lived in Africa x thousand years ago. That's all. It says nothing and presumes nothing about previous migrations. In fact, by itself, it does not presume to say that Homo sapiens even started in Africa, though until now the oldest remains have been found there, including species previous to Homo sapiens.

A second point. This find has been dated solely by stratigraphy, i.e.: The teeth were found in a layer known to be 400K years old. The teeth themselves have not been dated, nor definitively found to be from Homo sapiens. There are lots of ways an artifact can be intrusive to an older layer, including plain old burial.

It's an exciting find and needs to be assessed for what it is, and if they find some skulls, it will be even more amazing. But this is very preliminary information. The archaeologists involved are not making any grand claims; The MSM is, of course, trying to sensationalize it. The politicians are trying to exploit it. And ATSrs are, predictably, leaping to unwarranted conclusions.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I wouldn't put too much credit into this yet. This "human remain" is aged at 200,000 years older than anything else we've been able to find, which should strike as a bit odd. It was also found in Israel, which isn't exactly known to be a place full of the most ancient human remains.

Also, in my opinion, it would be extremely convenient if Israel was the origin of humans. They've already been formed to fulfill a biblical prophecy, wouldn't it be too good if they could also claim to be the origin of man?

It's too fishy to me. But hey, if the science checks out, cool.
edit on 29-12-2010 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
...It was also found in Israel, which isn't exactly known to be a place full of the most ancient human remains.

Actually, just off the top of my head, there was a fair bit of early human activity going on in the Levant.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
sounds like the sons of god mingling with the children of men...



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by PieKeeper
...It was also found in Israel, which isn't exactly known to be a place full of the most ancient human remains.

Actually, just off the top of my head, there was a fair bit of early human activity going on in the Levant.


As I thought later, I worded that sentence poorly. What I mean is that, the evidence (currently) doesn't show Israel to be the area of origin for Humans.
edit on 29-12-2010 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Nobody on this find has ever claimed a few teeth found in a cave EQUALS the "origin" of Homo sapiens. Even if they found several dozen complete skeletons, this would not mean the ORIGIN of Homo sapiens is in Israel. The best we could possibly do is find a number of different fossils from different species of hominim that look as if they gradually progressed from a more primitive form to a more modern one. The best candidate for that appears to be Africa where we have found everything from Homo afarensis to Homo hablis.That doesn't mean it's a done deal. Who knows? Maybe if the ice on Antarctica melted we'd find an unbroken line that goes even further back. But so far, given what has been found, Africa looks like a good bet.

If there have been successive migrations of Homo sapiens out of Africa, those populations would have had to take the main freeways out of Africa. They either turned east immediately and headed for India, or they went north. If they went north, they most certainly passed through Israel. So some of them stayed in a cave on the way. That does not mean they were the original settlers there that can claim a connection to those there now. Indeed, they could not have been because ALL of us are related to a later migration out of Africa, related to Mitochondrial Eve. In other words, if there were a population of Homo sapiens 400,000 years ago that either lived in or passed through Israel, they died out.

What's really frustrating here is to see folks trying to turn this into a political argument about the Jews and Israel. The Jews aren't saying that; they say they arrived with Moses a few short thousand years ago. (Well, Moses didn't make it, but still...) No archaeologist is saying that. All they are saying is that they found some very, very old teeth and isn't that interesting. Well, I think so, too, but let's not dismiss this just because they made a find in Israel. That's not a valid argument and it doesn't fit the facts we know so far.
edit on 12/29/2010 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
It's not that anyone has made the actual claim, it's that it would be extremely convenient for them and that they have motivation to make those claims.

Part of scientific critique is recognizing the potential for bias.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join