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.

 

Man's Genetic voyage. Fact, Speculation and Theories...

page: 10
211
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I'm not talking about civilizations at our current tech-level either. I would place them at least as high as Egypt, but perhaps even on par with the Minoans, however much deeper into the past. I realized in re-reading the poster I was replying to that they used that term (current tech), but my theory, like yours, is that there were simply considerably more advanced cultures, yes, along coastal regions which are now submerged. In any case, there is much circumstantial evidence that this may have been the case but, as yet, nothing concrete.




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ArchaeologyUnderground
 


I appreciate the clarification. This is where Hancock and I split on our ideas and theories. He believes in a vast ancient global civilization. I do not.



edit on 28-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by ArchaeologyUnderground
 


He believes in a vast ancient global civilization. I do not.



edit on 28-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


This isn't what I was referring to either, but okay...carry on.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I appreciate the clarification. This is where Hancock and I split on our ideas and theories. He believes in a vast ancient global civilization. I do not.


This is where it gets tricky for me...I suspect that if you have even one ancient civilisation, that predates Sumer, in Sunda particularly, then the likelihood that global trade existed, between continents goes through the roof. My own theory is that the Persian gulf was first inhabited by traders from Sunda exploiting the oyster beds there. Similarly the Indus valley. I believe that settlements there were initially seasonal, but following the rise in the sea levels that drowned most of the Sunda region, that more permanent settlements were established by those displaced.

At Catal Hoyuk, there are signs of a tranference of culture, similiar burial practices and shrine goods, from the earliest archaelogical record of Jericho, up to those settlements, and a corresponding gap in inhabitation of the Jericho region. Same pattern in the Black Sea, Balkans and Caucaus regions. Those in Sunda had less high ground to retreat to and must have been forced to take to the water.

Either way, I think that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that following the great melts, hypothesised to have occured circa 15000 and 8500 years ago, that the development of a 'framework' of global trade was interrupted in one region and eventually re-established in the Near East because they already had a trade relationship with the 'natives' further inland.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


I suppose anything is possible. All we need is some hard prooof



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Very well researched. Quite impressive, I actually learned a few things here. I thought I already knew all there was to know on this subject!!



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Sorry to clog the net with mindless dribble, but just wanted to say good thread again, it makes me feel good to see everyone is so unprejudiced and genuinely interested in our biological history. There may be hope for us yet.

edit on 28-2-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 





I personally have no argument against that. But the question arises that if we are all his descendants then why don't we all look African? This isn't a simple question. There are many variables. Such as Genetic isolation after migration, Environmental and Nutritional factors ad infinitum...


It's mostly environmental and nutritional factors. Environmental includes CLIMATIC of course, such as the degree of Sun exposure and its intensity, over generations. there,s plenty of anthropological research that's been done on that, you won't have a hard time finding more specific answers.

In places like Australia, Europeans descendants, if they stay there, are supposed to be becoming brown-skinned within a few more generations. This is a normal epidermia reaction that has to do with the melanin under the skin, taht eventually darkens the skin after repeated exposure to heavy Sun rays. Look at the Mediterranean Europeans, many of them are nowhere near the typical fair-skinned northern Europeans.

if you travel the world or look at one of these neat huge Atlases, you'll that there's a huge spectrum of skin tones and facial traits everywhere around the world, and that the typical Black/White/Yellow/Red categorizations are quite ridiculous. In Brazil for instance, there's over 50 skin tones among the population...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Hi all, (BTW good to see Byrd's back in town), well..maybe I'm the guy not around as much as once was. Anywhew, I'll keep the rest simple and in fee principled--lol. My thoughts re Man's Genetic Voyage are quite simple and mayhaps profound to some.

We didn't evolve. We were evolved, by -- guess who.

Decoy

Great Thread BTW



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
u gave me somethin to write about now thank u



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

In his book he described in one section what happened in the "New World" as Europeans moved across the globe bringing with them their technology and more importantly their Germs. Those Germs were infinitely more destructive than their steel or gunpowder. Huge swaths of Native Americans North, South and Central were wiped out because of them. Only those that were genetically resilient enough survived. Was this simply history repeating itself? One could imagine that during this trek out of Africa a hundred thousand years previously Homo Sapien not only picked up the older genetic material as he migrated but also brought with him Germs that the other older lines were not prepared to deal with and they were wiped out? Only those who had already breed with Homo Sapien survived the possible great die off.



How silly. Is it just me, or does everyone always forget to mention anything related to the fact that when you bring germs to other places, germs from those other places come to you? Unless your suggesting that the place you are going to has no disease, in which case, shame on you for contaminating it.
edit on 1-3-2011 by sak777 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2011 by sak777 because: Just added the quote



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by sak777
How silly. Is it just me, or does everyone always forget to mention anything related to the fact that when you bring germs to other places, germs from those other places come to you? Unless your suggesting that the place you are going to has no disease, in which case, shame on you for contaminating it.



That's a fair question.

However Professor Diamond explained that in his book this way. His theory was that because they were both similar at one time the New line had already had in their genetic makeup the defenses against the majority of the older strains they both may have already shared. The Europeans however were bringing with them some new strains and sets of germs that were directly connected to agriculture and farming related to cattle and other domesticated animals in the old world which were not in the new world.

Remember it was basically an invasion from Europeans to the new world not the other way around. If the sailors had contracted an old world disease they would have died on their months long return trips to their European countries long before they had a chance to spread it in their country of origin.

edit on 1-3-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by sak777
 


Also if you have a chance here are two great video series on-topic. Maybe you have missed them in the OP and in replies.



Guns, Germs and Steel Part 1 of 18




Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (Part 1 of 13)





posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Great post!! Star and flagged! I used to lay in bed as a child and just wonder at all the different races of people and how completely spread over the earth we are. I promised myself to answer all those questions when I grew up and find out how we became the way we are. I have been reading and studying this for a long time.

All your info is very well researched. However, about Peking man and his contribution to modern asians: the jury is in, there is NO connection. Chinese scientists compared Peking man and modern Chinese DNA and there is no Peking man DNA found in modern chinese. Here is what I found online:

"Jin Li is a Chinese geneticist who led the research that concluded that all East Asians, including the Chinese, originated from Africa, adding support to the Recent single-origin hypothesis of which he is considered a leading proponent. His team analyzed the Y chromosomes of males around China and compared this group with those of Southeast Asians and Africans. Results of the analysis suggested that Southeast Asia was the first destination of the migration from Africa to Asia which began approximately 60,000 years ago; from there, migrants moved into Southern China, then crossing the Yangtze River to Northern China. The 1998 study, which used genetic markers called microsatellites to compare Chinese populations, did not support an independent origin of Homo sapiens in China. The findings contradict the hypothesis that Peking Man (Homo erectus) was the ancestor of the Chinese people and dispel the myth that the Chinese descended from the Yellow Emperor independently from other ethnic groups."

This quote was found here: www.sciencechatforum.com...

There is more on this. I will find the links and post them later.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by aliencatlady
 


I acknowledged that there was no connection between Peking man and Homo sapiens. What should be considered is a possibility that there could still be found another hominin to take it's place yet to be discovered.

edit on 1-3-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by aliencatlady
 


I acknowledged that there was no connection between Peking man and Homo sapiens. What should be considered is a possibility that there could still be found another hominin to take it's place yet to be discovered.

edit on 1-3-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


Peking man is an example of Homo erectus, which is an ancestor of H. sapiens. It's thought that the original exodus from Africa was out-competed by the later in flux of H. sapiens into Asia, but both groups (the Asian and African varieties) are considered H. erectus and thus a direct human ancestor.

That article is not saying that Peking man was not a human ancestor, only that it was not the direct ancestor of the Chinese people (any more than of any other human group), as had been claimed for years.
edit on 1-3-2011 by ArchaeologyUnderground because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2011 by ArchaeologyUnderground because: Clarity



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Your crazy



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by omnifreedom
 



Straight and to the point.




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Good topic. Will have to do some meditation for this one



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


I often do the same thing on certain topics.





new topics

top topics



 
211
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join