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

Don't males start out as females in the womb?

Yes I know slightly off actual topic.

You wrote:"...I'm going to take a neutral stance and just provide theory and conjecture supported by both FACTS and Circumstantial evidence. You decide for yourselves."
Is it your own theory and conjecture you are providing?
While you can support a theory with facts, these facts don't make that theory a fact and thats why it is a theory.
Good work nonetheless!

No! they don't!!!

is it possible that we as a whole species is a mixed genetic group of several different hominids that formed humans that was later influenced by different homo sapiens, ex. neanderthals, theirfore being a hybrid species?

Originally posted by Bachrk
Don't males start out as females in the womb?

Yes I know slightly off actual topic.

You are right that fetal development used to be regarded this way.
That's because it takes a while for the male organs to appear, and a fetus without male organs was considered female.

From the moment of fertilisation, the embryo grows as the cells of the fertilised egg multiply. However, there is a problem. How can the DNA be read if the materials needed to read it have not yet been produced? The answer is that they are provided by the mother in the form of mRNA and proteins. The early stages of development are controlled directly by the mother's genotype for about the first three weeks, in humans, after which the embryo's DNA takes over.

At eight weeks most of the features of the adult are visible, when it is referred to as a fetus. During the first few weeks, it is neither male nor female. However, a small group of cells, called the "indifferent gonads" begin to form, that are capable of becoming ovaries or testicles. At the same time, other internal features of both sexes develop, the Mullerian (female) ducts and the Wolffian (male) ducts.

www.gender.org.uk...

Originally posted by skischoow
is it possible that we as a whole species is a mixed genetic group of several different hominids that formed humans that was later influenced by different homo sapiens, ex. neanderthals, theirfore being a hybrid species?

You are right that there was mixing.

However hybrids are mixes between different species. Consequently they have little or no fertility.
Humans are mixes of divergent groups from within the one species, thus we don't have the fertility problems caused by hybridisation.

Successive waves of humans came out of Africa and settled the world. To some small extent, our ancestors, when they came out of Africa, interbred with groups formed from those who had left in earlier waves.

Neanderthals have been classified as a separate species, but this is being discussed at the moment because of the fact they contributed some of our DNA. It's being argued they would be more correctly classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

I love this thread , very well thought out and presented nicely
I read through it , and I have read alot about mans evolution across the world !

What id like to know more about or see some serious study in , is the role played by hallucinogenic plants and fungi , and their effect on human evolution , particularly on the brain and their role in advancing our species

thats another topic though

congrats slayer

reply to post by Kailassa


I remember from physiology at uni that fetus start out with both male and female genes and then depending which develops

through the wolfian gland , check spelling !

I mean no disrespect to nor am I a scientist but I think this man has more neanderthal DNA than the rest of us. I have personally stood next to this man and there has never been a more precise description of him than this:

• For starters, massive, broad shoulders are indicated by a scapular breadth that is about 8% larger than their modern human contemporaries. (Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans did live side by side for several millennia.)
• Muscle attachments for the pecs were enormous, up to twice the size of today’s average
• All of this upper body musculature was anchored on a solid foundation of massive quads that specialized in explosive power and side-to-side movement."
"This would have made Neanderthal fingers and thumbs upwards of twice the strength of modern humans" Lumely-Woodyear 1973

reply to post by SLAYER69


1) You're wrong...god did it!

2)

we are now more than ever intertwined

OMG, NWO...ruuuuun!!

*sarcasm mode off*

Great information, very interesting!! Thank you for taking the time to write all that down. Yet more evidence that the whole Genesis account as well as the Christian/Muslim/Hindu timelines are complete nonsense when it comes to the evolution of the human species.

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by Kailassa

 

I remember from physiology at uni that fetus start out with both male and female genes and then depending which develops
through the wolfian gland , check spelling !

Correct spelling is Wolffian.

Wolffian Duct

You're welcome to correct my spelling, but it would be an idea to double check for yourself first.

Originally posted by Bachrk
Don't males start out as females in the womb?

Yes I know slightly off actual topic.

I dont think the gender is determined for few weeks. It is neither male nor female as the sexual organs are still developing.

Originally posted by sapien82

What id like to know more about or see some serious study in , is the role played by hallucinogenic plants and fungi , and their effect on human evolution , particularly on the brain and their role in advancing our species

Yes, there is work done in this area. Terrence McKenna had his "Stoned Ape" theory, and there are a variety of more conventional scholars working in this area. The idea is that perhaps shamans were among the first argiculturalists because they had to cultivate whatever plants they were using in their shamanic activities. This would encourage them to 'settle down' in at least temporary seasonal camps, people would travel to them for advice/help, which would soon lead to 'big man' scenarios, onto loose cheifdoms, and on and on and you have civilization. The idea being, of course, that religion is the 'glue that binds', so to speak and that humans congregated around those who were the link to their ideas about the spirit world (shamans), and eventually around the religious monuments they built (such as the case with Göbekli Tepe).

I should note that this is not considered the dominant theory in archaeology today, but it is an area in which work is being done.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Great thread.

There is one thing that has always bothered me, and that is the claim, or ASSumptions made by early scholars, and which today's scholars don't want to revise, that ancient men were all covered in hair to make them look like more primitive, not to mention more "ape like".

But what if they were not all covered in hair? We all know that to this day there are people who have more hair in their bodies than others, but the ASSumption is always that ancient men, and even women were ALL covered in hair.

Not to mention the claim that the form of the cranium of ancient men defined them as dumber. We all also know that we can find people with different cranium form to this day, including many resembling, if not exactly the same as ancient species such as neanderthal, yet they are as intelligent as other people with "more modern" cranium forms.

We have men, and women these days some with bigger frontal bones in the cranium, others with smaller frontal bones resembling neanderthals yet they are as intelligent as those with a bigger forehead. So why are we all ASSuming, apologies for the sarcasm but I think it is necessary, that it must mean those with smaller frontal bones in the cranium must be less intelligent, and all full of hair?...

Are modern men/women with smaller frontal bones in their craniums to this day going "buga, buga, me tarzan, you jane" for us to assume smaller frontal craniums must always mean a less intelligent human being?...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

There is one thing that has always bothered me, and that is the claim, or ASSumptions made by early scholars, and which today's scholars don't want to revise, that ancient men were all covered in hair to make them look like more primitive, not to mention more "ape like".

But what if they were not all covered in hair? We all know that to this day there are people who have more hair in their bodies than others, but the ASSumption is always that ancient men, and even women were ALL covered in hair.

Actually, the current thinking is that hominins were essentially hairless as far back as Homo erectus (c. 1.8 million ya), and possibly as far back as 3 million years, into Australopithecus (ie "Lucy") territory. The reason for this is the molecular dating of the divergence of human head lice from human pubic lice ("crabs"). These would have presumably come from a common ancestor and underwent speciation when they were "geographically" isolated by the lessening of body hair on the torso. These two species diverged 3 million years ago according to their DNA's molecular clock, so it can be (loosely) inferred that hominins started having little to no torso hair as early as 3 million years ago.

reply to post by ArchaeologyUnderground



I know you were being serious but I'll call that the "Head-lice/Crotch Crab" theory.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Heh, yeah it's always a guaranteed laugh from the students too. Throw 'Homo erectus' into the same lecture and you might as well go for lunch

Incidentally, NOVA ran a documentary series last year that was quite good. I'm sure you've seen it but, if not, you should check it out:







Part 2 details the 'lice/crab' theory.

I should point out that, while this is a very good series and very much in line with this thread, there are also some major flaws in the videos. I'll leave those for others to point out. Time to see who's done their homework

reply to post by SLAYER69


This was a good post and I agree with most of it. We had many migrations out of Africa and not just homosapiens, but also Homo erectus and other off shoots to. Then as the later tribes of people move out tens or hundreds of thousands of years after the last, they bring to the new group germs along and then both share DNA with each other that haven't been together for thousands of years. Neanderthals I believe and others where a seperate species of the human genus that developed along another branch and may possibly have been the first migration out of Africa before homo sapiens started to become the norm. I never thought they where dumb or not intelligent because they where the first species of hominid to bury their dead in graves and such.

Here's something I've been thinking about Slayer, what another form of homo family was building much of the real ancient neolithic buildings before the ice age or during. We have (as far as I know) no neolithic stone structures that is associated with neanderthals, not one. They may not have made any, but they sure had alot of time ahead of the homo sapiens to work on these issues.

reply to post by ArchaeologyUnderground


Göbekli Tepe


That's my new favorite Ancient location to meditate on

reply to post by hoghead cheese


It makes sense. Now we just need genetics to find the missing pieces