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

page: 5
210
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
First I think we need to do away with once and for all the notion that Neanderthal was simply an apish brute. This apparently has been carried over from the Early days of Darwinism. It seems that many in the academic European circles were trying to find the "Missing Link" and unfairly Neanderthal was shoe horned into that possible link. He has often been portrayed as a dumb lumbering oaf.


Actually, there was a legitimate reason for this. The original 'type specimen' for Homo neanderthalensis turns out to have been an arthritic elderly individual. This wasn't recognized immediately, which led to the long-standing (and flat-out incorrect) assumption that Neanderthals were hunched over, sluggish, and well the stereotypic "cave man".

An interesting aside that came out of this, however, is that as this and other elderly, injured, and/or diseased Neanderthal skeletons were discovered it became clear that these 'brutes' must have cared for the weaker members of their society, which implies fully developed empathy.

Because of Neanderthal shoulder physiology (they can't throw overhand, to state it simply), they had to hunt and fight large game up close, with underhand thrusting motions. Because of this, it is rare to find a Neanderthal skeleton that does not exhibit signs of massive (yet, in most cases healed) trauma.

It's interesting to consider that these physical specimens who cared for their sick and injured were out-competed by an invading species (us) for possibly as simple a reason as that we could throw overhand and thus hunt from a distance, leading to much lower incidence of traumatic injury during food procurement. This is speculative, of course, but the evidence is leaning in the direction of the 'sapiens advantage' simply being a more advanced culture and that we simply 'out-tech'ed' them.




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Interesting how organisms evolve in a manner, more specifically in mammals maybe, that attempts both an agile and a strong variant of the same organism. You can almost see the genes turning in one generation, some have one kid that is a fast and agile and the other will be stocky and strong. A split between these types of offspring could have led to the divergence point between man and Neanderthal, your ideas? For example: primitive cultural prejudice, in a pack of proto-humans, the agile variant could have been seen as weak and was banished from the group, where they eventually came together and formed a new group which moved further southward in Africa, or visa versa Neanderthals northward. This also happens a lot in other mammals, maybe domestic dogs and cats would not count as natural evidence to this effect since they were bred into existence for the most part. I guess it shouldn't be overlooked that this occurs a lot in predatory animals, felids(all cats) for example, have many successful variations some more graceful and some more powerful. Possible sign of a predatory or omnivorous organism in fossil remnants could be a larger amount of this type of genetic variation? I'm just speculating, because you know deer and such all look pretty much alike in this manner.
edit on 26-2-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by romanmel
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


All these catagories of "man" you note (with the exception of the proven frauds such as Peking man) have no LINK to modern man. That various forms of life have arose in the ancient past is clear. However the linkage is just not there to show any relationship to modern man.



You are mistaken. 'Peking man' was the original type specimen of Homo erectus and is most definitely not a fraud. You are thinking of Piltdown Man, which was a fraud, but was accepted at first because researchers at the time wanted so badly for the 'origins of man' to have happened in the UK.

Piltdown Man

You are also incorrect about there being no link to modern man from the species listed. Yes, there are some that were evolutionary 'cousins', rather than ancestors, and there is still much debate about which is which. But there are some, such as Homo erectus for which there is no doubt that they are the direct ancestor of anatomically modern Homo sapiens.

SOURCE: Me. I teach Human Evolution at the University level.
edit on 26-2-2011 by ArchaeologyUnderground because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 



Genetic variations...
I think environmental factors play a huge part. Of course when dealing with now Billions of people we will see untold numbers of Variations. But IMHO back in the early days we were a product of our environment and available Nutritional factors. One could possibly argue the reason "Modern-Man Homo-Sapiens" were smarter than the older lines is because of Coastal migration and the intake of seafood. Fish=Brain food. There is no evidence of those other lines eating seafood YET.

As always when we procreate we roll the dice sometimes there is always a possibility of some sort of positive genetic variation that is better suited for our local environment. Now which is it? A freak variation occurrence in our genetic code OR our bodies adapting to their surroundings?
edit on 26-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Very interesting read. I love studying ancient civilizations and would recommend reading Hapgood, Flem-Ath, and Hancock, just for some solid background information, if nothing else. I take it that your major premise is to point out migration and interbreeding among our ancestors, of which I agree with totally, but you didn't quite provide a motivational reason other than human nature.

Did our ancestors say "Gee, today is a nice day, let's uproot the family and migrate that way, where it's colder and less hospitable than our current home, because that sounds like it would be fun?"

Hardly.

I think, IMO, they were forced to do so. Why?

Natural disasters. Mother nature told them to move or perish. I'll leave the type of disaster(s) up to your own imagination, but will point out that perhaps a volcanic eruption, an earthquake/tsunami, or a close encounter with a asteroid would all cause catastrophic disruption in localized areas, forcing evacuations to different areas. Survival mechanisms kicked in, and ancestors choose to innovate or they died out.

There is a flood event listed in the histories of EVERY culture alive today, and it points back to a period about 11,500 to 12,000 years ago, cause of the flood/environment change still open to debate, but legends and myths are only the dim memories verbally handed down over many generations. Only a bit of the truth remains.

To overlay migration routes over a modern map is slightly misleading. Think of how the world should have looked back then. It didn't look the same as it does now, and even today, nature is changing the appearance of our environment.

For example, about 12,000 years ago, the last ice age ended, however, during an ice age the sea levels drop, and many of the indonesian islands were linked by land. There may have been a land bridge from siberia to north america, and to evoke a world map showing connected land masses would much more accurate in explaining migration routes.

I'm not going back any further than that. Before that is merely speculation, but I will agree there is evidence of existing cultures going back 30,000 years, evidence of intelligent activity more than 100,000 years. Big mysteries for us to solve.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ArchaeologyUnderground
 


Thanks for the input.

I've read some material and seen some video discussing the "Arthritic Neanderthal" Could it simply be that those they have found were riddled with Arthritis just like some modern man? If I were to dig up a corpse who was afflicted with Arthritis does this mean that all humans are arthritic?

As it turns out Neanderthals were almost as diverse in appearance as modern man.


edit on 26-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by RSF77
 

Now which is it? A freak variation occurrence in our genetic code OR our bodies adapting to their surroundings?
edit on 26-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


It's both. Random genetic variations create the alternate forms, but the current local environment decides which will become set as a trait and potentially lead to speciation. It's all about asking 'does this make me more likely to produce viable offspring in the current environment?'. If the answer is 'yes', then the trait may become part of the organisms' form (if the advantage is great enough). Climate and environmental change can be though of as the engine that 'drives' evolution, while random genetic variation provides the fuel.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by RSF77
 

Now which is it? A freak variation occurrence in our genetic code OR our bodies adapting to their surroundings?
edit on 26-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


It's both. Random genetic variations create the alternate forms, but the current local environment decides which will become set as a trait and potentially lead to speciation. It's all about asking 'does this make me more likely to produce viable offspring in the current environment?'. If the answer is 'yes', then the trait may become part of the organisms' form (if the advantage is great enough). Climate and environmental change can be though of as the engine that 'drives' evolution, while random genetic variation provides the fuel.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by ArchaeologyUnderground
 


Thanks for the input.

I've read some material and seen some video discussing the "Arthritic Neanderthal" Could it simply be that those they have found were riddled with Arthritis just like some modern man? If I were to dig up a corpse who was afflicted with Arthritis does this mean that all humans are arthritic?

As it turns out Neanderthals were almost as diverse in appearance as modern man.


edit on 26-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


That's precisely what I meant. The initial find happened to be arthritic and so it was assumed that that individual was typical of the species, which he obviously wasn't. And you are absolutely right, variation within a species can wreak havoc on palaeoanthropology, unless you have a large number of individuals of a species to compare.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Kratos40
 


Except for the scarcity of facial hair in the inhabitants of the Americas I agree with the pictorial you provided. Especially since that genetic research pin pointed DNA from Asia in said people. Although this statement goes with Slayers Atlantis/Lemuria thread I'm going to say it any way
When we start looking at the religious art from central and south America we see representations of bearded men. So were they of a Caucasian or a genetic "throw-back" ? Personally I lean towards an actual Caucasian, maybe a as of now unknown people that lived near by. Wouldn't be the first time that Caucasians showed up where they were not supposed to be at the time {think of those Chinese mummies}



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hangedman13
 




I just love them there "Caucasoid" Chinese mummies.
Stay tuned...

I have a feeling our human history is much more exciting and interesting than many give it credit.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr. Toodles
Wish I could put more than 1 star and flag on this, Slayer. Excellent work as usual. Don't know what I'd do if there weren't people like you, motivated enough to put this much time and effort into a research project. I know I sure as hell don't have the patience to do it.


I appreciate the feedback.
I knew going into this that it would be controversial to some. I did my best to stay neutral and just post my theories and conjecture and let others decide for themselves.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I knew going into this that it would be controversial to some. I did my best to stay neutral and just post my theories and conjecture and let others decide for themselves.


I'd like to say that I think you've done an excellent job with this thread, btw. And I fully agree that there are simply too many questions in the human story for which we simply don't have the answers, or aren't yet seeing the full picture. Don't let the fact that I study and teach this stuff for a living fool you. I was drawn into the field precisely because of my 'alternative' ideas on the story of mankind and I've found that the higher I go in the mainstream of the field, the more my original theories seem to hold weight. I'm here on ATS for a reason



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


I think you may be interested in these two threads. I'll re-post the links. Don't let the titles fool you...

You may have missed the links in the opening piece.
Origins of Atlantis/Lemuria Myths Part-1
AND
Origins of Atlantis/Lemuria Myths Part-2



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Hmmmm, OK, went back to read Origins of Atlantis/Lemuria, parts 1 and 2. Waiting for part 3. Yep, seems we are on the same page.

Staying tuned.....Excellent work.

EDIT: Lol, I didn't miss the links, I opened them in two new tabs, then finished this thread, posted, then went back to read them.
edit on 2/26/11 by Druid42 because: A simple explanation.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


This why I wrote this thread. Part-3 is finished. But because that theory mostly deals with global "Coastal flooding" and no "Real Atlantis" I realized I had to address the inland DNA evidence. I feel they are still closely related. I will be using this thread now as a reference in Part-3. There was just too much ground to cover. It had to be broken down in steps.




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Ok, When are you posting Part 3? It's hard to comment until we have the rest of your theory. I ALMOST see where you are going with this.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


Stay tuned...

I'll drop a hint...




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Great read. I have always made it a point to understand human evolution and it's wonderful mysteries. I also study the bible, and still find great humor when I see darwinism try to disprove the bible. Why I laugh is because from my study's of both,Indeed I now know that the bible is about spirtual creation not physical human evolution.But only through an intensive study of both can you understand how they both are right.



Great work! please keep it coming!



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmmo
 


Well it's good to know there are people out there who do not see it strictly Black and White





new topics

top topics



 
210
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join