Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 7
210
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Well I appreciate the revised Academic view.
I've been reading some older interesting perspectives.
Thanks




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

I think evidence suggests that popular culture is at fault for portraying them as "brutish" and that scientists are not at all in agreement with popular culture's concept of them as stupid apes.


+1

You will not find an academic/scientist who will argue that Neanderthals (or even probably H. erectus) are brutish or "stupid apes". In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful who think of them as anything less than the equal of H. sapiens neurologically. In fact, it is well established that Neanderthals had larger brains on average than even currently living anatomically modern humans (though this should not, in itself, imply greater intelligence but is probably cold-adaptive). The idea of them as somehow less mentally capable than us is 100% a popular culture belief and not in any way an academic one.
edit on 26-2-2011 by ArchaeologyUnderground because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


[snip]

We are an abandoned seed colony that was created by an extra terrestrial race.
Thats it. Thats all we will ever be. They will be back to crush us soon.
edit on 27/2/11 by masqua because: Removed personal attack



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
For all you Professionals in Biology (Genetics) & Anthropology in a University Level

So is there any Thoughts Opinions Theories About Julia Pastrana and Oliver The Chimp

In what makes Julia & Oliver so Unique ??

in the case of Julia its Missing DNA & Double DNA in her Chromosomes mostly N0 17
as this Genetic defect That Causes her to look like a Hominid as her Son was the same

what make me so interested is not just her body hair as there is many genetic cases of type of Diesese
Its the Facail makeup The protrusion of her Forehead Jaw and Maxilla The Wide Nose, Wide Nostrils
Large Ears Eye's (LID) the Resembles a Chimpanzee /Bonaboo from what i have seen of Authentic Pictures
of her (not the Paintings ) and The Teeth, Large Teeth! all Signs of a Hominid or Neanderthal




in the case for Oliver His Chromosome Mapping is Slightly Different then a Regular Chimp
as some Scientist believe that Oliver might be a new Breed ? as from some articles i have read..
if that is the case will soon see walking upright Apes in the Jungle ? if so I guess we have to call this new breed SMALL FOOT


Julia Pastrana
en.wikipedia.org...

Oliver (chimpanzee)
en.wikipedia.org...

One Human that looks like a Hominid

One Primate that has the characteristics traits of a Human

as Their DNA has Unique Features from Either a Disease or a Mutation



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AnnunakiRageTheChosenPeop
 


well let me say this while blue eyed people are genetically traced back to one ancestor

www.sciencedaily.com...

which was probably the beginning of the aryan race that hitler held on a pedestal

i will say that it takes creationist,evolutionist,and a.a. theory to get the whole picture!

so hes not misinforming anyone...hes giving part of the picture!



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


Well, Oliver is simply an unusual (but genetically regular) chimpanzee.

From the Wikipedia page you linked to:



A geneticist from the University of Chicago examined Oliver's chromosomes in 1996 and revealed that Oliver had forty-eight, not forty-seven, chromosomes, thus disproving the earlier claim that he did not have a normal chromosome count for a chimpanzee. Oliver's cranial morphology, ear shape, freckles and baldness fall within the range of variability exhibited by the Common Chimpanzee. Scientists performed further studies with Oliver, the results of which were published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.


As for Julia Pastrana, I honestly don't know. I actually wasn't overly familiar with her case and I'd have to look into it further. The facial prognathism is definitely the interesting aspect, IMO. She does have some unusual physiology that appears somewhat similar to earlier human ancestral species, but I'd have to see her skull to say for sure. I suspect that she simply has hypertrichosis and happens to fall within the extreme end of the scale for AMH (anatomically modern human) prognathism, although I do admit that I'm intrigued and will look into this further.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Good job, This meshes with what I have read and researched on my own. I would add, that environmental effects
where more than likely pretty huge back then. simple things, like lack of rain, or anything would cause the "tribes" to move until the found more fertile grounds.

I would also hazard a guess that they followed "game" trails, and other things. during the ICE age, this was probley
really important, and the "mixing" of the "races" where probably at the high point....


GhostINshell



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AnnunakiRageTheChosenPeop
 


I appreciate the feedback.
May your stay here at ATS be a pleasant one.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchaeologyUnderground
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


Well, Oliver is simply an unusual (but genetically regular) chimpanzee.

From the Wikipedia page you linked to:



A geneticist from the University of Chicago examined Oliver's chromosomes in 1996 and revealed that Oliver had forty-eight, not forty-seven, chromosomes, thus disproving the earlier claim that he did not have a normal chromosome count for a chimpanzee. Oliver's cranial morphology, ear shape, freckles and baldness fall within the range of variability exhibited by the Common Chimpanzee. Scientists performed further studies with Oliver, the results of which were published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.


As for Julia Pastrana, I honestly don't know. I actually wasn't overly familiar with her case and I'd have to look into it further. The facial prognathism is definitely the interesting aspect, IMO. She does have some unusual physiology that appears somewhat similar to earlier human ancestral species, but I'd have to see her skull to say for sure. I suspect that she simply has hypertrichosis and happens to fall within the extreme end of the scale for AMH (anatomically modern human) prognathism, although I do admit that I'm intrigued and will look into this further.


Thanks for the reply

as for Julia trace back on my previous post's on this thread for some interesting thing's like the case of a Indian (INDA) boy ( It shows the facial features of this boy on the site ) that has the same symptoms of Julia Pastrana and talks about a 11year old Girl from Mexico is like the boy from India and the doctors claimed (at the time) this was the first case INDIA of this condition

there a PDF I posted that explains the results of an examination of Julia pastrana and the Xray what was found
interesting ! im not sure what time period she was examined as she died in somewhere in 1860. it may have been her stuff body i wouldn't know it may of been both right after she died and later when she was stuffed

and also in the same PDF it Shows the after Autopsy Embalming Photos after her Death and her sons death in which i see her son is normal just with facial hair ( you need to zoom in to see the photos tho
the photos are seem to be high grade clear when zoomed )

The PDF
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/.../pdf/procrsmed00325-0090.pdf

Thanks for the Reply

I notice that some site say he slightly different than a Common chimp in the Chromosome pattern
and some sites says he is not

Did you see the Video of Oliver ?

Oliver The Chimp Part 6 of 6 (Video)
the 40 sec mark both of US know this obviously
www.youtube.com...

at the 1.40 min mark of this video
They explain there is a difference in Oliver compared to a controlled (regular) chimp


how true ? anymore study of how much difference it is I still looking for the answer




edit on 27-2-2011 by Wolfenz because: added pdf



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


first off a quality OP from you as always. i'll save on too much praise and just say i wish every post on here mine included were as well presented and unbiased as yours. now to the topic at hand.

i know people are going to roll their eyes in regards to what im about to say but i only ask that the information is allowed to be digested before it is rejected.

i have seen a few documentaries about human skeletal remains dating back through the ages starting from the earliest form of upright walking hominids to Homo sapiens sapiens and the speaker giving the lecture i cant remember the doco or the speakers name was trying to demonstrate the glaring differences between modern man and all other archeological skeletal findings.

basically when compared side by side even there is no was given the time frame that the Homo sapiens sapiens skeletal structure could have changed as much as it did in the time frame they say it did. basically the documentary was alluding that neanderthal man is the natural decedent of the first upright hominids and that the so called missing link cannot exist because from all other skeletal evidence that people have uncovered the steady progression of evolution is slow and predictable. EXCEPT when it comes to modern man.

to draw comparisons our skeletal structure is smaller and weaker. and even our rib cages are rounder where as all neanderthal rib cages are more "A" shaped exactly like that of a chimp. now since modern man or at least homo sapiens lived and competed with neanderthal man it certainly begs the question who or what are we descended from if not from homo erectus???



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Thank you for this informative, and very well written thread. I learned something on the forum for a change.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Hi slayer, many thanks for this interesting subject. I have always been attracted to human faces and the stories they tell, one thing that I would take for certain is that the story so far is miss-leading. I believe there is a very good reason for this miss-leading principle that we have to contend with, but that would make another great thread on its own.
In Spain, some sculptures were found in the 1974 as and excavation firm lifted a lid of the top of a cave entry. In fear that it would interfere with business they were ordered to dump the find.Fortunately a few of the workers decided to save part of the find and eventually they were given in for study. Apparently they have managed to date the findings to be around eleven thousand years old. The faces are in some cases quiet grotesque and unlike ordinary human faces, but others are of various racial ethnicity from different parts of the world. Anything pre- Greco-Roman in the past in Spain has been swept under the carpet and often seen as of little value. Mainly because the ruling class saw everything before Christ as pagan and therefore of no value. What is unusual about this find is the great variety of faces depicted all found in the same spot.Here is a link but its in Spanish but the photos are worth looking at.
www.ariasmontano.blogspot.com...
What is refreshing about your approach is you are saying we are all part of the evidence, most scholars before were aiming at creating heroes out of one race or another. I know your research is very down to earth, working only with what is considered to be plausible evidence and I highly respect this in you. None the less, without deflecting from your generally direction. I still feel we need to consider that engineered genetic mutations as possible. There is plenty of evidence around as you have shown in you past posts, that whomever or whatever was around were very advanced in a variety of ways. So why wouldn't they try and improve the race with whatever method they could? Would you not use whatever genetic material was around? just like we do today. Would we tell an animal if we could, that were going to experiment on him? More than likely not! and if you knew that they didn't even have a clue about what your talking about and even bigger no would be normal ! So my gut feeling tells me its a mixture of both that has made us what we are today, natural and provoked. The provoked transformations may have used all kind of methods to get the desired results, it may of been just for beauty prepossess alone. A success story in their time could easily mutate in to what we call a genetic misfit nowadays. Potentially, we are all living proof of this, to the extent that what we have been through as multi-racial humans has made us deeply fearful of our past.On the other hand, I would say there is a part of us that knows and denies these possibilities.Are we ready to go all the way, no matter what we find? This is really what has been standing in our way on the road to knowing the truth.The more of us have that clear the sooner we will arrive at the much needed evidence.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by tim3lord
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

i have seen a few documentaries about human skeletal remains dating back through the ages starting from the earliest form of upright walking hominids to Homo sapiens sapiens and the speaker giving the lecture i cant remember the doco or the speakers name was trying to demonstrate the glaring differences between modern man and all other archeological skeletal findings.


Not true. There is an obvious and very gradual progression in skeletal morphology even within the skeletons of H. sapiens itself, without even considering older archaic species (but, yes, the progression can be continued back to much earlier ancestral species). I have seen (some of) these documentaries as well and in my opinion they are often largely thinly-veiled anti-evolutionist material. The evidence is there for anyone to see (if you care to see I can make a larger post with photos and whatnot).


basically when compared side by side even there is no was given the time frame that the Homo sapiens sapiens skeletal structure could have changed as much as it did in the time frame they say it did. basically the documentary was alluding that neanderthal man is the natural decedent of the first upright hominids and that the so called missing link cannot exist because from all other skeletal evidence that people have uncovered the steady progression of evolution is slow and predictable. EXCEPT when it comes to modern man.


Evolution is not slow and predictable in many cases. Due to environmental factors, it often progresses in what is known as punctuated equilibrium. AMHs appear to have evolved 'quickly' because of a couple of major genetic bottlenecks in the more recent (geologically-speaking) past, which caused speciation to accelerate (see the Toba super-eruption in which modern humans were reduced to as few as 10,000 members).


to draw comparisons our skeletal structure is smaller and weaker. and even our rib cages are rounder where as all neanderthal rib cages are more "A" shaped exactly like that of a chimp.


Also not true. Modern Homo sapiens are more robust than almost all of the archaic species, with the exception of Neanderthals. Physiologically, we are much more prepared for a changing and diverse environment than most of the ancestral species. Also, the Neanderthal ribcage is not like that of a chimp. See here:


[img]
[/img]< br />
This image shows a Neanderthal skeleton (left) and Homo sapiens (right) side-by-side for comparison. You can see that the Neanderthal rib cage is more flared, implying a more 'barrel-chested' appearance, however this is found amongst living humans as well, especially those who live in very cold environments. The stocky body type of the Neanderthal matches very well with the bodies of cold-adapted humans, such as the Inuit, and it is clear that their (Neanderthals') environment was exceptionally cold, so the adaptations make sense.


now since modern man or at least homo sapiens lived and competed with neanderthal man it certainly begs the question who or what are we descended from if not from homo erectus???


We are not descended from Neanderthals. That is widely accepted. They are an evolutionary 'cousin', and both they and we are descended from H. erectus, probably by way of one or more intermediary species such as Homo heidelbergensis. Up until very recently (2010), it was believed that Neaderthals were a completely distinct species and that cross-breeding would have been impossible. New molecular evidence suggests that at least some interbreeding with AMHs did in fact occur and there is a small percentage of the Neanderthal genome surviving in living humans today. But they are not ancestral to us. They most likely came from a population of H. heidelbergensis that was cut off from Asia Minor and 'trapped' in Europe by advancing glaciers and evolved along its own line while AMHs were evolving in Africa/Asia Minor at the same time.
edit on 27-2-2011 by ArchaeologyUnderground because: Trying to get picture to insert



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


Thanks for the links and the info. Looking at the Julia Pastrana case, it's pretty clear now that she's simply a woman with a somewhat unique combination of health issues that lead to her somewhat 'ancestral' appearance.



It appears that the overgrowth of her gum and alveolar process was responsible for her prognathism and what is despribed as simian appearance.


The biggest give-away for me is the casts of her jaws. The dental arcade is clearly parabolic, which is a derived human trait, moving back towards the 'U-shaped' arcade of apes as we progress backwards through the human lineage. I wish there was a profile view of the mandible because one of the key identifying traits of an AMH in the obvious presence of a chin on the mandible. Only AMHs have a chin (as ours are the only faces with prognathism reduced enough to cause it). Where Julia definitely has a prognathic face, the chin may not be evident, but I would still have liked to see it.

As for Oliver, I have watched the clip and, while I am not a primatologist, it's pretty clear to me that Oliver (while being 100% chimp) is quite unique. I tend to agree with the scientists in the clip that he is probably some kind of mutant, or perhaps even a member of a little-known subspecies. His upright walking shouldn't be taken as too great an indication of 'unusualness'. Bonobos (a well-known variant chimp species) can walk upright quite easily and Oliver displays several morphological characteristics that make me wonder (total speculation here) if he might be a 'regular' chimp (Pan troglodytes)/bonobo (Pan paniscus) hybrid.

Bonobos

In any case, he is genetically 100% chimp, regardless of the sub-variety so, while he is quite unusual and interesting, he is just a chimp.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
There is no such thing as progressive evolution, it makes no sense whatsoever. Interbreeding is one factor in diversity of species, however evolution as Darwin portrayed it, was a complete farce.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfenzThe protrusion of her Forehead Jaw and Maxilla The Wide Nose, Wide Nostrils Large Ears Eye's (LID) the Resembles a Chimpanzee /Bonaboo from what i have seen of Authentic Pictures
of her (not the Paintings ) and The Teeth, Large Teeth! all Signs of a Hominid or Neanderthal


the only photograph I have seen of her is after she had died and been stuffed or otherwise preserved and mounted for display by her wonderfully loving husband. I don't doubt for one second that such a caring partner would of had her features accentuated to make her appear more ape like in death.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tephra
There is no such thing as progressive evolution, it makes no sense whatsoever. Interbreeding is one factor in diversity of species, however evolution as Darwin portrayed it, was a complete farce.


Care to enlighten us on why that is?
edit on 27-2-2011 by ArchaeologyUnderground because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
edit on 27-2-2011 by ArchaeologyUnderground because: Double post



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ArchaeologyUnderground
 


I already did, however someone posted a big picture of a cute asian girl right after, so naturally no one ever read the post.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tephra
reply to post by ArchaeologyUnderground
 


I already did, however someone posted a big picture of a cute asian girl right after, so naturally no one ever read the post.


Ha ha, guilty! I totally missed that


In any case, I went back and found your post. Here's my thoughts:



Evolution doesn't have anything to do with everyday survival, species don't evolve over time.


Evolution has everything to do with survival. What good is a beneficial mutation if it isn't passed along to one's offspring?


Darwin's theories weren't bad, but unfortunately he was seriously mistaken. Have you ever heard the expression, What good is half a leg, half a fin, half a wing, etc?


This is a very common misconception. The short answer is that it's a non-issue. Half a fin makes the organism more mobile than no fin. A fin is a fin because it is adapted to an aquatic environment. A quadriped leg or a human hand can also act as a fin, but not as well as a fin acts in its environment. Here's an interesting article:

Evolution Of Fins And Limbs Linked With That Of Gills

Wings evolved from 'hands' and grasping appendages. So, in other words, 'half a wing' is a hand/arm.

How and Why Did Wings Evolve?


The idea that a species living in the ocean slowly developed the capacities to walk on land over a million years is actually in total contradiction of survival of the fittest.


How so? Wouldn't the ability to breathe air and move onto land (like many extant species of lungfish and 'mudskippers' can do) provide a survival advantage in an environment where aquatic environments were shrinking?


The reality of evolution is that it's murderous, it's extinction, it's brutal mutation.


No argument from me there



The reason there isn't any transitional animals in the fossil record, is because there aren't any.


Dig a little deeper. There are many 'transitional' species in the fossil record. In fact, in many ways, the entire fossil record is one giant map of transitional species. There are gaps in that understanding, but that doesn't mean they don't exist -- we just haven't found some of them. But there are more than enough examples of those that have been found and studied.


Evolution is driven by solar radiation bombardment. It's the brutal reality of the extinction, evolution cycle.


I'd like to hear more about this. I don't discount your theory at all and I think I know where you're going with this.
edit on 27-2-2011 by ArchaeologyUnderground because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
210
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join