It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Ghostinshell
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. .

Well the whole out of Africa scenario IMO happened for many reasons maybe the first widespread migration due to massive changes in North African weather patterns is true? If as many believe Egypt became a great culture due to the influx of mass migration away from the ever expanding desert to settle near the Nile spurring cultural development then there may be other locations that could have created Civilization as well due to similar circumstances or other environmental reasons in other locations.

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....

If the theory holds then we need to start looking at other locations not just the "Nile, Euphrates, Indus valley or the Yellow river" This scenario could have played out in other locations. I wonder if some have thought of looking along other ancient "River locations" which are now dead dry river valleys or river valleys that are now submerged.

ETA: Or search along present rivers but see if we can spot by Satellite images their ancient river paths/course which have changed directions over the past 30,000 years or so
Maybe along those ancient paths/courses there are settlements now buried?
edit on 27-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 10:17 AM

Originally posted by tim3lord
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.

Thanks I struggled with how to present it but decided to simply go with what I had....

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.

All anyone can do is simply present their theories and leave it to chance..

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???

This is why IMHO Genetic tracking is crucial. Hopefully we will continue to come across more skeletons that have viable DNA samples so we can continue to track this ever expanding story of Man.

edit on 27-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 10:20 AM

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I wonder if some have thought of looking along other ancient "River locations" which are now dead dry river valleys or river valleys that are now submerged.

This is standard practice in modern-day archaeology. I was recently involved in just such an excavation searching for a potential Eastern influx into the NA continent.

As a coincidental aside, this article arrived in my inbox just now as I was typing this:

Ancient cities sprung from marshes, researcher finds

Kind of ties in with your ideas I think and may prove useful.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by ancientthunder

When Europeans were first sailing the Pacific. It was not uncommon for the Chiefs to often offer their Daughters to the travelers as brides. Now was this just a friendly gesture? I've often wondered if deep down inside they for some unknown reason may have known or felt that by being isolated that they needed to maintain a healthy [geneticaly healthy stock] so to speak and an influx of new blood would keep the line from stagnating. Preventing all the problems with inbreeding etc.

Could ancient man have felt the same way?

I have a hard time with the idea of Ancient man "Breeding human stock"

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Logestar
reply to post by SLAYER69

Great thread. Only glaring mistake I noticed, and it's not just you slayer, is you use of the word "hominid." H
The correct term for anatomically moden humans and our ancestors would be hominin. Hominid are apes, monkeys and prosimians. This is a recent change in terminology. Yes I am an anthropologist.


I've had my face in some older books/literature as Byrd also pointed out.
So this doesn't surprise me. I appreciate the feedback and I'm glad the only real issues you as an Anthropologist have with what I've written so far is the terminology

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 11:21 AM
For everyone interested in the mystery of evolution, I highly recommend Bruce Lipton work and evidence that NOT genes are responsible for what we are, but environment. The basic observation is that that cells with same genes will produce different tissue in different environments.
Also - genes are NOT the central office (like a brain in human body) of the cell. You can take all genes out, and cell will still be functioning as before.


Bruce Lipton - Nature, Nurture and the Power of Love (The Biology of conscious Parenting)

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 11:22 AM

Originally posted by FIFIGI
Humans were androgynous in between 70-120 thousand years ago - there was just one gender. Right?

While their descendants certainly became close intimates, Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve are separated by tens of thousands of years.

How does that fit into your picture?

Your links say nothing to support the notion that humans were ever androgynous.

They are not saying M Eve or Y Adam were the first humans to have gender. They are merely saying all current human Y chromosomes can be traced back to one male, and all current human mitochondria can be traced back to one female. These ancestors were part of the communities of their time, and can be traced back through homo erectus, which had male and female genders, to a distant lemur-like ancestor of the ape family, which, even that far back, came in male and female.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by FIFIGI

Thanks for posting the video.
Watching it now with an open mind.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 01:36 PM
Ah, it was nice to read almost four whole pages before the crazies showed up (I'm only half joking).

Seriously though, what a wonderful thread. Turned my day off into sitting in front of the laptop all day, eyes glued to this thread and all of the tangents thrown in the mix. Threads like these are a welcome respite from some of the other ridiculous threads that people come up with. This is an example of why a lot of us came to ATS.

Thanks for the interesting read Slayer, I'll comment back when I've read through page 8.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 03:36 PM

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Could ancient man have felt the same way?

I have a hard time with the idea of Ancient man "Breeding human stock"

Female chimpanzees will often, when two seperate family groups pass close by one another, slip off and engage a willing male from the other group in 'illicit sex'. Pregnancy and motherhood increase status for females, but also, when a group becomes too closely related it can fall into a genetic slump which makes conception between group members less likely. 'Out sourcing' can re-invigorate the fertility of that group if practiced regularly enough. I would be surprised if we did not practice similar habits when times necessitated it.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 03:44 PM
reply to post by strangernstrangeland

I'm looking forward to your input and interpretation.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 04:02 PM

Originally posted by MITSwagger
reply to post by SLAYER69

Interesting contributions.
Reading it now.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 04:43 PM
Someone beat me to it, should have finished reading before commenting.
edit on 27-2-2011 by strangernstrangeland because: Already discussed.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 04:52 PM

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Could ancient man have felt the same way?

I have a hard time with the idea of Ancient man "Breeding human stock"

Female chimpanzees will often, when two seperate family groups pass close by one another, slip off and engage a willing male from the other group in 'illicit sex'.

plenty of evidence for humans doing this too, monogamy seems to present some difficulties for humans.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Versa
plenty of evidence for humans doing this too, monogamy seems to present some difficulties for humans.

No doubt, but it tends to have less genetic basis in modern culture and is more likely to be detrimental to the genepool.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 05:21 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Just finished reading the whole thread and responses and all I can say is: wow, fascinating stuff. The thread is made even better by the addition of actual archaeologists and anthropologists (I majored in anthropology for a bit).

OP's ideas are in line with mine. The one thing that has always fascinated me though is the so-called missing link. I've read Sitchen's, Danikan and other's work on the ancient astronaut theories and I *want* to find truth in them. They do present good evidence for their cases (even though some have questioned Sitchen's translations, can't remember who off of the top of my head). Their theories of extraterrestrial genetic intervention seems to make sense when this earth had homonins (did I get that right?) that evolved very, very slowly and then *bam,* homo sapiens come along, seemingly very quickly.

That being said, I don't believe that per say, I try not to believe anything really. I like to look at the best evidence presented, attach it to what I've already studied, and keep my mind open to change if there is better evidence presented. To me, it all seems like a mixture of all of the theories. I have a gut feeling that man has been to our current level of technology before and have been wiped out again and again and that modern humans are much older in origin that mainstream academics admit.

The origin of man has always fascinated me.

What do you more academic types think (OP included) ? Do you think, based on your research, that a door is left open to the idea of genetic tampering by extraterrestrial intelligences? I know that there are those with heavy conformation bias who will scream bloody murder for believing otherwise, I'm not one of those. Not trying to get of topic,and if it is just ignore it. None of it needs to be concrete, obviously we can't prove it one way or another at this time, just theorizing here.

Thanks again Slayer for putting this all together.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 05:52 PM
Since monogamy was brought in - here is a different/newish scientific historical perspective on it.
Dr. Christopher Ryan: Sex at Dawn

Sex at Dawn shows how far from human nature sexual monogamy really is and unapologetically upends unwarranted assumptions and unfounded conclusions while offering a revolutionary understanding of why we live and love as we do.

Hope this helps in your journey for THE ANSWER.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 05:55 PM
Good job SLAYER69! ! This was a well presented thread with alot of time put into it.also i dont see how anyone could be offended by your thread..Ive always thought that interbreeding and migration played a big role in our past but there is still alot of unknowns about how we evolved .. thanks for all the information was very eye opening S&F

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 05:56 PM
Sometimes I wonder....

I wonder if government and religions have had any long term effects on our dna...

Does what we are taught to believe have any effects on our dna, generation after generation?

Just some thoughts,

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Wolfenz
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

No theories. "Just the facts, ma'm" as they used to say on Dragnet.

First -- we don't know how long ago humans lost their body hair. Artists "chimpify" drawings of ancient man, but they may have been mostly hairless for more than a million years.

Julia isn't unique... it's a known medical condition (reasonably rare) that is genetically linked (like many diseases.)

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

Okay... the forehead protrusion is mostly the way her hair and eyebrows lie on her face. There's no "supraorbital arch" evident. Large noses are not that uncommon in Mexico among those of mixed ancestry (Mestizos.) Large ears... are found in all races. She doesn't have fangs (like chimps) and there is a nice bridge to her nose (we are the only hominid with a bridge on our nose. And her teeth are misshapen, yes, but any orthodontist can show you smilar things.

in the case for Oliver His Chromosome Mapping is Slightly Different then a Regular Chimp

Do you have a source for this? I watched a show on him and it indicated that he had normal chimpanzee genes.

as some Scientist believe that Oliver might be a new Breed

I don't know that this is true. Is there a link to something written (not a video.. so we can check the credentials) saying he's a new breed?

if that is the case will soon see walking upright Apes in the Jungle

No... I had a look at him when he was shown on tv. He doesn't have the curve in his spine to enable him to walk upright and he has a very strange gait (his hips really aren't changed so that he can walk like we do) and the spinal column appears to come out of the back of his neck instead of under the base of his skull (like a human.)

I was interested in his case and did some reading on it, but don't see any obvious evidence that he is NOT a chimpanzee. I'd agree he has some unusual chromosomes -- but is it something he forced himself into? His mother was killed when he was an infant and he was put into human care. He mimics human behavior (in less scientific terms, it's like he thinks he's human and wants to do thngs just like humans do -- but a lot of animal owners can tell you about their pets which do the same things -- cats and dogs that behave very similarly to humans.

The 2-3% difference in chimp genes and our genes represents genes that humans NEVER had.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in