Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 9
210
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by strangernstrangeland
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

OP's ideas are in line with mine.


Mine, as well (with a few small tweaks).


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.


As do I. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head here with what drew me to this field in the first place and, though 99% of my colleagues will balk at the idea (in public), I have to say that I haven't found a hell of a lot that has shaken that gut feeling. I even know a few archaeologists who are fairly prominent on the world scene (keen undergrads would know their names) who would probably confide over a beer that they share that feeling. Is there any hard evidence to support an advanced civilization more than 10,000 years BP? No. Not to my knowledge, in any case. But there are logical reasons for that which I won't go into at present for fear of hijacking this thread, however I suspect that SLAYER is onto the same line of thought as I am so I eagerly await his final thesis. At that time I will jump in with my ideas if his theory needs a little 'nudge'
. (ETA: Not that I think he needs any help...just offering another perspective perhaps)

That said, be careful with Sitchin and von Danniken's stuff. Neither is an overly thorough scholar, let's just put it that way. I also would like to believe in the Annunaki theory, and I would even say that I am tentatively optimistic surrounding the possible interaction between humans and "others" at some point in our distant past, but I do not believe that Sitchin's story is the correct one (for many reasons).
edit on 27-2-2011 by ArchaeologyUnderground because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by strangernstrangeland
[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?


No. Not enough change.

Let's say that we plop down on a planet and want to reengineer something to be a super-race... and let's use cats as an example. We'd insert genes and give them "hands", cause changes in bone growth to reshape the spine and the skull so that certain brain features were enhanced and that the body could comfortably stand upright (so they can use their hands. And we might even give them 4hands or a "centaur" body. We'd modify the gut so that they were omnivores and modify the metabolism so they don't die early and that their babies don't have ahgh mortality rate. We might delay puberty (wild horses come to sexual maturity almost a year earlier than domestic horses, for instance.) We'd get rid of organs with no function and would give them super function in certain areas. If we were genetic engineers, we would strip out genes that had a potential for cancer and diabetes and so forth (our population has to be healthy and successful) and we would grant them long lives so they can develop technology and culture.

Unsuitable or undesirable variations would be destroyed.

These kinds of changes in a breed take place within a few generations and (if you're controllng the breeding) your population expands rapidly. But they also show skeletal indications of being domesticated (less aggressive, for one thing).

We don't see this sudden change in the lineage. H. erectus looks a lot like archaic h. sapiens and the older versions of h. erectus look quite a bit like Australopithecus.

If we'd been genetically engineered, we'd have gone from a lemur-like primate to h. sapiens in a few centuries with a very abrupt introduction of very sophisticated tools.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

These kinds of changes in a breed take place within a few generations and (if you're controllng the breeding) your population expands rapidly. But they also show skeletal indications of being domesticated (less aggressive, for one thing).

We don't see this sudden change in the lineage. H. erectus looks a lot like archaic h. sapiens and the older versions of h. erectus look quite a bit like Australopithecus.

If we'd been genetically engineered, we'd have gone from a lemur-like primate to h. sapiens in a few centuries with a very abrupt introduction of very sophisticated tools.


Well said and agree 100%. I should have made that more clear in my last post, I don't see any way genetic tampering could have taken place either -- rather, if there was ever any kind of interaction with 'others' (not saying they were ETs per se), then I see it as being a purely cultural exchange rather than biological. However, this all ties into the fact that I don't believe we are talking about extra terrestrials here...



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchaeologyUnderground

Originally posted by strangernstrangeland
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

OP's ideas are in line with mine.


Mine, as well (with a few small tweaks).


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.


As do I. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head here with what drew me to this field in the first place and, though 99% of my colleagues will balk at the idea (in public), I have to say that I haven't found a hell of a lot that has shaken that gut feeling. I even know a few archaeologists who are fairly prominent on the world scene (keen undergrads would know their names) who would probably confide over a beer that they share that feeling. Is there any hard evidence to support an advanced civilization more than 10,000 years BP? No. Not to my knowledge, in any case. But there are logical reasons for that which I won't go into at present for fear of hijacking this thread, however I suspect that SLAYER is onto the same line of thought as I am so I eagerly await his final thesis. At that time I will jump in with my ideas if his theory needs a little 'nudge'
. (ETA: Not that I think he needs any help...just offering another perspective perhaps)

That said, be careful with Sitchin and von Danniken's stuff. Neither is an overly thorough scholar, let's just put it that way. I also would like to believe in the Annunaki theory, and I would even say that I am tentatively optimistic surrounding the possible interaction between humans and "others" at some point in our distant past, but I do not believe that Sitchin's story is the correct one (for many reasons).
edit on 27-2-2011 by ArchaeologyUnderground because: (no reason given)


Thanks much for the response. I forgot who was being interviewed on coast am but he said that he found several mistranslations by Sitchin and tried to contact him about them. Sitchin basically stonewalled him. I got into those books when I was just starting to research things outside the mainstream and realize that they aren't really that scholarly, just interesting. Michael Tsarion is really interesting to listen to as well, but all with a grain of salt; circumstantial evidence at best, but interesting nonetheless.

I hate that I had to get out of anthropology, but the university's program where I studied was terrible. Now I just do my own research on the side.

I'll shut up now, too off topic. I have to go off and read through Slayers other two "origins" threads to catch up....



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by strangernstrangeland
[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?


No. Not enough change.

Let's say that we plop down on a planet and want to reengineer something to be a super-race... and let's use cats as an example. We'd insert genes and give them "hands", cause changes in bone growth to reshape the spine and the skull so that certain brain features were enhanced and that the body could comfortably stand upright (so they can use their hands. And we might even give them 4hands or a "centaur" body. We'd modify the gut so that they were omnivores and modify the metabolism so they don't die early and that their babies don't have ahgh mortality rate. We might delay puberty (wild horses come to sexual maturity almost a year earlier than domestic horses, for instance.) We'd get rid of organs with no function and would give them super function in certain areas. If we were genetic engineers, we would strip out genes that had a potential for cancer and diabetes and so forth (our population has to be healthy and successful) and we would grant them long lives so they can develop technology and culture.

Unsuitable or undesirable variations would be destroyed.

These kinds of changes in a breed take place within a few generations and (if you're controllng the breeding) your population expands rapidly. But they also show skeletal indications of being domesticated (less aggressive, for one thing).

We don't see this sudden change in the lineage. H. erectus looks a lot like archaic h. sapiens and the older versions of h. erectus look quite a bit like Australopithecus.

If we'd been genetically engineered, we'd have gone from a lemur-like primate to h. sapiens in a few centuries with a very abrupt introduction of very sophisticated tools.


Awesome answer, never thought of it that way. So I guess there isn't as huge a "missing link" as some would have us believe. I was under the impression that H. sapiens popped up out of nowhere, bucking the evolutionary precedent set by earlier hominins. Thank you.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I'm a little late getting to it because I was reading everything but awesome thread Slayer! This pulled me back from lurker status. Thumbs up buddy!



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Byrd, ArchaeologyUnderground:

I'll u2u you guys for further discussion once I get the required posts if that's ok with you guys. Don't want to hijack Slayers thread anymore than I already have. Sorry Slayer!



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
[more
There is evidence of a very large river that crosses north Africa from east to west, it began in Egypt and ended in front of Spain. It is possible that it even entered Spain. Also a large part of southern Spain was navigable, around 4500 years ago. Currently in those areas there is not much archeology, especially if you compare with Greece, Italy, Turkey and all the rest of the eastern Mediterranean countries.So you may find that there is plenty to discover in those areas. I believe that what is to be found is really deep down and in some cases we are just looking at the tip of the iceberg. Once that area starts revealing, we will discover a lot more of our true history.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
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"


If you notice in my post, I don't go in to the method or the exact reasons for a new breed to occur. I see what you are pointing to and I feel it to be standard procedure and still is even today in many cases. You have a hard time with ancient man doing it, but what if there was one or two breeds of humans that were willing and able? In ancient Irish mythology, there is a mention of a strange race of men taking away children in boats and sometimes returning them.Sounds quiet interesting to me. It is also known that many races would have fertility rites to Venus, What would make them do that? Could be that they were copying something they had seen and didn't understand, my point is that it was enough to inspire them to try and improve their stock. Weather that method was a success or not is another question.Its the same as flying, we try and try until all of a sudden we get a result. Beauty has always been an issue with humans, so why no try and improve it. The genius of the tribe has always existed and can be far more advanced mentally than your power politician types, not to speak of your average citizen.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I just wanted to say thanks to everybody for making this an interesting thread. I appreciate all the feedback from everyone.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Thanks for another great thread.
Very interesting bro.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by ArieZ
I like reading your threads they're written well BUT there is a whole society's that explanation fails to include..There is Ancient Civiliziations that have dissapeared such as The Underwater Pyramids/Cities and other Megalithic Builders that are unexplainable...I'm not saying your wrong in any way I don't doubt that is a part of our past but to me there is clearly Hidden/Forgotten/Secret History of Our Evolution.



Thanks for the thread participation. You may want to take a gander at these..

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



I'm glad you posted those links. I'm reading them now.

Thank you for your effort.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I just finished read your bigfoot thread. So where does he and the other fit into this?
Do you think we are related?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Rubber-Ducky
 



I think they are two completely different lines of hominids.




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by EmeraldGreen
 


I feel I know where you are coming from, as if everything every space and every moment in someway transforms us and our apparent limited view. It is all offering us information to show us about ourselves, our formlessness and our form. Alchemy boils down to realization to what is already there. Perhaps that was what the ancient gold they were looking for was pure realization of every moment. Thanks for sharing your realizations.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Versa

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.



I Agree Her Resemblance of so much like a Hominid in her facial Features is practically is Irrefutable

as Scientist has recently discovered that her condition has Missing and Double Genes in various part of her DNA mostly Chromosome 17

I wonder if its because the Missing Genes in her pattern of DNA in chromosome 17 is part of that 3percent that make us different than primates as for her deformity Gums ! it showed the Genes were doubled! from what i have read tho it not Julia's DNA a Group of Chinese that has the Same likeness condition like her

tho the Study of this was not from Julia Pastrana DNA , it was from similar cases of the same of a group of people of (Chinese's) decent that has the same condition of Julia as Julia is in a Mummy Stuffed form
Im not sure if there can be an extraction of DNA from it unless she has her original teeth in the Stuffed body if she does,, they can get the DNA from pulp within the Teeth I would Assume .. I still would like to see her DNA to actual find the Truth instead of study and findings someone that has a similarity of her condition !

I have no doubt in my mind that she is 100% Human
just the case of that the Genes are Missing in the DNA
that would cause her like a like a Hominid Missing Genes
of that a (Very small portion) of 3% difference of what makes Humans & Apes Different
edit on 28-2-2011 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by Versa

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.



I Agree Her Resemblance of so much like a Hominid in her facial Features is practically is Irrefutable


Im not sure what your agreeing with, what your saying is the opposite to what I'm saying (unless I've become very confused)


What I was trying to point out is that Julia was dead and stuffed in those photographs and that it is entirely possible that she looked less simian in real life.

She was slightly hairy but not massively (as you can see from the unfortunate woman's autopsy pictures). Her husband was the man who 'displayed' her for money and he continued to make money from displaying her corpse, so it wouldn't surprise me if he had arranged her 'preservation' to make her appear more ape like in death than she ever was in life.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ArchaeologyUnderground
 


I'm not sure about man reaching our current level of technology in our distant past but and that's a big but

I feel that we may have in isolated city states somewhere along those ancient pre-ice-age-melt-off coastal region had developed slightly more advanced city states. Somewhere around the level of development as ancient Egypt or Sumeria...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

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.

I'm no advocate of "playing around" after marriage, but in what way could it be detrimental to the gene-pool?

It seems to me playing around would create more diversity and make women more likely to conceive with men whom their pheromones indicate are good genetic matches.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


As always great points.





new topics

top topics



 
210
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join