It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by strangernstrangeland
reply to post by SLAYER69
OP's ideas are in line with mine.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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"
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
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.
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
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.