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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Neanderthals and Denisovans our Genetic cousins

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:34 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Old post? I believe I saw something very similar to this. By the way, we didn't evolve from Neanderthal's (if the post already stated it).

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by SLAYER69

But then wouldn't that put Neanderthals on human menus do to that same desperation?

Of course. We ate each other.

Donnor Party?

We don't need to have Neanderthals or strictly Humans to have cannibalism? If it got that bad ANYTHING goes on the menu.

Are you sure?
I had in mind that the Denisovans mixed with the Melanesians. As they were still cannibals recently I assume that they don't eat humans out of desperation but they simply don't have an issue with it.

They have stopped the [practice and the last cases were based in remote areas and I watched documentaries showing them struggle with cannibalism related diseases. They tended to make cannibalism ceremonial, so they ate their own deceased children which caused the problem in women.

I can imagine a situation where the two species ate each other out of desperation and if so, it may be the first time this has occurred. All of the climate shifts would have inspired cannibalism, especially the returning tribes, or the stronger.

I guess my point of contention is that the Neanderthals were the stronger species. I imagine that they took our women and bred with them, so they bred themselves (their women first) out by breeding with the more prolific breeders.

I also assume this is where the age old stories of giants comes from.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 04:25 AM
Great thread Slayer

-thanks to everyone else too! interesting reading

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 05:15 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Awesome stuff man thanks for the heads up. I love stuff like this. Just about to have some dinner ill fill up and start digging into the juicy info. As always nothing but quality from you Slayer. S&F We need more posts like this on ATS.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:01 AM
I thought I read that red hair is a neandethal trait...

Not a guy I know who doesn't like a lady with red hair.

Or in my case, a guy with red hair..

edit on 30-6-2011 by Helmkat because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:32 AM
Another point that may be a little off topic but the charts that are presented seem to indicate that "global warming" is cyclic and that we are on the verge of a new Ice Age. I wonder what changes this will bring about in our evolution?
edit on 30-6-2011 by rcanem because: can't spell lol

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Warpthal
reply to post by SLAYER69

Old post? I believe I saw something very similar to this. By the way, we didn't evolve from Neanderthal's (if the post already stated it).

I used the first image in another thread on a similar topic. It just so happens that the new news article also used the same image.

No, we didn't evolve from them.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by PixelDuster

Thank you pixel.

It is a subject that fascinates me.
I'm glad you enjoyed it

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:04 AM
Great thread Slayer! Very interesting material you have here. It seems modern humans may have mated with Neanderthals.

Mystery solved: Humans did indeed mate with Neanderthals

The finding, which was made by analyzing DNA from Neanderthal bones and comparing it with that of five living humans, appears to resolve a long-standing mystery about the relationship between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, who coexisted in Europe and western Asia for more than 10,000 years until Neanderthals disappeared about 30,000 years ago.

“We can now say with absolute certainty that we’ve got these Neanderthal genes,” said John Hawks, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Wisconsin who was not involved in the study. “They’re not ‘them’ anymore — they’re ‘us.’”

So, some of us have Neanderthal genes? Still, that doesn't shed any light about why there were so many humanoid subspecies at the time? We have the Neanderthals in Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Then we have the Denisovans in Central Asia and Asia. Perhaps, there are other species living at the time that have not been discovered as well? Moreover, where did they originate from? We have modern humans migrating out of Africa, and yet we have these other species living in different regions long before human contact? So, we have answered a riddle with another riddle. Very interesting!
edit on 30-6-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:06 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Score one for the Darwin believers. Unless, God made many types of man in his image, then sat back and watched them all duke it out.

Thank you for explaining Lebron James too.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:08 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

WE "modern" humans did not descend from them or any other monkey-like creature.
THEY are degenerate forms of Us. That is why they are Extinct and we are not.
"Modern" humans have been on Earth for Millions of years.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by Jakes51


This opens up the possibility of other hominins in our family tree that are yet to be Identified. This is why I tossed in the Hobbit and Peking man [which is sometimes confused] with the bogus Javaman etc in my original thread linked in the OP.

We don't have a DNA connection yet. But I suspect more will come to light as we dig deeper.

edit on 30-6-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:14 AM
I've always felt there was more to the differences in appearance between the various human races, this explains that quite nicely

reply to post by MapMistress

bit off topic here but those graphs shows we're scary close to a new ice age are we not?

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by MapMistress

You know I always imagined Eden in Turkey. But I suppose who knows. Wasn't the ancient hindi city off the coast of India?

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

... Environmental stresses. Things changed drastically during the Ice age this is the period were are talking about which also coincides with the massive Megafuana die off.


A massive die off of a possible major food source during an Ice age/Climatic change then signs of cannibalism....

reply to post by MikeboydUS

reply to post by Gorman91

Artifacts left behind by neanderthals shows a sudden shift around the time they made contact with humans. Suddenly their dead are buried less, evidence of cannibalism is greater, and caves that were Neanderthal caves show a sudden transition into becoming human caves.

What this shows is evidence for violence against Neanderthals. Specifically, increased desperation from Neanderthals to survive.

Turns out the first Caucasians are from people who migrated north of India, and had an albino gene. Took them a few generations to stabilize and adapt. At first the albino gene was not a benefit. but as time went on, they adapted to their predicament and the genes stabilized.


if an idle speculation of a conspiratorial/occultic nature is not unwelcome, i'd like to contribute to your discussion.

The "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

In his book Food of the Gods[25], McKenna proposed that the transformation from our early ancestors Homo erectus to the species Homo sapiens mainly had to do with the addition of the mushroom Psilocybe cubensis in out diet - an event which according to his theory took place in about 100,000 BC (this is when he believed that our species diverged from the Homo genus). He based his theory on the main effects, or alleged effects, produced by the mushroom. One of the effects that comes about from the ingestion of low doses, which agrees with one of scientist Roland Fischer's findings from the late 60s-early 70s[26], is it significantly improves the visual acuity of humans - so theoretically, of other human-like mammals too. According to McKenna, this effect would have definitely prove to be of evolutionary advantage to our omnivorous hunter-gatherer ancestors that would have stumbled upon it "accidentally"; as it would make it easier for them to hunt.

In higher doses, McKenna claims, the mushroom acts as a sexual stimulator, which would make it even more beneficial evolutionary, as it would result in more offspring. At even higher doses, the mushroom would have acted to "dissolve boundaries", which would have promoted community-bonding and group sexual activities-that would result in a mixing of genes and therefore greater genetic diversity. Generally McKenna believed that the periodic ingestion of the mushroom would have acted to dissolve the ego in humans before it ever got the chance to grow in destructive proportions. In this context he likened the ego to a cancerous tumor that can grow uncontrollable and become destructive to its host. In his own words:

Wherever and whenever the ego function began to form, it was akin to a calcareous tumor or a blockage in the energy of the psyche. The use of psychedelic plants in a context of shamanic initiation dissolved-as it dissolves today-the knotted structure of the ego into undifferentiated feeling, what Eastern philosophy calls the Tao.
—Terence McKenna, Food of the Gods

The mushroom, according to McKenna, had also given humans their first truly religious experiences (which, as he believed, were the basis for the foundation of all subsequent religions to date). Another factor that McKenna talked about was the mushroom's potency to promote linguistic thinking. This would have promoted vocalisation, which in turn would have acted in cleansing the brain (based on a scientific theory that vibrations from speaking cause the precipitation of impurities from the brain to the cerebrospinal fluid), which would further mutate our brain. All these factors according to McKenna were the most important factors that promoted our evolution towards the Homo sapiens species. After this transformation took place, our species would have begun moving out of Africa to populate the rest of the planet [27] Later on, this theory by McKenna was given the name "The 'Stoned Ape' Theory of Human Evolution"[28].


The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse,
Sex-repression, Warfare and Social Violence,
In the Deserts of the Old World

Evidence for a Worldwide,
Climate-Linked Geographical Pattern
in Human Behavior

James DeMeo, Ph.D.

Human Violence is Unnatural. Perpetual War is Not Inevitable.

The Human Species is By Nature Loving, Cooperative and Peaceful.

There is a Real Early Peaceful Period in the Archaeological Record.

The Concept of a "Naked Violent Ape" or "Violent Genes" is a Modern Fantasy-Falsehood.

Early Climate Change Towards Saharasian Deserts at c.4000 BCE led to the
First Widespread Appearance of Violent Human Societies, who have
Favorably Perpetuated Themselves over the Centuries by Conquest of more Peaceful Societies.
An early period of generally peaceful social conditions is documented in prehistory, but with a major shift towards patriarchal-authoritarian and decidedly violent social conditions across the Saharasian region after a major climate-shift from wet grassland-forest conditions towards harsh desert conditions at c.5000-4000 BC. Major epochs of cultural diffusion are also presented on maps, showing how violent patriarchal authoritarian, sex-repressive and child-abusive behaviors were carried outward from their Saharasian origins to nearly every corner of the globe. It presents previously-unknown geographical patterns in dozens of different human behaviors, beliefs and social institutions representative of human violence and warlike aggression, such as slavery, castes, genital mutilations and a low women's status.

it may have been a great dying off in the mushrooms...

during the community-bonding rituals the mushrooms would "out" certain individuals by the negative reactions they had to it [like the undercover CIA operative that convinced Wasson to take him along on a visit to María Sabina, and had a very bad trip] the whole community having identified these individuals and dealt with it, usually by expulsion[a bad idea as we shall see]

in simply expelling them, they simply pushed the problem out of the community,created a threat to travelers, and thus to trade, and eventually helped "the heartless ones" to form their own alliances. genetic psychopathy/sociopathy may have been bred as a result.
they might have mixed with them thar albinos...[!!!!!!!]
[ tongue in cheek]

and then the mushrooms started dying out... whether due to DeMeo's Saharasia event, climate change in general, maybe even a few small cometary impacts, all of the above or a combination.

"the heartless ones", the psychopaths and sociopaths saw their chance, struck, achieved the position of the dominator class, and the rest is what we call history. or the"Nightmare of History" to some.

hooray!!! part 3 is coming soon!

lately i have been idly speculating something along these lines

Neanderthals = Lemurians [?]
Atlanteans = Archaic Homo Sap.[?]
Adamic Race = Homo Sap. Sap.

notice all those "trepanned" Neanderthal skulls?

maybe it wasn't the brains that were sought,

but the Pineal gland/3rd eye.

as a "reasonable facsimile" and rich source of the "spirit molecule". this may have been the source/origen, perverted over time, of the idea that qualities could be ingested.

"you are what you eat" who knows?

Neanderthals/Lemurians[?] may have also hunted/contributed to their own extinction and not just been a victim of Homo Sap.
the hybridization would have occurred during the more peacful periods.

looking forward to any feed back from the 3 of you.

not bad for today's 1st post IMHO

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:02 AM

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
reply to post by SLAYER69

Score one for the Darwin believers. Unless, God made many types of man in his image, then sat back and watched them all duke it out.

Thank you for explaining Lebron James too.

I've often taken some heat with my "Angle" on the topic from both left and right. Well, this doesn't really go into "Creationism vs Darwinism" Not really...

The Dawn of man was a much earlier period IMHO. I have a slightly different view on the topic than most. While others see just Black or White. [Evolution vs Creation] I see a Grey area. "Adam" could have been a Homo Sapian. With his "Divine Spark" being self aware and full of creativity. Cave painting, simple jewelry and intricate language and tool making skills etc.

Which if there is a God and I believe there is but more along the lines of a "Spiritual rather than Religious" belief in him. Didn't he say to man

“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the ..."

But that's the topic for a whole other thread...

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Great post. Your info was confirmed and expanded on in a book I recently fininshed "Genes Giants Monsters and Men" by Dr Joseph P Farrell.

An interesting and informative interview with Dr Farrell was done recently on Coast to Coast:

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

I'm hesitant to call that proof of anything. It seems biased. No one thing is ever responsible for so much. In addition, the ego is a theory, not a known fact. Many people like myself do not really honestly believe in that. I run my mind simple. I am in charge, and the rest of my mind attempts to prove what I believe wrong. My consciousness is guilty until proven innocent. And then my mind restless with a new topic.

In addition, We know eye site improved in humans in Africa, not while they were leaving. This was in a desert and dry environment. No mushrooms. Furthermore, behavioral modernity occurred 50,000 years ago. There is barely any evidence for such behavior you mentioned from before that, and little for that actual behavior. All evidence points to single mate, small family hunter-gatherer units. Not communal sex-happy high man-apes. If primate activities, and primitive cultures, are anything to go by, they either traded their young women, or the youth left on their own to find their own unit. The earliest evidence for communal living is some 20,000 years old. A full 180,000 years late for this man's theory. In addition, there is not evidence of mass sexual get togethers until thousands of years later. There is evidence for drunken worship ceremonies at places like Stonehenge. No evidence for orgies and what not. I mean come on. How can you even prove such things?

edit on 30-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:15 AM

Originally posted by OhZone
reply to post by SLAYER69

WE "modern" humans did not descend from them or any other monkey-like creature.
THEY are degenerate forms of Us. That is why they are Extinct and we are not.
"Modern" humans have been on Earth for Millions of years.

I appreciate the stance. But, The genetic evidence paints an entirely different scenario. The problem with that argument is the belief that Neanderthal and now Denisovans were simply a "Monkey or Apish Brute" They were not. I covered my stance on him in my other thread I linked to in the OP.

Technically speaking they didn't go "Extinct" Modern man carries within him their genes. We bred them out of existence. We diluted their blood lines with our own. Basically we, over thousands of years converted them to us. So in essence we are them they are us.

"Modern" humans being on Earth for millions of years is an interesting theory. One that I admit I've enjoyed toying with the idea myself from time to time. But what do we find as evidence? Foot Prints and some possible tools. Neanderthal and Denisovians" Both made tools and had feet like ours. Yet they came out of Africa long before modern man. By some estimates as much as 700,000 to 1.4 Millions years before.

Whose to say that those scant amount of evidence are not from a much older line predating us? We haven't found "Millions" of year old "Modern" skeletons yet. Don't get me wrong I'm open minded and would love nothing more for someday to be proven wrong.

This thread is just a theory of mine which seems to be supported more and more as we dig deeper.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:24 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Interesting but its a theory. Time will tell.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in