New ATS Survey: Origins & Evolution

Thanks for this survey and a S&F. My responses to the questions were often times contradictory. I am not completely sure what I believe, so the phraseology of the answers was very nice. I had some difficulty following the questions due to my lack of knowledge about all the theories, but I filled it out the best I could. Really neat stuff and I look forward to the results.

I started taking the survey but quit because the choices are too limited for my beliefs. Count me as someone who believes that intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive, if you must.

It was a pretty tough survey since I'm agnostic...

I'm not a believer in a "supernatural entity", nor do I believe the standard teachings of evolution. I think man's Earth origins were of a planetary migration from Mars, along with ET intervention. So, the survey questions were kinda hard for me to answer.

Originally posted by Gorman91
hmm, anatomical modern humans are 250,000 years old, but I thought the subspecies we all are are something like 70,000-50,000 years old?

Current best guess is that "modern" homo sapiens came about somewhere between 90k and 150k years ago, depending on whose estimate you want to take, but that "archaic" homo sapiens came about anywhere from 250k to 400k years ago, again depending on whose estimate you want to take.

The "out of Africa" folks tend towards the 90k estimate, since that's what their model demands, and other folks tend toward the earlier estimate, since it's not constrained by an African genesis for H. Sapiens. the "archaic" variety was present in Europe at least 250k years ago, but didn't appear quite the same as we do now, and the claim is that H. Neanderthalensis and H. Sapiens (modern) diverged from that line anywhere from 200k to 150k years ago.

Starcraft ZERG

Evolution Complete

Originally posted by tom502
I'm not a believer in a "supernatural entity", nor do I believe the standard teachings of evolution. I think man's Earth origins were of a planetary migration from Mars, along with ET intervention. So, the survey questions were kinda hard for me to answer.

I would like the creator of this survey to come forward and briefly outline what *they* believe in. I'd like to know their level of awareness, the different routes and possibilities they have explored through their research, because it doesn't seem like they really have tapped into the pulse of what the conspiracy-minded person is thinking.

I mean, come on, the conspriracy on OUR MINDS is by far the biggest conspiracy of them all! The survey doesn't even scrape the surface of the secrets being kept from us, since the time of the ancients. A survey like this is no different than Einstein coming along with his theory of relativity with the intent of totally disproving the idea of an etheric universe - to hide the truth from all of us and prevent humanity from truly moving forward - via creating a false paradigm.

In reading the question I found that I could not answer either way and ended up Neutral throughout the entire survey. I just wouldn't dare group myself on either side because I am unsure of all things,save for the fact that I know nothing.

reply to post by nenothtu


I tend towards the out of Africa idea because of the fact that there is a sudden conssistent change in behavior globally originating from a wave out of Africa, where as all ther archaic and cousin species pretty much did nothing, found us, adapted our tools, then either went extinct or merged with us.

I imagine that this even is all around 50,000 years ago because that's the maximum for actualy cultural artifacts, versus bones and left overs. THe cultural artifacts are big for me, because even children begin to draw. Therefore the lack of cultural artifacts before that broad range of 70,000 o 50,000 for "beahavioral modernity", leads me to believe that's when we humans set out to Africa on a global campaign to kill or merge all our fellow ne'er humans.

There's a bit of proto-culture and art, but not until around 70,000 years ago are there sculptures and abstract thought.

www.historyofinformation.com...

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I took the survey but the choices were too narrow, encompassing only two of the most popular views which were formed out of superstition and misinformation passed down through the ages. Therefore I was neutral throughout most of it.

I believe that life and even the physical universe is far more complicated than "creation or evolution". I believe it could be both. The physical universe is an expression of a consiousness experiencing itself. Life evolved as a part of that experience, most likely hundreds of billions of years ago on planets elsewhere in the oldest parts of the universe. Some species evolved enough to master instellar travel and seeded and/or accellerated intelligent life on other planets, including Earth. Those are the "gods" and "demons" of the so-called holy books.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Interesting, it's sad when people believe in creationism I mean it's the equivalent to me saying "I can fly and shoot lasers out of my eyes, pee skittles and fart rainbows, but only when nobody's looking"

It's a disease, a sickness. These people are sick, their minds are not right. Suffering from massive anxiety of death, willing to believe any crackpot theory in order to sleep at night. The world is full of these people.

It's the same as schizophrenia, if you believe there is an omnipresent being watching your every move of every second of every hour of every day, listening to your prayers and thoughts and feelings then I'm sorry your a schizophrenic. There is no nice way to put that, any doctor will tell you. It's ok if it's a religious expirence but if it's slightly away from that lock them up. I think they should lock away religious people or help them cope with reality.

But in a bill maher movie, a Vatican Priest said it the best "stupid people need to die with their stupid ideas" even acknowledging religion is a bunch of bull#.

Name one thing that we cling to from the bronze age at isn't religion.

Yah, no doubt about it. This was a much fluffier survey than the UFO one. *lol*

I'm in the category with those who say the choices are pretty limited.

From what I see in the racial unconscious, the plan for us to be created overall was done by a long and arduous process at the level of the over arching sentience of the universe, but much of the local set up was done by the overarching sentiences of the various alien species around here, including our own.

But the actual bringing us humans into sentience was done by the greys, quite accidently while they were fixing up the human body to store their little grey spirits in, who wouldn't reincarnate into grey bodies.

The survey really didn't adapt itself to that very well. I did agrees, disagrees and neutrals as nothing stated was in the category of 'Strongly agree' or 'Strongly disagree' for me. I could stretch the questions to kinda fit and made my choices from there, but I'm thinking it probably ended up me cancelling my choices out! *shrug* Well, I gave it a shot!

Originally posted by Anthony1138
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

Interesting, it's sad when people believe in creationism I mean it's the equivalent to me saying "I can fly and shoot lasers out of my eyes, pee skittles and fart rainbows, but only when nobody's looking"

It's a disease, a sickness. These people are sick, their minds are not right. Suffering from massive anxiety of death, willing to believe any crackpot theory in order to sleep at night. The world is full of these people.

It's the same as schizophrenia, if you believe there is an omnipresent being watching your every move of every second of every hour of every day, listening to your prayers and thoughts and feelings then I'm sorry your a schizophrenic. There is no nice way to put that, any doctor will tell you. It's ok if it's a religious expirence but if it's slightly away from that lock them up. I think they should lock away religious people or help them cope with reality.

But in a bill maher movie, a Vatican Priest said it the best "stupid people need to die with their stupid ideas" even acknowledging religion is a bunch of bull#.

Name one thing that we cling to from the bronze age at isn't religion.

Wow, thanks for talking about your experience with the survey and not spewing a ideological take down of how people who believe differently than you are 'stupid'. Refreshing that no one resorts to using this as a forum to rant and rave about their particular beliefs.
Oh, and if you believe me, I have this wonderful bridge for sale.....

Thank you for the survey.

I do not believe we have all of the evolution puzzle pieces. I believe that it is evolving as more information is available...This to me is science......keep adding pieces to the puzzle.

Great survey and one I enjoyed takeing part of..I cant wait to see the results it should be very interesting ..peace,sugarcookie1

reply to post by Gorman91


I take it by "cultural artifacts" you mean art works.

There is the case of the spears (and a wooden piece along the lines of a boomerang) found in the German coal mine dated at 400k years ago, which while serving a utilitarian purpose could be classified as "art", since they were designed for throwing (weight to the front) and fairly artfully made, and there are isolated cases of dwellings (such as Bilzingsleben and Torralaba) Which are also utilitarian, but with a hint of planning and forethought, and in the case of Bilzingsleben, speculation about religious ceremony. Since no human remains are associated, it can't be said with certainty just which species produced them.

There is the Berekhet Ram sculpture from around 300k years ago, and another from Tan Tan in Morocco, I think, that is around the same age, but again no human remains, and the sculptures themselves are fairly sketchy, rather than the more realistic style (relatively) of the later H. Sapiens "venus" figurines. Neanderthals show evidence of religious thought, and ochre body paints and the like, but again it's sort of sketchy, not necessarily what one would expect of H. Sapiens. The Neanderthal flute and various ornaments don't appear until after the putative H. Sapiens invasion of Europe, so those could be learned, borrowed, or trade items.

Some modern tribes have a cultural life that is entirely perishable, rather than "cast in stone", and there is no reason to believe that other species wouldn't have had such.

I don't know - it's all speculative in the absence of "hard" evidence. which for the most part really doesn't appear until the advent of H. Sapiens, I tend to lean towards a more multi-regional model, especially in light of the recent discovery of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in some modern populations. ALL modern populations, in fact other than some sub-saharan African and some Australian Aborigine populations. Now, it could be argued that H. Sapiens originated entirely in Africa, and just added genetic material as they roamed and plundered, but the fact remains that some part of those earlier peoples, from other regions, still survives - in us.

Originally posted by Anthony1138

Name one thing that we cling to from the bronze age at isn't religion.

Pants. Pants were invented in the bronze age, and we still pretty much cling to them - or, in some of the more entertaining cases, they cling to US, in a most delightful way!

I do find it entertaining how you are ever so willing to "put away" or institutionalize folks who don't think the same way you do. I can't recall where I've seen that behavior before, but for some odd reason the word "gulag" keeps coming to mind.

I'm thinking that perhaps you should hope that you are never on the "wrong" side of that ideological divide.

can I ask where you got your psychology degree which qualifies you to diagnose schizophrenia?

reply to post by nenothtu




Well put.

Here here.

Sick minds think alike

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Gorman91
hmm, anatomical modern humans are 250,000 years old, but I thought the subspecies we all are are something like 70,000-50,000 years old?

Current best guess is that "modern" homo sapiens came about somewhere between 90k and 150k years ago, depending on whose estimate you want to take, but that "archaic" homo sapiens came about anywhere from 250k to 400k years ago, again depending on whose estimate you want to take.

The "out of Africa" folks tend towards the 90k estimate, since that's what their model demands, and other folks tend toward the earlier estimate, since it's not constrained by an African genesis for H. Sapiens. the "archaic" variety was present in Europe at least 250k years ago, but didn't appear quite the same as we do now, and the claim is that H. Neanderthalensis and H. Sapiens (modern) diverged from that line anywhere from 200k to 150k years ago.

Archaic human is a broad term encompassing several pre-sapien humans (Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis). Those three evolved from Homo Erectus. Homo Sapiens evolved from homo heidelbergensis as did Neanderthals. Anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals interbred to form Homo Sapien Sapiens, Modern Humans.

Anatomically modern humans emerged about 200,000 years ago. The modern gene pool (IE the Neanderthal cross-breeding stock) sometime around 70,000 years ago. The 90,000 year mark is where anatomically modern humans began to leave Africa.

reply to post by SG-17


By "anatomically modern" I reckon you must be referring to cranial structure, since everything else was in place pretty much as it is now by the time of Erectus. I wasn't referring to "archaic humans", but "archaic homo sapiens" specifically. I'm probably behind the times on that, as I believe the term has largely been superceeded by H. Antecessor in modern circles.

Specific affinities are still under debate, but I think it's a pretty safe to say that Neanderthal didn't evolve from Erectus, but rather from Antecessor. Hedielbergensis is still up for grabs, whether it came from Erectus, Antecessor, or was the same AS Antecessor. Throw in Dmanisi, and Denesova, and you have the makings of a pretty wide mix, adding in recent findings that Erectus may have survived longer than previously thought, in Asia. That last is different than Flores, which is fairly obviously a modified Erectus, dwarfed by an island habitat, surviving up to maybe 11k years ago, or perhaps even more recently.

It's an odd tree, and the branches don't just branch outward, sometimes they grow back together again.