The nail in the Evolutionary Coffin, the final spike placed there by the Royal Society itself.

We are born with no natural weapons or defenses whatsoever, no fangs, no claws, no poisons, no horns, no camouflage, hell we don't even have fur to protect our skin, yet we are the most dominant species this planet has ever seen.

Therefore, either nature understands the power of intelligence (which in turn makes nature itself a form of consciousness) or we were put here by something or someone else. Either way there has to be a creator.

Genetic research has made the claim that man came out of Africa, and we are all the descendants of one African woman named Eve.

Methinks you need to do a bit more research. In a more scientific medium. Some things aren't meant to be taken literally. Science has never suggested that "Eve" was the single mother of all of humanity. At the time of her discovery, she was the oldest known human, or at least proto-human , remains found. The name given to her was meant as a symbolic one.

Originally posted by Bone75
We are born with no natural weapons or defenses whatsoever, no fangs, no claws, no poisons, no horns, no camouflage, hell we don't even have fur to protect our skin, yet we are the most dominant species this planet has ever seen.

Therefore, either nature understands the power of intelligence (which in turn makes nature itself a form of consciousness) or we were put here by something or someone else. Either way there has to be a creator.

Because we are animals,bi-pedal human animals with opposable thumbs and big brains,but no other animal on earth would ever be able to think or dream of the evil things that humans have inflicted upon eachother for thousands of years,like witch hunts,genocides and war...

But I certainly think that the face issue gets swept under the carpet by promoters of evolutionary theory, and they have no genetic expanation for why humans need to be so unique.

If by swept under the rug, you mean, posted specific pictures of different looking faces on animals to prove you wrong, then sure. The homo genus developed over a 2.5 million year period. Some hominids split off, adapted to various climates and then mated again later, which made the species more diverse. We have mapped entire genomes of ancestors. All of this can be verified by a simple google search, or by reading some of the threads in this section.

They cannot show any sort of evolutionary development that would cause a human to have a unique face, and not a chimp.

You've been proven wrong several times yet still say this?

It really stinks because ancient alien theory is really cool, but people like this give it a bad name. I often wonder if it is intentional.

What you need is an evolution 101 class.

reply to post by Bone75

We are born with no natural weapons or defenses whatsoever, no fangs, no claws, no poisons, no horns, no camouflage, hell we don't even have fur to protect our skin, yet we are the most dominant species this planet has ever seen.

Therefore, either nature understands the power of intelligence (which in turn makes nature itself a form of consciousness) or we were put here by something or someone else. Either way there has to be a creator.

I guess it depends on what we want to call dominant. At one time anomalocaris was dominant. Brachiopods were dominant in their own way appearing everywhere. Today some times of algae must represent more biomass than people.

What I do not understand is why you have formed only 2 possibilities. Maybe the issue is simply that intelligence works - no need to assume anything respects intelligence.

If the earths age of 4,500,000,000 years was represented by a time line in the form of a tape measure stretched between the west coast pacific ocean and the east coast atlantic ocean,over 3,000 miles long,the total length of time that modern humans have been walking around on earth would be less than a thousand feet...

reply to post by Bone75

We are born with no natural weapons or defenses whatsoever, no fangs, no claws, no poisons, no horns, no camouflage... therefore, either nature understands the power of intelligence (which in turn makes nature itself a form of consciousness) or we were put here by something or someone else.

No consciousness or intelligence is required. Let me explain how this works.

Physical and behavioural traits cost energy to build – energy the organism must somehow obtain from the environment through foraging, predation, photosynthesis, etc. The energy budget is limited, obviously, so the organism must 'decide' what traits it is going to spend them on. Actually, of course, it is natural selection that 'decides' – by favouring the results of one line of physical or behavioural development over another in the endless competition to survive and reproduce.

Organisms which spread their energy budget around are like shoppers who buy a little bit of this and a little bit of that, so that they end up with lots of different groceries but not enough of anything to make ends meet. Such creatures end up not very well armed, not very smart, not very fleet of foot or wing, not very much of anything at all. And that is fatal, because evolution is a kind of arms race, and the specialists will always win such a contest.

This is how there come to be predators, each with its own highly specialized mode of predation, and prey that escape them by specializing in being able to run or fly away fast, use camouflage, live in herds to spread the individual risk of attack across the entire herd, and so on. The rhinoceros and the Thompson's gazelle both have the same dangers to fear, but how differently they protect themselves!

Specialization to make maximum use of the energy budget is also the reason why animals have so many different, specialized methods of sexual and asexual reproduction, why parasites like malaria flukes, tapeworms and body lice specialize in different host species, and so on. All these highly particular lifestyles, or 'evolutionary niches', are the result of natural selection occurring over very many generations.

The human speciality is not intelligence per se, but language. It is our specialization in language that has made us intelligent. It is an immensely powerful specialization because it allows humans to share information with each other and modify their behaviour based on that information, thus partly liberating us from the shackles of instinct. That advantage is worth any amount of teeth and claws and armour – it is why we, despite our soft, vulnerable bodies and lack of speed, physical power or natural weapons, are the most successful predators on Earth.

By the way, there is at least one other thing at which we are superior to other animals, and that is long-distance running and endurance in general. When it comes to keeping going, mile after mile, hour after hour, day after day, covering enormous distances, very few ground-dwelling animals can match a physically fit Homo Sapiens. Our ancestors may have come down from the trees, but we are creatures of the endless savannah.

reply to post by Astyanax


You hit on the point i was going to make.What makes homo sapiens great predators is endurance.Hunters could chase the quarries for miles they didnt have to out run them just be patient.

The peruvian skull is easy to explain actually.

It has nothing to do with mutation or DNA, or genetics.

www.angelfire.com...

smallrings1.com...

When you are young, you can bind the bones to make them grow a certain way.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Astyanax

 

You hit on the point i was going to make.What makes homo sapiens great predators is endurance.Hunters could chase the quarries for miles they didnt have to out run them just be patient.

Most likely early humans spent most of their time hiding up in trees,to get away from the animals that were chasing them,not the other way around,because just about every four legged animal can easily out run any human and why would five hundred pound lions,tigers and bears with claws and fangs be running away from humans with pointed sticks? Go out into the wilderness right now and try running at a grizzly bear or a siberian tiger with a spear and see what happens and watch how soon you are turned into their next meal...

reply to post by blocula

Most likely early humans spent most of their time up hiding up in trees,to get away from the animals that were chasing them, not the other way around

There were (and are) very few trees on the African savannah where human beings evolved. We did not have that easy refuge.

Because just about every four legged animal can easily out run any human

But how far and for how long? Humans have prodigious endurance compared to most other big land animals.

Why would five hundred pound lions, tigers and bears with claws and fangs be running away from humans with pointed sticks?

Try being a 500-pound lion, tiger or bear for a while and you will soon know the answer. We are the deadliest things that ever walked the face of the Earth, and we were that long before we invented firearms and motor vehicles. Notice that, in both Australasia and the New World, the arrival of humans in large numbers was instantly followed by massive population crashes among all the large native animal species, predator and prey alike. Pointed sticks are pretty deadly when wielded by human hands.

Go out into the wilderness right now and try running at a grizzly bear or a siberian tiger with a spear and see what happens and watch how soon you are turned into their next meal.

If I did it on my own I would certainly be asking for trouble. If I was doing it along with a dozen similarly armed fellow humans, one or two of us might be injured or killed, but the death of the tiger or the grizzly would be almost certain.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by blocula

 

Most likely early humans spent most of their time up hiding up in trees,to get away from the animals that were chasing them, not the other way around

There were (and are) very few trees on the African savannah where human beings evolved. We did not have that easy refuge.

Do we really know how many trees were growing across africa 50,000 years ago? or 200,000 years ago? or 1,000,000 years ago?...No we dont...and there were probably thousands of trees all over the place back then where deserts are now and prehistoric humans probably carried small boulders up into those trees to use as weapons by throwing them down at the animals that may have been trying to climb up and get to them...

reply to post by blocula

Do we really know how many trees were growing across africa 200,000 years ago?

or a million yeras ago?

Trees and pollen grains fossilize. Animal fossils, too, tell us a lot about the kind of country they inhabited while living. Coprolites tell us what they ate.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by blocula

 

Do we really know how many trees were growing across africa 200,000 years ago?

or a million yeras ago?

Trees and pollen grains fossilize. Animal fossils, too, tell us a lot about the kind of country they inhabited while living. Coprolites tell us what they ate.

edit on 5/3/12 by Astyanax because: of coprolites!

I remember watching a well made documentary,i think it was called "violent earth" or something like that and there was an episode about what the present day sahara desert of africa looked like about ten or twenty thousand years ago and it was once a tropical paradise covered with lush vegetation,trees and clear running rivers...

reply to post by blocula

Yes, the desertification of the Sahara was relatively recent. The East African savannah, on the other hand, has changed relatively little in millions of years. Africa is the world's second-largest continent, and thousands of miles separate the Sahara from the Great Rift Valley, where the evolution of humanity began.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by blocula

 

Yes, the desertification of the Sahara was relatively recent. The East African savannah, on the other hand, has changed little in millions of years. Africa is the world's second-largest continent, and thousands of miles separate the Sahara from the Great Rift Valley, where the evolution of humanity began.

I thought humanity began in the cradle of civilization in modern day iraq? or am i thinking of something else?

reply to post by blocula

The domestication of grains and animals began in the so-called Fertile Crescent, which includes Iraq, Turkey and some neighbouring countries. This occurred, as far as we can tell, about 10-13,000 years ago and yes, this is generally agreed to be the time when civilization (meaning the habit of dwelling in settled communities) began.

However, human beings evolved their present form much earlier, perhaps as long as 240,000 years ago. This happened in East Africa, in the region of the Great Rift Valley – the part of the world that now includes Nigeria, the Sudan and Ethiopia. All modern humans are of African origin.

reply to post by Astyanax
Thanx for the information and i also recently read,like ten minutes ago,that "modern humans" arose out of africa,but the even earlier Cromagnons and Neanderthals originated somewhere else like Europe and that Neanderthal genes represent 6% of the non-African human genome and so did the Neanderthals and Cromagnons migrate into Africa because of the freezing ice age temperatures further north? and then mate with the pre-human ape or monkey like people they came into contact with there,for lack of a better description,which resulted in modern humans?

This is where i was reading from...Human Evolution > en.wikipedia.org...

Genetic evidence suggests interbreeding took place with anatomically modern humans between roughly 80,000 and 50,000 years ago in the Middle East,resulting in 1–4% of the genome of people from Eurasia having been contributed by Neanderthals > en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Rocketman7


Darwinism and Evolution is a cool concept, but it does have some holes in it, its like the donut a fan favorite pastry, Darwinism a fan favorite theory, lets all agree and nod our heads. Some people prefer danishes because they have no holes in them, I heard there tasty, and comparable to a donut, but still a danish is not a donut.

Anyways, before I get off track, le yawn.
What about this tidbit from Charles Fort.

Darwin & Evolution

In mere impressionism we take our stand. We have no positive tests nor standards. Realism in art: realism in science--they pass away. In 1859, the thing to do was to accept Darwinism; now many biologists are revolting and trying to conceive of somet hing else. The thing to do was to accept it in its day, but Darwinism of course was never proved:

The fittest survive.
What is meant by the fittest?
Not the strongest; not the cleverest--
Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive.
There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing does survive.
"Fitness," then, is only another name for "survival."
Darwinism: That survivors survive.

And evolution to has holes in it, but its an evolving thing, so basically that means we will see, when we see, supposedly there's a finish line. Wish I was so naive, and that things were so simple.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

Its interesting. When we create something, it is more or less for military applications. I wonder if we are the military for the aliens.

Le sigh...

A Small Talent For War.