Neanderthal breeding idea doubted

Originally posted by Unity_99

A fossil of a human handprint, for example, was found in limestone estimated to be 110 million years old. What appears to be a fossilized human finger found in the Canadian Arctic also dates back 100 to 110 million years ago. And what appears to be the fossil of a human footprint, possibly wearing a sandal, was found near Delta, Utah in a shale deposit estimated to be 300 million to 600 million years old.[

...Humans were not even around 65 million years ago, never mind people who could work metal. So then how does science explain semi-ovoid metallic tubes dug out of 65-million-year-old Cretaceous chalk in France? In 1885, a block of coal was broken open to find a metal cube obviously worked by intelligent hands. In 1912, employees at an electric plant broke apart a large chunk of coal out of which fell an iron pot! A nail was found embedded in a sandstone block from the Mesozoic Era. And there are many, many more such anomalies.

Out of Africa coincides with Maura Biglino's statements about the annanuki labs, and at about 270 000 years ago.

Its funny how they almost put their theories into factoid and ignore other finds. Makes no sense.

We didn't all come from Africa. Not that coming from Africa is bad, but its bad science and is a control agenda to cover the truth.

So what are they hiding?

By the way, if there were other humans around, possible survivors of other catastrophes and possibly from quite advanced civilizations, Im sure they mated.

edit on 13-8-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

Well WE came from Africa, and whatever you suggest lived 100 million years ago wasn't humanoid. Your logic is basically...well since other creatures lived 100s of millions of years ago then we didn't start in Africa..i.e. no logic at all to your point...

You forgot one thing in all this Evolution...as in it never stops, so go back 5 million years ago and we were a different species that could not interbreed....go back 100 million years and we were some kind of rodent that off shoot much of the mammals on earth today.

To suggest that humanoids walked on earth 100s of millions of years ago, or even 25 million years ago is suggesting that for us and not another single life form on earth evolution has stopped.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Annee

 

I know what both those terms mean. I don't take offense to you assuming this is new to me, but I will let you know now it is not. HIV/AIDS is one of my interests.

I know you meant HIV. Using the terms interchangeably is not correct. Did you know there are cases of HIV-free AIDS?

Thanks - - no worries.

My position was the origin of the virus.

In no way do I mean to diminish the importance and significance of accuracy and details in connection to the history of this devastating virus. My mom had polio when I was 5 years old - - which was also a devastating virus.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

And the last Neanderthal just died...god rest his soul....

I dunno.

We still have Ron Perlman.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Did you know there are cases of HIV-free AIDS?

Actually that may end up being the vaccine to prevent AIDS. Once the receptors are occupied by the non-AIDS causing HIV then the other mutated forms that do cause AIDS cannot lock on to anything.

Originally posted by optimus primal

oh crap! i guess i better put on my floor straps! that theory of gravity isn't a fact!

Wow is right. Gravity is not a theory. It is one result/output of the law of attraction.

If you have to stretch to participate in the discussion you are still more than welcome.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Hmm you say that as if your stating a fact...interesting that you do that as you state a theory is not a fact...

But I digress...... a theory has facts throughout it. You statement is not a theory but a conjecture with no facts backing it up.

Annee's is a theory based on factual information that HIV started in monkeys...now if you want to say some evil NWO scientist created it and put it into monkeys...well I guess that is your conspiracy...

You are the knight in shining armor. Every lie is 80% truth as well. One man's conjecture is another man's denial. There are plenty of sources to reference the process in which AIDS was created and released into the wild.

The point that everyone continues to ignore, in order to argue about grammar and inconsequential matters, is that this thread is about another MSM article which promotes some agenda about the origins of man. They use their theories to hold sway over a guessing game.

Originally posted by zroth
The point that everyone continues to ignore, in order to argue about grammar and inconsequential matters, is that this thread is about another MSM article which promotes some agenda about the origins of man. They use their theories to hold sway over a guessing game.

Indeed, it's the MSM BBC, but it is reporting on a scientific paper. Would you characterize this article as MSM? How about this source material? Both authors have PhDs and are members of the faculty in the Department of Zoology at the University of Cambridge. They are engaged in scientific research. They have come up with an explanation of Neanderthat DNA that is different than previous explanations. Their research will be scrutinized and replicated (or not). Based on the evidence on theory or another will prevail. That's how science works.