Are Hominids really our ancestors - what about our rib-cage?

Llloyd Pye is a proponent of the "alien intervention" theory, and broadly claims that modern humans are a slave race created from hominids and aliens about 120 000 years ago.

He argues quite convincingly the we are not adapted to this planet very well at all, and then mostly only to the prime niches. Much of the planet remains a no-go area for humans.

He convinces me somewhat with the skeletal comparisons between humans and hominids.

Apparently there is not one human bone in any "pre-human" (hominid) fossil.

They were all big-boned, without a visible neck or forehead, and their rib-cages (even Neanderthal Man!) were V-shaped; thus similar to the apes.

Why is our rib-cage so different?
When did that all evolve?

Where is the real proof that hominid fossils were our ancestors?
Were they not simply the ancestors of other hominids (which Pye argues may still roam certain parts of the planet)?
Apparently the genetic material also hits a dead-end around 120 000 years ago.
Is this true? How old is the first "genetic human"?

I can't entertain all his confluence of theories in one post (they probably vary between likely and very unlikely), but
the skeletal evidence suggests that Neanderthal Man was very different to us, and some of the modern findings may be ideologically influenced.

What is pretty certain is that evolution ultimately made "pre-humans" very big, and they could take on a lion.
We could only fight them with our collective planning and weapons.
Man-to-man they were vastly superior.

From the film we have, and some of the footprints and disputed evidence, it seems that their social behavior remains different to ours.
Some recent Australopithecus findings suggest the males remained in one area, and only the females moved across valleys to the next habitat. This could explain why the Patterson footage is female.

I guess it's true that no "pre-human" skeleton has a single human bone.
And the rib-cage is very different between the V-shape in apes and pre-humans, and our rib-casing.
Yet, since we are part hominid, Pye also admits that we can interbreed with them, but generally we avoid each other.

Fascinating to think that we are not the "lords of this world", and that vast areas of the globe still remain uninhabited by humans.

Although one should view Pye's complete lecture, here is Part 2 with some relevant skeletal comparisons:


This Wikipedia link on Lloyd Pye summarizes both his theories and some critical responses:en.wikipedia.org...

Since a little kid, I always thought that we were made by aliens. How have we never found the "missing link?" It all makes sense if you look at ancient drawings, the missing link.

It is possible we were made to be slaves. maybe we just evolved way to fast, and with our nuclear weapons and everything else, maybe they just gave up. Who knows. If were meant to be slaves, I guess I dont want to find out soon, but if we were created for another reason, It would be cool to know. Hopefully were not food either lol.

Interesting also that Pye's "Intervention theory" does not deny or rule out evolution.
I think that's an important point for open-minded researchers, because we want to discover what nature gave us, and what was manipulated.

Original Post:





If he's saying things like " there is not one human bone in any "pre-human" (hominid) fossil" then he's using loaded statements.....why WOULD a pre-human have a human bone?!
You could just as easily suggest that no pre-fish fossils have fish bones!!!
The truth of the matter is that there are plenty of transitional fossils, and genetic evidence proving mans lineage.
Actually Wikipedia (believe it or not) has some really great articles on this subject....Please read this and this

The imagination wanders: did early human really fight off physically terrifying species when they moved into Eurasia?
Did we drive them from the prime land?
A clip of what it might have been like before we won.

"Hominid Attack" from the 1981 film: Quest for Fire:

reply to post by bhornbuckle75

Fair enough, but also a question of naming: apples and pears?

It is in fact Pye who questions the assumptions of labels like "pre-humans".
What is really "human" about them?

In human evolution, how quickly can it happen?
How many intermediate species could there really be in 200 000 years?
Are there "intermediate races" right now?
That was commonly believed about the Bushmen and aborigines only a few decades ago.
But I bet nobody will actually argue that now - we are clearly all Homo Sapiens.
How far will anyone take the argument on evolving (intermediate) species when applied to humans?

Even science admits most of them hominids were dead-ends, and probably not our direct ancestors.
Or, since political correctness has invaded paleontology, they just call them our "cousins" (whatever that means).

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by bhornbuckle75

 

Fair enough, but also a question of naming: apples and pears?

It is in fact Pye who questions the assumptions of labels like "pre-humans".
What is really "human" about them?

In human evolution, how quickly can it happen?
How many intermediate species could there really be in 200 000 years?
Are there "intermediate races" right now?
That was commonly believed about the Bushmen and aborigines only a few decades ago.
But I bet nobody will actually argue that now - we are clearly all Homo Sapiens.
How far will anyone take the argument on evolving (intermediate) species when applied to humans?

Even science admits most of them hominids were dead-ends, and probably not our direct ancestors.
Or, since political correctness has invaded paleontology, they just call them our "cousins" (whatever that means).

edit on 12-6-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

But it's quite clear that now days we simply have more knowledge about the subject.(mainly due to DNA research)..it has nothing at all to do with political correctness. Science has proven that genetically we really are of the same race. In fact most geneticists today believe that even the term 'race' is more or less meaningless. I've read geographic location has far more to do with genetic differences than do 'race'. For instance its been shown that there is more genetic differences between two individuals from two different continents that are of the same color, than two from the same continent that have different skin colors.

reply to post by halfoldman


So we could have been altered by others? Well, we hope they meant well.

Great Post S&F. I think Lloyd Pye asks some valid questions, I like people who think outside the grant chasing echo box that science has become.
Here's a short video of his comparing human DNA to that of primates, and discussing the problems that arise using contemporary science to account for these differences.

reply to post by bhornbuckle75

While I broadly agree with you on the commonality of Homo Sapiens (still today, many people wouldn't necessarily), "race" is a problematic term with a unique history.
The broad consensus on the topic in academia today (we are one race) is by no means set in stone.
Either way, physical variations among humans don't affect Pye's theory.
In fact, they can bolster it.

On genetic variation: What I have read is that there is more genetic difference between two neighboring villages in Africa than between the various Eurasians.
The theory is that the ancestors of these Eurasians came from small groups from Africa, and that they thus became genetic bottle-necks, or "trapped" in isolated populations.

That still doesn't effect what Pye is saying.
What one could note is that the more we have humanized "other" races, the more we have humanized pre-humans, like Neanderthals and Hominids.

reply to post by jlv70

Great clip.
Very persuasive (but how much proof?), but since I tend to agree I must add: "What did happen to the two extra chromosomes between chimps and humans?"

I went onto watch the full series of videos that you posted the video about. That was posted under the same youtuber 's account. I think the author at least tries to back things up about hominids and where humans came from. I have to mostly agree about hominids and what the sightings of big foot etc could be modern versions through evolution or lack of evolution. As to how the earth was formed. That theory is very intriging. Also I wasn't aware that plate techtonics is unique to earth. As to humane being designed ? The facts are there..and are intruging and actualy make some sense. Do I not agree 100%, but I realy enjoyed the series.

reply to post by halfoldman


1) All members of the homo genus were human. Including Neanderthal, Erectus, and even Habilis.

2) Necessity: Homo sapien sapiens, while not having the largest brain of the homo family (Neanderthal did), they (we) had the largest language center. This gave them (us) language and the ability to coordinate verbally. This allowed them (us) to hunt more effectively with weapons and brute force was no longer needed. Large muscles and bones are a waste of resources, so they were simply done away with or refined. A V-Shaped rib-cage is needed for supporting large pectoral muscles. Why do you think that Chimps have 5 times the upper body strength of humans? A mix of traits is seen in archaic humans (Homo sapien). Homo sapien sapiens do not have large pectoral muscles.

reply to post by SG-17

Thanks for once again pointing out the vast differences between humans and hominids, and this complete change of anatomy is supposed to have evolved in about 100 000 years.

From what I recall on the genome research our DNA goes back to an East African Eve about 200 000-120 000 years ago, and 60 000 on the male side. They arrived in Europe fully human, with languages and art. Others went south (the Khoisan in South Africa split 120 000 years ago).

Neanderthal man may have had a bigger brain, but that doesn't mean it was more efficient than ours.
They must have needed a bigger speech center just to produce the most rudimentary speech, because physically they weren't well equipped for speech at all.
Depending on the researcher who speculates and interprets the available evidence, it seems unlikely that we got much from them 30 000 years ago, and their "culture" produced nothing spectacular.
In their last outpost in Spain they inhabited the region with humans for 10 000 years, and they remained distinct and separate.
The idea that we evolved from them no longer seems to be accepted, and in my youth we were still taught that Neanderthals developed from Homo Heidelbergensis, and modern Europeans from them.
But not even the official theories accept that anymore.

reply to post by halfoldman


You didn't read my post. I said that we have the largest language centers. We are the only human species that is thought to be capable of speech. And yes that change in anatomy is supposed to have taken place in as little as 100,000 years. Hell "vast" changes like that can occur within 10,000 years. The average human is a little over a foot and a half taller than the average human even just 2000 years ago.

You also have to take into account that life basically moved fasted 100,000 years ago. The average human lifespan was somewhere around 30 years so children were born quickly each generation, probably around the age of 16-18. Two or even three generations could have come and gone in the entire lifespan of one generation today.

It is pretty much conclusively accepted that homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals in Europe and western Asia and that is what created the modern homo sapien sapien.

reply to post by SG-17

It is pretty conclusive that according to official theories Homo Sapiens Sapiens originated fully in East Africa and moved north (to Eurasia) and south (to Southern Africa) from there.
Neanderthals had nothing to do with it.
Those who moved south had no contact with Neanderthals at all, and are considered the oldest split from the original Eve population (the San or Bushmen).
There may have been some interbreeding 30 000 years ago when Homo Sapiens met the distantly related Neanderthals (depending on whom you ask), but the significance of this is vastly overstated.

While people can become shorter or taller, or lighter and darker, the complete change of the rib cage and the entire skeletal structure (between humans and hominids like the Neanderthals) is too great to have happened in 100 000 years according to Pye, and some would agree with him.

reply to post by halfoldman


Well Pye isn't correct. Simple as that.

reply to post by halfoldman


I love that movie Quest for fire. Don't know if it is historically accurate, but it certainly entertaining and shows what might have happened when Neanderthals came into contact with early humans.

I don't have anything against Pye, and I think some of the questions he asks are good ones.

But, the argument that we aren't well suited to our environment is a bogus one, in my opinion.

We (I use that term loosely) used to be well suited towards our environment. Our intelligence enabled us to do things greater than what our bodies alone did, so we somewhat lost those physical abilities to be successful in our environment. Our minds also allowed us to venture into places that, without it, we would never have been able to survive.

There are very few animals that you can take, and plop down anywhere on the globe and have it survive. Humans (assuming you posses the knowledge) can do this. We can go pretty much anywhere, and our intelligence allows us to survive, even though our bodies may not be "made" for that specific environment.

No other animals have that skill in the way that humans do, so it would only make sense that no other animals would live in an area where they aren't well suited to their environment. The things that effect the ability of other animals to survive and migrate around the earth, don't effect us in the same way, or to the same agree, so you can't really compare the two.

Just my opinion.

reply to post by James1982

Yeah I think he could have qualified the sentence that we aren't well suited to the earth a bit better, and I think he does as he goes along.
I think he means that without our sudden intelligence, tools, fire and clothing we are not as well developed physically to extreme environments as e.g. the hominids or Neanderthals may have been. The Neanderthals were physically well adapted to the Ice Ages, and could rely much more on their strength in dealing with predators, or hunting (being more adapted to stabbing rather than throwing spears).

Some hunter gatherers were well adapted to their environment, like the Bushmen or Aborigines.
However, they could only survive in small numbers in the extreme deserts, with well-suited technologies and skills.
In larger numbers we could only survive in the primo niches, and even tribal peoples couldn't survive outside them when they were displaced by settlers.
I saw a program recently on the supposed Orang Pandek (called '"Beast Man" natgeotv.com.au...), and the environments where these hominids survived are virtually impenetrable to humans.
Even local people don't go there, although they are slowly altering the landscape by burning the forest for farmland.
For explorers, just spending short periods in these regions is a test of endurance, and there is a constant danger of tiger attacks.
The swamps in Florida which are rumored to be the home of the "Skunk Ape" are similarly severe for humans just to navigate.
It's only when one sees these programs that it becomes clear why capturing such a creature is extremely difficult, because the environment is vast and not people friendly, and being lost and stranded there would be a death sentence for most people.
So when one considers that hominids could survive in these extreme environments, without clothes or tools, then it makes sense that physically we are not suited to all the environments on earth.