These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Current Human Evolutionary Model Is WRONG

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Washichu May
Psilocybin Research
#61 - 2013-01-06 16:56:39 UTC
Check out Graham Hancock you fools! :)
pussnheels
Viziam
#62 - 2013-01-07 08:31:32 UTC
next thing they are going to claim is that homo sapiens actually developed in North America

Really now this gone on pretty far enough it is about time our americans friends stop beating themselves on the che'st and acknowledge there is a big world outside your country borders and that you are not always the first

the current dates are estimates and not clear stated dates

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Graygor
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2013-01-07 09:00:19 UTC
pussnheels wrote:
next thing they are going to claim is that homo sapiens actually developed in North America

Really now this gone on pretty far enough it is about time our americans friends stop beating themselves on the che'st and acknowledge there is a big world outside your country borders and that you are not always the first

the current dates are estimates and not clear stated dates


What if they discovered they evolved in Mexico? Thatd upset some people.

"I think you should buy a new Mayan calendar. Mine has muscle cars on it." - Kenneth O'Hara

"I dont think that can happen, you can see Gray has his invuln field on in his portrait." - Commissar "Cake" Kate
Thomas Gore
Blackfyre Enterprise
#64 - 2013-01-07 10:31:54 UTC
Does it matter if human civilzation took 1M or 100k or 10k years to reach this point?

What does matter is where we will be in only 1k years now, or even just 100 years.

Look back 100 years, then look only back 10 years.

The evolution of our civilization (if not ours as a species) is accelerating at an exponential rate.
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#65 - 2013-01-07 13:05:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
That leaves us with perfectly made stone arrowheads and ice age bones in ash dated MULTIPLE times at 250,000 years of age. Where do you study your science Akita? Big smile Because all the I's were dotted and all the T's crossed here. And now there is a house built on the sight.... how convenient.


I'm not calling the dating of the ash into question, I am calling the linking of the age of the ash and the tools into question.

Here's the abridged and stripped down to the essentials version.

The dig began in 1962, and was closed in 1973, after public controversy started as early as 1967.
The teams working there allegedly followed what could be called the usual protocols of the time, and also claim they generally had the site somewhat guarded, so that tampering should have been unlikely.
Only a few of the items collected and initially designated as "artifacts" were conclusively deemed to be actual remains of human-made tools and such, whereas a lot of the rest were eventually ruled out as natural occurrences, and some are under dispute.
While normally that would NOT be a problem (and actually, there are a lot of times where this is quite expected), allegedly, the local workers at the site PLANTED a significant number of evidence and mixed them with genuine artifact candidates in such a way as to make separation of planted evidence from genuine evidence highly unlikely, and thus tainting (to the point of irrelevance) the entire dig.
Basically, there's a good chance the locals wanted the archaeologists to keep on digging in the area so they could continue to get paid for working there, and thus screwed everybody else over.

Now, that does not exclude the possibility of some of those remains genuinely being man-made remains from 250k years ago, but it does explain how easily it could be that none of them are.
Given the overwhelming evidence from other directions as to when and how humans migrated, and the lack of enough sufficiently trustworthy additional evidence to support the contrary, AT THIS TIME, it would be unreasonable to assume we have the wrong idea about that, and instead tend to conclude tampering was the cause of the anomaly observed.
Again, IF we have the wrong idea, more evidence WILL eventually be found, and hopefully get handled in less questionable circumstances, so that we can conclusively say the old theories are inaccurate and need alteration.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#66 - 2013-01-07 13:40:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Did you watch that full video? I know it is long, but it covers everything that you covered and more. Nothing was planted in the ash, it was hard and packed solid. That was just an attempt to discredit the findings. If you harass low paid labor with armed guards, a few of them will end up saying anything that you want them to say.

Quote from film:"This was not a normal site where you just 'brush' sand away like in the movies. The packed ash was like a sidewalk. You can't plant something in a sidewalk and expect to fool an archeologist as they dig it back up."



Afterward, a great deal of other archeologists came to stand behind their peer and all of them supported her as ethical and said that there was no wrong doing in anything that she had done.



Regardless, there is also site 1 (from link one) that is being dated back to + 50,000 years in North America. So the story goes, one man digs up a bone in Africa and is heralded as a prince, another digs up a site in North America that is not supposed to be there and is ignored. A woman digs up a site that destroyed all preconceived notions of mankind's migration and evolution with stone tools, and she is branded a fraud and they build houses over her dig site.


True story.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#67 - 2013-01-07 14:02:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
pussnheels wrote:
next thing they are going to claim is that homo sapiens actually developed in North America

Really now this gone on pretty far enough it is about time our americans friends stop beating themselves on the che'st and acknowledge there is a big world outside your country borders and that you are not always the first


You seem mad about not being an American Big smile




Thomas Gore wrote:
Does it matter if human civilzation took 1M or 100k or 10k years to reach this point?

What does matter is where we will be in only 1k years now, or even just 100 years.

Look back 100 years, then look only back 10 years.

The evolution of our civilization (if not ours as a species) is accelerating at an exponential rate.



It's called the accurate pursuit of science. That is why it matters. Also I do not think that our species is evolving at an exponential rate. We are exactly the same now as we were thousands of years ago.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Boudacca Sangrere
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#68 - 2013-01-07 18:30:11 UTC
This is a very interesting discussion and I would like to thank everyone who has contributed as it made a veeeeerrrrrry boring evening in the hospital a lot more bearable.

A couple comments (disclaimer: trained historian here):

1.) Relevance. The initial post of the OP postulated a real paradigma shift due to these new (or newly rediscovered) findings. Sadly enough, most humans are so thouroughly ignorant of even recent history that for the vast majority, a change from the current to the new model would virtually change... nothing.

2.) Scientific discipline. In the spirited back and forth of this discussion, claims were made about scientific data, theories etc. This is of course all fine and dandy in this forum, but in order to have some credibility, it probably would not have been a bad idea to cite some of the items stated (espcially once the discussion evolved [no pun intended] due to the participation of learned folks.

3.) Orcam's razor. I think ya'll know what I mean by that. But just because something CAN be explained by your theory, does not mean it is automatically true. Maybe another, much simpler and more logical explaination is in fact closer to the truth. (this is mainly in reference about some of the Egyptian stuff).

Please carry on, I am really enjoying this : )


B.
Boudacca Sangrere
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#69 - 2013-01-07 18:40:08 UTC



...

Thomas Gore wrote:
Does it matter if human civilzation took 1M or 100k or 10k years to reach this point?

What does matter is where we will be in only 1k years now, or even just 100 years.

Look back 100 years, then look only back 10 years.

The evolution of our civilization (if not ours as a species) is accelerating at an exponential rate.



It's called the accurate pursuit of science. That is why it matters. Also I do not think that our species is evolving at an exponential rate. We are exactly the same now as we were thousands of years ago.[/quote]


Were is your evidence for this assertion?

First, I personally agree that it does (or would) matter. "To know how things were" is the prime maxime of a historian. BUT

We most certainly are NOT exactly the same as were where "thousands of years ago".

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/02/04-02.html

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/recent-human-evolution/




B.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#70 - 2013-01-07 19:34:05 UTC
Boudacca Sangrere wrote:


We most certainly are NOT exactly the same as were where "thousands of years ago".



I might suggest that genetic adaptation that protect us from disease, make us taller, darker or lighter does not effect human nature as a whole.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Boudacca Sangrere
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#71 - 2013-01-07 20:08:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Boudacca Sangrere
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Boudacca Sangrere wrote:


We most certainly are NOT exactly the same as were where "thousands of years ago".



I might suggest that genetic adaptation that protect us from disease, make us taller, darker or lighter does not effect human nature as a whole.



What IS "human nature"?

And truthfully, if evidence suggests that we do in fact change "through genetic adaptation that protects us from disease...", then in fact we fullfill the textbook requirement for evolution, do we not? I know this is getting into the realm of semantics, but "we", as "we are the same" and "human nature" might be two different things. This may very well end up being a psychological argument rather than a historic one. To which I readily admit I am not an expert in.

B.
Eurydia Vespasian
Storm Hunters
#72 - 2013-01-07 20:22:57 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Boudacca Sangrere wrote:


We most certainly are NOT exactly the same as were where "thousands of years ago".



I might suggest that genetic adaptation that protect us from disease, make us taller, darker or lighter does not effect human nature as a whole.


let's not forget the increasing uselessness of wisdom teeth, gall bladders and pinky toes! Blink
Boudacca Sangrere
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#73 - 2013-01-07 20:34:23 UTC
Eurydia Vespasian wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Boudacca Sangrere wrote:


We most certainly are NOT exactly the same as were where "thousands of years ago".



I might suggest that genetic adaptation that protect us from disease, make us taller, darker or lighter does not effect human nature as a whole.


let's not forget the increasing uselessness of wisdom teeth, gall bladders and pinky toes! Blink


Right, and also our tail. Oh wait, we got rid of that, only remnants remain. All tongue and cheekiness aside, one issue here is the difficulty humans have with time and how long things take. We tend to think in periods which we can fathom easily (lifetime?). Evolution on the other hand often takes many generations to manifest. Additionally, NEEDED traits will manifest faster then UNneeded ones will vanish.

B.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#74 - 2013-01-07 20:37:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Boudacca Sangrere wrote:


What IS "human nature"?

And truthfully, if evidence suggests that we do in fact change "through genetic adaptation that protects us from disease...", then in fact we fullfill the textbook requirement for evolution, do we not? I know this is getting into the realm of semantics, but "we", as "we are the same" and "human nature" might be two different things. This may very well end up being a psychological argument rather than a historic one. To which I readily admit I am not an expert in.

B.



This is a bit off topic, but... Big smile


I will narrow this down to one basic example, in order to keep this as short as possible and prevent an off topic long winded reply. Take for example human prejudiced. All higher mammals in the natural world exhibit the simple trait of prejudiced. yes I know, some mothers adopt offspring of other species, but putting those unusual events aside... everything, for the most part (and on average throughout a large cross section of the population) exhibits prejudiced.

From monkeys to lions, they all exhibit this trait. Anything different, lame, colored wrong, or from a different community.


Low and behold so do we. This is one element of "human nature" and it is not just the nature of us it is the nature of the very life itself that is our most basic blueprint. That is only one quality, but I figure that it would be one of the easiest to understand. We share many traits with the natural world, and these traits are shared by all lifeforms of our order and some that are many orders beneath us.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Boudacca Sangrere
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#75 - 2013-01-07 20:48:27 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Boudacca Sangrere wrote:


What IS "human nature"?

And truthfully, if evidence suggests that we do in fact change "through genetic adaptation that protects us from disease...", then in fact we fullfill the textbook requirement for evolution, do we not? I know this is getting into the realm of semantics, but "we", as "we are the same" and "human nature" might be two different things. This may very well end up being a psychological argument rather than a historic one. To which I readily admit I am not an expert in.

B.



This is a bit off topic, but... Big smile


I will narrow this down to one basic example, in order to keep this as short as possible and prevent an off topic long winded reply. Take for example human prejudiced. All higher mammals in the natural world exhibit the simple trait of prejudiced. yes I know, some mothers adopt offspring of other species, but putting those unusual events aside... everything, for the most part (and on average throughout a large cross section of the population) exhibits prejudiced.

From monkeys to lions, they all exhibit this trait. Anything different, lame, colored wrong, or from a different community.


Low and behold so do we. This is one element of "human nature" and it is not just the nature of us it is the nature of the very life itself that is our most basic blueprint. That is only one quality, but I figure that it would be one of the easiest to understand. We share many traits with the natural world, and these traits are shared by all lifeforms of our order and some that are many orders beneath us.


Agreed, completely different topic. And as much as we share many "traits" with other lifeforms, there are many which we do not. Fairness for example is an uniquely human notion, so is justice, mercy, just to name a few. But yes, this is an entirely different ball of wax and is quite far removed from the initial post
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#76 - 2013-01-07 20:51:24 UTC
Orca's return uneaten seals to the shore in their mouths and monkeys hand over tools when asked by another. This could be the beginnings of fairness and mercy... and like humans, these attributes tend to occur most in the absence of "need".

A hungry orca does not return a live seal to the shore.
A monkey in need of a tool does not hand it over.


This tends to also be true with humans as well. I say "tends" because I am being nice. Self-interest and primal urges are the dominate driving forces of our psyche.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Boudacca Sangrere
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#77 - 2013-01-07 21:13:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Boudacca Sangrere
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Orca's return uneaten seals to the shore in their mouths and monkeys hand over tools when asked by another. This could be the beginnings of fairness and mercy... and like humans, these attributes tend to occur most in the absence of "need".

A hungry orca does not return a live seal to the shore.
A monkey in need of a tool does not hand it over.


This tends to also be true with humans as well. I say "tends" because I am being nice. Self-interest and primal urges are the dominate driving forces of our psyche.


To bring this back to our original topic, why SHOULD we care then about human migration patterns (aside from satisfying a slight odor of manifest destiny)?


B.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#78 - 2013-01-07 21:33:07 UTC  |  Edited by: OfBalance
- Reject barbaric politics and live in a free society
- Learn all about the ancient human past because most productive energy is free'd up from government waste