Oldest human bones found!! Even older than the previous ones, Altering History of Our Species!!!!!!!
Options
Comments
-
So basically they dont know ? and they guessin, thats all they can really do, for all we know people like us have been around for millions of years, cities could have been lost under sea and from other disasters, technology now is primitive to what Ancient Egyptians had, time goes on everything we think always becomes wrong eventually... the more you know the less you know.
-
One report on this I saw said that it was the Caucasian women who mated with the Neanderthal males. Kinda like that old movie clan of the cave bear.
It was thought that scenario, but the species was dying out and finding out in the genome the males were having reproduction issues, it was the males and females. Healthy sperm and eggs work better and only through the genome is that anyone has neanderthal dna is through female neanderthal. -
32DaysOfInfiniti wrote: »So basically they dont know ? and they guessin, thats all they can really do, for all we know people like us have been around for millions of years, cities could have been lost under sea and from other disasters, technology now is primitive to what Ancient Egyptians had, time goes on everything we think always becomes wrong eventually... the more you know the less you know.
Bet you posted this from your smart phone too. Smh -
32DaysOfInfiniti wrote: »So basically they dont know ? and they guessin, thats all they can really do, for all we know people like us have been around for millions of years, cities could have been lost under sea and from other disasters, technology now is primitive to what Ancient Egyptians had, time goes on everything we think always becomes wrong eventually... the more you know the less you know.
Bruh the entire point of excavations is to discover if the ? you're sayin' happened. I'm not sure I understand this post.
-
Oh ? they found @Cain cousin
-
@DoUwant2go2Heavenatribecalledgabi wrote: »But the earth is only 6,000 yrs old!!!!!!!1111!!!!
The seventh angel is about to sound. I hope you're ready. Amen. -
Inglewood_B wrote: »32DaysOfInfiniti wrote: »So basically they dont know ? and they guessin, thats all they can really do, for all we know people like us have been around for millions of years, cities could have been lost under sea and from other disasters, technology now is primitive to what Ancient Egyptians had, time goes on everything we think always becomes wrong eventually... the more you know the less you know.
Bet you posted this from your smart phone too. Smh
Actually he's right, but the ? kinda came out wrong lol. They keep finding ? that makes the best of the best in these so called modern times scratch their heads. Here's a perfect example. The pyramids are built out of hella huge ass stones that no machine we have now can lift. The smallest stone of the pyramids can't be lifted. But somehow, each one of these stones are stacked on top of each other reaching the size of a modern day tower. It gets weirder, the type of advanced math used in their construction supposedly wasn't found during this time. Also, the stones that were used were somehow nicely cut/shaped miles away and brought to the middle of the desert. The stones used for them can only be found miles away in a certain area. The way they were cut and shaped made them fit damn near perfectly together. Basically they cut them on some tetris block type ? before hand.They already ? knew how fit and connect each huge ass stone together damn neaer perfectly. There's no type of subsistence that keeps them in place. Just huge heavy ass stones damn near perfectly fit together. Experts who cut stones and ? for a living are in awe at the craftsmanship. They said in order to achieve this they would have had to use a diamond or a laser(huge ass ones) to make these cuts. They also use complex math in how they placed the pyramids and even lined them up damn near perfectly with a star system. It's said to achieve this you had to had flew over the area and mapped it out first. Nobody was flying back then.....where they? Many things we are so proud of today we keep discovering that it's already been done a long time ago. There's also a bunch of ? we can't do.
One of the most unexplained things besides the meaning of life. Is what is called "the black out period". Up to about 5,000 years history is in many ways documented. After that, it's bits and pieces of random unexplained mysteries. Nobody truly knows or can explain these things we keep finding beyond that point. One thing that people in all these areas always repeat. Is that some beings came from the sky/clouds/stars/moon/other planets etc etc. They either taught and helped us or did it themselves. This has baffled scientist for the longest. We keep finding all this incredible stuff in random places with pretty much no trace of documents left behind. No writing or nothing Just weird random stuff. After this we seemed to have started to regress as the years went by. Now it seems like we are rediscovering things. It's weird. -
@DoUwant2go2Heaven
So................the Garden of Eden..........Adam and eve..........WHERE DEY AT DOUGH? Which part of africa they located in? Could these bones be from any of the white/arab mans holy men? Hold up, wait, they can't be, because they are waaaaaaaay older than those religions and their stories.
-
Has man been "back to the moon" yet??
-
PILL_COSBY wrote: »@DoUwant2go2Heaven
So................the Garden of Eden..........Adam and eve..........WHERE DEY AT DOUGH? Which part of africa they located in? Could these bones be from any of the white/arab mans holy men? Hold up, wait, they can't be, because they are waaaaaaaay older than those religions and their stories.
Adam and Eve are in heaven awaiting the first resurrection which is soon about to happen because the 7th angel is about to sound.
Blessed and holy is the person who takes part in the 1st resurrection because the 2nd death has no power over them.
Amen.
-
Inglewood_B wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »But the earth is only 6,000 yrs old!!!!!!!1111!!!!
another way to look at it is if humans evolved from chimpanzees, how come human fossils predate consistently the earliest chimpanzee fossils?
We didn't man. We have a common ANCESTOR. Huge ? difference.
There was a divergence somewhere along the line that caused our bloodline to prioritize intellect so that became the adaptation that was most advantageous in the environment, hence they mated the most. multiply the most intelligent of the species mating more than the rest a few million times and here we are.
The chimp bloodline probably prioritized strength, seeing as though they are many times stronger despite being smaller
Oh yeah, arguments keep changing or adding every now and then. It was absolutely once stated we were descended from chimpanzees. It's changed now. There was a time when many people were arguing against humans being descended from chimpanzees and those anthropologists were calling people stupid and crazy and creationists/intelligent design believers for even challenging the theory. Now, it is accepted that we aren't descended from chimps, but are in the same family. Even the internet erases the history that was popular 15 years ago.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07
It was never that tho. It's always been "common ancestor".
People with poor reading comprehension and listening skills keep getting it ? up
You're wrong. Y'all ? so damn sensitive. I ain't even saying evolution didn't happen. My argument is that it was taught in schools that humans were descendants of apes and that theory has since been refined to say humans share a common ancestor with apes.
Here's the words of Darwin, but I guess someone's poor at reading comprehension and listening skills so if ur that ? up...? it you'll twist it to try to be right anyway. If you're illiterate just look at the picture below.
Darwin:
(1)If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group... we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man. (Emphasis added.) Page on darwin-online.org.uk
(2) It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee;
So, does he say point and blank that Humans parents were apes? No. He also did not state humans were not descendants from apes. But his inference states:If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group then that group gave birth to man. That has been translated now to mean some ape-like/human BUT in the 80s when I was in school that's what was taught along with the CHIMPANZEE first in that evolution chart and then HUMAN last. Were you paying attention in class? The picture was right there.
Here's scientists who leaned much more heavily on the apes before man and man from ape theories: James Burnett, Lord Mondboddo, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Linnaeus with the Systema Natura; and Delisle Anthropologists have every right to clear up former statements, just like critics who challenged their original statements have the right to point out that what was formerly said has been changed.
Now, the way some thought of chimpanzees place on the evolution map is changing.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/407705/chimps-are-more-evolved-than-humans/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ascent-of-man-human-evolution-apes-chimpanzees-lucy-australopithecus-robin-crompton-a7230371.html
These debates and info have been exhausted on AHH, so if you respond I'm giving you last word not cause you're right, but this ? is tired. Plus, watch what you saying to me. You arguing over what a teacher in elementary over 20 years ago was saying to me, me, not you Inglewood B???? Dude, you taking this ? way too seriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzjiXyQxCQ
-
PILL_COSBY wrote: »Inglewood_B wrote: »32DaysOfInfiniti wrote: »So basically they dont know ? and they guessin, thats all they can really do, for all we know people like us have been around for millions of years, cities could have been lost under sea and from other disasters, technology now is primitive to what Ancient Egyptians had, time goes on everything we think always becomes wrong eventually... the more you know the less you know.
Bet you posted this from your smart phone too. Smh
Actually he's right, but the ? kinda came out wrong lol. They keep finding ? that makes the best of the best in these so called modern times scratch their heads. Here's a perfect example. The pyramids are built out of hella huge ass stones that no machine we have now can lift. The smallest stone of the pyramids can't be lifted. But somehow, each one of these stones are stacked on top of each other reaching the size of a modern day tower. It gets weirder, the type of advanced math used in their construction supposedly wasn't found during this time. Also, the stones that were used were somehow nicely cut/shaped miles away and brought to the middle of the desert. The stones used for them can only be found miles away in a certain area. The way they were cut and shaped made them fit damn near perfectly together. Basically they cut them on some tetris block type ? before hand.They already ? knew how fit and connect each huge ass stone together damn neaer perfectly. There's no type of subsistence that keeps them in place. Just huge heavy ass stones damn near perfectly fit together. Experts who cut stones and ? for a living are in awe at the craftsmanship. They said in order to achieve this they would have had to use a diamond or a laser(huge ass ones) to make these cuts. They also use complex math in how they placed the pyramids and even lined them up damn near perfectly with a star system. It's said to achieve this you had to had flew over the area and mapped it out first. Nobody was flying back then.....where they? Many things we are so proud of today we keep discovering that it's already been done a long time ago. There's also a bunch of ? we can't do.
One of the most unexplained things besides the meaning of life. Is what is called "the black out period". Up to about 5,000 years history is in many ways documented. After that, it's bits and pieces of random unexplained mysteries. Nobody truly knows or can explain these things we keep finding beyond that point. One thing that people in all these areas always repeat. Is that some beings came from the sky/clouds/stars/moon/other planets etc etc. They either taught and helped us or did it themselves. This has baffled scientist for the longest. We keep finding all this incredible stuff in random places with pretty much no trace of documents left behind. No writing or nothing Just weird random stuff. After this we seemed to have started to regress as the years went by. Now it seems like we are rediscovering things. It's weird.
There has been advancements and other finds. Hell, they found out names and graves of the workers of the Pyramids . It's not that this couldn't be replicated, but how did they do it. Is the question without our modern technology? But there is answers to that on the walls.
They understood physics.
https://www.livescience.com/45285-how-egyptians-moved-pyramid-stones.html -
Inglewood_B wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »But the earth is only 6,000 yrs old!!!!!!!1111!!!!
another way to look at it is if humans evolved from chimpanzees, how come human fossils predate consistently the earliest chimpanzee fossils?
We didn't man. We have a common ANCESTOR. Huge ? difference.
There was a divergence somewhere along the line that caused our bloodline to prioritize intellect so that became the adaptation that was most advantageous in the environment, hence they mated the most. multiply the most intelligent of the species mating more than the rest a few million times and here we are.
The chimp bloodline probably prioritized strength, seeing as though they are many times stronger despite being smaller
Oh yeah, arguments keep changing or adding every now and then. It was absolutely once stated we were descended from chimpanzees. It's changed now. There was a time when many people were arguing against humans being descended from chimpanzees and those anthropologists were calling people stupid and crazy and creationists/intelligent design believers for even challenging the theory. Now, it is accepted that we aren't descended from chimps, but are in the same family. Even the internet erases the history that was popular 15 years ago.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07
It was never that tho. It's always been "common ancestor".
People with poor reading comprehension and listening skills keep getting it ? up
You're wrong. Y'all ? so damn sensitive. I ain't even saying evolution didn't happen. My argument is that it was taught in schools that humans were descendants of apes and that theory has since been refined to say humans share a common ancestor with apes.
Here's the words of Darwin, but I guess someone's poor at reading comprehension and listening skills so if ur that ? up...? it you'll twist it to try to be right anyway. If you're illiterate just look at the picture below.
Darwin:
(1)If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group... we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man. (Emphasis added.) Page on darwin-online.org.uk
(2) It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee;
So, does he say point and blank that Humans parents were apes? No. He also did not state humans were not descendants from apes. But his inference states:If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group then that group gave birth to man. That has been translated now to mean some ape-like/human BUT in the 80s when I was in school that's what was taught along with the CHIMPANZEE first in that evolution chart and then HUMAN last. Were you paying attention in class? The picture was right there.
Here's scientists who leaned much more heavily on the apes before man and man from ape theories: James Burnett, Lord Mondboddo, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Linnaeus with the Systema Natura; and Delisle Anthropologists have every right to clear up former statements, just like critics who challenged their original statements have the right to point out that what was formerly said has been changed.
Now, the way some thought of chimpanzees place on the evolution map is changing.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/407705/chimps-are-more-evolved-than-humans/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ascent-of-man-human-evolution-apes-chimpanzees-lucy-australopithecus-robin-crompton-a7230371.html
These debates and info have been exhausted on AHH, so if you respond I'm giving you last word not cause you're right, but this ? is tired. Plus, watch what you saying to me. You arguing over what a teacher in elementary over 20 years ago was saying to me, me, not you Inglewood B???? Dude, you taking this ? way too seriously.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzjiXyQxCQ
1800's scientists don't have the latest word on what's going on in the evolutionary science of today. Darwin only had the capacity of what he had back in those days. He didn't even know what a cell, let alone DNA is. ? Sapian Sapians and the Chimp have a common ancestor, not that we evolve from them. They were evolving with us, the chimp has a more complex hand than we do. What you were taught in the 80's was not from evolutionary scientists but a science degree or education degree wielding teacher unless I'm mistaken, but that wasn't even what was presented by people in the field. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »Inglewood_B wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »But the earth is only 6,000 yrs old!!!!!!!1111!!!!
another way to look at it is if humans evolved from chimpanzees, how come human fossils predate consistently the earliest chimpanzee fossils?
We didn't man. We have a common ANCESTOR. Huge ? difference.
There was a divergence somewhere along the line that caused our bloodline to prioritize intellect so that became the adaptation that was most advantageous in the environment, hence they mated the most. multiply the most intelligent of the species mating more than the rest a few million times and here we are.
The chimp bloodline probably prioritized strength, seeing as though they are many times stronger despite being smaller
Oh yeah, arguments keep changing or adding every now and then. It was absolutely once stated we were descended from chimpanzees. It's changed now. There was a time when many people were arguing against humans being descended from chimpanzees and those anthropologists were calling people stupid and crazy and creationists/intelligent design believers for even challenging the theory. Now, it is accepted that we aren't descended from chimps, but are in the same family. Even the internet erases the history that was popular 15 years ago.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07
It was never that tho. It's always been "common ancestor".
People with poor reading comprehension and listening skills keep getting it ? up
You're wrong. Y'all ? so damn sensitive. I ain't even saying evolution didn't happen. My argument is that it was taught in schools that humans were descendants of apes and that theory has since been refined to say humans share a common ancestor with apes.
Here's the words of Darwin, but I guess someone's poor at reading comprehension and listening skills so if ur that ? up...? it you'll twist it to try to be right anyway. If you're illiterate just look at the picture below.
Darwin:
(1)If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group... we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man. (Emphasis added.) Page on darwin-online.org.uk
(2) It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee;
So, does he say point and blank that Humans parents were apes? No. He also did not state humans were not descendants from apes. But his inference states:If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group then that group gave birth to man. That has been translated now to mean some ape-like/human BUT in the 80s when I was in school that's what was taught along with the CHIMPANZEE first in that evolution chart and then HUMAN last. Were you paying attention in class? The picture was right there.
Here's scientists who leaned much more heavily on the apes before man and man from ape theories: James Burnett, Lord Mondboddo, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Linnaeus with the Systema Natura; and Delisle Anthropologists have every right to clear up former statements, just like critics who challenged their original statements have the right to point out that what was formerly said has been changed.
Now, the way some thought of chimpanzees place on the evolution map is changing.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/407705/chimps-are-more-evolved-than-humans/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ascent-of-man-human-evolution-apes-chimpanzees-lucy-australopithecus-robin-crompton-a7230371.html
These debates and info have been exhausted on AHH, so if you respond I'm giving you last word not cause you're right, but this ? is tired. Plus, watch what you saying to me. You arguing over what a teacher in elementary over 20 years ago was saying to me, me, not you Inglewood B???? Dude, you taking this ? way too seriously.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzjiXyQxCQ
1800's scientists don't have the latest word on what's going on in the evolutionary science of today. Darwin only had the capacity of what he had back in those days. He didn't even know what a cell, let alone DNA is. ? Sapian Sapians and the Chimp have a common ancestor, not that we evolve from them. They were evolving with us, the chimp has a more complex hand than we do. What you were taught in the 80's was not from evolutionary scientists but a science degree or education degree wielding teacher unless I'm mistaken, but that wasn't even what was presented by people in the field.
wording.
the first cell was discovered in the 1600s. Darwin believed that a common heritable trait was passed along that enabled species to survive and multiply. that trait had to modify over time in order for a species to adapt. he had a concept of way more than his time. to say Darwin knew nothing is incorrect. he had a theory but didn't have a model. genetics was discovered before Darwin died and these are the basis for DNA. DNA according to the scientific world proved his theory.
now here is the problem with any type of evolution theory that dates back 100k+ years. DNA would have to be preserved in a vacuum and if not it will disappear. it doesn't last forever. if frozen in antartica DNA might be able to go back 80k years (so they say). Normally DNA is good for 500 years. so its no real way to connect us or any of these fossils found to any living creature now. they do things like trying to recreate the skull. the skull looks like a monkey human mix then he must be related to both of us. nope I will pass on that.
then there is radio dating. that's done assuming the ratio of c14 to c12 has always been same. if we believe in science and things like the ice age and stuff like that then no one knows the ratio before that time so how can someone say a fossil is 300k years old?
u are basically agreeing with the dude and then saying he had no knowledge of what he was talking about. -
semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »Inglewood_B wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »But the earth is only 6,000 yrs old!!!!!!!1111!!!!
another way to look at it is if humans evolved from chimpanzees, how come human fossils predate consistently the earliest chimpanzee fossils?
We didn't man. We have a common ANCESTOR. Huge ? difference.
There was a divergence somewhere along the line that caused our bloodline to prioritize intellect so that became the adaptation that was most advantageous in the environment, hence they mated the most. multiply the most intelligent of the species mating more than the rest a few million times and here we are.
The chimp bloodline probably prioritized strength, seeing as though they are many times stronger despite being smaller
Oh yeah, arguments keep changing or adding every now and then. It was absolutely once stated we were descended from chimpanzees. It's changed now. There was a time when many people were arguing against humans being descended from chimpanzees and those anthropologists were calling people stupid and crazy and creationists/intelligent design believers for even challenging the theory. Now, it is accepted that we aren't descended from chimps, but are in the same family. Even the internet erases the history that was popular 15 years ago.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07
It was never that tho. It's always been "common ancestor".
People with poor reading comprehension and listening skills keep getting it ? up
You're wrong. Y'all ? so damn sensitive. I ain't even saying evolution didn't happen. My argument is that it was taught in schools that humans were descendants of apes and that theory has since been refined to say humans share a common ancestor with apes.
Here's the words of Darwin, but I guess someone's poor at reading comprehension and listening skills so if ur that ? up...? it you'll twist it to try to be right anyway. If you're illiterate just look at the picture below.
Darwin:
(1)If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group... we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man. (Emphasis added.) Page on darwin-online.org.uk
(2) It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee;
So, does he say point and blank that Humans parents were apes? No. He also did not state humans were not descendants from apes. But his inference states:If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group then that group gave birth to man. That has been translated now to mean some ape-like/human BUT in the 80s when I was in school that's what was taught along with the CHIMPANZEE first in that evolution chart and then HUMAN last. Were you paying attention in class? The picture was right there.
Here's scientists who leaned much more heavily on the apes before man and man from ape theories: James Burnett, Lord Mondboddo, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Linnaeus with the Systema Natura; and Delisle Anthropologists have every right to clear up former statements, just like critics who challenged their original statements have the right to point out that what was formerly said has been changed.
Now, the way some thought of chimpanzees place on the evolution map is changing.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/407705/chimps-are-more-evolved-than-humans/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ascent-of-man-human-evolution-apes-chimpanzees-lucy-australopithecus-robin-crompton-a7230371.html
These debates and info have been exhausted on AHH, so if you respond I'm giving you last word not cause you're right, but this ? is tired. Plus, watch what you saying to me. You arguing over what a teacher in elementary over 20 years ago was saying to me, me, not you Inglewood B???? Dude, you taking this ? way too seriously.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzjiXyQxCQ
1800's scientists don't have the latest word on what's going on in the evolutionary science of today. Darwin only had the capacity of what he had back in those days. He didn't even know what a cell, let alone DNA is. ? Sapian Sapians and the Chimp have a common ancestor, not that we evolve from them. They were evolving with us, the chimp has a more complex hand than we do. What you were taught in the 80's was not from evolutionary scientists but a science degree or education degree wielding teacher unless I'm mistaken, but that wasn't even what was presented by people in the field.
wording.
the first cell was discovered in the 1600s. Darwin believed that a common heritable trait was passed along that enabled species to survive and multiply. that trait had to modify over time in order for a species to adapt. he had a concept of way more than his time. to say Darwin knew nothing is incorrect. he had a theory but didn't have a model. genetics was discovered before Darwin died and these are the basis for DNA. DNA according to the scientific world proved his theory.
now here is the problem with any type of evolution theory that dates back 100k+ years. DNA would have to be preserved in a vacuum and if not it will disappear. it doesn't last forever. if frozen in antartica DNA might be able to go back 80k years (so they say). Normally DNA is good for 500 years. so its no real way to connect us or any of these fossils found to any living creature now. they do things like trying to recreate the skull. the skull looks like a monkey human mix then he must be related to both of us. nope I will pass on that.
then there is radio dating. that's done assuming the ratio of c14 to c12 has always been same. if we believe in science and things like the ice age and stuff like that then no one knows the ratio before that time so how can someone say a fossil is 300k years old?
u are basically agreeing with the dude and then saying he had no knowledge of what he was talking about.
I didn't say Darwin didn't know anything, I'm stating the information that came after him he would know nothing about. It's like my Great Grandfather on my mother side knowing what the internet is. He died way before it was created, he couldn't possibly know.
You were right on Cell *dap* you got me on that one.
Here are a list of the dating methods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_dating
They can detect DNA left in soil.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/no-bones-no-problem-dna-left-cave-soils-can-reveal-ancient-human-occupants -
I don't see the incentive for the emphatic truth about the origin of man to be communicated to any of us not in the upper echelons of power.
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »Inglewood_B wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »But the earth is only 6,000 yrs old!!!!!!!1111!!!!
another way to look at it is if humans evolved from chimpanzees, how come human fossils predate consistently the earliest chimpanzee fossils?
We didn't man. We have a common ANCESTOR. Huge ? difference.
There was a divergence somewhere along the line that caused our bloodline to prioritize intellect so that became the adaptation that was most advantageous in the environment, hence they mated the most. multiply the most intelligent of the species mating more than the rest a few million times and here we are.
The chimp bloodline probably prioritized strength, seeing as though they are many times stronger despite being smaller
Oh yeah, arguments keep changing or adding every now and then. It was absolutely once stated we were descended from chimpanzees. It's changed now. There was a time when many people were arguing against humans being descended from chimpanzees and those anthropologists were calling people stupid and crazy and creationists/intelligent design believers for even challenging the theory. Now, it is accepted that we aren't descended from chimps, but are in the same family. Even the internet erases the history that was popular 15 years ago.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07
It was never that tho. It's always been "common ancestor".
People with poor reading comprehension and listening skills keep getting it ? up
You're wrong. Y'all ? so damn sensitive. I ain't even saying evolution didn't happen. My argument is that it was taught in schools that humans were descendants of apes and that theory has since been refined to say humans share a common ancestor with apes.
Here's the words of Darwin, but I guess someone's poor at reading comprehension and listening skills so if ur that ? up...? it you'll twist it to try to be right anyway. If you're illiterate just look at the picture below.
Darwin:
(1)If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group... we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man. (Emphasis added.) Page on darwin-online.org.uk
(2) It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee;
So, does he say point and blank that Humans parents were apes? No. He also did not state humans were not descendants from apes. But his inference states:If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group then that group gave birth to man. That has been translated now to mean some ape-like/human BUT in the 80s when I was in school that's what was taught along with the CHIMPANZEE first in that evolution chart and then HUMAN last. Were you paying attention in class? The picture was right there.
Here's scientists who leaned much more heavily on the apes before man and man from ape theories: James Burnett, Lord Mondboddo, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Linnaeus with the Systema Natura; and Delisle Anthropologists have every right to clear up former statements, just like critics who challenged their original statements have the right to point out that what was formerly said has been changed.
Now, the way some thought of chimpanzees place on the evolution map is changing.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/407705/chimps-are-more-evolved-than-humans/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ascent-of-man-human-evolution-apes-chimpanzees-lucy-australopithecus-robin-crompton-a7230371.html
These debates and info have been exhausted on AHH, so if you respond I'm giving you last word not cause you're right, but this ? is tired. Plus, watch what you saying to me. You arguing over what a teacher in elementary over 20 years ago was saying to me, me, not you Inglewood B???? Dude, you taking this ? way too seriously.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzjiXyQxCQ
1800's scientists don't have the latest word on what's going on in the evolutionary science of today. Darwin only had the capacity of what he had back in those days. He didn't even know what a cell, let alone DNA is. ? Sapian Sapians and the Chimp have a common ancestor, not that we evolve from them. They were evolving with us, the chimp has a more complex hand than we do. What you were taught in the 80's was not from evolutionary scientists but a science degree or education degree wielding teacher unless I'm mistaken, but that wasn't even what was presented by people in the field.
wording.
the first cell was discovered in the 1600s. Darwin believed that a common heritable trait was passed along that enabled species to survive and multiply. that trait had to modify over time in order for a species to adapt. he had a concept of way more than his time. to say Darwin knew nothing is incorrect. he had a theory but didn't have a model. genetics was discovered before Darwin died and these are the basis for DNA. DNA according to the scientific world proved his theory.
now here is the problem with any type of evolution theory that dates back 100k+ years. DNA would have to be preserved in a vacuum and if not it will disappear. it doesn't last forever. if frozen in antartica DNA might be able to go back 80k years (so they say). Normally DNA is good for 500 years. so its no real way to connect us or any of these fossils found to any living creature now. they do things like trying to recreate the skull. the skull looks like a monkey human mix then he must be related to both of us. nope I will pass on that.
then there is radio dating. that's done assuming the ratio of c14 to c12 has always been same. if we believe in science and things like the ice age and stuff like that then no one knows the ratio before that time so how can someone say a fossil is 300k years old?
u are basically agreeing with the dude and then saying he had no knowledge of what he was talking about.
I didn't say Darwin didn't know anything, I'm stating the information that came after him he would know nothing about. It's like my Great Grandfather on my mother side knowing what the internet is. He died way before it was created, he couldn't possibly know.
You were right on Cell *dap* you got me on that one.
Here are a list of the dating methods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_dating
They can detect DNA left in soil.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/no-bones-no-problem-dna-left-cave-soils-can-reveal-ancient-human-occupants
like I said I don't believe in the dating methods. radio dating is an absolute method as ur link pointed out and for me it doesn't matter if its carbon or anything else there is no way to say things were the same 100k years ago.
that dna in soil link is fairly new. I will let the science folks fight it out although I already have my own feelings about it. -
semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »Inglewood_B wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »But the earth is only 6,000 yrs old!!!!!!!1111!!!!
another way to look at it is if humans evolved from chimpanzees, how come human fossils predate consistently the earliest chimpanzee fossils?
We didn't man. We have a common ANCESTOR. Huge ? difference.
There was a divergence somewhere along the line that caused our bloodline to prioritize intellect so that became the adaptation that was most advantageous in the environment, hence they mated the most. multiply the most intelligent of the species mating more than the rest a few million times and here we are.
The chimp bloodline probably prioritized strength, seeing as though they are many times stronger despite being smaller
Oh yeah, arguments keep changing or adding every now and then. It was absolutely once stated we were descended from chimpanzees. It's changed now. There was a time when many people were arguing against humans being descended from chimpanzees and those anthropologists were calling people stupid and crazy and creationists/intelligent design believers for even challenging the theory. Now, it is accepted that we aren't descended from chimps, but are in the same family. Even the internet erases the history that was popular 15 years ago.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07
It was never that tho. It's always been "common ancestor".
People with poor reading comprehension and listening skills keep getting it ? up
You're wrong. Y'all ? so damn sensitive. I ain't even saying evolution didn't happen. My argument is that it was taught in schools that humans were descendants of apes and that theory has since been refined to say humans share a common ancestor with apes.
Here's the words of Darwin, but I guess someone's poor at reading comprehension and listening skills so if ur that ? up...? it you'll twist it to try to be right anyway. If you're illiterate just look at the picture below.
Darwin:
(1)If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group... we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man. (Emphasis added.) Page on darwin-online.org.uk
(2) It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee;
So, does he say point and blank that Humans parents were apes? No. He also did not state humans were not descendants from apes. But his inference states:If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group then that group gave birth to man. That has been translated now to mean some ape-like/human BUT in the 80s when I was in school that's what was taught along with the CHIMPANZEE first in that evolution chart and then HUMAN last. Were you paying attention in class? The picture was right there.
Here's scientists who leaned much more heavily on the apes before man and man from ape theories: James Burnett, Lord Mondboddo, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Linnaeus with the Systema Natura; and Delisle Anthropologists have every right to clear up former statements, just like critics who challenged their original statements have the right to point out that what was formerly said has been changed.
Now, the way some thought of chimpanzees place on the evolution map is changing.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/407705/chimps-are-more-evolved-than-humans/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ascent-of-man-human-evolution-apes-chimpanzees-lucy-australopithecus-robin-crompton-a7230371.html
These debates and info have been exhausted on AHH, so if you respond I'm giving you last word not cause you're right, but this ? is tired. Plus, watch what you saying to me. You arguing over what a teacher in elementary over 20 years ago was saying to me, me, not you Inglewood B???? Dude, you taking this ? way too seriously.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzjiXyQxCQ
1800's scientists don't have the latest word on what's going on in the evolutionary science of today. Darwin only had the capacity of what he had back in those days. He didn't even know what a cell, let alone DNA is. ? Sapian Sapians and the Chimp have a common ancestor, not that we evolve from them. They were evolving with us, the chimp has a more complex hand than we do. What you were taught in the 80's was not from evolutionary scientists but a science degree or education degree wielding teacher unless I'm mistaken, but that wasn't even what was presented by people in the field.
wording.
the first cell was discovered in the 1600s. Darwin believed that a common heritable trait was passed along that enabled species to survive and multiply. that trait had to modify over time in order for a species to adapt. he had a concept of way more than his time. to say Darwin knew nothing is incorrect. he had a theory but didn't have a model. genetics was discovered before Darwin died and these are the basis for DNA. DNA according to the scientific world proved his theory.
now here is the problem with any type of evolution theory that dates back 100k+ years. DNA would have to be preserved in a vacuum and if not it will disappear. it doesn't last forever. if frozen in antartica DNA might be able to go back 80k years (so they say). Normally DNA is good for 500 years. so its no real way to connect us or any of these fossils found to any living creature now. they do things like trying to recreate the skull. the skull looks like a monkey human mix then he must be related to both of us. nope I will pass on that.
then there is radio dating. that's done assuming the ratio of c14 to c12 has always been same. if we believe in science and things like the ice age and stuff like that then no one knows the ratio before that time so how can someone say a fossil is 300k years old?
u are basically agreeing with the dude and then saying he had no knowledge of what he was talking about.
I didn't say Darwin didn't know anything, I'm stating the information that came after him he would know nothing about. It's like my Great Grandfather on my mother side knowing what the internet is. He died way before it was created, he couldn't possibly know.
You were right on Cell *dap* you got me on that one.
Here are a list of the dating methods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_dating
They can detect DNA left in soil.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/no-bones-no-problem-dna-left-cave-soils-can-reveal-ancient-human-occupants
like I said I don't believe in the dating methods. radio dating is an absolute method as ur link pointed out and for me it doesn't matter if its carbon or anything else there is no way to say things were the same 100k years ago.
that dna in soil link is fairly new. I will let the science folks fight it out although I already have my own feelings about it.
Feelings are kind of out of the scientific realm. It's not about feelings though and we developed innovated ways to uncover new ways of getting evidence. It's the realm of science, this is why we have engineers.
I pointed that Radio Carbon dating isn't the only one, there are other dating methods that don't use carbon. -
leftcoastkev wrote: »I don't see the incentive for the emphatic truth about the origin of man to be communicated to any of us not in the upper echelons of power.
It's to understand our origins and it can also help us with understanding the different biological issues as well. -
I respect ur views. u do research and that's whats up.
feelings are very much apart of the scientific realm. science doesn't tell u what to do with the data collected. feelings and personal bias tells u what to do with the data. if u want to prove Darwin's theory u will present the data that supports the claim.
I get carbon is not the only method used but they all have the same belief and none of them really deal with how an isotope can be inherited from the environment. they all follow the assumption that the isotope remained the same. in fact im sure u know but most folks here probably don't realize that the normal practice is not to date the fossil but to date the rock above and below. I mentioned carbon because it was the end all be all standard for so long until someone said well why don't diamonds and coal change over time? then they had to scramble and find other dating methods to support their feelings. all the dating methods are flawed because they have no reliable constant to compare.
dna is flawed. they we tell u that we all have Neanderthal dna in us. they were drawing blood back then? how the hell did they get Neanderthal dna? that is just an explanation for the unknown dna in all of us.
the only evolution I believe in is the brain. its pretty much the last frontier. we don't know much about our brain and what we can do. I believe that we have gotten smarter over time. in some ways we have gotten to smart for our own good.
I aint come from no monkey. I aint related to no monkey or primate or anything else. I came from a man. a man that always had 10 digits on his hand and 10 on his feet. he might have been barefoot but he always walked upright
on those bare feet. I may have evolved but I did so mentally. -
jetlifebih wrote: »Has man been "back to the moon" yet??
Bruh, this is just another theory , not a proven fact. I heard about this a few years ago. Huge problem with this, HOW THE ? DID THEY STACK THEM AND DAMN NEAR PERFECTLY SHAPE THEM TO FIT SNUG LIKE LEGOS? Also like I said before, the stones are solid rock that was professionally shaped and cut miles away from the site. We can't even move the smallest stone on the pyramids with the ? we have today. Each stone weighs TONES!. To cut and shape these stones as good as they are. They would have to have a huge powerful laser or diamond. Second, who or what the ? can move over 100 of these ? from miles away? NO THIS CAN'T BE REPLICATED because we would have done it already, it's been hundreds of years now. I mean how did they get all this highly advanced math right with such a huge structure/s? You had to have had an overhead view to map out the way they lined the pyramids up. Also the pyramids were lined with thin sheets of gold at one point. Something that wasn't "supposed" to be possible back then. The mysteries aren't just about it's building. The inside is full of paintings and professionally made rooms/doors. The areas where most of this is located is deep within the pyramids. There's not enough air to keep a torch lit. They also haven't found any signs whatsoever of one being lit in there. So how the ? could they see in there? Besides electricity, we have tried everything you can think of to get light in there and failed.Ajackson17 wrote: »PILL_COSBY wrote: »Inglewood_B wrote: »32DaysOfInfiniti wrote: »So basically they dont know ? and they guessin, thats all they can really do, for all we know people like us have been around for millions of years, cities could have been lost under sea and from other disasters, technology now is primitive to what Ancient Egyptians had, time goes on everything we think always becomes wrong eventually... the more you know the less you know.
Bet you posted this from your smart phone too. Smh
Actually he's right, but the ? kinda came out wrong lol. They keep finding ? that makes the best of the best in these so called modern times scratch their heads. Here's a perfect example. The pyramids are built out of hella huge ass stones that no machine we have now can lift. The smallest stone of the pyramids can't be lifted. But somehow, each one of these stones are stacked on top of each other reaching the size of a modern day tower. It gets weirder, the type of advanced math used in their construction supposedly wasn't found during this time. Also, the stones that were used were somehow nicely cut/shaped miles away and brought to the middle of the desert. The stones used for them can only be found miles away in a certain area. The way they were cut and shaped made them fit damn near perfectly together. Basically they cut them on some tetris block type ? before hand.They already ? knew how fit and connect each huge ass stone together damn neaer perfectly. There's no type of subsistence that keeps them in place. Just huge heavy ass stones damn near perfectly fit together. Experts who cut stones and ? for a living are in awe at the craftsmanship. They said in order to achieve this they would have had to use a diamond or a laser(huge ass ones) to make these cuts. They also use complex math in how they placed the pyramids and even lined them up damn near perfectly with a star system. It's said to achieve this you had to had flew over the area and mapped it out first. Nobody was flying back then.....where they? Many things we are so proud of today we keep discovering that it's already been done a long time ago. There's also a bunch of ? we can't do.
One of the most unexplained things besides the meaning of life. Is what is called "the black out period". Up to about 5,000 years history is in many ways documented. After that, it's bits and pieces of random unexplained mysteries. Nobody truly knows or can explain these things we keep finding beyond that point. One thing that people in all these areas always repeat. Is that some beings came from the sky/clouds/stars/moon/other planets etc etc. They either taught and helped us or did it themselves. This has baffled scientist for the longest. We keep finding all this incredible stuff in random places with pretty much no trace of documents left behind. No writing or nothing Just weird random stuff. After this we seemed to have started to regress as the years went by. Now it seems like we are rediscovering things. It's weird.
There has been advancements and other finds. Hell, they found out names and graves of the workers of the Pyramids . It's not that this couldn't be replicated, but how did they do it. Is the question without our modern technology? But there is answers to that on the walls.
They understood physics.
https://www.livescience.com/45285-how-egyptians-moved-pyramid-stones.html
Yeah, they understood physics. Physics we know nothing about or can't comprehend. The big theory now is "anti gravity". Because this is the only thing that makes sense(Outside beings from space helping them like they said). They've been working on this for years now and they had minor breakthroughs. Anti gravity theory is to make something heavy and solid light as a feather. With this, you can do almost anything. The pyramids aren't the only monoliths that parts of it are unmovable. Almost all of them around the world have the same weird scenarios surrounding them as well.
- building blocks for the structure made hella far away from the site
- Only can be built if you had a view from high in the sky
- The people who built them vanished or left little behind and can't be found
- No trace of tools that had to be used to make these great structures
- High levels of math to create them
- High level advanced alchemy
- Something that can lift hella tons and place them snugly together
- Nobody truly knows how they got there. Except for stories about aliens/gods helping them, teaching them, or doing it themselves.
-
PILL_COSBY wrote: »jetlifebih wrote: »Has man been "back to the moon" yet??
Bruh, this is just another theory , not a proven fact. I heard about this a few years ago. Huge problem with this, HOW THE ? DID THEY STACK THEM AND DAMN NEAR PERFECTLY SHAPE THEM TO FIT SNUG LIKE LEGOS? Also like I said before, the stones are solid rock that was professionally shaped and cut miles away from the site. We can't even move the smallest stone on the pyramids with the ? we have today. Each stone weighs TONES!. To cut and shape these stones as good as they are. They would have to have a huge powerful laser or diamond. Second, who or what the ? can move over 100 of these ? from miles away? NO THIS CAN'T BE REPLICATED because we would have done it already, it's been hundreds of years now. I mean how did they get all this highly advanced math right with such a huge structure/s? You had to have had an overhead view to map out the way they lined the pyramids up. Also the pyramids were lined with thin sheets of gold at one point. Something that wasn't "supposed" to be possible back then. The mysteries aren't just about it's building. The inside is full of paintings and professionally made rooms/doors. The areas where most of this is located is deep within the pyramids. There's not enough air to keep a torch lit. They also haven't found any signs whatsoever of one being lit in there. So how the ? could they see in there? Besides electricity, we have tried everything you can think of to get light in there and failed.Ajackson17 wrote: »PILL_COSBY wrote: »Inglewood_B wrote: »32DaysOfInfiniti wrote: »So basically they dont know ? and they guessin, thats all they can really do, for all we know people like us have been around for millions of years, cities could have been lost under sea and from other disasters, technology now is primitive to what Ancient Egyptians had, time goes on everything we think always becomes wrong eventually... the more you know the less you know.
Bet you posted this from your smart phone too. Smh
Actually he's right, but the ? kinda came out wrong lol. They keep finding ? that makes the best of the best in these so called modern times scratch their heads. Here's a perfect example. The pyramids are built out of hella huge ass stones that no machine we have now can lift. The smallest stone of the pyramids can't be lifted. But somehow, each one of these stones are stacked on top of each other reaching the size of a modern day tower. It gets weirder, the type of advanced math used in their construction supposedly wasn't found during this time. Also, the stones that were used were somehow nicely cut/shaped miles away and brought to the middle of the desert. The stones used for them can only be found miles away in a certain area. The way they were cut and shaped made them fit damn near perfectly together. Basically they cut them on some tetris block type ? before hand.They already ? knew how fit and connect each huge ass stone together damn neaer perfectly. There's no type of subsistence that keeps them in place. Just huge heavy ass stones damn near perfectly fit together. Experts who cut stones and ? for a living are in awe at the craftsmanship. They said in order to achieve this they would have had to use a diamond or a laser(huge ass ones) to make these cuts. They also use complex math in how they placed the pyramids and even lined them up damn near perfectly with a star system. It's said to achieve this you had to had flew over the area and mapped it out first. Nobody was flying back then.....where they? Many things we are so proud of today we keep discovering that it's already been done a long time ago. There's also a bunch of ? we can't do.
One of the most unexplained things besides the meaning of life. Is what is called "the black out period". Up to about 5,000 years history is in many ways documented. After that, it's bits and pieces of random unexplained mysteries. Nobody truly knows or can explain these things we keep finding beyond that point. One thing that people in all these areas always repeat. Is that some beings came from the sky/clouds/stars/moon/other planets etc etc. They either taught and helped us or did it themselves. This has baffled scientist for the longest. We keep finding all this incredible stuff in random places with pretty much no trace of documents left behind. No writing or nothing Just weird random stuff. After this we seemed to have started to regress as the years went by. Now it seems like we are rediscovering things. It's weird.
There has been advancements and other finds. Hell, they found out names and graves of the workers of the Pyramids . It's not that this couldn't be replicated, but how did they do it. Is the question without our modern technology? But there is answers to that on the walls.
They understood physics.
https://www.livescience.com/45285-how-egyptians-moved-pyramid-stones.html
Yeah, they understood physics. Physics we know nothing about or can't comprehend. The big theory now is "anti gravity". Because this is the only thing that makes sense(Outside beings from space helping them like they said). They've been working on this for years now and they had minor breakthroughs. Anti gravity theory is to make something heavy and solid light as a feather. With this, you can do almost anything. The pyramids aren't the only monoliths that parts of it are unmovable. Almost all of them around the world have the same weird scenarios surrounding them as well.
- building blocks for the structure made hella far away from the site
- Only can be built if you had a view from high in the sky
- The people who built them vanished or left little behind and can't be found
- No trace of tools that had to be used to make these great structures
- High levels of math to create them
- High level advanced alchemy
- Something that can lift hella tons and place them snugly together
- Nobody truly knows how they got there. Except for stories about aliens/gods helping them, teaching them, or doing it themselves.
Look on the walls bro. Sheesh they recorded everything. -
-
DMX Voice: Here We Go Again!
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »
LOL again "likely", it's a ? theory! Don't you think if we figured it out already it would have been all on the news? What did they use to cut/shape the massive stones so nicely? Do you know how many ? stones make up the pyramids? They walked and pulled the ? from miles away in the hot ass desert bruh? That ? would take forever. Plus there would be all kinds of evidence left over after doing that. Still doesn't answer ? , and we still stuck. We can't do it point blank period. How did they stack them? You can't drag them ? uphill even using that sand water trick. Gravity will stop that right away. You know how tall the pyramids are? The pyramids are built like how you would build something with legos. They cut each massive stone to fit tightly together damn near perfectly. You can't even get a sheet of paper in between the stones. It's almost like a giant put them together. They were using advanced geometry to figure all this out.
Bruh, the pyramids aren't just a bunch on stones put together. They were built using unknown very advanced architecture. It required high levels of math, something like powerful diamonds or lasers(like we use today) to cut/shape the stones, a shitload of man power, and an overhead view of the land etc etc. But you know what's funny? There has been no trace of any tools that can do this found in hundreds of years. We can't do this with the tools we have now. No advanced math written down anywhere. No kind of signs of ? loads of people building in that area whatsoever.
https://youtu.be/hRvtVrXcC3Y