1
   

Two original basic human groups?

 
 
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 09:03 am
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?88923-The-two-basic-human-groups

Quote:

Compared to other animals, humans have very little genetic diversity, e.g.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/skin-color/modern-human-diversity-genetics

Quote:
People today look remarkably diverse on the outside. But how much of this diversity is genetically encoded? How deep are these differences between human groups? First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse – a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution. For example, the subspecies of the chimpanzee that lives just in central Africa, Pan troglodytes troglodytes, has higher levels of diversity than do humans globally, and the genetic differentiation between the western (P. t. verus) and central (P. t. troglodytes) subspecies of chimpanzees is much greater than that between human populations.


I've read at least one claim that there is less diversity in the entire human race than in a typical group of 40 African monkeys of the same species, although that sort of quote is the kind of thing which you'd never find when looking for it...

This lack of diversity is generally attributed to a population bottleneck of sorts which most scholars place around 45,000 years ago, some claiming there may have been as few as 50 modern humans on the planet at that time. Nonetheless, those claims generally assume some sort of a transition from "early modern humans(TM)" (meaning gracile hominids) to Cro Magnon humans at that time.

Is that really believable, or did Cro Magnon people simply arrive here at that time and begin replacing ALL hominids, gracile and otherwise? One thing scholars all agree on is that whatever caused Cro Magnon people to appear on this planet when they did was not gradual. Danny Vendramini ("Them and Us") notes:

Quote:
“The speed of the Upper Palaeolithic revolution in the Levant was also breathtaking. Anthropologists Ofer Bar-Yosef and Bernard Vandermeersch:

Quote:
“Between 40,000 and 45,000 years ago the material culture of western Eurasia changed more than it had during the previous million years. This efflorescence of technological and artistic creativity signifies the emergence of the first culture that observers today would recognise as distinctly human, marked as it was by unceasing invention and variety. During that brief period of 5,000 or so years, the stone tool kit, unchanged in its essential form for ages, suddenly began to differentiate wildly from century to century and from region to region. Why it happened and why it happened when it did constitute two of the greatest outstanding problems in paleoanthropology.”



Likewise Dwardu Cardona ("Flare Star"):
Quote:

"Where and how the Cro-Magnons first arose remains unknown. Their appearance, however, coincided with the most bitter phase of the ice age. There is, however, no doubt that they were more advanced, more sophisticated, than the Neanderthals with whom they shared the land. Living in larger and more organized groups than had earlier humans, Cro Magnon peoples spread out until they populated most of the world. Their tools, made of bone, stone, and even wood, were carved into harpoons, awls, and fish hooks. They were presumably able hunters although, as with the Neanderthals, they would also have foraged to gather edible plants, roots, and wild vegetables. The only problem here is that,as far as can be told, the Cro Magnons seem to have arrived on the scene without leaving a single trace of their evolutionary ancestors. (emphasis ours)
Quote:

'When the first Cro Magnons arrived in Europe some 40,000 years ago', Ian Tattersall observed, 'they evidently brought with them more or less the entire panoply of behaviors that distinguishes modern humans from every other species that has ever existed.'"



All of that is consistent with thinking that Cro Magnon man CAME to this planet 45,000 years ago or however long ago that was, and it is not consistent with thinking that man evolved from hominids.

In fact the huge eyes of the oldest groups of creatures on this planet, including dinosaurs and hominids, indicate that this planet was originally an exceedingly dark sort of place. Humans, with the smallest eyes relative to body size of advanced creatures could not have come from such a place.

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=184900

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/dinox_zps75ecfb2e.jpg

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/neanderthals-large-eyes-led-to-their-downfall-says-study-8532539.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8442939.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/v3-Neanderthal+skull.jpg

Those were the kinds of eyes you needed when "darkness was upon the face of the deep"...

Cro Magnons and their descendants are one of what I'd view as the two basic human groups, the other being the familliar antediluvian people of the Bible. The difference has nothing to do with race or color, either group is capable of producing any color or feature you'd ever see in humans. Japanese Ainu, who most view as white, and Australian Aborigines who most view as black, are both Cro Magnon descendants.

The two groups are genetically identical or close enough to that to neglect the differences. They amount to separate saltations from the same source, separated by a large enough space of time that the two cultures and technologies were totally different.

If you wanted to believe that Adam and Eve were descended from Cro Magnons, there is a list of things which the Bible and Jewish literature would have to know about, and which they don't, which would include (at minimum):


  • Stone tools. Adam and Eve and their descendants were metal-tech people from day one (e.g., Genesis 4:22). By contrast, human groups descended from Cro-Magnons went on using stone tools until forced out of it by neighbors descended from Bible Antediluvians if they ever stopped at all. Aztecs were using stone knives and weapons when the Spanish arrived even though they used metals for ornaments and purposes other than tools.
  • The atlatl, the signature weapon of Cro Magnon people. Biblical accounts know nothing of this weapon; the weapons of the Bible were the sword, the spear, the sling, and the bow. By contrast, the Aztecs, a people descended from Cro-Magnons1, were using atlatls against the Spanish while native Australians continue to use it to hunt kangaroos today.
  • Neanderthals and/or other hominids. The Bible knows nothing of hominids. By contrast, the Basque "Basajuan" appears to be a reflection of the Neanderthal and the Australian "Yowie" appears to be some sort of hominid, which native Australians remember.
  • An upper Paleolithic world war in which all hominids were exterminated from the planet, or at least from the parts of the planet that humans inhabit in any numbers.
  • A primordial era generically referred to [by scholars who study myths and oral traditions] as the "Purple Dawn"; that is, a protracted age devoid of the daylight that we experience today.


Cro Magnon people experienced all of those things and their oral traditions more often than not show traces of them. The basic idea is that the two groups are from the same place, but their arrivals here were separated by thousands of years so that the culture and technology had totally changed by the time Adam and Eve and anybody else who may have come with them arrived.

There is no good word for the people prior to Adam and Eve. The term "Cro Magnon" has been declared a tabu word by scientists because nobody could figure out who all to include; the term "Pre-Adamite" is politically incorrect from being used in racist tracts 90 years ago; and the term "Early Modern Human" includes Skhul/Qafzeh hominids which, in real life, were still hominids and not humans.

Puple Dawn:
http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-death-cult-part-1/a-timeless-age-in-a-purple-haze/

Human/Hominid Non-Relation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe6DN1OoxjE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhFXQHRAzg8

Ganymede hypothesis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p10PiJPEq4
http://cosmosincollision.com

All of this stuff is substantially at variance from 99% of what is taught in schools and also from what you'll find on normal Internet resources. Nonetheless, the stuff they teach plainly doesn't work. For a hominid to have ever evolved into a human, that hominid would need to have:

  • Lost his fur while ice-ages were going on.
  • Lost almost all of his sense of smell while trying to survive as a land prey animal [fatal]
  • Lost almost all of his night vision in an age when night was the only time of day that there was.


If that doesn't sound like a formula for success, then neither should the idea of God creating a creature for a world for which the creature was hideously maladapted. There is nothing in the Bible about God being STUPID.....

Cosmos in Collision does in fact describe the reasons for our planet having been super-dark in ancient times. Kindle is everybody's friend...

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-in-Collision-ebook/dp/B00C4MF8UE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364793440&sr=8-1&keywords=cosmos+in+collision




[/quote]
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,646 • Replies: 49

 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 02:17 pm
Who tagged this mumbo-jumbo voodoo bullsh*t science?
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 02:32 pm
@Setanta,
http://rantsofasassystew.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/asshole-posters.jpeg.jpg
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 02:38 pm
I'm glad to see you admit that . . . but you've still got a long way to go.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 07:56 pm
@gungasnake,
That was some of the most appallingly poor attempts at science that I've ever seen. Absolutely priceless in its childish inanity. Thanks for providing the entertainment Smile
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 09:45 pm
@rosborne979,
This one struck me as intriguing. You on the other hand......
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 10:12 am
@gungasnake,
I still like ya Gunga. Sometimes you're right (stop the "War on Drugs") and sometimes you're wrong (just about everything else), but you're never boring (unlike me, I'm probably pretty boring with all my valid information and logic and ****).
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 11:20 am
@rosborne979,
This one IS in fact logical. The book in question may be more than many are willing to deal with but the basic ideas don't seem complicated. It seems to start with the idea that our solar system was originally in two parts and the logic seems compelling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt

If our solar system had arisen in any sort of an organized way, particularly if the planets had formed up from swirling masses of solar material as per the usual claim, you'd expect the axes of the planets to be roughly perpendicular to the plane of the system. The sun, Jupiter, and Mercury do in fact show that. Uranus and Venus are special cases of sorts, but Neptune, Saturn, Earth, and Mars with their roughly 26-degree axis tilts pretty much have to be an original system of some sort which was captured, by our sun, as a group.




farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 07:00 pm
@gungasnake,
I wonder how genetic diversity of chimpanzees would be affected if we could teach em to drive around the continent and inseminate all the "babes".

Cmon gunga, think things out a bit more before you jump on board of every sci fi story

Without knowing it you are giving a lecture on geographic isolation as a mechanism of evolution.


Did you ask your blogger what the geographic or niche differences were that could be associated with encoding these 40 different subspecies ?

You should delve deeper into your blogs before you no longer question them.

rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 07:04 pm
@gungasnake,
The Wiki link you provided explains that axial tilts are quite variable over time due to normal orbital forces and tidal alignment. None of which supports the arguments presented in your original links.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 07:05 pm
@farmerman,
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 11:36 am
Funny thing, the guys at thunderbolts.info have been talking about a "Saturn Theory" for two or three decades now but it always sounded like they were concocting something entirely out of ancient literature and the interpretation of myths and trying to use that to challenge established science.

I don't know when this information about axis tilts became available, but the claim no longer appears to be insubstantial.

The funny thing has always been that the two chieftain gods of all of those pantheistic religions were the two which corresponded to the planets Jupiter and Saturn, the thing about the chief religious festival in Rome having been Saturnalia, and our sabbath being called "Saturn's Day". Modern primitives trying to concoct an astral religion would end up worshiping the sun and moon, and not Jupiter or Saturn.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 12:07 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Cro Magnon people experienced all of those things and their oral traditions more often than not show traces of them.


Of course the writer would be privy to the oral traditions of Cro Magnon people having spent all that time sitting around the fire listening to them.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 12:34 pm
The best comedy is unintentional. You can't beat Gunga Dim for entertainment value.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 01:26 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
The funny thing has always been that the two chieftain gods of all of those pantheistic religions were the two which corresponded to the planets Jupiter and Saturn, the thing about the chief religious festival in Rome having been Saturnalia, and our sabbath being called "Saturn's Day". Modern primitives trying to concoct an astral religion would end up worshiping the sun and moon, and not Jupiter or Saturn.

So, this is all starting to come together for you now? It's all starting to make sense?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 08:59 pm
@gungasnake,
Another one of the ideas in this one is the "Herbig/Haro Object"...

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/18f16.jpg

The claim is that planetary systems originate as such axially aligned strings of bodies, formed in the pinch areas of a Birkeland current. That does in fact make more sense than the standard claim that solar systems form up from swirling masses of solar material, albeit making more sense than that isn't asking for much...

But the claim appears to be that this is how we ended up with the roughly 26-degree axis tilts of Neptune, Saturn, Mars, and Earth, i.e. those bodies were still in the form of such a Herbig/Haro object and simply flew into the plane of our sun's system at a 26-degree angle from the South, and that the individual bodies kept that axis tilt, more or less, as they spun off and began to orbit our sun individually as they do now.

Again, at least the logic of the thing seems to work.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 07:16 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Again, at least the logic of the thing seems to work.

It works until you apply the theory of gravity to it. Then it simply flies off at odd angles with nothing to capture it.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 08:38 am
No real way racists could be happy about this one... The claim is that the two basic human groups are:

1. Bible Antediluvians (Japhetic/IndoEuropean groups), Semitic(Jews, Arabs, Babylonians, Assyrians...), Hamitic (presumably most Africans)

2. Cro Magnon descendants (Ainu, Basque, Canary Islanders, Australian Aborigines, possibly some North European groups)

No clue as to how Chinese and other East Asians fit into that one...
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 08:52 am
@gungasnake,
fascinating. Does STR allele coding , or SNP mutations fit these two groups that you've posted? What is the basis for the groups?

This is what Ive been presented as evidence of primary human groups based upon 4 genetic factors
(Structure, Haplogroups.epigenetics, and STR/SNPs)

  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Rosenberg2007.png/100px-Rosenberg2007.png
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 09:04 am
@farmerman,
There is no good word for people who lived before Adam and Eve.

The term "Cro Magnon" has been declared tabu by scientists because nobody could ever really figure out who all to include.

The term "Pre-Adamite" was used in racist tracts, usually as a synonym for "negro", and is now tabu for PC reasons.

The term "Early Modern Human" includes gracile hominids from the Levant and you can believe we're related to them if you want to, I and others don't believe that.
 

Related Topics

How to Donate Art - Question by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Two original basic human groups?
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2018 at 09:43:40