The Smithsonian Institution: Human Origins Program »
Posted By RickyDawkins 1 year, 5 months ago in FamilySo when did humans originate? The answer to that question really depends on what traits are meant by the term "human." The fossil record indicates that 4 million years ago, humans were habitually bipedal yet had brains roughly a third of the size of a modern human's. By 2.5 million years ago, stone tools were common.
Read Full Story at mnh.si.edu »
Submitted By:
RickyDawkins
Atheism can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 58
-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 5 months ago
To understand human evolution one must understand where humans fit in relation to other forms of life. Modern humans belong to the group of mammals known as Primates. This is the scientific category describing such diverse creatures as lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, the monkeys of the New World and Old World, and also the apes. As primates we all share many characteristics, such as overlapping fields of vision caused by forward looking eyes (this allows for greater 3D vision), fine ability to grasp and handle objects in our hands, and enlarged brains relative to body size. The evolution of the Primates started in the early part of the Eocene epoch (about 55 million years ago).
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/pr...
Reply -
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 5 months ago
By comparing humans and other living species, scientists have learned that humans are most similar to the large apes of Africa and Asia. Among all animals, humans and apes are the most alike in brain and body form, by having a complex social life, and in many other major and minor features, including the lack of a tail. The fossil record of several ancient ape species collectively called Proconsul shows that the split between the common ancestors of the Old world monkeys (above left) and the apes (above right) happened in the earliest Miocene, at least 20 million years ago.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/pr...
Reply -
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 5 months ago
Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and most studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. However, it must be stressed that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees. Rather, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes. This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this split of the two lineages. Using the fossil record, scientists attempt to reconstruct the evolution from this common ancestor through the series of early human species to today's modern human species.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/pr...
Reply -
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 5 months ago
A phylogenetic tree is a graphical means to depict the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms. The phylogenetic tree below shows one reconstruction of the relationships among early human species, as we best know them today
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_...
Early Human Species:
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus robustus
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens
Reply -
-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 5 months ago
what about them? they fit the fossil record just fine. there will always be new discoveries. (actually your second link is a bogus one, though)
Some important human characteristics are listed below; it's important to keep in mind that these characteristics are in comparison to other primates, the closest genetic relatives to our species:
Habitual bipedality
Large brain size (compared with body size)
Expanded planning and problem solving abilities
Language
Art and other forms of symbolic expression
Complex cultural learning dependent on symbolic information
Dependence on technology for survival
Varied diet, including domesticated plants and animals
Functional hairlessness
Worldwide geographic distribution and adaptation to diverse climates and habitats
Greater social complexity
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sk...
Reply -
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 5 months ago
Despite the size difference, the specimens seem otherwise to resemble in their features H. erectus, known to be living in Southeast Asia at times coinciding with earlier finds purported to be of H. floresiensis.[3] These observed similarities form the basis for the establishment of the suggested phylogenetic relationship. Despite a controversial reported finding by the same team of alleged material evidence, stone tools, of a H. erectus occupation 840,000 years ago, actual remains of H. erectus itself have not been found on Flores, much less transitional forms.
To explain the small stature of H. floresiensis, Brown and colleagues have suggested that in the limited food environment on Flores H. erectus underwent strong insular dwarfism,[1] a form of speciation also seen on Flores in several species, including a dwarf Stegodon (a group that was widespread throughout Asia), as well as being observed on other small islands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
Reply
-
-
0%
militantveg1 year, 5 months ago
Darwin's theory is being demolished. Michael Cremo & Richard Thompson's Forbidden Archaeology (1993) is a step in that direction. This controversial book shocked the scientific community and became an underground classic.
The book's premise is that evolutionary prejudices held by powerful groups of scientists act as a "knowledge filter" which has eliminated evidence challenging accepted views, and left us with a radically altered understanding of human origins and antiquity.
Forbidden Archaeology shocked the scientific world with its evidence for extreme human antiquity. It documented hundreds of anomalies in the archaeological record that contradicted the prevailing theory and showed how this massive amount of evidence was systematically "filtered" out.
This is how mainstream science reacts (almost like a religion) to any challenge to its deeply held beliefs.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 5 months ago
The process of evolution involves a series of natural changes that cause species (populations of different organisms) to arise, adapt to the environment, and become extinct. All species or organisms have originated through the process of biological evolution. In animals that reproduce sexually, including humans, the term species refers to a group whose adult members regularly interbreed, resulting in fertile offspring -- that is, offspring themselves capable of reproducing. Scientists classify each species with a unique, two-part scientific name. In this system, modern humans are classified as Homo sapiens.
Evolution occurs when there is change in the genes (the chemical molecule, DNA) inherited from the parents and especially in the proportions of different genes in a population. The information contained in genes can change by a process known as mutation.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/E...
Reply -
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago
Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson are prominent members of the "Bhaktivedanta Institute, a branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness".
Vedic Literature may be interesting but I'm not sure I'm ready to consider flying carpets and such as science.
These folks have a religious point of view and are projecting that as science. It is not. Human civilization may in fact be older than historians believe. That does not disprove or even shed a shadow of doubt on evolution.
Reply -
0%
ZippySpincycle1 year, 5 months ago
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
--Carl Sagan
(Actually, this is sort of unfair to Bozo, since his goal was to be laughed at, not to do science. But I suppose the punchline wouldn't work as well if it were "But they also laughed at Lysenko.")
Reply
-
-
0%
militantveg1 year, 5 months ago
I don't believe in evolution, but I agree humans are primates; we share 98 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees and gorillas.
As far back as 1923, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg wrote: "The statement that man is omnivorous is made without an atom of scientific support...man is not naturally omnivorous, but belongs, as...pointed out by Cuvier, to the frugivorous class of animals along with the chimpanzee and other anthropoids."
Ingrid Newkirk (PETA) says:
"You cannot find a relevant attribute in human beings that doesn't exist in animals as well. Darwin said that the only difference between humans and other animals was a difference of degree, not kind. If you ground any concept of human rights in a particular attribute, then animals will have to be included. Animals have rights."
Many animal activists base their ethics upon evolution. This will change, as evolution is being demolished: Cremo & Thompson's Forbidden Archaeology is a step in that direction.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 5 months ago
Humans evolved in Africa and lived only there for as long as 2, or possibly 3, million years. So scientists wonder what finally triggered the first human migration out of Africa (a movement that coincided with the spread of early human populations throughout the African continent). The answer to this question depends, in part, on knowing exactly when that first migration occurred. Some studies claim that sites in Asia and Europe contain crude stone tools and fossilized fragments of humanlike teeth that date from more than1.8 million years ago. Although these claims remain unconfirmed, small populations of humans may have entered Asia prior to 1.7 million years ago, followed by a more substantial spread between 1.7 million and 1 million years ago. The first major habitation of central and western Europe, on the other hand, does not appear to have occurred until between 1 million and 500,000 years ago.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/e...
Reply -
0%
ZippySpincycle1 year, 5 months ago
I don't "believe" in evolution, either. I'm convinced that it's the best explanation for speciation. No faith is required.
Reply
-
-
0%
militantveg1 year, 5 months ago
Evolution is mostly speculation. The physical evidence from the past is fragmentary; of the one billion species believed to have existed, 99 percent did not leave fossils.
In the deliberate breeding of species, there are limits to the changes one can make. When pushed beyond a limit, species become sterile and die out or revert to their standard design. We can induce changes in existing forms via breeding, but cannot generate new complex structures. If this cannot happen by man's conscious efforts, why should it happen by blind natural processes?
No satisfactory evolutionary models have ever been made.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 5 months ago
Evolution is a scientific fact.
Evolution does not change any single individual. Instead, it changes the inherited means of growth and development that typify a population (a group of individuals of the same species living in a particular habitat). Parents pass adaptive genetic changes to their offspring, and ultimately these changes become common throughout a population. As a result, the offspring inherit those genetic characteristics that enhance their chances of survival and ability to give birth, which may work well until the environment changes. Over time, genetic change can alter a species' overall way of life, such as what it eats, how it grows, and where it can live. Human evolution took place as new genetic variations in early ancestor populations favored new abilities to adapt to environmental change and so altered the human way of life.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/E...
Reply-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 5 months ago
Rick thanks for all your informative posts. I lack the needed specialized biology/biochemistry education but my math makes me see this as very plausible. Being a theoretical physicist i realize the key property of such scientist is not just physics /math education and analytical skill but also the ability to research and learn new things even from other areas of science using logic and discipline in data analysis and solid proof production. It's hard to convince those that oppose Darwinian evolution that they have little merrit without getting into the details. And i appreciate you doing that with numerous links . I wish people could spend the time to educate themselves and realize the inevitable. This is not a game between teams and mine has to win. This is a search for the truth . Regarding transition maybe you should spend some time to show us the rate genes mutate, what causes it and how long it would take for a significant observable change to materialize. Then they might agree.
Reply
-
-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 5 months ago
The answer to your argument is the vasteness of time . To see transition from one animal to another you need thousands or millions of generations. During our current history as civilization we have only had available to historical records far less than 300 generations. Sure enough you can see change from generation to generation but its small , very small. How small? Ask a biologist or get a book on genes to tell you what is the natural random rate . You will see that in fact daily dna exhibits a lot of changes inside cells which are mostly self corrected or not particularly interesting to produce something radically different that will be also functional to survive! You need several generations to just pick up a significant but still minute in terms of the main species qualities divergence. We havent had available to us present day humans the time needed to observe transitional evolution and record it (correct me if wrong).But the planet had that time! Plenty of it! Fossils prove it.
Reply
-
-
0%
AmericanIdiot1 year, 5 months ago
The ancient Egyptian Pharoahs appear to have been of a distinct race, extremely dolichocephalic, showing skeletal traits other than those of classic homo sapiens. Among those traits are; elongated skull, narrow chin, overbite, slight scoliosis, possible XXXY chromosone. Various theories have been put forth, but none have as yet addressed the similarities of the pyramid building race found in Egypt, Mexico, Yucatan, and Peru.
"An aspet of genetics, that appears not to have been given attention it deserves, can help resolve this mystery (of origin of Queen Nefertiti). It is the elongated or the dolichocephalic heads that many members of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty possessed."
http://www.worldhistoryblog.com/2006/10/where-d...
There are alternative narratives of human history, just as well evidenced as current dogma, but applied to different theories.
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/westward.html
Reply-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 5 months ago
I will give you a similarity that should be easy to see as obvious! From all structures relativily light technology but huge in manpower civilizations of the past could produce to reach high altitude the easiest to construct for the given height is a pyramid. Why not a cube? Try raising tons of material in the form of a cube . However on a pyramid and in particular a square base one you can gradually put stones on top of each other with progressively smaller base as the structure gets higher (producing the slope this way ) in a self similar manner that is quite easy to visualize regardless of civilization as long as you understand simple geometric ideas as 3 dimensions, squares, cubes etc ie objects/concepts little kids play with when young anyway across all cultures! Whenever you put a pile of stones on top of each other you visualize that the easiest construction that offers stability and minimal effort to produce is a pyramid! To offer order replace random stones with cubic ones.
Reply-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 5 months ago
If what is available to you is :
1) inclines
2) ropes
3) lots of manpower
4) time
5) wood
6) stone that can be easily formed to a cubic shape
7) whatever friction reducing methods...
and possibly other common tools/methods i miss in this brief note here ...
If you want to combine all those available methods/tools/raw material to form a structure that is impressive you ought to look for something self similar (if it has to be large scale fine detail is irrelevant to a distant observer plus converging to top self similarity may be intrinsic to cultures that have hierarchy with the mass of the population viewed as similar simple people ie the base of the structure and the elit being the top ending to unit one= king , pharaoh etc ). You want a structure that aims high in the sky mirrors a mountain but in a more perfect symmetrical looking shape that is easier to construct . Doesnt after all this seem to you obvious that all people would arrive to the shape of a square pyramid?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
kedirian1 year, 5 months ago
I kid you not!
Humans were first produced 5000 years ago when someone named "Yahweh" playing with clay came up with a creature He called "Man". Then, after Man bitched about having no playmates, Yahweh tore one rib outta Man - Without anesthesia, no less! - blew over it(we don't know what He had been smoking) and created Woman as playmate for Man.True! It says so.....in the Old Testament, which was written 4995-years ago and printed for the first time by Bill Gates, when he played with clay and came up with DOS, which in turn begat printers.
Bill Gates and his DOS and printer are now on display in the Institute of Intelligent Design, also in Washington State...
Reply -
0%
militantveg1 year, 5 months ago
For years, most evolutionists assumed humans evolved as a separate branch from the other great apes, including the chimpanzees and gorillas. This was a natural enough assumption, given that look more like each other than they look like us.
Recent techniques in molecular biology have enabled us to measure precisely the degree of genetic difference between different animals. We now know that we share 98.4 perceent of our DNA with chimpanzees. This is a very slight genetic difference.
The difference between us and chimpanzees is less than the 2.3 percent that separates the DNA of chimpanzees from gorillas. We--not the gorillas--are the chimpanzees' nearest relatives. And of all the African apes--chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans--are more closely related to each other than any of them are to orangutans.
The Great Ape Project, modeled after the Anti-Slavery Society, aims to extend fundamental "human" rights to chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, etc.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 5 months ago
Congratulations, I don't see any blatant mistruths in your last post, militantveg. What are you trying to say, aside from describing the history of evolutionary theory?
Reply
-
-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 5 months ago
Has anyone ever noticed that all those people denying evolution tend to offer alternative routes to present day humans (either religious based ones or not) but none of them actually gets into the fine details necessary to explain fossils found , facts about biology such as rate of gene mutations etc that would make their versions lack self consistency and the list of convenient avoidance can go on for long!!!
The fact is darwinian based evolution has empirical and mathematical basis. It is imperative to understand its plausibility (long before one gets into the necessary biological facts) to investigate ideas from probability theory such as markovian chains , branching processes, random walks etc . Furthermore spend some time to realize that ;
All mammals exhibit some form of intelligence. Some can be taught to perform elaborate tricks . They have social structure. They have feelings of social nature. Some have shown ability to use tools.
Reply -
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 5 months ago
Some well known primates have even managed to replicate human behavior such as washing cloths in a river or using forms of language , performing intelligent tasks! I have seen documentaries where after spending several frustrating minutes a chimp managed to use a stick and a number of wood boxes eventually placing them on top of each other in order to reach a banana left hanging at significantly large height . Other amazing video shows birds using stones and sticks as tools. They also use them to build nests. Ants and bees have amazing social interactions and perform complex geometrical structures. All those are signs of some form of civilization that is very primitive.
Now combine those observations with the fact that feral children (extremelly low probability events in history where infants were left in the jungle and raised by animals ) when found later have significant inability to learn language , perfom even simplest of tasks or think in abstract (geometry, math etc).
Reply-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 5 months ago
Consider now the fact that human dna is more or less similar (very close) to what it were hundreds of thousands of years ago. Ie the present day human being is not the same as one living 100000 yrs ago but very very similar to. Yet this very same animal has amazing culture today. Amazing mathematical skills, language skills, capacity for abstract thinking of complex ideas that make fantastic science and technology possible. It is the same animal it was even 25000 yrs ago! The feral children example above alone should immediately indicate to you this simple fact;
It's amazing what you can teach a infant -young child the first 1-7 years. Education makes all the enormous difference and it can bring to its brain concepts the civilization took thousands of years to develop! What you see out there is the progress of an animal that has exhibited exponential growth in its social structure.It is the main result of a culture immersed in permanent life long education(focused or by example).
Reply-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 5 months ago
Could it be then that those small over time differences in the shape of our hands , the fact we are walking standing up, our vision , our larger relative brains among several other key properties that are common in other mammals but never combined in such numbers together is the very reason we are the dominant species today and have developed culture so elaborate and so intricate and analytical? Could it be that evolution gave us a different exponent than the one dogs , cats, ants, other primates now exhibit ? Could it also be that primates exhibit such exponents higher than those of insects or dogs, cats etc? Exponents that combined with time and social interaction from generation to generation eventually produce a culture. A self feeding culture as the argument of feral kids and common dna over thousands yrs( but not millions)points to. Culture that presently for chimps or gorillas is very primitive but evolving incorporating social structure, some skill, tool using and pre language.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
AmericanIdiot1 year, 5 months ago
Ricky, you are a one-note wonder. Homo Neanderthalensis had a larger brain and greater physical strength than Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Where are they now? Who conquered whom? You have constructed a fairy tale that places your (our) species at the top, as if predestination. That is teleology, not science. You have eliminated doubt and questioning from your method. That is faith, not science.
Reply-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 5 months ago
Sorry but i do not see where the problem is here. Neanderthal was a bit different than Homo Sapiens not vastly so. When a species is in its early civilization buildup the time lived and the small relative exponent has not yet allowed it to be dominant over its environment . So its still vulnerable. Also we are talking members of several thousands not hundreds of millions or bil. Under such conditions its fairly easy to go extinct even if you have seemingly better qualities by a bit(if that is true). Possibly only modern humans can claim they have acquired enough technology to protect themselves from random changes although clearly a nearby supernova or huge asteroid/comet strike, virus spread ,climate etc could change that. Possibly in another 50-100 yrs none of those will be enough to wipe us out. So you see its an opportunity vs numbers and time game. Opportunity to get strong enough over time to not worry about external changes. We are the first to win this game in this planet.
Reply -
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 5 months ago
Who conquered whom?
Uh, let me take a guess, Neanderthals conquered humans?
Actually, we "conquered" Neaderthals. Likely as a result of *language* capacity. The neanderthals, while more physically hearty, may not have had vital anatomical structural "improvements" for advanced speech. Another reason could be that humans simply outbred them, and overwhelmed them. It's not like we had a "war" with the neanderthals one day, they may have just become extinct, just like we are doing to many *endangered* species today.
Reply -
0%
pismo1 year, 5 months ago
I believe the someday we will find there was interbreeding among the species. Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens co-inhabited much of Europe. They had to be in contact with each other quite often and therefore breeding between species would likely have happened. The evidence has not been found (yet) but given enough time it will be. The species are too similar. Neanderthals were probably pushed into extinction as an indirect result of modern man. Co-inhabiting probably slowly cut off neanderthal clans from each other and they would simply die out since they relied on group contact for breeding. Homo Sapiens had much larger clans and therefore sustain their groups population much easier.
Reply
-
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago
I have not read a single sentence from anyone who actually understood the evolutionary process condemning it. Sure science advances and minor aspects are adjusted as new knowledge is acquired. So of course there is some debate about details but there is no legitimate science that indicates evolution is false. Let's look at the links provided by our friend AmericanIdiot who no doubt is sincere about believing the "info" these sites are serving.
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com this is not a scientific site as it's articles include "Michael Jackson's Nose", "Chef Boy Ardee's Peniz", "Chemtrails", "Britney Spears",& "Who killed Kurt Cobain?". This is entertaining I suppose but hardly to be taken as a scientific authority. I'll trust the Smithsonian for that.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 5 months ago
You have no proof that Michael Jackson's nose is not the same today as when God first created it.
Reply -
0%
AmericanIdiot1 year, 5 months ago
Do you also deny Chemtrails? What about HAARP? Is it a myth? Having been fed a steady diet of lies over my lifetime, I choose Fortean science over conventional theories. Conventional wisdom is simply consensual stupidity.
Reply
-
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago
The BBC link is legit and may give some historians pause, but there are buildings in Peru that are 10-12,000 years old, someone built them. A 13,000 yr old skull is not surprising to me, and has no effect on evolution.
http://paranormal.about.com/od/mysteriousremain...
Stephen Wagner is a writer, editor and a researcher of paranormal phenomena, Ghosts, ESP. etc. Not a scientist.
The only oddity that there is any existing evidence of in this article is the cone shaped skull of which I saw thousands in the Andean countries. Since Native people still practice trepanning, and skull binding in the area, that is a plausible explanation. Anthropology may be mistaken about South American inhabitants but how does this in any way shed doubt on evolution? It doesn't.
Reply -
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago
The worldhistoryblog, this article says nothing about evolution, it's written by an engineer, not an Egyptian historian. And speculates about Egyptian history, not science.
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/westward.html is a nice personal home page for Ray Dickenson, who says nothing about his background but raises some questions about UFO's, Atlantis, as well as human migrations. He asks some intriguing questions about the history of mankind's civilizations. But nothing here that disproves evolution.
None of the referenced links seem to hold a candle to the blinding sun of the Smithsonian article.
You can't put a website about ghosts, vampires, and such on equal ground with real science. Sorry.
Reply -
0%
Macondo1 year, 5 months ago
Thanks Ricky.
It is concise, easy to analyze and objective.
I wonder about the next step in human evolution. The day we stop killing each other on wars, we respect each other etc even if we have no major morphologic changes will be a more important step than the day we became bipedal.
Then we may deserve the name Human.
Reply-
0%
AmericanIdiot1 year, 5 months ago
The next step in evolution will likely not include people like us. Human history is the history of psycopathic murderers. People will kill each other without any excuse. For example, Son of Sam: he claimed his dog instructed him to kill.
I can't say we as a species are going in any good direction. I find it hard to believe that millions of years of evolution produced this sick creature, and we praise it, because it is ourselves. We shut our eyes to the destruction of the natural world, perversion of religion, and a culture of hatred. Jolly good! The world was created for the benefit of this naked ape!
What a sick and pathetic philosophy.
Reply
-
-
0%
Macondo1 year, 5 months ago
Thanks Ricky.
It is concise, easy to analyze and objective.
I wonder about the next step in human evolution. The day we stop killing each other on wars, we respect each other etc even if we have no major morphologic changes will be a more important step than the day we became bipedal.
Then we may deserve the denomination Human.
Reply -
0%
AmericanIdiot1 year, 5 months ago
How good and pleasant it is that our race is triumphant, predestined to rule the earth and the planets. What a nice warm tingly feeling. It would be terrible, inconcievable! if another species were to overtake us in our "rightful" place of domination over all animals...
But it is already happening. The old human race is passing away. White Europeans are not reproducing at the replacement rate - they are dying in greater numbers than are being born. In the third world, disease and war is wiping out fertile populations. For all the rest, HIV/AIDS stalks our reproductive functions. What is next? Will we be ready? Not if we continue to fantasize a cosmological plan that placed us at the top of the food chain, there to remain forever. Bye bye, now its time to die...
Reply -
0%
AmericanIdiot1 year, 5 months ago
Islam is in self-destruct mode. The suicide terrorists proclaim their love of death and hatred of life.
"I always wanted to be the first woman who sacrifices her life for Allah. My joy will be complete when my body parts fly in all directions"
http://israel-politics.tripod.com/DeathWorship_...
Neither is the West immune to self-destruction. Columbine massacre, Oklahoma City bombing, not to mention serial killers, gang-bangers, compulsive drug abusers, showed that we are in terminal decline.
There is plenty of evidence that intelligent life reached great heights long before "history", before being wiped out.
Tiwanako ruins, much more complex than a pyramid, may date to 13,000 years ago.
http://www.crystalinks.com/tiahuanaco.html
http://jqjacobs.net/andes/tiwanaku.html
Reply -
0%
AmericanIdiot1 year, 5 months ago
People still try to jam square pegs into round holes. They will come up with far-fetched explanations for the decline and fall of mysterious civilization. Some will claim that environmental factors led to the fall of Tihuanaco civilization. But the site was poorly chosen for agriculture in the first place, and better sites were available, to an advanced civilization, easy to conquer. Tihuanaco people used water canals adjacent to ag. fields as a thermal sink to improve yields. The great port of Tihuanaco has been dated to previous to the formation of the lake!
Then there is the mystery of the Nazca lines.
What then led to the collapse? One theory is that ritual sacrifice and cannibalism was practiced by this culture. Folk legends from adjacent regions illuminate the disgust of neighboring people towards cannibals and sacrificiers.
Reply -
0%
AmericanIdiot1 year, 5 months ago
"According to their history, the Tenochca were originally peaceful, but their Chichimec ways, especially the practice of human sacrifice, revolted other peoples who banded together and crushed their tribe."
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAMRCA/AZTECS.HTM
Other cultures that practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism were likewise wiped out by their neighbors, or even by bearded "Viracochas" (conquistadors) from across the seas.
The human brain is a sick organism. It is not a beneficial adaptation. The will to dominate, torture, rape, kill, is deep withing our Homo Sapiens brain.
And yet people have created amazing and beautiful things. Humans have exploded in population until there is almost no room for any other creatures.
Do you really think this has never happened before?
Auto-destruct. That is the true "evolutionary" mechanism at work. Like the Reindeer of Attu, Alaska.
Reply
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.