or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How old is the human race?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How old is the human race? - Page 2

post #41 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

And we probably killed them. It wouldn't be the only species we made extinct. Kind of amazing, because they look like real brutes. Maybe they tasted good.

Actually, it's a common belief that cromagnums and neanderthals interbred and this helped shape our species. They had bigger brains, were built tougher; cromags had more developed vocal cords for better communication, were more agile.
post #42 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Actually, it's a common belief that cromagnums and neanderthals interbred and this helped shape our species. They had bigger brains, were built tougher; cromags had more developed vocal cords for better communication, were more agile.

I know you cannot read this without subscription but its from here. http://www.newscientist.com/article/...al-within.html

Quote:
While the possibility of interbreeding between our direct ancestors and other human species has long been recognised, there has never been much evidence to support it. Since the discovery of the Lagar Velho child, however, new lines of evidence have started to emerge, largely from genetics but also from new fossils (see "Wisdom of bones"). As the findings stack up, researchers are edging towards the conclusion that interbreeding not only happened, but that it played an important role in our evolution. Like it or not, we may have to accept that our species is, to some extent, a hybrid. There's a little bit of Neanderthal in all of us
post #43 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey



As far as I'll go on in this discussion. This documentary convinced me that we are all one of the same. The first and most important migration of mankind. Bookmark this link before this thread gets mired in religion and all that other crap. Enjoy.

Documentary Redraws Humans' Family Tree

We only have the relatively recent past (direct DNA evidence) to work from for this hypothesis, it is but one hypothesis of many, the real answer(s) still lie within the complete fossil record and complete DNA sequencing of sufficient individuals thereof AND a complete understanding of genetics and mutation rates through time.

A task that can never be complete, I'm afraid.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #44 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Actually, it's a common belief that cromagnums and neanderthals interbred and this helped shape our species. They had bigger brains, were built tougher; cromags had more developed vocal cords for better communication, were more agile.

I understand it's pretty controversial still, although I'm not up on this. I remember the archeological evidence is quite thin... they do have a skeleton of a girl with long limbs (hom sap) showing Neanderthal robustness (built like a tank) but the genetic evidence is a bit more suggestive I think. I don't think there's a great deal of Neanderthal DNA floating around to compare, so I'm not sure how they're proving this.

They keep on upgrading Neanderthal sophistication, but it seems they were never up there with cro magnons ('us') and they borrowed a lot of their material culture from 'us'. I don't think their burials were as sophisticated.

The last I read, Neanderthals were out-competed or bred out rather than butchered.
post #45 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

so I'm not sure how they're proving this.

things like this?
post #46 of 90
Yeah, things like that.
post #47 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

No, you are wrong, and in fact it's just the opposite from what you say: Many (mostly American) members of Christian churches believe in a young earth, but as far as I know, no major Christian denomination officially endorses such a position.

That may not be the official position, but I've had more than a few fundie/born again Christians tell me in complete seriousness that dinosaur bones were put in the fossil record by God to confuse the unbelievers, among other, even more dubious things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

Have you seen the recent report that states that human evolution is occurring faster than ever and it wont be long before we split into 2 species?

I don't know about two species, but I want to know when the pinky finger will finish atrophying. \
(only partly in jest)
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #48 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

I don't know about two species, but I want to know when the pinky finger will finish atrophying. \
(only partly in jest)

post #49 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

Was there a major evolutionary change recently (within the biblical perspective time frame) that was the catalyst for the enormous growth of the human race?

Thoughts/opinions?

well something I just discovered- there is a hypothesis that super energetic particles from the constellation of Cygnus blasted earth 17000 years ago and caused evolution to accelerate.

Dont shoot me Im just the messenger - i've never seen it before either!

http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/CollinsA1.php
post #50 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

well something I just discovered- there is a hypothesis that super energetic particles from the constellation of Cygnus blasted earth 17000 years ago and caused evolution to accelerate.

Dont shoot me Im just the messenger - i've never seen it before either!

http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/CollinsA1.php

I like this hypothesis just because it's so damn cool. Too bad it didn't create a race of superheros though...\
post #51 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I like this hypothesis just because it's so damn cool. Too bad it didn't create a race of superheros though...\

well, if you follow the math, then these events should happen around about every 17k-20k years, which must mean, um, were due any day!

Thinking about that, we are due any day now for quite alot of things, meteor strikes, volcanic eruption, space radiation....

perhaps the luck we've had since the last ice age, with there being a relatively stable environment - is what has allowed us to become who we are over the last 10k years. Perhaps this is not a normal scenario and we should start to realise that things are going to get dicey!
post #52 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

well, if you follow the math, then these events should happen around about every 17k-20k years, which must mean, um, were due any day!

Thinking about that, we are due any day now for quite alot of things, meteor strikes, volcanic eruption, space radiation....

perhaps the luck we've had since the last ice age, with there being a relatively stable environment - is what has allowed us to become who we are over the last 10k years. Perhaps this is not a normal scenario and we should start to realise that things are going to get dicey!

Do you think that scenario was the one referred to in Genesis with the 'Sons of God'?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #53 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Do you think that scenario was the one referred to in Genesis with the 'Sons of God'?

I remember we had a conversation about these sons a long time ago, can you elaborate a bit more as too what you mean now? im a bit tired!

completely off topic, I learned the other day, that the meditteranean sea periodically dries up, when a land bridge forms between spain and africa, and floods again when the land brige is broken. The entire Med used to be land - several times by all accounts! Funky - I wonder what Gilgy thinks of that?

Perhaps Atlantis is right at the bottom of it now
post #54 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

Apparently, the gene that causes red-hair came straight from interbreeding between Neandethals and us.

The red hair attribute is also claimed to have come from the Armenia / Anatolian highlands area, which is the starting point of the Celtic tribe. Red hair only pops up where the Celts have been (which is actually a lot of places). I suppose there could have been a pre-migration from France to Anatolia, but then I would expect that red hair wouldn't be an exclusively Celtic trait.

At some point a thorough genetic analysis will be conducted and we'll know better, but until then there's still a lot of doubt over whether Neanderthal - Sapiens cross breeding ever happened or was capable of producing a fertile offspring.

Edit: the hardly-infallible wikipedia article on Neanderthal suggests that the human red-hair gene mutated independently. It includes two sources, for those interested.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #55 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

The red hair attribute is also claimed to have come from the Armenia / Anatolian highlands area, which is the starting point of the Celtic tribe. Red hair only pops up where the Celts have been. I suppose there could have been a pre-migration from France to Anatolia, but then I would expect that red hair wouldn't be an exclusively Celtic trait.

At some point a thorough genetic analysis will be conducted and we'll know better, but until then there's still a lot of doubt over whether Neanderthal - Sapiens cross breeding ever happened or was capable of producing a fertile offspring.

Edit: the hardly-infallible wikipedia article on Neanderthal suggests that the human red-hair gene mutated independently. It includes two sources, for those interested.

How about the Orangutan gene for red hair?
post #56 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

well something I just discovered- there is a hypothesis that super energetic particles from the constellation of Cygnus blasted earth 17000 years ago and caused evolution to accelerate.

Dont shoot me Im just the messenger - i've never seen it before either!

http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/CollinsA1.php

That is too cool!
post #57 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


Read an article in a science magazine a few years back with a theory that the reason most people's pinkys are proportionately smaller than the other 3 fingers is that it is being coded out by evolution. Can't remember which journal I read it in and can't find anything online, so YMMV.

Using keyboards now may change that though, I would assume.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #58 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Read an article in a science magazine a few years back with a theory that the reason most people's pinkys are proportionately smaller than the other 3 fingers is that it is being coded out by evolution. Can't remember which journal I read it in and can't find anything online, so YMMV.

I'm not saying you meant the above this way, but just to be clear on how evolution works: Evolution doesn't pick a goal, then work toward it. There's no "decision" to get rid of the pinky, which is then slowly implemented in stages over time.

There's either a selective advantage to shorter pinkies, or there isn't, at any given time. It could be pinky length itself (which doesn't seem very likely in our current environment), or the same gene that controls pinky length is linked to some other, perhaps very different, trait -- a particular disease immunity, an ability to more efficiently digest an abundant food source, etc.

Since we can now easily survive many gene-bound frailties that once would have been tremendous disadvantages -- nearsightedness, for example -- it's really hard to imagine run-of-the-mill evolutionary forces acting on the human species to a very high degree any more, except perhaps in the poorest countries where basic survival can be tenuous. To the extent we continue to "evolve", we evolve more memetically than genetically at this point. Our cultural and technical inheritance now has a lot more to do with our survival than our genome.

What could produce an interesting twist in human evolution is the odd (if somewhat rough) correlation between economic success and reproduction, where our wealthiest societies tend to have the lowest birth rates. However, well before any effect from that could play out very far, I suspect that we'll be engineering the human genome instead depending on the old-fashioned game of brute survival and reproductive success.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #59 of 90
shetline hit the nail on it's head. Old school evolution (natural selection) for humans is on the way out. Human selection and genetic engineering will start taking over as the primary method that we evolve. The changes can be seen in orders of magnitude of less time that with natural selection.
post #60 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

shetline hit the nail on it's head. Old school evolution (natural selection) for humans is on the way out. Human selection and genetic engineering will start taking over as the primary method that we evolve. The changes can be seen in orders of magnitude of less time that with natural selection.

Exactly. I know that evolution doesn't work that way, but it was an interesting theory in any case. (why I said I was partly joking in the original post)

I definitely agree that we will no longer evolve in the original sense. We are now 'Human v1.0', and will at the least stay in this current form because we consider it 'normal'.

If anything, we will merge with machines way before we're around long enough to see a true differentiation of evolution. I have seen the cyborgs of the future, and they are us. Artificial joints, hearts, eyes, ears, and so on. I myself have an Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillator that has most likely prolonged my life 5 times so far.

As the technology improves, becomes micro miniaturized, and the costs come down, I can see people ultimately having preemptive surgeries, such as athletes having knee joints 'upgraded' to Teflon and stainless steel, and a 'Nike' brand 'sports heart' installed when going Pro, or someone getting 'better eyes' to replace slightly poor vision.

Then there is the whole matter of computer interface/VR related implants, perhaps far off at this point, but ultimately going to become reality.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #61 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Exactly. I know that evolution doesn't work that way, but it was an interesting theory in any case. (why I said I was partly joking in the original post)

I definitely agree that we will no longer evolve in the original sense. We are now 'Human v1.0', and will at the least stay in this current form because we consider it 'normal'.

If anything, we will merge with machines way before we're around long enough to see a true differentiation of evolution. I have seen the cyborgs of the future, and they are us. Artificial joints, hearts, eyes, ears, and so on. I myself have an Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillator that has most likely prolonged my life 5 times so far.

As the technology improves, becomes micro miniaturized, and the costs come down, I can see people ultimately having preemptive surgeries, such as athletes having knee joints 'upgraded' to Teflon and stainless steel, and a 'Nike' brand 'sports heart' installed when going Pro, or someone getting 'better eyes' to replace slightly poor vision.

Then there is the whole matter of computer interface/VR related implants, perhaps far off at this point, but ultimately going to become reality.

Somehow I don't think machines that can't evolve on their own (absent "intelligent interventions") would be considered living organisms, able to procreate and pass on their artificial traits in a true form of natural selection.

I also think that humans can't keep up with artificial systems since we are bound by generational development and machines are only limited by our pace of technological "evolution." Which has invariably stacked the deck in our favor in the sense that we are dictating future "natural selection" of other species, more so than at any other point in our history. Machines will eventually out compete natural life forms if they become goal oriented AND have the ability to "move the goal posts" as it were.

Maybe this should be termed "unnatural selection" or "artificial selection" but either way these knowledge based changes, in and of themselves, confer no "absolute progression" towards a fitter species, since there can be no single definition of fitness for any single species per se.

Remove procreation from the mix and we would no longer be considered a species in the natural sense.

Somehow this all reminds me of the "humankind made god in it's own image" literally speaking. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #62 of 90
Where's our resident "young earther" in this discussion? Fellowship? And is our other religious nutjob Frank777 a young earther too?

(Sorry Fellowship, you are a really really nice person, but I still think some of your religious views are a stubborn throwback to your naïve impressionable youth).

Funny those guys are nowhere in sight because maybe they realize they have no evidence of young earth to stand by, and would be trounced in this discussion, just as theyve been trounced in every other similar discussion.

"Carbon dating is inaccurate!"
"Humans and Dinosaurs coexisted!"
post #63 of 90
Anyway. The answer to the 'what happened to us?' question (I've been reading up on this lately.)

If we’re 200,000 years old as a species, why have we achieved all the technology we now take for granted and such massive populations in the last ten thousand years? And all that.

Hunting and gathering cultures appear to be very, very stable, showing continuity in material culture (stuff) for tens of thousands of years, but they’re also really fragile—agriculturalists easily fuck them up first by taking their land, which they are generally less well-equipped to fight for, and by introducing cultural habits and ideas incompatible with the co-operative and communal nature of their societies (co-operation and communal living are essential to survival in inhospitable / pre-agricultural environments to the point where sharing and symbolic gift-giving are ritualised). This has been documented really well throughout the colonial period and there’s not really any reason to doubt that the same thing’s been happening for tens of thousands of years.

Hunting and gathering cultures are very stable because they don't aspire to the comforts and innovations that ‘we’ and our farming ancestors take for granted, for a start. They’re deeply attached to specific places (‘topophiliac’) and they have other priorities (largely ritual and spiritual, again rooted to place and to the animals and plants you find there, which makes sense if you don’t farm and don’t depend on labour and surplus for your survival.)

Once you start farming there’s no going back. Your whole attitude to land, property, your place in ‘creation’ and your obligations to other people change completely.

We’ve been planting and domesticating for some 10,000 years, and farming’s been ‘invented’ first in the Levant (present-day Israel/Syria) and in the islands of the Pacific, and apparently in Meso-America seemingly independently. There’s a few theories as to why. I think that climate change and the accidental selection of easily-husked grain is a good one.

But a few things are definitely true: we spent so long as hunters and gatherers because that’s what we’re evolved and adapted to do. We colonised the world, from Arctic to the harshest desert, before we invented farming, so hunting and gathering allows us to survive in places where farming doesn’t. We don’t ‘need’ farming, and our separation from the environment has not done the world any good at all (cf. all the extinctions in the last, oh, 2,000 years and the frantic despoilment of, oh, everywhere.)
post #64 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Anyway. The answer to the 'what happened to us?' question (I've been reading up on this lately.)

If were 200,000 years old as a species, why have we achieved all the technology we now take for granted and such massive populations in the last ten thousand years? And all that.

Hunting and gathering cultures appear to be very, very stable, showing continuity in material culture (stuff) for tens of thousands of years, but theyre also really fragileagriculturalists easily fuck them up first by taking their land, which they are generally less well-equipped to fight for, and by introducing cultural habits and ideas incompatible with the co-operative and communal nature of their societies (co-operation and communal living are essential to survival in inhospitable / pre-agricultural environments to the point where sharing and symbolic gift-giving are ritualised). This has been documented really well throughout the colonial period and theres not really any reason to doubt that the same things been happening for tens of thousands of years.

Hunting and gathering cultures are very stable because they don't aspire to the comforts and innovations that we and our farming ancestors take for granted, for a start. Theyre deeply attached to specific places (topophiliac) and they have other priorities (largely ritual and spiritual, again rooted to place and to the animals and plants you find there, which makes sense if you dont farm and dont depend on labour and surplus for your survival.)

Once you start farming theres no going back. Your whole attitude to land, property, your place in creation and your obligations to other people change completely.

Weve been planting and domesticating for some 10,000 years, and farmings been invented first in the Levant (present-day Israel/Syria) and in the islands of the Pacific, and apparently in Meso-America seemingly independently. Theres a few theories as to why. I think that climate change and the accidental selection of easily-husked grain is a good one.

But a few things are definitely true: we spent so long as hunters and gatherers because thats what were evolved and adapted to do. We colonised the world, from Arctic to the harshest desert, before we invented farming, so hunting and gathering allows us to survive in places where farming doesnt. We dont need farming, and our separation from the environment has not done the world any good at all (cf. all the extinctions in the last, oh, 2,000 years and the frantic despoilment of, oh, everywhere.)

True, I'm sure something like this is a plausible reason but also - and you're really going to hate this hahah - there is also the possibility (imo anyway) that the reason why we have 'technologically' evolved over the last 10,000 years if we've had 200,000 to do it is that we have actually reached this level of technological advancement several times over that period but have somehow lost it.

There are numerous examples of anomalous evidence - generally not accepted in the official scientific 'canon' - that suggest this might be so.

I am thinking of the possible re-dating of the Sphinx to a much earlier date than the pyramids (though this may or may not be the case) as well as the finding of seemingly 'man-made' artifacts in places they shouldn't be.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #65 of 90
Ooh, interesting indeed… I’ve written and researched quite a bit in human prehistory for the last few years and I’d be really, really interested in any evidence like this. But I have to say, not that I’m like, Steven Mithen or anything, but I haven’t seen anything like this. The archeology’s really consistent. What kind of thing do you mean, segovius?

I know that there is a theory that the Sphinx is really old, but I understand (I am on the internet, and have just used the ‘google’ research tool la de da) that this is really controversial… I'd say that if the Sphinx is older than it seems there's no way that it's older than 9,000 years because no-one then would have wanted or needed to build it. I don't know anything about Egyptology but I do know a bit about old stuff...
post #66 of 90
I dont have it to hand at the moment, but in the book the christ conspiracy, there is a somewhat out of place chapter towards the end of the book (well it seemed odd when I first read it all those years ago) that documents the evidence of civilizations IIRC 30,000-20,000 years ago that we dont acknowledge these days.
post #67 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

I dont have it to hand at the moment, but in the book the christ conspiracy, there is a somewhat out of place chapter towards the end of the book (well it seemed odd when I first read it all those years ago) that documents the evidence of civilizations IIRC 30,000-20,000 years ago that we dont acknowledge these days.



CROM!
post #68 of 90
It would be interesting to work out, that if we suddenly ceased to exist tomorrow, how much of out present civilization would remain detectable for future civilizations.

I can imagine that present civilization would be detectable for hundreds of thousands of years, but, would the roman civilization be detectable for a really long time? I think not.

Ice ages would pretty much eradicate and evidence for civilization where they occur, but civilizations that survived around the equator, would probably build over ancient civilizations pretty quickly and destroy the archaelogical record.
post #69 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Ooh, interesting indeed Ive written and researched quite a bit in human prehistory for the last few years and Id be really, really interested in any evidence like this. But I have to say, not that Im like, Steven Mithen or anything, but I havent seen anything like this. The archeologys really consistent. What kind of thing do you mean, segovius?

I know that there is a theory that the Sphinx is really old, but I understand (I am on the internet, and have just used the google research tool la de da) that this is really controversial I'd say that if the Sphinx is older than it seems there's no way that it's older than 9,000 years because no-one then would have wanted or needed to build it. I don't know anything about Egyptology but I do know a bit about old stuff...

Well the Sphinx thing is controversial because it would mean a radical remodelling of current Egyptology - and Egyptologists are perhaps the most conservative and entrenched of academics!

Basically the situation is that the Sphinx is carved out of sandstone from the bedrock of the plateau - ie in situ. This has always been known but the geologist Robert Schoch has shown that it is weathered by water and not by sand as previously thought.

This is where the problems kick in because it is known that there has been no rain on the Giza plateau for perhaps to 10,000 years. So, if true, this would push the Sphinx carving date to 7500 - 10,000 years ago rather than the current circa 2500 BCE.

The theory is not that the Egyptian civilization would also be predated though - there is also evidence of re-carving on the head so it is more likely that the statue was actually a plain lion but the face was re-carved with the Pharoah's face millennia later when the Egyptians arose in the area.

Re the other anomalous stuff; I am a bit cautious about it for two reasons:

1) It doesn't fit current science so scientists understandably (?) ignore it and no real research is done..

2) This opens the way for Creationists to champion these things and so most references are by people who have an agenda - again no real research is done.

Usually it takes the form of some type of man-made object existing in an extremely old deposit - precambrian say - or else something like the finding of aluminium objects from 400 years ago plus (possibly much more) but as I say, these things are frequently cited but are the province of new-agers, weirdos or creationists.

This does not make them untrue or hoaxes but I would like to see some serious research rather
than these unattributed citations.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #70 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

It would be interesting to work out, that if we suddenly ceased to exist tomorrow, how much of out present civilization would remain detectable for future civilizations.

I can imagine that present civilization would be detectable for hundreds of thousands of years, but, would the roman civilization be detectable for a really long time? I think not.

Weeeell... Lower stone age cultures had a very light 'footprint' but we still find evidence of the way Palaeolithic people hunted and lived, in hearths, tools, refuse (bones, broken tools, middens) and art. And unlike the Romans, they never built any permanent structures of any kind! I'd think that Roman civilisation would be detectable for... ever, really, if you were a future archeologist dedicated to exploring the evidence for 'Romans'...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

Ice ages would pretty much eradicate and evidence for civilization where they occur, but civilizations that survived around the equator, would probably build over ancient civilizations pretty quickly and destroy the archaelogical record.

Apparently not... even in London we find evidence of Elizabethan culture, Medieval culture, Roman culture, Pre-Roman culture, Neolithic culture and Palaeolithic culture. The evidence really persists; you just have to look under the next bit, a few centimetres deeper. Human leavings are really distinctive.

Successive Ice Ages have still left us plenty of evidence of Palaeolithic cultures in Europe, Australia, Asia and Africa, and evidence of older hominid presence and habits. It's really clear that the Americas have no permanent structures of any kind until really, really recently, for example. The evidence for great lost civilisations just isn't there, and it should be if we can find evidence of other, earlier hominids and the things they made and did. In southern Africa the continuity of the archeological record relating to human beings is pretty complete over 200,000 years.

You could probably argue that if there were ancient, lost civilisations they would have left some kind of evidence of trade, settlement or influence on 'foreign' cultures still living stone age stylee... and as far as I'm aware, there's none. People have made this stuff their lives' work and I've never read or heard anything like that, not even in the whackier fringes.

Well, maybe in the whackier fringes. There's people like Graham Hancock, for example. When I read him I want to kill him, because he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. My area of so-called 'expertise' is the art of Palaeolithic cultures in southern Africa and Europe, and when he writes about this I can tell you, he a) makes stuff up (b) doesn't have a clue about the state of research there and (c) only sees what he wants to see. If he does the same with Ancient Egyptian and Meso-American culture, as I suspect he does, I can promise you his books are total cuckie.
post #71 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

I have a very simple question. How old is the human race?

If one answers that question from a religious perspective, then the human race is approximately 6,000 to 15,000 years old (depending on the time scale biblical events are viewed).

If one approaches it from a non-religious perspective, is it safe to assume that the human race is significantly older 15,000 years old? If that assumption is correct, then why aren't we more advanced then what we are? Why isn't there more evidence that the human race existed 50,000 years ago?

Was there a major evolutionary change recently (within the biblical perspective time frame) that was the catalyst for the enormous growth of the human race?

Thoughts/opinions?

Dave

There are many reasons why there is little evidence of humans beyond a certain point. One is that we are accelerating in intelligence and knowlege since the start of the industrial revolution ( about 1900 ). Invention and knowlege it seems stimulates more of the same. Before that advancement was slower but there are still many signs of human habitation that go back millions of years if you are including our evolutionary ancestors. It's just that the more primative you get the less enduring the artifacts of that habitation are. In the distant past civilizations were more rare.

So how old is the human race? Well if you're talking strictly humans it's probably in the tens of thousands of years. There is at least enough evidence from archeological finds for that. If you're talking protohumans then it goes back millions of years because there isn't just one missing link that developed into humans. There were many competing for dominance to be the ones who evolved into us.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #72 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post



CROM!

Where's those " Frost Giants " when you need them?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #73 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Where's those " Frost Giants " when you need them?

I wish this game was coming for the Mac...



Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures
post #74 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I wish this game was coming for the Mac...



Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures

Wow! Looks like a cool game!

Won't " Boot Camp " work for this?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #75 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Wow! Looks like a cool game!

Won't " Boot Camp " work for this?

I'd have to upgrade big-time. I have an eMac PPC. \

Now let these guys continue talkin'...
post #76 of 90
To fully answer the question, I think you would have to ignore the metric shitload of evidence to suggest that there is not a point where one species becomes another. This concept of species is outdated, truly and serves only practical scientific concerns, rather than as a legitimate scientific concept.

So in other words, the human 'race' is a moving target which to me, being a scientist, must include all closely related primates with whom we have the potential to reproduce (even if we do not).
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #77 of 90
I just read a very interesting article that touches on this subject.

Quote:
"I used to think that human origins were explained by meat-eating. After all, the idea that meat-eating launched humanity has been the textbook evolutionary story for decades, mooted even before Darwin was born.

"But in a rethinking of conventional wisdom I now think that cooking was the major advance that turned ape into human ... Cooked food is the signature feature of human diet. It not only makes our food safe and easy to eat, but it also grants us large amounts of energy compared to a raw diet, obviating the need to ingest big meals. Cooking softens food too, thereby making eating so speedy that as eaters of cooked food, we are granted many extra hours of free time every day."
post #78 of 90
Quote:
"I used to think that human origins were explained by meat-eating. After all, the idea that meat-eating launched humanity has been the textbook evolutionary story for decades, mooted even before Darwin was born.

"But in a rethinking of conventional wisdom I now think that cooking was the major advance that turned ape into human ... Cooked food is the signature feature of human diet. It not only makes our food safe and easy to eat, but it also grants us large amounts of energy compared to a raw diet, obviating the need to ingest big meals. Cooking softens food too, thereby making eating so speedy that as eaters of cooked food, we are granted many extra hours of free time every day."

The next major step in human evolution was the restaurant, saving even more time by having someone else do the cooking for you.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #79 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

The next major step in human evolution was the restaurant, saving even more time by having someone else do the cooking for you.

So true. If that's the case, I'm truly an evolved specimen.
post #80 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

shetline hit the nail on it's head. Old school evolution (natural selection) for humans is on the way out. Human selection and genetic engineering will start taking over as the primary method that we evolve. The changes can be seen in orders of magnitude of less time that with natural selection.

....



The scary part is that I believe we are headed towards this. It isn't that difficult to foresee a future where someone discovers a "terrorist" gene and recommends that parents who are susceptible to have that type of child use clinical methods for artificial reproduction. \

edit: Read this too.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How old is the human race?