Exactly How Old Are Homo Sapiens?

[Grey Cloud]

Petroglyphs in the news again.
'Hardwired' to create rock doodles; professor says ancient art was 'an instinct'
http://prescottdailycourier.com/main.as ... leID=74413

[Osmosis]

I wonder if he ever read Peratt's papers?

[Plasmatic]

The professor's an idiot. Humans don't have instincts, man is born tabula rasa, despite what Pinker and all the evolutionary psychologist say.

[bboyer]

Siggy_G wrote:

I'd say though, that the plasma discharge pattern hypothesis still refers to a set of selective images. There exist many petroglyphs, of various age, that depicts simplified humans and animals. It is also evident, based on observations of more primal cultures, that they have high respect for ancestors and assumes gods/souls for several entities in nature.

Couldn't agree more.

Not to mention the important lack of attention to ancient entheogenic factors.

(nice to see you back around these parts, GC)

[Grey Cloud]

Hi arc-us, and thanks for the kind words.

Interesting article and nice to have the information under one roof, so to speak.

"the spirit, for example, need not be chemical, as is the case with the ivy and the olive: and yet the god was felt to be within them; nor need its possession be considered something detrimental, like drugged, hallucinatory, or delusionary: but possibly instead an invitation to knowledge or whatever good the god's spirit had to offer." (Ruck and Staples)

Ivy is associated with Dionysos and the olive with Athene. The story of Dionysos is somehow tied in to the story of man(kind). I’ve not quite put it together yet but all the clues are there in his various mythological stories. Dionysos is twice-born or ‘Born Again’.
There is also a relationship between Dionysos and Athene, apart from them being siblings. According to some versions of his myth, it is Athene who rescues his heart, (centre, essence), after he is ripped apart by the Titans. On the top of his staff was a pine cone which is symbolic of the pineal gland which gives a connection to the higher mind, which again, points to Athene (as per the Thomas Taylor quote in my post above).
Plants of Greek myth.
http://www.theoi.com/Flora1.html

The Kykeon that preceded initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries is another entheogen, which was investigated (before the word was coined) by Carl Kerényi, in Eleusis: Archetypal Image of Mother and Daughter. Other entheogens in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean include the poppy, Datura, the unidentified "lotus" eaten by the Lotus-Eaters in the Odyssey and Narkissos.

The Eleusinian Mysteries involved some sort of (controlled) near-death or OOB experience. There are frequent references to ‘dying before you die’, ‘dying in order to live’ etc in the Greek literature including Plato. In the Platonic dialogues, Socrates states that the goal of a philosopher is death. It seems to be meant in a similar way to the eastern concept of non-attachment, i.e. you become dead to the material world.

See this interesting article on Datura in your part of the world. The article takes a while to get going:
The Mothman Pottery Mound: The Use of Sacred Datura in Ancient New Mexico.
http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DavidGA2.php
There’s even some petroglyphs in there. (I'm guessing that there was a Texas Tea long before oil was discovered )

The entheogen is believed to offer godlike powers in many traditional tales, including immortality. The failure of Gilgamesh in retrieving the plant of immortality from beneath the waters teaches that the blissful state cannot be taken by force or guile: when Gilgamesh lay on the bank, exhausted from his heroic effort, the serpent came and ate the plant.

That’s what the Epic says but the writer is reading it wrong, i.e. literally. Gilgamesh is on the bank, i.e. between earth and water or between the material world and the non-material world. He has been in the water and has retrieved the plant. The snake is his kundalini. One does not gain immortality; one already has it. It is the physical body which is mortal. Nothing material is immortal.

Here’s a couple of links to entheogen inspired art:
Pablo Amaringo (Shaman and Ayahuasca inspired artist who died this week)
http://www.pabloamaringo.com/

Alex Grey (DMT if I recall correctly)
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en ... =0&ndsp=21

I'm sure StefanR would comment on this subject but he's away in Egypt at the moment.
All in all, a fascinating subject and one that cannot be left out of the study of myth etc.

[tholden]

How old are homo sapiens??

The better question is, how long have homo sapiens been on this particular planet. The answer to that one appears to be five or six thousand years, tops:

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/wiealt.html

There are three possible explanations for modern man being on this planet as I see it:

Modern man was created here from scratch, and recently

He was brought here from elsewhere in the cosmos

He was genetically re-engineered from one of the hominids

The recent DNA studies of neanderthals have ruled out any possibility of modern man "evolving" from neanderthals or any other hominid, e.g.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.0020057

Neanderthal DNA is described as about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee. To be descended from something via any process resembling evolution, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something, and we could no more interbreed with neanderthals than we could with horses.

Moreover, all other hominids were further removed from us THAN the neanderthal, meaning that we couldn't be descended from any of them either.

Pity the evolutionist. The standard claim now is that both we and the neanderthal must be descended from some common and more remote ancestor but, again, that's patently idiotic. "Too remote to be descended from" is a transitive relationship.

[nick c]

hi Ted,

The better question is, how long have homo sapiens been on this particular planet. The answer to that one appears to be five or six thousand years, tops:

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/wiealt.html

There are three possible explanations for modern man being on this planet as I see it:

Modern man was created here from scratch, and recently

He was brought here from elsewhere in the cosmos

He was genetically re-engineered from one of the hominids

I like your link. I am big fan of Heinsohn. He starts off with stratigraphy, giving it priority over theoretical frameworks. Conventionally, the assumption is that long periods of time are required for evolutionary change so the interpretation of stratigraphical evidence is tainted by that preconception. Heinsohn shows that stratigraphy does not support large time scales.
To your list of possibilities I would add another:
As Heinsohn implies in your link, Neanderthals gave birth to modern man with no intermediate species, and in a short period of time were replaced by attrition, no more neanderthals were born. This occurred as the result of mutagenic effects of plasma discharges and radioactive effects of an environment torn apart by global catastrophes. The problem is that there is no theoretical biological mechanism for the rapid creation of new species, but that is what the stratigraphical evidence indicates. Presumably Homo sapiens did not eradicate neanderthals, because they were their mothers and fathers and members of the same tribe. Heinsohn shows that the Combe Grenal site was cohabited for a period by both neanderthal and modern man. The same applies to neanderthal and their predecessor, homo erectus.

The recent DNA studies of neanderthals have ruled out any possibility of modern man "evolving" from neanderthals or any other hominid, e.g.

The reason for that conclusion is that if neanderthal and modern man are different species (as opposed to different breeds or races of the same species) then the entrenched Darwinian framework does not have enough time for neanderthal to be modern man's direct ancestor. There should be any number of intermediate creatures connecting the two, yet it is known that the two species were contemporaneous, at least in the sense that the end of neanderthal overlapped the beginning of modern man. There needs to be biological research done in the context of the catastrophic paradigm. We see time and time again conclusions drawn from a presumed uniformitarian paradigm used to disprove catastrophic theories.
The Electric Universe has shown that the Earth has been part of a recent reordering of the solar system resulting in catastrophic changes in the environment, exposing the biosphere to any number of powerful plasma discharges and accompanying radioactive effects. The fossil record indicates that after catastrophes new life forms appear. The curtain goes down, the scene has changed, and the stage is populated by a different cast of actors.

Great catastrophes of the past accompanied by electrical discharges and followed by radioactivity could have produced sudden and multiple mutations of the kind achieved today by experimenters, but on an immense scale. The past of mankind, and of the animal and plant kingdoms, too, must now be viewed in the light of the experience of Hiroshima and no longer from the portholes of the Beagle.

Nick

[tholden]

To your list of possibilities I would add another:
As Heinsohn implies in your link, Neanderthals gave birth to modern man with no intermediate species, and in a short period of time were replaced by attrition, no more neanderthals were born. This occurred as the result of mutagenic effects of plasma discharges and radioactive effects of an environment torn apart by global catastrophes. The problem is that there is no theoretical biological mechanism for the rapid creation of new species, but that is what the stratigraphical evidence indicates. Presumably Homo sapiens did not eradicate neanderthals, because they were their mothers and fathers and members of the same tribe. Heinsohn shows that the Combe Grenal site was cohabited for a period by both neanderthal and modern man. The same applies to neanderthal and their predecessor, homo erectus.
Nick

That's at most a difference in semantics. That would amount to the same thing as genetic re-engineering, meaning that the neanderthals themselves were somehow able to rearrange their own genome in one or two generations.

There are a couple of other things in the picture as well which is why I've never totally bought the idea of Neanderthals simply becoming modern people in a French cave. One of the biggest such items is Elaine Morgan's aquatic ape thesis, which I generally subscribe to. Morgan makes a coercive case for the idea that modern humans originally lived in water and you don't need to believe in evolution to buy it. That may sort of leave the Neanderthal out to; I'm not aware of any evidence which shows hominids being aquatic or quasi aquatic.

The cave evidence might simply indicate that a bunch of neanderthals were sitting around in a cave and a bunch of humans walked in and said something like

Hey, y'all Neanderthals mind if we share the cave with you for a while, it's gettin kinda nasty out there with those plasma physics catastrophes and what not...

I'd keep open the possibility that modern humans came from Mars or elsewhere in the system and that the hominids were indigenous to this planet.

[RayTomes]

...
Then, abruptly, roughly 10,000 years ago we find the introduction of agriculture, cities, domestication of animals, metal working, pottery, masonry and wine making. Something had to change rather drastically in order to cause this substantial shift in society. A look at modern human bones compared to Neanderthal show significant differences, not the subtle shifts as we are used to seeing in the diversification and evolution of species.

More important than the question of when did modern humans come about is the question of HOW did they come about and so rapidly form complex and huge civilizations?

The last ice age came to an end about 10,000 years ago.

[mague]

How old are homo sapiens??


The recent DNA studies of neanderthals have ruled out any possibility of modern man "evolving" from neanderthals or any other hominid, e.g.

Have you ever considered that DNA studies are a incomplete, missinterpreted and overrated science ? They often talk about 1 % difference, the visible difference is often 100%. There is a huge differenc beetween a bird on the ground and one able to fly. Genetics has a hard time to see this difference. Evolution is a very complex thing. Some things slowly creep in until a critical point is reached, then a jump happens. Since like 40 years humans grow taler and have less body hair. This is a slow development until a jump happens and one branch of sapiens is suddenly 2.20 meter tal and completely hairless, inlcuding maybe brows and head too. But DNA difference is probably not measurable at all.

Neanderthals always have been considered to be a temporary splinter group only found in a certain area. Today it is accepted that sapiens and neanderthal sapiens are two different and independet forks of erectus. But nobody has a clue if sapiens actually was more intelligent then erectus Pure assumption..

I doubt that people from Mexico city to Huston to New York to London to Paris to Berlin to Moscow to Athen are all on the same copy of the gene pool. Local light and radiation, even cultural ideal of beatuty has way to much influence for such a simple equation. Technology is not necessarily a sign for a higher evolution Sad but true.

I d say humans, who have been aware that they are humans, are around for a few hundreds of thousand years.

[Grey Cloud]

Good post Mague,

Have you ever considered that DNA studies are a incomplete, missinterpreted and overrated science ?

All day, every day.

[tholden]

Evolution is a very complex thing. Some things slowly creep in until a critical point is reached, then a jump happens. ...

Not when the creature you're trying to evolve into needs a dozen or more highly complex systems which all have to work together on the first day that the first such creature ever breathes. What you're talking about is probabilities which amount to tenth order infinitessimals at a macro level and God knows what at a microscopic level.

[Grey Cloud]

Evolution is a very complex thing. Some things slowly creep in until a critical point is reached, then a jump happens. ...

Not when the creature you're trying to evolve into needs a dozen or more highly complex systems which all have to work together on the first day that the first such creature ever breathes. What you're talking about is probabilities which amount to tenth order infinitessimals at a macro level and God knows what at a microscopic level.

Note the word 'some' in Mague's post which implies that some don't. I doubt very much whether Mague subscribes to either Darwinism or ID. I know I don't.

[mague]

Evolution is a very complex thing. Some things slowly creep in until a critical point is reached, then a jump happens. ...

Not when the creature you're trying to evolve into needs a dozen or more highly complex systems which all have to work together on the first day that the first such creature ever breathes. What you're talking about is probabilities which amount to tenth order infinitessimals at a macro level and God knows what at a microscopic level.

Note the word 'some' in Mague's post which implies that some don't. I doubt very much whether Mague subscribes to either Darwinism or ID. I know I don't.

What is ID ? I dont know this abbrevation.

I subscribe a bit to all and some more

Evolution is happening in the nucleus. Things are not solid, they are an aggregation of cells. The borders of those aggregations is defined by the cells. Or not, as in cancer or other deformities.
The spirals are antennae into many frequencies and they are all interconnected through those frequencies. This implies that human gene pool does have an energetic pool or domain too.

Both, Darwinism and other influences may have impact on either the physical or energetic domain. Any received information is broadcasted to all other members of the pool. The domain is not only sharing frequency and communication with its own members, but also to other domains like other flora and fauna or the Shumann field or the planets or the stars.
I dont think it was a single being leaving the water first, there where many at once following the signal of their domain/pool. It could have been that they tried and tried to breathe air or just suddenly the energetic domain splited like a cell splits and a new generation was born, left the water and never came back. In most cases of "natural" evolution the planets biosphere itself has sent the signal to change in a certain direction.

In that regard the wanted/needed complex systems do not necessarily have to develop slowly, just cells have to build a different configuration. Such can happen very, very fast.

I have no doubts that modern DNA science has some points. But they do neglect the energetic, interconnected domain withing the whole band of frequencies. If they where aware of this, they wouldnt insert DNA, because the signal of this is broadcasted worldwide, even into our own DNA. Its like "Attention: Human inserted plum DNA into tomato". And this message is received by all. It may or may not have negative impact into humans gene domain. Personally i think it does have a negative impact. It is one of the reasons of decadency, a self destruction mechanism that is build in. There is a reason why non-physical energies like honor or truth have kept up the gene pool over centuries.

Legend has it that "The Ancient Culture" didnt insert DNA, but influenced the energetic domain directly with "magic" and similar mind techniques. The results have been the chimeras and... the downfall of the whole culture. But that just the legend... or shall we say the slowly dissolving memory of those times stored in our and others energetic gene domain.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Mague,
ID = Intelligent Design, a theory based on irreducible complexity.