Earth History

[Lloyd]

* The dating of all these things seems very problematic, since, as TPODs etc have shown, conventional dating in most cases seems to be way wrong. It usually dates things way older than they're likely actually to be. For example, many rock formations are dated in the millions of years, when the evidence indicates they can't be more than a few thousand years old. I started a thread on that topic here: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5769.

[tholden]

Part 5: Evolution of Oriental & Neanderthal Humans
ca. 100,000 to 50,000 y.a.

Terms like "Neanderthal Humans" or "Neanderthal Man" very clearly need to be viewed as oxymorons.

Again from http://www.themandus.org


Image courtesy of themandus.org

Calling that a man or human is a fairly clear misuse of language.

[Benevolent]

Isn't the golden age supposed to predate the appearance of Mars, Venus, the Sun and the other stars?

[Lloyd]

Ben. said: Isn't the golden age supposed to predate the appearance of Mars, Venus, the Sun and the other stars?

* No, that was the Age of Darkness that predated Mars, Venus and the Sun. The Golden Age began when the Saturn System entered the Solar System. The Sun shining on the Saturn System is what made Saturn increasingly bright, or Golden. Before that, in the Age of Darkness, it was only visible as a dull light, like a glow worm. Saturn was the only planet visible in the Age of Darkness. The Sun, Venus and eventually Mars and moons of Saturn were all that were visible in the 5,000 or so year-long Golden Age. The Moon became visible during the Saturn System breakup, apparently when it moved out of the Saturn System along with the Earth. The Moon was not visible from Earth before that. Mercury and the stars didn't become visible until after the breakup, after dust settled out of the atmosphere and maybe out of the inner Solar System. That's my take on Cardona's findings.

[StevenJay]

What I would still like to know is, by what incremental standard was the

5,000 or so year-long Golden Age

arrived at during an epoch prior to our current position in the solar system? Without some sort of cyclical structure in our experience, how would the passage of "time" have been perceived or chronicled, and how would that then translate into what we currently experience as solar "years?"

I've tossed this question out before in these pages and elsewhere but, so far, there haven't been any takers.

[Lloyd]

Dating the Golden Age

SJ said: by what incremental standard was the "5,000 or so year-long Golden Age" arrived at during an epoch prior to our current position in the solar system? Without some sort of cyclical structure in our experience, how would the passage of "time" have been perceived or chronicled, and how would that then translate into what we currently experience as solar "years?"

* Cardona may have answered that in the Interview thread. At any rate, he explained there or elsewhere that he considers the beginning of the Golden Age to have been the time of the Younger Dryas, a period much discussed in conventional geology. He says that before that the Saturn System had not yet entered the Solar System. He has also stated that mythology may have begun at that time as well, for there was no way to keep track of time before that. So that was also the beginning of keeping track of time by humans, although myths themselves don't reliably as yet, as far as we know, chronicle very precise time periods. To go further back in time cannot be done with mythology, but can be with geology etc.
* The present arrangement of the planets began about 4,500 years ago when the Saturn System broke up. The Golden Age ended then and started 5,000 or so years earlier, when the Saturn System entered the Solar System, i.e. about 10,000 years ago, possibly up to 14,000 or so years ago. Before that was the Age of Darkness.

[Lloyd]

* Ted, I don't find any websites that show Neanderthals looking like gorillas. They all look much more human. And they're said to be based on reconstruction from actual skulls etc. Here are excerpts from a couple of articles. The timeline may well be considerably off, if they used conventional radioactive decay dating methods, but the info seems reasonable. The second article goes on to show that autism seems to be inheritance of Neanderthal traits. Neanderthals are said to have invented music before Homo Sapiens, were matriarchal, had larger skull size, red hair, hairy bodies, were more cold-adapted and lived longer.
Sequencing the Neanderthal genome
http://www.genome-engineering.com/sequencing-the-neanderthal-genome-the-science-of-prehistory.html

Neanderthals as a separate group emerged around 400,000 years ago, and widely populated Europe from around 190,000 years ago, dying out around 28,000 years ago. Comparison of the DNA indicated that the European and Asian individuals shared around 1-4% of their DNA with the Neanderthals, suggesting Neanderthals and modern man interbred tens of thousands of years ago, leaving genes from this offshoot in modern human DNA.

http://s.ngm.com/2008/10/neanderthals/img/neanderthal-615.jpg

http://www.rdos.net/neanderthal.jpg

Modified reconstruction of Gibraltar Neanderthal child
The Neanderthal theory
http://rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm
Could Neanderthals really be a true species?

- Researchers claim modern man and Neanderthals were isolated for 700,000 years. Coyotes and wolves have been isolated for 1 million years, and far more generations, but can still produce fertile offspring. 13 Similar finding exists between tiger and lions that can interbreed after 5 million years of separation. 14 15
... Theoretically, a single hybrid offspring which could reproduce would be enough to transfer positive alleles from Neanderthals to modern humans. Because of this, it's no longer possible to trace hybrids with mitochondria-DNA analysis or origin of neutral alleles. 18 Several studies show that Neanderthals contributed to the modern human genome. 19 20

[tholden]

* Ted, I don't find any websites that show Neanderthals looking like gorillas..

They didn't. A gorilla is a peaceful herbivore, fairly easy to get along with; Neanderthals weren't like that at all.

There's only the one site at present which is presenting them correctly and that site is Vendramini's, and the logic for it is coercive; Vendramini is correct and all the others are wrong.

www.themandus.org

Vendramini on youtube, a few more images:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs

How Cro-Magnons actually got here:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophi ... istory.htm


I'm hoping Vendramini isn't sitting around holding his breath waiting for the evolosers to declare him a public hero or anything, his theory is basically disruptive technology, reducing the value of an awful lot of "scholarly work" to zero. He needs to get together with Quinton Tarantino and start owning the horror flick business.

[tholden]

The second article goes on to show that autism seems to be inheritance of Neanderthal traits.

There is terribly little genetic diversity amongst modern humans, vastly less than is the case with most mammalian species and that is due to one or more recent bottlenecks at which human populations were reduced to very small numbers. That cannot possibly be squared with the idea of any modern humans ever having interbred with Neanderthals. Again this is what a Neanderthal looked like:



Image courtesy of themandus.org

Talking about any human being even partly descended from that thing amounts to claiming that some Neanderthal male abducted and raped a woman and, rather than subsequently cooking and eating her, kept her alive long enough for her to bear a mixed-species child, and somehow or other raised the child to somehow or other breed back into human populations. That's basically idiotic. It would have never happened in the first place; the Neanderthal females would have killed that woman the first time her owner left her alone for ten seconds; and the Cro Magnons would have killed any cross-breeds when they killed off all the other hominids. Nor would they have needed DNA tests to make sure of who they were killing, it would have been really, really obvious.

What about the "new studies(TM)" you read about supposedly from 2010 and the claim that whites and East Asians have 1 - 4 percent Neanderthal DNA while Africans don't? In real life, any genes which we and Neanderthals (or any other apes for that matter) might have in common are basically just artifacts of some original designer using some of the same low-level parts much as C language math functions are used in both banking applications and rocket telemetry problems.

Autism existed in 1955 but it was hellishly rare. The explosion of Autism in our present age pretty much rules out calling it a genetic problem, the basic Haldane dilemma would prohibit anything like that.

[Lloyd]

* I think you're just trying to argue that humans descended from or were created by extraterrestrials. And I think your friend's site is based on imagination.

[tholden]

* I think you're just trying to argue that humans descended from or were created by extraterrestrials. And I think your friend's site is based on imagination.

Basic bottom line, Vendramini's reconstructions are consistent with what we know about Neanderthal DNA (that it was halfway between ours and that of chimps), and other reconstructions aren't.

[Lloyd]

Plausible
* Now that I've read much of the website material, it all sounds very plausible. But I hope Neanderthals weren't as ugly and mean-looking as he portrays them.
Hairlessness
* It seems that the Levantine humans might have gotten their hairlessness in part from living in warm bodies of water, which would also help account for some human sexual features and the fact that infants are born with the instinct to swim.
Catastrophism
* The author probably doesn't consider global catastrophism at all, but sea levels likely fluctuated a lot, due to glaciation and interglacial warming. The time from 50 to 100 millennia ago was in the Age of Darkness. I wonder if the rapid evolution of humans could have occurred during the Saturn System's entry into the Solar System about 10 to 14 millennia ago, instead of 50 to 100. Cro Magnon man is said by the author to have evolved in the Levant and then gone on the offensive against Neanderthals from there to the ends of Europe and Cro Magnon is said to have spread throughout the world. Could that have occurred 10-14 millennia ago? That's when Cardona seems to say that all of the religions and ancient myths originated. That could have been the time of the genocide against Neanderthals. Couldn't it?

[tholden]

Plausible
* Now that I've read much of the website material, it all sounds very plausible. But I hope Neanderthals weren't as ugly and mean-looking as he portrays them.
Hairlessness
* It seems that the Levantine humans might have gotten their hairlessness in part from living in warm bodies of water, which would also help account for some human sexual features and the fact that infants are born with the instinct to swim.
Catastrophism
* The author probably doesn't consider global catastrophism at all, but sea levels likely fluctuated a lot, due to glaciation and interglacial warming. The time from 50 to 100 millennia ago was in the Age of Darkness. I wonder if the rapid evolution of humans could have occurred during the Saturn System's entry into the Solar System about 10 to 14 millennia ago, instead of 50 to 100. Cro Magnon man is said by the author to have evolved in the Levant and then gone on the offensive against Neanderthals from there to the ends of Europe and Cro Magnon is said to have spread throughout the world. Could that have occurred 10-14 millennia ago? That's when Cardona seems to say that all of the religions and ancient myths originated. That could have been the time of the genocide against Neanderthals. Couldn't it?

Again my own take on these topics:

http://bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/P ... istory.htm

The 50K - 100K time frame which both Vendramini and Cardona both seem to buy into are almost certainly bogus and, as Gunnar Heinsohn has noted, a thousand years is one hell of a long time.

There is no workable version of a theory of evolution; the bearfabrique article goes into the question of splash saltation vs punc-eek, why the one answers the mail for our own fossil record and the other doesn't.

Of course, positing an other-planet origin for any Earth animal species is just kicking the can a block or two down the road as far as evolution or design. The laws of mathematics and probability work the same way everywhere else as they do here, and evolution isn't any more believable anywhere else than it is here. In any reasonable scheme of origins, intelligence has to arise first and create biology, not the other way around (evolution).

I view Elaine Morgan's vision of human morphology as substantially more believable than Vendramini's and you don't need to be an evolutionite to grasp that Morgan is almost certainly correct in thinking that humans originally lived in water.

That also says that the original human diet would have been some combination of fruit and shellfish, explaining our taste for sweet things. Cats would starve to death in a room full of cakes and candy bars.

Vendramini's artist has fight faces on his Neanderthals. No predator would ever show a prey animal a face like that, you'd scare the prey animal off...

[hex]

Vendramini's artist has fight faces on his Neanderthals. No predator would ever show a prey animal a face like that, you'd scare the prey animal off...

Those pics have a cartoonish quality in them, reminded me Disney's Pluto the dog, who lacks teeth when he is in happy or neutral mood, and grimaces with a set of human teeth when he's angry.

Indeed, hunting is not aggression, aggression is more of an intra species phenomen, having to do with resource competition - mates, territory, food. You are not angry at food.

If we were food to the Neandertals, they would have looked delighted when spotting us.

[tholden]

Vendramini's artist has fight faces on his Neanderthals. No predator would ever show a prey animal a face like that, you'd scare the prey animal off...

Those pics have a cartoonish quality in them, reminded me Disney's Pluto the dog, who lacks teeth when he is in happy or neutral mood, and grimaces with a set of human teeth when he's angry.

Indeed, hunting is not aggression, aggression is more of an intra species phenomen, having to do w acith resource competition - mates, territory, food. You are not angry at food.

If we were food to the Neandertals, they would have looked delighted when spotting us.

Granted the fight faces are cartoonish in a sense... Nonetheless Vendramini has done the world a huge favor in figuring out what Neanderthals actually looked like, these are the first realistic images we've ever had. The one side view which I've posted a couple of times here looks less like a fight face than the others on the website. Again the youtube video is worth watching and shows several other images I don't see on the website:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs