Exactly How Old Are Homo Sapiens?

[tholden]

Time to revitalize this thread.
Here's a link I ran across recently:
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/adam.html
Nice doorway to a variety of related topics which may interest the readers. I question some of the alleged dates, but aside from that find many of the evidences presented to be relevant to our discussion here.

I've been going over (lightly) a few of these topics on the two other threads dealing with Neanderthals ("Basajaun") recently and Danny Vendramini notes the sudden arrival of real humans on the planet which he assumes to be a punc-eek sort of thing. Again I don't see any possibility of that, again my page on these topics is a work in progress but it lives here:

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophi ... istory.htm

I've also had a couple of conversations with Troy Mclachlan recently and some of the info acquired that way needs to go into the new page. Troy's Purple Dawn page is beyond fascinating, and lives here:

http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-de ... rple-haze/

The general concept I come to is that the real question is how long modern humans have been on this planet, and not how long they have existed. I also come to the conclusion that modern humans came here in at least two separate groups/waves, and that the two groups were genetically identical or close enough not to worry about the difference, but that the original cultures and technologies were substantially different. The Bible doesn't know anything about stone technologies, the atlatl, the purple age, or the neolithic world war against the Neanderthal. Wanting to believe that Adam and Eve were descended from Cro Magnons is thus like thinking some group to whom the internal combustion engine was totally alien, was descended from Americans.

Vendramini notes that the basic hominid tool kit had gone for a million years (his belief system) without meaningful change and then around 46K years ago or thereabouts according to standard reckoning, exploded into all kinds of new things, including fish hooks, harpoon tips, and needles (which an ice-age ape with a fur coat wouldn't need...).

Klein and others apparently view all of that as a lucky mutation but, again, that's an evoloser fairytale. The evidence indicates that humans got here via some sort of event which did not involve evolution.

[Andrew]

I'm wanting to reconcile cataclysmic events occurring at the end of the last ice age, and the period marking the ending of the world of 'gods and wonder'. They seem to be 5 or 6,000 years apart.

I'm not seeing David Talbot or others working out a chronology to address the difference between these two major earth events. Per David, it appears the 'golden age' was during the reign of proto-Saturn, which was just prior to the rise of Sumer and Egypt. (Or was it earlier than that?)

The cataclysms and extinctions at the end-of-the ice age undoubtedly occurred around 12,000 - 9,500 BCE. If so, this doesn't sound like a golden age was still occurring then.

Clarity please!

[seasmith]

?
just silence ??

[hex]

Obviously you cannot rely on the traditional chronology, including that proposed by the paleoclimatology.


Didn't for instance Velikovski offer catastrofical alternatives to gradual climate change? or data suggesting slow change?


But it might indeed to seem that the Saturnian scenario is difficult to harmonize with the current paleoclimatological mainstream view.

[303vegas]

The time-scale for the presence of homo sapiens upon earth depends upon the age of our original home world. I've often thought it would be nice if we found out that we actually came from the destroyed planet which is thought to comprise the asteroid belt. Could this have been the original Atlantis? We, as a specie,s seem just to pop up in the fossil record pretty much as we are today, there doesn't seem to be a missing link at all. Maybe one of these billionaire johnnies who want to mine asteroids will find some evidence? (I'll share the film rights on this one!) Who knows..?

[tholden]

The time-scale for the presence of homo sapiens upon earth depends upon the age of our original home world. I've often thought it would be nice if we found out that we actually came from the destroyed planet which is thought to comprise the asteroid belt. Could this have been the original Atlantis? We, as a specie,s seem just to pop up in the fossil record pretty much as we are today, there doesn't seem to be a missing link at all. Maybe one of these billionaire johnnies who want to mine asteroids will find some evidence? (I'll share the film rights on this one!) Who knows..?

That's a reasonable guess.

Here's what I come to wrt that sort of question....

Mars was definitely inhabited in prehistoric times but the existence of Phobos, which is artificial, and the large city evidence on Mars indicate a space-faring civilization so that there's no reason to think our ancestors came from Mars since our ancestors were much less advanced than that. I'd also asssume that our ancestors came from one or more other bodies in our own system rather than from any other star system simply due to the laws of probability and the distances involved and the amount of effort interstellar travel would take.

There appear to have been at least two separate saltations of modern humans on our planet, i.e. Cro Magnons who were a stone technology culture, and the Bible antediluvians who were metal technology from day one.

Apes, monkeys, and hominids (bipedal apes) had been on this planet for some time before humans arrived. We are not related to them other than for the possibility of an original designer re-using a certain number of low-level components.

In other words, any genes we might share with hominids should be viewed as similar to the situation in which low level C language math functions are used both in banking software and rocket telemetry applications, there's at least that much difference between humans and any hominid.

[jtb]

When I was a kid (early 60's), evolution in the school system taught us that blacks evolved from apes, orientals evolved from blacks, and whites evolved from orientals. The migration of humans from Africa, to Asia, and then to Europe is the explanation of evolution to support the core belief. WEB Debois, founder of the NAACP, expressed outrage at this assumption in one of his books because he knew he was more intelligent than the majority of his white associates.

Evolutionists reason that since apes presently live in Africa, humans originated there, so that's where they look for evidence to support their theory. In the early part of the last century, an evolutionary scientist (his name escapes me) tried breeding (artificially) black women with apes (their skin is black), oriental women with orangutans (yellow skin), and white women with chimpanzees (white skin). The experiment ended when the women started dieing as a result of the experiment.

No doubt, evolution is a racist theory supported by individuals who believe they are superior to others.

Velikovsky presents a non-racist version of macro-evolution in one of his books. Very extreme environmental conditions (such as close encounters with comets) kill all but a few members of a species containing double chromosomes (DC). Breeding with other surviving DC members creates a new species. If the DC breeds back with the original species, the new species disappears.
jtb

[webolife]

Whether or not evolution is inherently a racist theory is open to interpretation. If Charles Darwin was a racist, he hid it well in his writings. Uncontroversial is the fact that racists from Huxley to Hitler and present day Aryan extremists have from the beginning touted evolution to support racist beliefs. I've always felt that the Eve theory was built upon a racist presupposition. Ironically even the Black Muslim movement has promoted the racist belief that blacks are the original humans [descended from apes or a common ancestor], and that other racists have de-volved from them.