EU and Human Origins

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby hex » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:15 am

allynh wrote:The book came in from Amazon and am reading it now, I'm on page 40. I stumbled on this just out that is too fun not to share.

Human Species Created From Pigs and Chimps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIrE9TaC2rc

Georgia geneticist challenges evolution, links humans to pigs
http://saportareport.com/blog/2013/07/m ... evolution/

A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig- ... umans.html

Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybr ... dence.html

This is the original site.

Human Origins - Are we hybrids?
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-ori ... fgTxeBVd4V



Woo -hoo! thousands thanks, I had missed this totally.

Talk about an explosive theory that offends both the religotards and consensus science! I haven't had this much fun with speculative thought since I first took an indepth look at (neo-)velikovskian catastrophism!

a result of back crossing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oJ5Qo5Lx4U
hex
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:07 am

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby allynh » Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:27 am

I love the movie _Inherit the Wind_, the classic with Spencer Tracy. That conflict was about us being monkeys. I can't even think of what will happen with us being the result of a pig having his way with a sweet, sweet, chimpanzee, and their resultant love child that became Mitochondrial Eve. HA!

Mitochondrial Eve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_eve

This is what Symbiogenesis is all about.

"Symbiogenesis is the merging of two separate organisms to form a single new organism."

Symbiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis

We live in interesting times.
allynh
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby tholden » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:15 pm

You'd still have to explain how pigs and apes got here.....
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins = aquatic / WATERSIDE ape theory

Unread postby jmcw » Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:00 am

1st time poster long time lurker of any and all Plasma Electromagnetic Universe sites

many of the morphological difference between humanity and the great apes are easily accounted for via the aquatic ape/ waterside ape hypothesis

that in the area where lucy and some other skeletons (north eastern africa) have been found has been known to have flooded multiple times over millions of years and Oldowan flint tools dating as far back as 2.5 million years found on Socotra Island off the tip of the horn of africa (north eastern africa).......which fits perfectly with EU solar cycles = change in solar output during orbit of galactic core/ moving through galactic circuit..... causing ice ages = drying up and melts causing flooding/ rises in sea level which created swampy areas , rivers, lakes, small isolated islands (touches on Buckminster Fuller idea that humanity evolved intelligence on an island away from large predators),etc...

the constant inundation and drying up was the selective pressures (thanx to Electric sun = variable output sun as it moves through galactic circuit/ around galactic core) for traits that were advantageous to a semi-aquatic life

-loss of body fur
- keeping hair on heads for hand holds for babies in a water environment
-more stream lined and straighter legs when water receded would lead to bipedalism on land
- subcutaneous fat 10% more & placement in line w aquatic mammals as vs land mammals w less fat layers and majority around organs not under skin like blubber that makes it easier to float and out babies are born way fatter than land only mammal babies while also showing signs of not being afraid of water when born as well as basic swimming technique that is less vulnerable and less helpless than if we were land based only...human babies are born on land as the most helpless animal known
- elongated and downward pointing nose (deformity that proved via natural selection to be beneficial )better at preventing water entering the nose while diving
- well developed diving reflex with slowing down of heart and lung rate just like other diving animals = aquatic mammals and diving birds like ducks
- descended larynx which allows control of breath (for diving/ swimming) enables talking which we share only with other aquatic mammals ....orangutans, chimps, and gorillas all have the brain areas related to controlling breath and speech, but do not have descended larynxs to actually control breath which is required for speech
- expanded well devolved cranial sinuses which would help keep heads above water
- lack of twitch muscle like land based only mammals due to being in and out of water for long periods and multiple time periods in a watery environment
- lack of panting to cool off unlike all other land only mammals
-watery ecosystems (especially estuaries where fresh water meets salty ocean water) are some of the most abundant in life = food resources that are easily gatherable as vs the harder and more time consuming and vulnerable hunter on the savannah theory
- water way food sources higher in known brain building nutrients like zinc, omega 3 fatty acids, DHA, folic acid etc etc
- easily gathering food is a quicker promoter of social behavior and cohesion/ working together/ culture as vs open savannah
-safety of being able to flee into the water from land based predators and vise verse onto land to get away from water predators...back and forth as vs open savannah only theory
- a hymen (though chimps do posses a hymen but chimps are themselves separated from larger ape populations and each other = general chimp and bonobos by rivers and lakes)

etc etc etc

The biggest proponent of aquatic ape/ waterside ape theory recently passed away july 12 2013, Elaine Morgan. She became interested in it due to feelings of open savannah theory couldn't explain our differences from other great apes and was too sexist male hunter relegating females to hiding in some cave as vs mutual sexes working and living together gathering easily obtainable food in and around water....she came across a marine biologists Alister Hardy mentioning our subcutaneous fat most resembled aquatic mammals as vs land only mammals

Elaine Morgan 2009 Ted talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwPoM7lGYHw

3 vids discussing aquatic ape/ waterside ape theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRR2Wsit1lw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9nqjZphfLA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTe9qVEAcXk



-
jmcw
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:17 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins = aquatic / WATERSIDE ape theory

Unread postby jmcw » Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:18 am

jmcw wrote:- subcutaneous fat 10% more & placement in line w aquatic mammals as vs land mammals w less fat layers and majority around organs not under skin like blubber that makes it easier to float .......................

-



sorry should be 10 times not 10%

10 times more fat than land only mammals and the site seems to be not letting me edit that part
jmcw
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:17 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins = aquatic / WATERSIDE ape theory

Unread postby tholden » Sat Aug 17, 2013 4:54 pm

jmcw wrote:1st time poster long time lurker of any and all Plasma Electromagnetic Universe sites

many of the morphological difference between humanity and the great apes are easily accounted for via the aquatic ape/ waterside ape hypothesis...
-


Well and good but, as Troy and I demonstrate in Cosmos in Collision, an original home world for humans would need to have been both wet, AND BRIGHT.

Parts of this planet were wet enough in prehistoric times, but it was a terribly dark sort of place and human eyes would have been nearly worthless in those conditions. Again, a hominid needing to evolve into a human would need to have

1. Lost his fur while ice ages were in progress
2. Lost almost all of his sense of smell while trying to survive as a land prey animal
3. Lost almost all of his night vision in an age when night was the only time of day to be had

The other problem with Morgan's thesis of course and the main reason the idea has never gotten any traction in academia is that there has never been a body of water on this Earth which would have been safe for humans to live in. Ten minutes in the ancient sea-monster exhibit at the Smithsonian will convince anybody that they didn't want to be living in water anywhere close to here, 50,000 years ago. In other words, the theory needs some other planet on which to happen.

Ganymede in prehistoric times was both wet and bright, almost certainly safe from sea monsters and with its intrinsic magnetosphere, also safe from radiation. It was a fresh water ocean world with both anchored islands and floating bergs of pumice which humans could gather on for fruit when they got tired of swimming after fish.

Ted
Last edited by tholden on Sat Aug 17, 2013 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins = aquatic / WATERSIDE ape theory

Unread postby tholden » Sat Aug 17, 2013 4:56 pm

jmcw wrote:
Elaine Morgan 2009 Ted talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwPoM7lGYHw

-


Are you familiar with ted.com or do you have any idea as to how ted talks are arranged??
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins = aquatic / WATERSIDE ape theory

Unread postby jmcw » Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:25 am

tholden wrote:................
1. Lost his fur while ice ages were in progress
...........................

The other problem with Morgan's thesis of course and the main reason the idea has never gotten any traction in academia is that there has never been a body of water on this Earth which would have been safe for humans to live in. ...............
Ganymede in prehistoric times was both wet and bright, almost certainly safe from sea monsters and with its intrinsic magnetosphere, also safe from radiation. It was a fresh water ocean world with both anchored islands and floating bergs of pumice which humans could gather on for fruit when they got tired of swimming after fish.

Ted


the selective pressure to loose fur was during a melt = sea level rise & not an ice age,
but backing up.... bipedalism has now been shown to have come about 1st as evidenced with lucy etc and fossilized tracks in the area that was flooded at the time.

There are many waterways on earth that are and have been safe, otherwise any modern human stepping foot in water would instantly be gobbled up. Please re-read what i posted.....escaping into water from land predators and back out from water predators and back and forth etc. There are modern examples of water side monkeys = https://www.google.com/search?q=monkey+ ... 1&tbm=isch

WATERSIDE is much safer than open savanah as well as safer vs Water only

Morgan's thesis is less thesis and more supporter of Alister Harty's (arrived at in 1930's but not mentioned till 1960's) thesis which was also proposed by German biologist Max Westenhofer in 1942 "River Apes"

as far as traction, more and more are coming over like Professor Tobias palaeoanthropologist before he passed away, Desmond Morris author of The Naked Ape has come over, Sir David Attenborough has come over to the waterside /aquatic ape theory etc. Slowly but surely it is becoming more accepted after a long fight (hopefully like the Electric universe model will eventually do against the "standard model")

Admittedly; I posted from the point of view of earth orbiting SOL as vs possibly orbiting Saturn (when a "brown dwarf"). Still reading and learning. At 1st shied away from such but can not argue with the similarities between Venus and Titan which points to venus not being original to its current orbit. IF earth was in orbit around Saturn in the past pre a cataclysm that now has earth in orbit around SOL sun....many possibilities open up with earth at that time being even more watery than it currently is

Also admittedly the mention of millions of years / dating has issues as mentioned on Electric Sky site with lightning being able to (if I understand it correctly) drive argon into material thus making argon dating useless etc
jmcw
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:17 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins = aquatic / WATERSIDE ape theory

Unread postby tholden » Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:04 pm

jmcw wrote:the selective pressure to loose fur was during a melt = sea level rise & not an ice age,


If there was such a thing as a selective pressure to lose fur, you'd think there would be more than one furless animal walking around.

Are you claiming you actually believe that humans evolved from hominids??
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins = aquatic / WATERSIDE ape theory

Unread postby jmcw » Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:28 pm

tholden wrote:
If there was such a thing as a selective pressure to lose fur, you'd think there would be more than one furless animal walking around.

Are you claiming you actually believe that humans evolved from hominids??



the selective pressure is WATER

the majority of water mammals or wallowers in mud have all lost the majority of their fur except for such as sea otters etc which appears to be due to a minimum size requirement. for the smaller sea otter = retaining fur is better thermal regulation thanx to an added production of oils to keep their fur water resistant but above a minimum size fur even with waterproofing oil is not as efficient (nature is nothing if not efficient) than less and less fur and movement of body fat to a blubber layer as vs interior lining organs.

the only land only (stress land ONLY....elephants, rhinos etc are not land only mammals) mammal to loose fur is the somalli mole rat that never comes above ground and due to its entire life below ground did not and does not need fur

again the selective pressure is water

do you believe humans came about EX NIHLIO?

maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it seems you have a preconceived notion that you are trying to fit facts to. Plasma Electromagnetic Universe scientists/proponents are supposed to be against that kind of thinking.

Again; maybe I am misunderstanding you. Written communication / internet posts is an easily misunderstood and inferior form of communication since the majority of communication is body language and tone of voice

admittedly, i have not read anything by you yet except these few posts.
jmcw
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:17 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins = aquatic / WATERSIDE ape theory

Unread postby tholden » Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:40 pm

jmcw wrote:
Again; maybe I am misunderstanding you. Written communication / internet posts is an easily misunderstood and inferior form of communication since the majority of communication is body language and tone of voice

admittedly, i have not read anything by you yet except these few posts.


The book in question is Cosmos in Collision:

http://www.cosmoincollision.com

Troy McLachlan and I believe it represents a major step forward in understanding human origins. It doesn't answer every question you'd have about origins, but several of the questions it does answer are big ones.

I've mentioned this before, I can think of one and only one advantage which might accrue to something like a hominid by losing its fur and that would be the question of handling fire, particularly in open areas in wind. An incident which would cause a minor burn to a human could easily light a Neanderthal up like a torch and fry him.

You can talk about fresh water or about humans running into water to avoid lions and then back onto land to avoid sharks, but that's pretty convoluted. Fresh water in past ages would still contain mosquitoes, hippos, water moccasins, and all kinds of things which you'd not want to be in the water with and a fur coat is still the main protection a hominid would have against most of that. Bull sharks have no inhibitions about fresh water for that matter.

Yeah, you could talk about elephants and hippos not having fur but they have inch-thick skins which no hominid or human ever had. That may have something to do with our not reading anything about 100,000,000 elephants dying from malaria since they banned DDT...

Then again the adaptations Elaine Morgan writes about are not the adaptations you'd need to just run into fresh water to avoid lions and then run out again, she's talking about being able to LIVE in water.

I'd still claim there's never been a body of water on this planet which humans could live in, but the issue is sort of moot: you've still got the problem that human eyes are also totally maladaptive for the kinds of conditions which prevailed here 50,000 years ago:

Image

And there's still no way to believe that any hominid could have evolved into a human, particularly when Cro Magnon humans show up on the planet 45,000 years ago with all of their complex gadgets, weaponry, and artwork in place from the first day:

Image

There is zero evidence of hominid artwork on this planet and when you look at Danny Vendramini's Neanderthal reconstructions, you're not really seeing people who' you'd figure to be interested in the fine arts:

Image

The first half of Cosmos in Collision goes over the requirements for an original human home world as well as the reasons for rejecting any sort of a hominif-to-human evolutionary scheme. The second half of the book makes the case for Jupiter's largest moon, Ganymede, having been a sort of a fresh-water ocean paradise 50,000 years ago, and a perfect world for early humans. That is, it would have been a fresh water ocean world with anchored islands and floating bergs of pumice with lush vegetation, an intrinsic magnetosphere, bright, warm, wet, safe from cosmic radiation, and in all likelihood, safe from all of the things which prevent people from living in water on thisplanet.

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-in-Collisi ... +collision


Ted
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby tholden » Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:18 pm

There are a couple of things which can give you an idea as to how different light conditions were 50,000 years ago versus present conditions. One I've mentioned before is the thing about the Nenderthal brain, which turns out to have been dominated by the parts of the brain involving vision, i.e. the Neanderthal brain was largely the neurological equivalent of the circuitry for a military night-vision scope.

Another thing in the same category involves deer hunting and the fact that deer see in ultraviolet. Bambi generally sees motion very well but sees forms badly so that of all the money spent on deer hunting paraphernalia, the least well spent is on camouflage gear. But it turns out that a lot of guys were washing their camo stuff in detergents which left an ultraviolet sheen on it and having no idea why Bambi would turn tail and run at the first sight of it....

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... -UV-Vision

Conversely, I HAVE spoken with people who've shot white-tail deer with bows with a white shirt and tie on, just to prove to themselves it could be done.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins = aquatic / WATERSIDE ape theory

Unread postby jmcw » Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:32 pm

tholden wrote:.................snip...............

Ted


snipped the quote of your post because reposting it in total would be long, but wanted to express reading it & responding to

Looking foreword to reading Cosmos in Collision

never insisted = fresh water. In fact the most likely area along the coast of north east africa and across to socotra Island (salt marsh crossing from horn of africa during a dry up / ice age) would be estuaries where fresh water runoff met salt ocean (estuaries being the most biologically abundant areas and easily accessible food sources) Would even postulate that the greatest amount of fossils to be found would be off of the sea coasts and a few hundred feet down. Regrettably too many anthropologists and paleontologists are still stuck on the dead "open savanah" theory so end up wasting resources and time looking in the wrong place

as far as an advantage of nakedness = better thermal regulation when in water as well as better streamlined swimming/ wading etc

One thing that the aquatic ape and modern geology and meteorology was never able to explain is the floods (warm ups)/ ice age (dry ups) cycles that are so obvious to have occurred. Then when I stumbled across Plasma Electromagnetic cosmology = Electric sun, it just clicked............as the sun moves through the galactic circuit it cycles through variable output due to variable input thus creating the ice ages resulting sea level going down due to water being locked up in the poles and floods from warm ups melting polar ice.

Now if earth was originally in orbit around saturn (when a "dwarf" star/sun) the earth's surface could have been covered by even more water than the current 70-75% and the resulting catastrophe ending up with in orbit around SOL the sun could have seen a large amount of water vapor and water itself expelled/ off gased/ electrically released from earth ...

Anyway; as said .....looking foreword to reading your book. Have enjoyed the forum discourse and even if we end up completely disagreeing on evolution , we can at least agree upon Plasma Electromagnetic Universe cosmology being far superior, more logical, more in line with observations and experimentation than the modern myth = standard model cosmology
jmcw
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:17 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins = aquatic / WATERSIDE ape theory

Unread postby tholden » Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:47 pm

jmcw wrote:
never insisted = fresh water....


You might find this interesting... Immanuel Velikovsky believed that our own oceans had been fresh water prior to the flood, and I'm not aware of the actual evidence for that. I'd also assume that the basic volume of water on this planet increased at the time of the flood and that continental shelves are basically pre-flood ocean boundaries.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins = aquatic / WATERSIDE ape theory

Unread postby jmcw » Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:02 pm

tholden wrote:You might find this interesting... Immanuel Velikovsky believed that our own oceans had been fresh water prior to the flood, and I'm not aware of the actual evidence for that. .....................................


Velikovsky was right on a lot of things BUT there is no way he is 100% right on that. now they could have been less salty BUT

the salinity of ocean water isn't just NaCl its also made up of potassium salts, calcium, etc...even minute amounts of gold and other metals

The alchemists figured out where the salinity in the oceans came from a long time ago. Simple experiments of adding soil to water then filtering out the dirt then evaporating the water left behind salts

Just as modern human agriculture has figured out , especially due to irrigation techniques......salts in the soil will percolate up as irrigation water evaporates from the bare ground inbetween crop rows (a horribly inefficient and foolish way to farm but that is a whole different subject) and the top layers will become more salty limiting crop production eventully to even killing crops in the more extreme examples

so the salinity of the oceans is due to any water cycle from rain wash off, springs percolating up filling creeks wadis rivers etc and then flowing out to the seas carrying salts in very minute amounts but all such together and over a long time will concentrate the salts in our oceans

the moment there was a water cycle on earth was the moment the oceans and seas started becoming salty, just as soon after dumping enough water on mars (if we were going to teraform it) a water cycle would develop and the lower elevation areas would collect salts

now the seas/ oceans could and most likely were less salty than today but they have been salty from way before the last flood cycle (both poles and greenland ice amounts if melted would cause all world ocean raise levels above 400 ft) and would say they have been salty through many cycles , ages, catastrophes, time periods

on the water volume prior to the last flood cycle.....figure about 100 foot sea level rise somewhere between 10,000 BCE - 6,000BCE due to about 70 odd feet from warming up caps and the breaking of ice walls holding back up to 3 northern hemisphere super lakes (from ice run off) and the rest probably deposited/ carried to earth via a venus fly by ....maybe stripped off from mars

PS;

depending on SOL orbiting milky way core (supposedly a galactic year is 225 to 250 million) and if SOL receives more input to cause it to output a lot more.....IF both arctic Ice and Antarctic Ice along with Greenland Ice sheet melt

we would face a civilization destroying catastrophe that would make the last flood cycle look like nothing

That all depends on SOL cycle during a galactic year, kind of scary that there is enough water locked up that if melted would be a flood like nothing we could imagine wiping out 40-45% of population and most major cities then the resulting disruption to our current systems would cause more die offs due to food,medicine, etc not being delivered to inland cities because all shipping ports would be wiped out.
jmcw
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:17 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests