Before Sanskrit

Rum, beer, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: Before Sanskrit

Postby greytowhite on Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:59 pm

Here's something to throw people for a loop. Who knows where humanity really originated from? Fuckin' no one because science is learning all the time.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 083548.htm
Last edited by greytowhite on Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
greytowhite
Wuji
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:33 pm
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Before Sanskrit

Postby Steve James on Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:07 am

If humanity originated in Europe, does that men we're all European, including Asians? Wowee, glad to be part of the human family. Now, what does that (or would that) mean? That's the problem with the entire discussion, and the origin of the desire to be credited with being the first human beings. The people who first studied this all considered their nations and race to be the first, for natural if not obvious reasons. Then came discoveries in Africa that showed that the remains of every single hominid (which is not the same as a hominin) could be found there, and no where else.

The response was the "out of Africa" thesis, which was later supported through dna testing. But, I'll get back to that. The response of many people of African (specifically what in America we call Black) descent was an "Aha. Look at this example from Asia, Europe, even Mexico that has Sub Saharan African features. Black people were really the first people. Now, the immediate counter-response was to try to prove or disprove the out of Africa thesis. There were plenty of chances that paleo-anthropological evidence might be found to show, for ex., that Europeans were descended more from Neanderthals than Cro-Magnons. This happened in Asia too. Their scientists wanted to prove that Asians, specifically the Chinese, were a distinct sub species that originated in Asia from hominids like Homo erectus.

All of these arguments are based on racial theories cast or hidden as national ones. And, the fundamental stupid assumption is that 1) African means Black or appearing like the descriptions and caricatures created by others. So, African origins mean ... the first people were Black (WRONG). And, contrarily, if the first humans originated in Europe, the first people were White. Right. WRONG. Likewise for Asians.

Anyway, how does one check for the common origins of all living humans? Nowadays, through dna. It's pretty simple, genes are pass from parents to their children. And, it's been done. Here's a video that was on YouTube that tells the story of one Chinese scientist's research on Asian origins. I don't agree with the point of the section after his part finishes. It repeats much of what has already been written in this thread.
https://www.facebook.com/truthandedutai ... 493824474/

Afa the sciencedaily article, a couple of things should be noted. 7.5 million years ago was the Miocene Age. I'll cite a bit about it from the Wiki, but you can choose your source on it.

The apes arose and diversified during the Miocene, becoming widespread in the Old World. By the end of this epoch, the ancestors of humans had split away from the ancestors of the chimpanzees to follow their own evolutionary path. As in the Oligocene before it, grasslands continued to expand and forests to dwindle in extent. In the Miocene seas, kelp forests made their first appearance and soon became one of Earth's most productive ecosystems.[4] The plants and animals of the Miocene were fairly modern. Mammals and birds were well-established. Whales, seals, and kelp spread.


There were lots of hominins around in Europe at the time. In fact, it's universally accepted that there were many types of hominins in many parts of the world. On that point, the article doesn't say anything new. What's interesting is the way the conclusion is presented. For ex., back to the distinction between hominin and hominid:

Hominid – the group consisting of all modern and extinct Great Apes (that is, modern humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans plus all their immediate ancestors).

Hominin – the group consisting of modern humans, extinct human species and all our immediate ancestors (including members of the genera Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus).


Note again the title of the article: "7.2-million-year-old pre-human remains found in the Balkans"

What is a "pre-human" one might ask? Well, that's a hominin. The origins of "humankind" can be connected to pre-humans, but we're talking evolution here. Humankind can be connected or considered descended from the first mammals too.

If the question is where "modern humans" originated is posed; i.e., where the first hominids originated, the answer is quite different --because of genetic testing. It has also to be considered that at some point long after the first hominids emerged, there was a die off of most of those species. The argument is the last remaining group of these hominids that were Cro Magnon modern humans with technology and language skills crossed from the African continent into the Middle East --where there were other hominids, but not homo sapiens sapiens. The homo sapiens eventually, through interbred with or out competed the other hominid species and became dominant.

Again, the way to test is simply to look at genes. All modern humans have some genes that can be traced to African origins. The process does not work in reverse. But, it doesn't prove a thing about Black, White, Red, Brown or Yellow people or their descendants except that they are related. The first homo sapiens carried all the genetic variety necessary to result in all the different variations.

So, people can go on about how the races are different, but it has nothing to do with the origin of humans. Moreover, if an older jaw bone is found that is older that 7.5 million years in Puerto Rico, would that mean that humankind originated there? I'm sure if it were found in Iraq, there'd be those who'd agree; but question whether some scavenger or other circumstance transported the skull from what would become Israel. That would explain a lot to some people. Imo, it's silly to beat one's chest or be happy one way or the other, which is not to say that much of the cultural assertions are correct. It shouldn't burst anyone's bubble.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Before Sanskrit

Postby greytowhite on Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:27 am

Basically my assertion is that the narrative for this stuff is kinda ridiculous. We have new technology to sift human DNA from soil now. And yes, many European populations are hybridized with Neanderthals and Asian populations are hybridized with Denisovans. Also East Asian populations have approximately 10% greater brain volume. Meanwhile European descent humans have a larger visual cortex to process lower light levels. Looking at other evidence it's thought that certain hominid species were kept as sex slaves. The archaeological evidence is pretty scarce in Asia and Africa thanks to tropical conditions. Consider the difference of sea level when the diaspora began the routes they took are probably underwater now. Who knows exactly where modern humanity developed? It's certainly well established that Out of Africa is scientifically sound but where did modern humanity become itself? There is all kinds of stuff we just don't know. I'm a big fan of science but not scientism.
User avatar
greytowhite
Wuji
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:33 pm
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Before Sanskrit

Postby Steve James on Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:17 pm

Who knows exactly where modern humanity developed?


Do you mean homo sapiens (wise man)? I.e. Us. That's precisely the "out of Africa" thesis. I.e., those people approximately 70,000 years ago had all the tools and mental abilities of modern humans, specifically a complex language system. You mentioned brain case size, as if that's important. You should read Stephen J. Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man." He tells a funny story about how European "scientists" would try to show that European were smarter because their brain cases were bigger. They'd put mustard seeds in skulls, and, to no one's surprise, European skulls did hold more seeds. But, he found out it was because of the scientists, not the skulls.

Afa hominid sex slaves, do you mean of hominins. I.e., did chimps (hominids) keep hominin sex slaves or other hominid sex slaves? Or, did Cro Magnon keep Denisovian and Neanderthal sex slaves? I don't know, but I think the idea of sex slavery aopt to simple interbreeding is more modern science-lite.

Anyway, like I said, the whole enterprise of searching for human origins was started to prove ethno-regional or "racial" superiority. The French found evidence in France (the Cro Magnon). The Germans found their "Neanderthal." The British didn't find anything, so the created the Piltdown Man hoax. Then, in the 20th century, scientists found much older evidence in Africa. It was surprising precisely because all the previous assumptions (nowhere near science) predicted European origins. That was the kerfluffle or covvffee. No dna evidence has proven that. All Europeans have African genes, no purity whatsoever. They do have --generously-- 10% Neanderthal or other genes. Most Sub-Saharan Africans have almost none. People can interpret that result any way they choose. Chinese scientists were sure that they would find that they were, like dragon's teeth, purely originated in China. All they had to do was not find a gene that was present in early an early African population. They found, surprise, that every Chinese they tested from every region had it. He said that we should be happy :).

Otoh, if by modern human, you mean the birth of large scale civilizations. Europe is far behind Iran (Babylon), Egypt, India, and Asia. But, my point is that looking for something in order to prove something is dangerously unscientific. Then, if the results don't fit the preconceptions, rather than move on, the tendency is to test until something supports the thesis. Or, for the layperson, to simply dismiss any science that doesn't conform to the thesis. Or, the results are important if they confirm the thesis, but irrelevant if they don't.

If the results were irrelevant, though, there wouldn't be this discussion. Europeans started the inferior/superior thing and tried to prove it with sciency. And, that's for exactly the reasons I've stated.

It's also obvious that all humans are hominids, but not all hominids are "homos." There were once more than one variety of homo on the planet. Now there is only one --and I don't mean "gays." No matter the presence of other dna, they're homo sapiens. They can all interbreed successfully. Any can learn any other's language. So, if you're asking where the first homo sapiens existed, the article about the hominin (pre-human and pre-ape), does nothing to support your point. Sure, finding a 7.5 million year homo sapien in the Balkans would be interesting, except that as I said, homo sapiens sapiens as a species have only been around no more than 70 to 100 thousand years.

Well, it's true that aliens might have come to earth and interbred with hominins in Europe who later migrated to Africa. I'm sure there's someone promoting that. It wouldn't matter or change the out of Africa thesis only where the first hominin species evolved. Of course, the whole argument requires evolutionary theory.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Before Sanskrit

Postby Strange on Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:01 pm

western logical, linear deductive thinking like to go for a single source origin type of hypothesis
i am not a scientist, but i do not think there is such a simple, clear cut explanation
Last edited by Strange on Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
天官指星 单对月 风摆荷叶 影成双

岳武穆王以枪为拳, 六合形意李门世根, 形意拳五行为先, 论身法六合为首,少揽闲事心田静, 多读拳谱武艺精 - 李洛能 (形意拳谱)
User avatar
Strange
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5572
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 1:33 am

Re: Before Sanskrit

Postby wiesiek on Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:07 am

well,
kinda of interesting, :
lot of human inventions was done simultaneously in different part of the globe before telegraph era...
Joyful Fruits of the Live
wiesiek
Wuji
 
Posts: 4480
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:38 am
Location: krakow

Re: Before Sanskrit

Postby Overlord on Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:39 am



I was taught by my school in younger days Hitler is a racist ~
I learnt that Neo Nazis are white supremacist ~
But now I knew that Neo Nazis is not Nazis.

It's interesting that for a racist person, he and his officers had taken time to investigate both origins of black and Asians~
And calling them the true Hebrews~
This is interesting~ either he is not a racist but a lier or he told the truth~
Overlord

 

Re: Before Sanskrit

Postby Overlord on Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:11 am

Overlord

 

Re: Before Sanskrit

Postby Taste of Death on Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:41 am

Back to reality
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/science/human-fossils-morocco.html

Fossils discovered in Morocco are the oldest known remains of Homo sapiens, scientists reported on Wednesday.

Dating back roughly 300,000 years, the bones indicate that mankind evolved earlier than had been known, experts say, and open a new window on our origins.

The fossils also show that early Homo sapiens had faces much like our own, although their brains differed in fundamental ways.

Until now, the oldest fossils of our species, found in Ethiopia, dated back just 195,000 years. The new fossils suggest our species evolved across Africa.

“We did not evolve from a single cradle of mankind somewhere in East Africa,” said Phillipp Gunz, a paleoanthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Liepzig, Germany, and a co-author of two new studies on the fossils, published in the journal Nature.
Last edited by Taste of Death on Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It was already late. Night stood murkily over people, and no one else pronounced words; all that could be heard was a dog barking in some alien village---just as in olden times, as if it existed in a constant eternity." Andrey Platonov
User avatar
Taste of Death
Wuji
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:07 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Before Sanskrit

Postby Steve James on Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:34 pm

Fossils discovered in Morocco are the oldest known remains of Homo sapiens, scientists reported on Wednesday.

Dating back roughly 300,000 years, the bones indicate that mankind evolved earlier than had been known, experts say, and open a new window on our origins.


Every discovery offers a new window on "our" origins ;). The conclusions we draw from them are interesting.

However, let's reiterate. We can test the dna of the humans (homo sapiens) living today and trace back their "origins." All of them living are genetic descendants of common ancestors --whether or not other members of the same species existed at the same time. It's simply like a family line dying out or becoming extinct.

This is different from looking for "Eden" or the "cradle of human kind." Where the bones are found might be nice for national pride, but should not be significant in terms of how contemporary humans are viewed.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Before Sanskrit

Postby Steve James on Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:31 pm

Here's a nice summary

Digging on a hilltop in the Sahara Desert, scientists have found the most ancient known members of our own species, undermining longstanding ideas about the origins of humanity.

The newfound Homo sapiens fossils — three young adults, one adolescent and a child of 7 or 8 — date back roughly 300,000 years, says a study in this week’s Nature. The next-oldest fossils of Homo sapiens, the scientific name for humans, are about 200,000 years old.

The 200,000-year-old fossils were found in eastern Africa, sometimes called the “Garden of Eden” for its supposedly pivotal role as the birthplace of humanity. But the new fossils are from Morocco in far northern Africa, supporting the theory that the evolution of modern humans was a piecemeal affair that played out across the continent.

“There is no Garden of Eden in Africa,” said Jean-Jacques Hublin, co-author of two new studies describing the fossils and a paleontologist at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. “Or if there is a Garden of Eden, it’s … the size of Africa.”

The new finds confirm “modern humans do not suddenly appear like the Big Bang, with all the bells and whistles that we associate with modern humans,” agrees paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University, who was not associated with the study.

The fossils were excavated at a site called Jebel Irhoud, where similar fossils were unearthed in the 1960s and assigned an age of 40,000 years. Hublin’s team returned to the site in 2004 hoping to clarify that date — and instead stumbled upon more fossils. They also applied new dating methods, which pushed back the age of all the fossils to a stunning 300,000 years.

The trove of fossils is a snapshot of a species in transition. The Irhoud people had more elongated, primitive-looking skulls than current humans. But these ancient people had small faces and small chins much like ours, and their teeth look like ours, too. The new date for the fossils suggests some elements of Homo sapiens anatomy developed a more modern appearance much earlier than thought, says Adam Van Arsdale of Wellesley College, who was not involved with the study.

This mix of archaic and modern features supports the theory that Homo sapiens didn’t burst onto the African scene fully formed. Instead, the earliest people had a mix of advanced and primitive characteristics, and over time and across the continent, Homo sapiens evolved into the humans of today, Hublin said.

Though the new fossils have features that don’t seem entirely human, such as a low skull, “I think we have a good instance of early Homo sapiens from Irhoud,” says Rick Potts, head of the Smithsonian Institution’s Human Origins Program, who was also not part of the study team. But he says the idea that Homo sapiens “was assembled gradually” is “by no means a slam dunk” and needs to be shored up by more fossils from around Africa.

Related coverage:

Artifacts found with the fossils suggest that activities typical of modern humans also emerged by 300,000 years ago, says paleoanthropologist Alison Brooks of George Washington University. Alongside the Irhoud fossils, researchers found gazelle bones marked with stone tools, the remnants of ancient fires and sharpened pieces of flint probably used as spear points. The study’s authors say the site, which was once a cave, may have been used as a hunting camp.

The new date for the Irhoud skeletons “changes a lot,” Brooks says. “It pushes (the fossils) into a fairly unknown time range, but one that is clearly very important for the evolution of our species.”

Image
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Before Sanskrit

Postby yeniseri on Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:40 pm

Alot of this stuff (generally and specifically) is so engrained that it comes down to manipulation of images that sorts out lies and sees which one is the best for people to regurgitate.
A recent discovery was that despite the mapping of Earth with all the sophisticated electronic and other tools of modernity, specific continents (guess which one ;D ) were made smaller just to appease the ignorance of the elites and oligarchs so as to manipulate understanding and sore mental confusion. Not all elites are so bad that.............. ???
When fascism comes to US America, It will be wrapped in the US flag and waving a cross. An astute patriot
yeniseri
Wuji
 
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: USA

Re: Before Sanskrit

Postby Overlord on Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:27 pm



There is a reason for everything~
Sometimes truth is just in front of you, starring you in the face~


It's interesting because the main stream Japanese does not consider they are the Jews.
But the artefacts/ ceremonial grounds are/were there.
Unlike what this documentary suggested, Hata clan (大秦氏) arrived Japan about 200 BC to 100 AD.
The only incongruity is the DNA testing, and if Hitler was right~
Then every pieces of puzzle fits together.
Last edited by Overlord on Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Overlord

 

Previous

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests