B. Evolutionism ( Humans evolved from apes or other similar creature)
NO. That is incorrect. Humans did not evolve from apes, or another living thing, Humans and apes, however, share a common ancestor. The idea behind evolution is when one species evolves, those who do not have the evolved trait die off, so if we have evolved from apes, apes would be dead. Just clarifying that up.
My own theory? Let me take you through the earths timeline!!!
4000 BC!!! (I think) God makes the EARTH! ~~~~~~4000BC to 1965 AD a bunch of stuff happens...no one cares... ~~~~~~1966 AD Rick Astley is born! ~~~~~~1993 AD Somers is born! (Woot)
I choose B because there has been physical evidence, fossils, that tell of different species that are similar to humans yet have ape characteristics. The theory of evolution should be correct, seeing as how everything first originated from microscopic single-cell organisms. I'm tired of explaining all the gaping holes in the notion that a heavenly entity created existence.
Well it all started about 80,000 years ago when the first man opened his eyes and realized that there were a bunch of other people around just standing there with their eyes closed. He got them to open their eyes and thus began human history. However, in 2012, humanity will once again close their eyes and who knows what will happen, I'm still trying to figure out what happens to things when I stop looking at them...where do they go?
NO. That is incorrect. Humans did not evolve from apes, or another living thing, Humans and apes, however, share a common ancestor. The idea behind evolution is when one species evolves, those who do not have the evolved trait die off, so if we have evolved from apes, apes would be dead. Just clarifying that up.
Actually DDX people actually believe that we came from apes or at least their ancestors so I put the version that most people would accept as evolutionism. The only one that i'm arguing with is Somers, as we have proof that the earth is at least a million years old yet your timeline goes over about 8000 years.
B. evolution though (since I'm bored) I want to question the "out of Africa" thing based mitochondrial DNA allowing us to trace our ancestry back to africa. One analogy of this study is picking a random road in London and following it to John O'Groats, then stating all roads in the world lead to John O'Groats. Looking at the evidence of Acheulean tools, which early humans seemed to be obsessed with as they were with many tools. These tools are found everywhere ancient man went, throughout Europe and Africa but there are none in the Far East only older forms of tools that were not as good. Did they just down tools and use older ones. Lake Mungo in Australia contains remains of humans that are 60 thousand years old. Therefore early humans sailed 100 km over turbulent southern seas then walked 3,000 km through the Australian outback. There is no evidemce we could speak let alone undertake such a voyage. So how did we get there? Natives of Papa New Guinea have been farming Sweet Potatoes for hundreds of years. Sweet Potatoes are native to south America so how did they cross the pacific in the first place. No neanderthal bones have ever been found in Africa but there tools are everywhere. Acheulean tools existed in the Middle East for 700 hundred thousand years before they appear in the Europe despite being able to make the tools no one did. Why? Homo Sapiens only entered Europe at the start of a small Ice Age there, why wait until then? Any way that was fun. just so you know I personally (and I suppose ironically) suport the out of Africa theory especially as I haven't heard a sound alternative that isn't racist and insinuates certain races od people are "less" human than others.
Having said all that though I do beleive we came from Africa and evolved from "ape-like" ancestors. I am just bored and they are sopme stuff I have picked up.
I'm surprised at thelistman. I thought you wouldn't be the type to make such posts.
Until the previous topic has been linked, I will not consider locking this thread as it now has some discussion of some value.
Natives of Papa New Guinea have been farming Sweet Potatoes for hundreds of years. Sweet Potatoes are native to south America so how did they cross the pacific in the first place.
The next question would be "did they cross the Pacific?" Certain isolated island regions display their own closed ecology which displays uncanny resemblances to that elsewhere with no discernible link.
I don't know whether this argument can be applied to humans, but sometimes I do wonder whether we're going on a wild goose chase assuming that there is a single source, rather than humanity being an emergent phenomenon...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the first humans originated in Ethiopia? Early 'humans' North of Africa were Neanderthal and had much smaller brains and in short, didn't survive. Sub Saharan humans had larger brains and were able to use tools, as Pixie said.
We now know why people everywhere, notwithstanding differences of culture and context experience the same basic emotions, the same kinds of hopes and fears, even the same distortions of perceptions and cognitions. Thus, it is not totally unfounded to believe we as humans share a common ancestor, and thus originated from a specific locale.
I'm going with the religious point of view. I'm saying that we were all created by a diety. I'm not really sure if its God or not, but we were created by a diety. I just can't seem to believe the Earth was created by a bunch of rocks crashing together.
The next question would be "did they cross the Pacific?" Certain isolated island regions display their own closed ecology which displays uncanny resemblances to that elsewhere with no discernible link.
Whether they did or not they got the sweet potatoes from somewhere. If I was living in in the early-mid 20th century I might add on another land bridge to the globe. and I don't think duel evolution of sweet potatoes independently in two locations far away from each other is likely. From what I can find current theory is that natives of Polynesia in 700 CE travelled to south America and returned colonizing Hawaii and New Zealand* on the way. But that doesn't sound right to me at all. The sweet potatoes found in the polynesian areas are vine-cultivated so they couldn;t just bring some seeds back they had to bring a plant across an ocean in a canoe.
* small tangent where/what is Zealand. New England obviously england. New York named after the best city ever (no-biased) but I can't find Zealand. sorry
