Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Why most fringe theories exist.


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#91    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,927 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 05 April 2013 - 11:55 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 05 April 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

"The problem is that many of the skeletons unearthed at La Sima clearly have Neanderthal features," said Stringer. "In particular, their teeth and jaws are shaped very like those of Neanderthals. But all other evidence indicated Neanderthals did not appear on the scene for another 200,000 years. Dating these bones to such an early date completely distorts our picture of our evolution."
This criticism is supported by Phillip Endicott of the Musée de l'Homme, Paris. His studies of human and Neanderthal DNA have shown the latter did not appear as a separate species until 400,000 years ago. "Yet the bones in La Sima, which bear Neanderthal features, are supposed to be 600,000 years old," he said. "This cannot be true."
http://www.guardian....ma-huesos-spain

This is how evidence is destroyed,ignored and manipulated to fit in with mainstream beliefs.

Nice swerve but an argument between scientists on the age and species/subspecies of human at La Sima de los Huesos, Homo heidelbergensis versus Homo neandertalensis, has nothing to do with the genetic origin of Homo sapiens (US). From the article itself:

Quote

Far from being a 600,000-year-old lair of a species called Homo heidelbergensis, he believes the pit is filled with Neanderthal remains that are no more than 400,000 years old. The difference in interpretation has crucial implications for understanding human evolution.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#92    abhijit_b

abhijit_b

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 36 posts
  • Joined:07 Oct 2011

Posted 05 April 2013 - 12:18 PM

What is the evidence that humans were not civilized 100 thousands years ago?

History is not maths so that you can calculate and proof things. Our historical science can't tell you the date when we started speaking language. There is no evidence, but does that mean that we didn't speak language 50 thousands years ago?

Today there is no hard evidence of six of seven old world wonders. All of them vanished in just 2500 years, except great pyramid. We know about these from books and luckily not mass extinction event hasn't occur till now. But if anything occurs, do you thing will there be any evidence left of our civilization 200 thousands years in future? Luckily for a tiny apan of time, human civilization built some great rock structures, those may still hold the evidence for very long. Do you think of any evidence of middle age civilization that will last for 100 thousands years?

Why there are mythical stories in every civilizations?

Why every human being in any corner in the earth speak a language? Even though they were geographically isolated forever?

We talk about genetic bottle neck around 60 thousands years ago? Did human started from zero 60 thousands years ago? how was the civilization before that? If humans have reached to this level after this bottle neck, what were they doing before that?

Many questions to answer..But our scientists think they know everything, none can challenge their knowledge!:)


#93    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,761 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 05 April 2013 - 01:33 PM

View Postabhijit_b, on 05 April 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

What is the evidence that humans were not civilized 100 thousands years ago?

You can't prove a negative, only a positive. So instead of asking if there is evidence we were not civilised hundreds of thousands of years ago, you need to ask if there is evidence that we were.

And so far that evidence amounts to zero.


View Postabhijit_b, on 05 April 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

Why there are mythical stories in every civilizations?

Because humans love telling stories. This is not evidence that they might be true.


View Postabhijit_b, on 05 April 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

Why every human being in any corner in the earth speak a language? Even though they were geographically isolated forever?

Aside from the fact that no part of the human race has been "isolated forever", so what if they all speak languages? We can trace the languages back to certain points and roots, I don't see how this bolsters anything other than the accepted history.


View Postabhijit_b, on 05 April 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

any questions to answer..But our scientists think they know everything, none can challenge their knowledge! :)

Ah, there we go. The common complaint of the pseudo scientist - "scientists think they know everything".

Firstly, science is built on what you don't know, and always will be. Every good scientist knows this.

Second, science has incredibly high standards. Something must be rigorously tested and evidence over and over for it to become accepted. When you hint that scientists don't accept the idea that there are no ancient advanced civilisations, that is because there is zero evidence for them, and if science were ever to do what you obviously want it to do - accept any crazy idea no matter how outlandish - then all progress would grind to a halt overnight.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#94    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,386 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 05 April 2013 - 02:30 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 05 April 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

As you emphasize on language being the tool of advancement,i would like to know when do believe language originated?
Not only language but the capability of abstract thought is also responsible for advancement and progress.

40,000 years ago give or take.  It seems to have required just several generations
to sweep across the world since language users became far more advanced very
rapidly.

I believe thought is overrated and is accomplished by all of God's creatures and even,
to a lesser extent, plants and other living things.  Humans are not that much more
clever than other animals and individuals are a product of their time and place.  We
accomplish most of our feats by habits.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#95    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,386 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:02 PM

View Postconspiracy buff, on 05 April 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

It is good to have a healthy skepticism when dealing with fringe theories.  Especially if there isn't much evidence to support the claims being given.  Yes, it is possible that DNA didn't originate on Earth and that the "ancient astronaut" theory could be true.  However, there isn't much factual evidence to support that right now.  Do I believe there are aliens?  Most likely.  Especially given the vast amount of the universe that has not been explored.  It's most likely a question of if and not when we discover extraterrestrial life.  That does not mean that they created us, however.  It just means God created other life elsewhere and that we are cosmically related.  I like a good story like anyone else, but most of these ancient astronaut theories are just that, theories.  Until we have proof directly linking aliens to us, I remain a firm believer that God created us and that's where man came from.

The DNA of an oak tree and human are 50% identical.  Much of the discovered sequencing
has no known purpose.  It seems virtually obvious that to the degree evolution exists it did
not take place on earth.  This doesn't mean that life was intentionally planted on earth nor
does it mean it happened recently.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#96    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 15,110 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:11 PM

That we share half our genetic material with a tree is interesting, and I would stems from the fact that the basic functions of staying alive are largely the same for both of us.

That there is "unused" genetic material could be from two reasons.  The first is that we haven't figured out the use yet, the second is that genes have their own agenda and need us to keep them alive.

You must have misstated the statment that it seems evolution did not happen on earth.  It is obvious that it did happen here, to the point of any other view being utterly laughable.

Evolution happens all the time and has been happening for billions of years, so it is both extremely old and very recent.


#97    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:25 PM

View Postabhijit_b, on 05 April 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

What is the evidence that humans were not civilized 100 thousands years ago?


History is not maths so that you can calculate and proof things. Our historical science can't tell you the date when we started speaking language. There is no evidence, but does that mean that we didn't speak language 50 thousands years ago?

Today there is no hard evidence of six of seven old world wonders. All of them vanished in just 2500 years, except great pyramid. We know about these from books and luckily not mass extinction event hasn't occur till now. But if anything occurs, do you thing will there be any evidence left of our civilization 200 thousands years in future? Luckily for a tiny apan of time, human civilization built some great rock structures, those may still hold the evidence for very long. Do you think of any evidence of middle age civilization that will last for 100 thousands years?

Why there are mythical stories in every civilizations?

Why every human being in any corner in the earth speak a language? Even though they were geographically isolated forever?

We talk about genetic bottle neck around 60 thousands years ago? Did human started from zero 60 thousands years ago? how was the civilization before that? If humans have reached to this level after this bottle neck, what were they doing before that?

Many questions to answer..But our scientists think they know everything, none can challenge their knowledge! :)
  • As Emma said, you cannot prove a negative.  You should know the difference between Culture and Civilization. Cultures exist before civilization. Culture denotes the development of social interaction, development of communicative skills (languages, oral and written), basic survival skills (agriculture,hunting, domestication, habitation) art (pottery, painting, music, oral tales), Civilization is what raises the ante. Civilization is organization & development of skills. People come together in large numbers, enhancing basic settlements into towns, cities, and inter linked human habitats, segregation of occupations based on skills and aptitudes, development of sciences, arts and lots more. Civilization is refined form of culture.
  • History is of course not math. History is  nothing but a record of our past, based on data from  our past be it oral or written. History is a revisionist discipline jut like science. What we know now about our past will not be what we know 10 years from now from new evidences from excavations, new finds etc. History doesn't indicate when we started speaking a language, but linguistics  aided by history, anthropology does. History is a recovered of our past which is verified by other disciplines.
  • , There are sure evidences for the existence of the six wonders. There is written matter about them, orally transmitted stories which are verified by the written records.
  • Just as Emma said, humans love to tell tales. When the first human developed cognitive processes and communication skills, but couldn't comprehend the natural forces, they had to ascribe divine qualities to them. Sun, Moon, water, Thunder all became gods. When the sun moved across the skies, humans thought it as a god flying across the sky, later embellished as the sun god riding a chariot.....blah blah.
  • You, since from India, are obviously speaking an  Indian language.What proof do you have that your ancestors maybe 100 years or 1000 years were speaking the very same language or an ancient version of the language? You have oral transmission of tales, recorded in some or many forms of recording (be it stone, bark, or paper or papyrus). If you can prove that your ancestors didn't even speak a language 1000 years ago, there you go, you have answered your own question.
  • There is no genetic bottle neck at all. Study, read about the human civilization and know. Just for an example of how communication -  both  written, oral has developed through the ages, please refer to this link - History of Communication
  • As i said Science is a revisionist discipline. It is self learning, self correcting. No scientist would call himself or herself a scientist, They would call themselves "students" because they are still learning.

You are viewing everything without bothering to learn more about everything.
If you had taken the pains to research on "origin of languages" , you would have found the numerous resources on how human communication -  oral and written developed. But, you, with a narrow scope of view, couldn't comprehend what you know, without analyzing the data you know. Think! Analyze! Learn!

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#98    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,386 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:28 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 05 April 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

You must have misstated the statment that it seems evolution did not happen on earth.  It is obvious that it did happen here, to the point of any other view being utterly laughable.

No.  I meant it quite literally.  I don't mean that there is no change in species on earth since
this is patently and obviously wrong.  What I mean is that 99% of the make-up of any individual's
genome occured before it came to earth.  Logically if we are so similar to oak trees it would
follow that we are also pretty close to dinosaurs since they came after the split of plants and an-
imals.  If we are so similar to dinosaurs then where did all this evolution occur that made us so
complex and similar to other species?  Our "species" may have evolved on more than just two
planets (one after another).

It looks to me as though Darwin isolated one tiny little facet of wevolution and blew it up into some-
thing it isn't; the origin of species.  "Survival of the fittest" is insignificant in driving the real changes
that constitute change in species.  Normally even defining "fittest" will prove a nightmare since
what's right for one species is wrong for another and every species needs the best genes passed
down from the healthiest individuals to have the best chances of survival.  But every species needs
diversity in the gene pool as well to survive the near extinctions.

I believe that all those "useless" genes actually involve the coding required to live almost anywhere
under almost any conditions.  Whatever conditions arise some life form will emerge to take advantage
of it whether it's here or anywhere.  Nature abhors a vacuum and will fill it.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#99    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 15,110 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:31 PM

Oh, I see.


#100    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,386 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:35 PM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 05 April 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:


When the first human developed cognitive processes and communication skills, but couldn't comprehend the natural forces, they had to ascribe divine qualities to them. Sun, Moon, water, Thunder all became gods. When the sun moved across the skies, humans thought it as a god flying across the sky, later embellished as the sun god riding a chariot.....blah blah.

If you had taken the pains to research on "origin of languages" , you would have found the numerous resources on how human communication -  oral and written developed. But, you, with a narrow scope of view, couldn't comprehend what you know, without analyzing the data you know.


These are assumptions.  They're logical assumptions with what we think we know
but they remain assumptions. Where are those first books?  If you know so much about
ancient writing then why not crack a few of those books written in the first few hundred
years after the invention of writing and actually read them?  Go ahead.  This should
tell you every single thing you need to know about the facts rather than just our beliefs.
These should be very interesting books.

Be sure to let me know what you find and what you learn.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#101    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:36 PM

View Postcladking, on 05 April 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

No.  I meant it quite literally.  I don't mean that there is no change in species on earth since
this is patently and obviously wrong.  What I mean is that 99% of the make-up of any individual's
genome occured before it came to earth.  Logically if we are so similar to oak trees it would
follow that we are also pretty close to dinosaurs since they came after the split of plants and an-
imals.  If we are so similar to dinosaurs then where did all this evolution occur that made us so
complex and similar to other species?  Our "species" may have evolved on more than just two
planets (one after another).

It looks to me as though Darwin isolated one tiny little facet of wevolution and blew it up into some-
thing it isn't; the origin of species.  "Survival of the fittest" is insignificant in driving the real changes
that constitute change in species.  Normally even defining "fittest" will prove a nightmare since
what's right for one species is wrong for another and every species needs the best genes passed
down from the healthiest individuals to have the best chances of survival.  But every species needs
diversity in the gene pool as well to survive the near extinctions.

I believe that all those "useless" genes actually involve the coding required to live almost anywhere
under almost any conditions.  Whatever conditions arise some life form will emerge to take advantage
of it whether it's here or anywhere.  Nature abhors a vacuum and will fill it.

How about putting Clad King and some like minded persons on a space ship of some damn construction and send them off to any of the Earth like planets discovered in other galaxies. let us know how you evolve further out there.

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#102    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,927 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:38 PM

View Postcladking, on 05 April 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

No.  I meant it quite literally.  I don't mean that there is no change in species on earth since
this is patently and obviously wrong.  What I mean is that 99% of the make-up of any individual's
genome occured before it came to earth.
  Logically if we are so similar to oak trees it would
follow that we are also pretty close to dinosaurs since they came after the split of plants and an-
imals.  If we are so similar to dinosaurs then where did all this evolution occur that made us so
complex and similar to other species?  Our "species" may have evolved on more than just two
planets (one after another).

It looks to me as though Darwin isolated one tiny little facet of wevolution and blew it up into some-
thing it isn't; the origin of species.  "Survival of the fittest" is insignificant in driving the real changes
that constitute change in species.  Normally even defining "fittest" will prove a nightmare since
what's right for one species is wrong for another and every species needs the best genes passed
down from the healthiest individuals to have the best chances of survival.  But every species needs
diversity in the gene pool as well to survive the near extinctions.

I believe that all those "useless" genes actually involve the coding required to live almost anywhere
under almost any conditions.  Whatever conditions arise some life form will emerge to take advantage
of it whether it's here or anywhere.  Nature abhors a vacuum and will fill it.

Just in using one example the above bold portion is ignorance at its finest since you are effectively saying (using humans as an example) that 99% of a persons Y Chromosome DNA, 99% of a persons mtDNA and 99% of a persons autosomal/nuclear DNA all of which makes up a persons whole genome occurred before it ever got to earth. In short, 99% of a person came from somewhere other than earth. :rolleyes:   You really should stop before you dig yourself any deeper.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#103    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 15,110 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:42 PM

It took me a minute to realize the position that was being put forward.  One of the more extreme one that I would never be able to imagine on my own.  At any rate I have no interest in following this thread any longer.


#104    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 10,572 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 05 April 2013 - 07:44 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 03 April 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

And if we continue to discard all objects that do give such dates as contaminated then we can continue to suppress this theory.We have to acknowledge the possibility and then reinterpret all the evidence we have and also look for new evidence in this new light,then you will be able to see a lot of proof emerging.
Why not have proper under water archaeological studies in Dwarka,Cuba,Mahabalipuram,Yonaguni and put so many of these daunting questions to rest.If we dismiss all possible evidence or sources of evidence and never explore it citing our current beliefs then how will the proof emerge?

Because they have been done:

Mahabalipuram

Dwarka

Yonaguni

There's never been anything found off Cuba.  Just a claim and a few sidescan sonar blips, along with some artist's renderings which are today being passed off as "photos" on unscrupulous fringe websites.

Foot in mouth again?  Maybe you should try and find out if what you are thinking is even remotely connected with reality prior to blurting it out in type for all to see.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Anybody like Coleridge?

#105    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 05 April 2013 - 07:50 PM

From the pdf on Dwarka that harte linked

Quote

Based on extensive, systematic underwater scanning of the area and specially absence of any pottery or other artefact even after airlift operations / underwater excavation at several places during last few years, present exploration do not suggest that they belong to some habitation site, they rather appear to be the remains of a jetty.


Quote


The studies of surrounding archaeological sites indicate that the submerged structure may not be as old as suggested earlier. However, the date of these structures may be still a matter of debate. A stone block with Gujarati script, found from the area indicates a later date for the stone structures.

Recent discoveries of stone anchors from all over the coasts of Indian Ocean suggest that Dwarka anchors may be related to Indo-Arab trade between 8th

century and 15th century AD.

However the date of stone anchors is subject to revision in the light of their association with some archaeological sites





There you go!!

Edited by The_Spartan, 05 April 2013 - 07:54 PM.

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users