Hi.  I recently heard some information on a radio show about the fact that there are different species of humans.  I have been trying to find information on the subject and I havent been able to find anything.  I know there were the Neanderthals.  That is another species of human, but according to the show I was listening to, there are many different species of humans now.  If anyone can find some info to prove or disprove this for me I would greatly appreciate it.

Also I would like to ask about Neanderthals.  How can people say thay evolution doesnt exist.  Arent Neanderthals proof that humans evolved.  I honestly think we did come from monkeys and the Neanderthals are in the middle of us and monkeys.  What does everyone else think about this????

Jamie,

  I didn't hear this radio program you speak about, so I'm not sure what is meant by there being "many different species of humans now". The term "Homo sapiens" is used to describe modern day man, and the species is believed to date back approx. 250,000 years ago. There are other sub-species within the same genus classification "homo", but those species died out hundreds of thousands of years ago. Here is a link that describes the various species discovered so far;

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm

  As to your other question involving evolution, despite all the various anthropological discoveries, the 'missing link' is yet to be found that shows a direct correlation between monkeys and man. Given the delicacy and incompleteness of skeletal remains, only theories can be advanced regarding a direct link. Some researchers do believe it to be the natural 'evolutionary' step, but there is no definitive proof. That lack of concrete 'proof' and the religious 'faith' of many people keeps the theory from being totally accepted. I don't even want to get into the 'humans evolved from alien intervention' silliness. :P I hope this answers your question.

MAGIKMAN

Maybe they were thinking of "Big Foot!"
or Magikman!  (only kidding, only kidding!)
Sense of humor you know... :-X

WOW!!

Jamie,

In the time of the Neanderthals, there were two species of humans on earth. The neanderthals were one, and we were the other. Both them and modern humans evolved from apes, however the two species differed considerably.

The neanderthals were strong, and well adapted to the cold climates. They had used the same methods for countless generations, and however were not very accustomed to changes. They lived in small groups, and these groups rarely came into contact with each other. It was this fact that would lead to their extinction. It is said that Neanderthals had a larger brain that we did, however the evolution of this species any further was not to be.

When modern man arrived, the Neanderthals were driven from their homes. Many died, many were forced to live in smaller and smaller groups, isolated to an even greater extent. They would travel for months and never see any others of their kind. Eventually the areas in which they lived grew smaller, as the areas conquered by the modern man grew larger. Modern man was adaptive, more intelligent and lived together in large populations. In the meantime the neanderthals became more and more scarce. Eventually they became extinct. It's a sad fact, but it was modern humans that removed the neanderthals from existence. It could have so easily been the other way around.

Ok, I would just like to ask, Magik, why would you put so much faith in one website, then be so eager to knock another?
 How do you REALLY know that the websites that you point out are credible, and the ones that others' point out are not?  I know that you are one for detail, and believe me, I can appreciate that, but, on the flip side, I have to question your very authority on the topic of the 'unexplained'.  Do you actually go out and find the truth for yourself?  Does anybody ever do that anymore?  It used to be that people would believe most of what they see, and little of what they read, so why is it now flipped?  Are you somehow different than any of the other people that you hawk because of their willingness to believe the crap that they read?  I find it very interesting that you have little time for the websites that are produced by others', yet you claim that yours are right?
 For instance, and you're going to hate this because I have little detail, I watched a documentary alittle while back, by archeoligists.  They had actually unearthed new findings that would shatter the evolutionary ladder, yet most of modern science refuses to accept these findings, due to the lack of motivation to REWRITE the history books.  Do you even know what would have to happen in order for them to now retract their previous findings and start fresh, with a new evolutionary line of devolpment for the human race?  It would be alot of work, everything would have to change, books, all the museums, and our thought patterns.   So why now, should we go to this website you provided?  Is it completely true, and if so, how do you know this?  I just thought that I would ask, as I am sure other people have wondered the same thing, but could not find the will to ask it.

   Reese  :-*

Oh, and in case you are planning on putting off my line of question, by questioning what I had watched, and ask me for more detail, well as stated before, I have no great detail.  Just try to answer the questions presented to you.  And, I am not being nasty, I just find it interesting that you somehow have a 'list' of pliable websites. (that no one else seems to have)  

reese92,

i agree with you on the fact that historians and scientist dont accept some of the facts outthere due to the lack of motivation to change things. I brought this up once before and magikman bit my head off.

look up this site for some interesting information on the origins of man from the forbidden archeology crew.


 www.mcremo.com



             
                      X

I will check it out.  Sorry that that happened to you, sometimes what people need most is a good bite back, if you know what I am saying?  I don't claim to know anymore than anyone else, what I know is because of the sleepless nights I have had, digging up the answers. I certainly didn't get it from sitting around a computer digging for fact amongst a bunch of fiction. All I can say is, stick to what you believe, not to what someone tries to bully you into believing.  Nobody is a 'Messiah' here of the unexplained, no matter how many big words they use, or by the length of their posts.

      Reese   :-*

   Oh man, I was hoping no one else saw that program. All we need is for people to hear about controversial new discoveries. But wait, somebody else went and posted a thread about it titled "New Genius of Pre-Human Discovered". Who was the dirty &*!% that did that? Wait, that was me! What the hell was I thinking? That means their going to have to rewrite all the gosh-darned history books and change everyone's ingrained thinking about human evolution. Don't these so called archeologists know what a pain that is? The money involved and all the grief, oh me oh my. I guess this pretty much takes care of your first rather uninformed accusation, doesn't it?

  You also failed to completely understand the subject of Jamie's post. She said that a radio program mentioned that there are many species of humans now, as in currently inhabiting the earth today. Possibly in your all night searches for answers you've encountered several species I'm not aware of. Could you enlighten me to what they are? The link I provided Jamie shows the currently accepted timeline for the human species. There are 1 million more just like it that pretty much show the same thing. I picked it because it had pretty colors, not because its credible. Also, the website isn't really pliable. I don't know about you, but its damn hard for me to fold my monitor.

    I know you claim you physically go out and find supposed answers to questions you have, but we only have your word on that. How convenient for you. I at least post hard, scientifically proven fact to back up my claims. Can't you at least scan pictures of dirty sneakers or ripped blue jeans as proof of all your hard work if you can't offer anything more substantial? Question my 'authority' all you want, I wish you had something I could question.

MAGIKMAN

Mr. X,

  It may interest others to see the qualifications of the two people responsible for this website. "Thompson is identified as a generic "scientist" and "a mathematician," while Cremo is "a writer and editor for books and magazines published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust" . Hmmmm......no background at all in the disciplines of archeology, anthropology, geology, etc. Man, these guys are highly qualified. They should have checked to see what Van Daniken was doing, maybe he could have helped out. Since you provided a link, so will I. That way anyone interested can weigh both sides of the story and decide for themselves who seems more credible, and if they don't come down on my side, you can bet there will be a lot of head biting going on, Bucko.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html

 Sorry this post is so short and bereft of big words, I used up my allotment on the post previous to this one. I see you have a defender now, good luck with that. You've got a relatively short memory, which will help. Being that I'm the Messiah, I already have more friends than I know what to do with.

MAGIKMAN


   

Judging by your sarcasm, I must have touched a nerve.  Which is all good, let's me know that you are human.  My post to you, has nothing to do with what Jamie posted.  It has to do with the way you claim to have all the correct websites to turn to when the going gets tough.  How can you be sure that the people you believe in are not shoving your face into a pile of 'misinformation'?  I don't have to prove anything to you or anybody else, as you don't owe me an explanation.  But, as expected, you skated around my true line of questioning better than anybody I have seen, very nice, but I still would like to know:
 Why do you put such great emphasis on websites' that you find?  Do you honestly think that because someone is well studied on any given issue that they would be honest any more than someone else?  Is there maybe some ethical code that someone with a degree is held too, any more than another?  I find that extremely funny, to say the least.  You really think that anybody would scream to the world, "I was wrong, please forgive me, all the years I have spent piecing this information together, should now be disregarded!"  PLEASE!!  Anybody could be wrong, that is what makes it the 'unexplained'.  And, it would cost massive amounts of money to redo all the things that would need to change.  You should look at the motivation behind every action.  There is a motivation behind everything, even your professionals have a motivation, and for you to so blindly think that their motivation would be to get to the true facts of a situation, is nothing more than naivety.  So, once again, can you answer the question, without the threatened scream of sarcasm?

         Reese

  You didn’t strike a nerve, I was just trading sarcasm for sarcasm, or did you miss that?
There was no ‘skating’ around answers. I thought I did an admirable job addressing your concerns. I offered proof that man is constantly unearthing new discoveries and adapting new ways of thinking and learning to ‘deal’ with them when you claimed just the opposite. You, however, seem to be avoiding the issue by stating that it wasn’t one of the points of your post. I don’t perceive mankind having a problem with ‘revolutionary’ discoveries. If you need more examples, read my post to Odin’s thread about the universe. It deals with another ‘new’ discovery that will change ‘accepted’ thinking.

  The flaw in your argument is that you are dealing with generalizations. I can’t respond to that because I share the same opinion. People are people, no matter what position or title they hold, they all suffer the same flaws and failings of us ‘little’ people. I point that out constantly in my posts. There is however, credibility in great numbers to a certain extent, again based on your perception. If the vast majority of a scientific discipline subscribes to an opinion, then that view will maintain the top position. Is it always the correct opinion, no, otherwise we would all believe the world to be flat and the center of the universe, now wouldn’t we? Change in scientific thinking  happens all the time, but the rational for their position will never totally satisfy everyone.

  Unless I miss my guess, it would seem to me that you already have the answers to all your questions. I’m the one that posted the link to the web site that disputed Jonathan Reeds claims. You read all the pertinent information and came to the conclusion that his claim was a hoax. How did you come by this assessment? What makes their findings credible? According to you, there is motivation behind everything. It appears to me that the motivation for the author of this web site was to expose the ‘true’ facts of a situation. Does that not automatically make you ‘naïve’ and ‘blind’ also since you agree with his position? It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical for you to question the reliability of the information I provide and yet turn around and agree with it. If its just common sense that dictates ‘believability’, who sets the rules and guidelines to make that determination? Isn’t it within this perceived ‘gap’ that all the mysteries reside? My position within that gap happens to fall on the cautious side, others find themselves comfortable on the other end. That’s just human nature. Not unlike you, until someone can offer credible and reliable evidence to the contrary, I will maintain my opinion on various subjects. Either way, our true responsibility is only to ourselves, is it not?

MAGIKMAN

Now again; you are showing that you are pure man, testosterone flying.  You are taking in what I am saying, yet in your own mind, you are twisting my words, deliberately, just to prove me wrong.  You see, you really can't prove me wrong, because, unlike yourself, I sit on both sides of the fence, I take no particular side, unless, it is something that I have researched myself.  You, blantently, stay on one side of the fence.  You are the one that takes that stance, no one makes you.  You take what people write, and research it, until you are blue in the face, yet what you write is usually the DIRECT opposite of everybody else.  You are the one that does all this to yourself, and you can try to skate around the issues, by ASSUMING that you somehow know what I think.  I write what I think.  And, like I said, I think you are full of hot air, you really don't know that the websites' you provide are any more credible; you just make people think that somehow you know.  I just caught you on it.  And about scanning the ripped jeans, and dirty shoes.  What would that really prove?  I am sure you even have a couple pairs of both somewhere in your house.  Don't we all?  And by the way, I am way too vain to let myself get dirty, and if I did, then I would be doing something wrong.

           Peace,
                  Reese  :-*

Sounds to me like your feelings are alittle hurt? :'(

I am sorry to walk into your nice chat, but there are also scientists that claim that the neaderthals didn't went away when the modern humans came, the just "infiltrated" in the new species of humans. There are also scientists that claim that people with red hair have a Neaderthale gen in them.

Odin Supreme  8)

Even though this conversation has drifted a little, I shall still put my three cents in.  Scientists believe that dinosaurs went the way of the bord, hence reptile = mammel.  (Pardon my misspelling.)  Then would it not seem to far fetched to say that humans may have evolved from a simular thread of life?  Or is this too far out of the question.  It is in my opinion that we are actually in fact, not of the monkey, but originally one of the reptiles.  Only an idea, of course.

I just want to say that dinosaurs are no reptiles. But it could be that we originally where dinosaurs. But then the monkeys where dinosaurs to, so the fisrs mammel was an dinosaur with hair! I hope that it is understandable waht I am saying here.

Odin Supreme  8)

I realize that a dinosaur heart was found to have four valves which does point to the contrary of them being reptiles, but that was a typing mistake.  I forgot to rethink it before I posted it.  Think os my idea this way, everything is very closely related, from humans to fungus, because everything has a simular molecular and biological structure.  Because of continental drift, dinosaurs could of evolved to be primate-like beings so that they may survive better in the changing environment.

We know that is not the case. Mammals evolved at about the same time dinosaurs did from a separate lineage of reptiles. Dinosaurs became birds.

Holy Hell Matt you must have been bored, this topic is from 2001!

lol, I have flu so I am a bit stuck at the moment.
There was another (recent) post but it was removed for spam.

I am my own fecies of human