This is a pretty 'big' question, but i'm very interested to see what the people in this form believe in terms of where we as Humans originated.

Wether it be Evolution, Panspermia, a combination between Pansperima & Evolution, Adam & Eve (based on Religion) or any other theorys.

I would have created a 'poll' on this one, but I think there are too many options and I think I would have missed too many.

I realize this is a pretty tough question to answer, and no answer is 'correct' but i'm really interested in the theorys that are out there by the contributors to this forum.

Thanks.

Well, as far as I know, we come from Africa.

I came from a set of testicles .

We started in Africa and spread out as we did this humans began to experience several genetic mutations that make us the way we are today. In my opinion there is enough physical proof of evolution no not only in humans but other species as well to rule out all other theories.

started in africa then moved on

I like the "Seeds Theory".

Humanity started on all continetnts at aproximatly the same time.

IN THE BEGINNING, the flying spaghetti monster created a hill, some trees and a midget.

nah but i agree that we came from africa, then moved up into europe, across asia and over the bering straight into north america leaving little camps all along the way

MEEEEEE TOOOOOOOOOO

Gene pool......the shallow end.

G Money- Africa is the seemingly best theory for now. Ramapithicus of about 15 million years ago is the oldest hominid that is probably ancestrial. Trail is cold before that. Since there have been a few dead end hominid races and proto-human races it makes for more unknowns. Once thing for certain there is no precidence for humans' phenomenal evolution. No animal ever discovered evolved at a rate anything near what humans have. Also there are no animals which are not specialized- only humans. We fill no niche and have very low birth rates plus have no physical strength over most animals that were dominant in the food chain over us. We shouldn't have survived and no one knows how we did other than the fact that we developed a brain superior to any other in a few thousand years. With intelligence we have been able to counter animals' cunning or strengths. Lots of open questions......

I think Twitch makes a good point. There are quite a few unknowns in our ansectral leniage. There have been numerus species of humanlike creatures over time. Another thing to consider is this. Every other humanlike species existed with another. Meaning this is the first time in history when there was ownly one hominid. I can't readlily be said what we evolved from becouse there are many we could have come from. Odds are there are a few more hominid ancestors hidden away in deep time and stone. I strongly doubte that the human family tree is compelete yet.

Odas, What proof is there for this "seeds" theory, and who the heck lives on Antartica besides a few scientists? I believe in the out of africa theory as well as it makes the most sense.

A theory is an idea that has no proof yet. Once a theory gets proven it end to be a theory and becams a fact.
E.g. A hundret years ago there was a theory that people could jump by their own strength over a 2 meter fence. Noone acomplished that then. It was just a theory.
Today the theory is proven and it is not a theory anymore but a fact.

How much do you know about the seeds theory anyway? Do you have a close clue where it comes from?
Do you know that the seeds theory is close to both, the theroy of evolution and the biblical theory of revolution.

In pointing out Antarctica it shows me that you don't.

Imagaination is more importante then knowledge - Albert Einstein.

No one jump on me now...I believe we were made by God. Have read only a few books on theories and the one that moved me most was that even scientist agree that in order for the possibility of molecules coming together and forming any structure such as an animal (sight, smell, brain, on and on) is one chance in one with enough zeros to fill every page back and front of 7 encyclopedias. That is the chance in this happening once to create one creature. Please..this is just what I believe.

Actually, take a look at this .
—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

And no things just don't become fact unless everything is proven in a theory. And you said all seven continents. Well people don't live on Antartica. The jumping over a two meter fence is a bad example, as it can be proven if someone actually does it. This is not the case with the theory of evolution, or the theory of relativity, ect.. Though there is a ton of evidence supporting both of these neither can be proven as of yet. The seeds theory seems to suggest different races of man in the beggining. This leads to racism and ethnocentrism and it has no proof whatsoever. So in fact IT IS NOT A THEORY but rather a hypothesis, or an educated guess. I suggest you retake physical science to understand the differences between a theory, a hypothesis, and fact; because there are major differences. I hope to have enlightened you on basic scientific vocabulary. thanks,
- Bokonon

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Theory

And no things just become fact*

How dare you Heretic.

Bow to the Pink Unicorn. She who is kind and Marvelous

Not true it has been discovered that the natives in the americas came from Mongolia among other places about 10 to 20 thousand years ago and spread south.

We came from space.

I'll buy that,....but from what part of space and how do i get home.


[attachmentid=28669]-too easy

In the bible it is said that The Nephalim(Great angelic creatures)took women and made children with them which led to man as we know it today. They say that with out them man would still be holding clubs and grunting.

I believe in hundreds of things and am still sorting them out.



A tree and a midget?Why not two midgets?

*Pounces on RollingThunder06*

I think the subject of human origins will be a topic of much debate for many, many years to come still. Were we a product of evolution or greater power? Only time knows for sure.

Being created from dust by the hand of a supreme being is no more far-fetched than a random fusion of atoms/molecules spawning life in waters, only to start crawling out of water as a fish, gradually transforming to a primate, then evolved to what we are now.

Whether the explanation is from a religious faith or scientific theories, the dawn of man is all speculation to me!

I just don't see the whole idea of evolution. If we were ape's before we were humans, what were we before we were ape's? Fish? Suddenly the "flying spaghetti monster created a hill, some trees and a midget" theory begins to make sense to me.

Ah, although there are gaps in the fossil record, there still is proof of lineage of many animals. Most anthropologists think that primates were the result of the evolution of an insect eating mammal. Leading into the different branches we have today. And apes and humans shared a common ancestor, but we were never actually the species of ape you would see today.

I'll pick the bible version of how man came to be......

Sit's back and wait's for the flamer's......

Life began as proteins and amino acids etc that began fusing together to form complex organic molecules and then eventually the first single cell organisms. After this happened these organisms began to change into more complex multi cellular organisms. The shortly after came the first fish and crustaceans eventually these life forms began to to come out of the water evolving legs and arms among other extremities to survive on land. After this we then had Dinosaurs and eventually down the line birds and humans and everything else that currently exists today.

=================


That's your opinion and your entitled to it....

Now I am not going to flame you Isis unless you flame me of course. I will say though Not only do I think the bibles interpretation of how we began is wrong but many others do as well. Also no evidence except the words of a book and faith support Adam and Eve. Evolution has physical proof such as fossils to support it. Though many beleive the bible is right the evidence strongly suggests otherwise and outweighs any other theory in regards to the origins of life on Earth including humans.

BTW flaming is against forum rules i beleive and while many will tell you your wrong including myself I will make no personal attacks.

Actually, you did not enlightend anyone, but if you read what you posted and try to understand what theory means you will realize who realy needs enlightment.
I see, you are only as smart as google allows it.

Now, I said I like the Seeds theory, but it does not mean that I believe in it, since it is almost for sure that life started in africa.

Second, this is an UM forum where most of us use our imagination and most of us, including you, do not have much scientific knowledge other then lookin up in google.
Exeptions to this are Harte, frogfish and a few others. One can see that they realy know thier stuff without google.

Third, bugger off, I am in UM forum to hear different opinions, to express myself and Yahh......blah blah........so on.
So take your lessons and do you know what with them.

Seeds theory is based on pure imagination. That is it. Nothin more. The way you jump on it shows that you do not have a clue.

I'm just trying to set straight a common misconception that theory in the scientific sense means "guess." Also, I do research on these topics and actually know what I am talking about. I have taken an anthropology class as well so I know a bit more about human origins. As for the "Seeds Theory" (hypothesis), if it's just based on pure imagination why even bother posting it on here. This makes it seem like you're just another one of those people who thinks and writes first and researches later. And this is debate after all, so lighten up.

- Bokonon

This is from a somewhat vague memory of a scientific article I read a year or two ago, but apparently those scientists who study such things have genetic evidence that all humans currently on earth are descended from one "woman." ( I think genetics may only be able to be used with women in this fashion). While this may sound like a good argument for adam and eve, the scientists also put the date of this woman back a couple of million years, so it doesn't fit neatly with mainstream creationist theory. All current knowledge puts humans in Africa, and only in Africa, at that time, so the facts fit those posters who are arguing for an "out of Africa" origin for mankind. ( My dates are inexact, but fit the scenario)

Man, you just turned off the lights.

Where would we be without imagination? As for science, why is it that what was confirmed as true yesterday, is wrong tomorrow? Because, we do not know. We are making only asumptions. Yes, research is important, but why is it that we always claim that that is the way it is when we find something. That is not scientific but close minded, like religion.

Who is to say 100% that humanity originated here on earth, who is to say 100% that we were visited by aliens and vice versa?

If you do not like that I am using my Imagination, which is actually proven that many times this imagination comes true, then it is your problem not mine.

A theory is not a 100% proof of a claim. No matter how you explain it.

Arrivedercci Ragazzi

WRONG. a scientific theory is generally accepted as true. it is not unsubstantiated, it is an ending point in science. a theory is a proposed mechanism/model explaining the behavior of a specific phenomena, and (MOST IMPORTANTLY) is supported by overwhelming evidence. example: evolution. creationists say "it's just a theory" (which it IS), without understanding that a theory is vastly accepted as true, and is essentially fact (though NO theory can be proven CORRECT, but can only be supported, while alternate theories (see null-hypothesis) can be proven incorrect. read more, search on google/wikipedia: falsifialbility, carl popper, philosophy of science).

this is just a BRIEF explanation of what a theory is. a good article on what a theory is can be found on wikipedia, and i think should be clarified on ALL of these boards because no one seems to understand the philosophy of science, and what a theory is. Theory is, for all practical purposes, FACT.

edit: i just read the rest of the posts, and if you'd like to question my knowledge of science, that's fine. but my knowledge of science is not limited to google, i have taken dozens of science classes, and have a great interest in the history and philosophy of science, and i have taken classes investigating science as a philosophy.

No, I am not going to question your education or your explanation regardin Theory, but can you clarify for me where the differnce between - vastly ACCEPTED as true and being true - is.

If creationism is vastly ACCEPTED as true by religious people, does it mean creationism is correct? Or does it mean they are wrong because there is not 100% proof of the claim.
I appriciate science, but right now we handle scince as a new religion and religious people as infidels, unbelievers.

For some reason it seems we ( humanity ) are running in a circle.

In science nothing can ever be proven. This is an important concept. No matter how much data accumulates to support a theory, it can never be proven, because there's always a chance that the observed phenomena is cause by some other mechanism. Example: if we were to discover that God made species change (I don't know how this could be discovered, but suppose it did), then the theory of evolution would either be eliminated as impossible (since it is obviously not the cause of speciation), or possibly altered, depending on the nature of the discovery (suppose that god simply guided evolution, then that would be added on to the theory of evolution).

There is always a possibility that a theory is incorrect, in lieu of some other explanation for the phenomena.

To clarify, there is no such thing as true, in science. There is only "probably true", or "accepted as true". Thus the difference is apparent: "accepted as true" is an agreement that, in lieu of contrary evidence, a theory holds in all circumstances (and, should contrary evidence arise, the theory can either be discarded, or modified). "True" can not be known.

Furthermore, the reason that evolution is "correct" (or, more appropriately, "more probable") is that it takes into account all emperical data, and makes predictions for future experiments that, up to this point, have all affirmed it's validity.

The validity of a theory is not affirmed by the number of people who accept it, but by the amount of evidence supporting it, as well as it's ability to accurately make predictions of behavior in alternate circumstances.

example: If the theory of evolution is true, then -this should happen- , then you run an experiment, and if you should find that -this happened-, you have provided further support for the theory, but if -this didn't happen- then, either there was some unknown affect on the experiment, or the theory is incorrect.

so, no, if christians vastly accept creationism does not mean it's true. if there is a wealth of emperical data supporting creationism, and it is able to make predictions for alternate circumstances, then it is "probably" correct.
alternately, it is not incorrect if there is not 100% proof of their claim. however, it is less likely to be correct, seeing as there is much less emperical data to support it.

It's a puzzling concept to explain, but an experiment can never prove anything, it can only dissprove. Every experiment does not seek to prove it's hypothesis, but to dissprove it's null hypothesis (thus lending support to it's hypothesis). This exemplifies an important characteristic of science, as opposed to religion. Falsifiability. In order for it to be science, there must be an outcome that would prove it wrong. If your hypothesis is that all geese are white, then this is falsifiable because it can be proven incorrect (say you find some blue geese). Religion is not falsifiable because it can never be proven incorrect, there is no possible way of doing so. Science is not handled as a new religion because of it's design, it is too dynamic to insist on idle belief in it's product. New ideas, new hypotheses, are being created and destroyed every day. If science is so stern about blind faith in what it claims why is it that science text books have new content added every year, both tacked on to older ideas, as well as replacing old ideas?

I don't ask people to blindly believe in evolution. Frankly, I don't care if you believe in it or not. I don't strike down religious people, because if that's what they want to believe, it has no affect on me. However, when people bash evolution without having a good understanding of how it works, or how it was arrived at, i feel i should correct them so that they can at least reevaluate their opinion from a well informed standpoint.

^^ Very nicely said.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

Very nice Azariah. I can't stand people when they bash evolution without even a simple understanding of it.

Hello there,

I am still new here but it is nice to know that mine is not the only inquiring mind left in the world!

I have just started a new thread that pertains to this very topic of human origins. If you have a minute, please stop by and let me know what you think of this stuff.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=79894


Or, you can go directly to the research I came across at this link...
http://www.thehiddenrecords.com/index.htm

just found this interesting article....

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29976

Bar-Yosef felt that the sediment layers and micro-mammal remains at Qafzeh indicated that Qafzeh's human remains were older than Kebara's Neanderthal remains and not younger as it was once supposed.

"I had a feeling the deposits in Qafzeh cave were much older," Bar-Yosef said. "The stratification of how things accumulated, it was very clear, according to micro-mammals, that it should be older than Kebara."

Sure enough, after dating the Qafzeh remains with the new technology, they were found to be 92,000 years old. With early modern human remains in the region predating the Neanderthal remains, it became apparent that Neanderthals couldn't be human ancestors and were instead contemporaries.

That discovery shook up the prevailing scientific view of the time that Neanderthals were direct human ancestors and grandfathers of Cro-Magnons on the human family tree. The remains at Qafzeh proved that Neanderthals and the ancestors of modern humans diverged at some point, with Neanderthals existing at the same time as Cro-Magnons, more akin to cousins of modern humans than grandfathers.

A Test tube... =(

What? So you don't see how one species can come from another? Meaning that there must ALWAYS have been life here? It has to start somewhere. You don't just get a newly formed planet fresh with monkeys on it you know.

If you don't get evolution.... you're lost. Its such a beautiful simple yet amazingly complex system. Stop looking for problems.

please tell me you're joking?

I don't know where we all came from, whats more important to me is where we are all going.....in the end no less.

'My greatest fear is that i will be standing behind Mother Teressa in the final judgment line and hear God tell her, ''you know you should have done more.''

I really hope this is proven wrong one day. That's just horrible, and I doubt it'd make our kids feel good knowing this.

I personally say I havn't seen enough evidence to make any decision. So where do we come from? I don't know. Possible our physical body from evolution, and our spiritual "being" from another existence or "world".

I like the sound of that.

My response is X rated.#$%$#$$%%

The forum is ready for whatever you got!

Hi everybody,

maybe we all should not ask where we come from but rather where does our knowlege come from!
Then the "seed" theorie makes at lot more sense than evolution (Darwin)!

"Somebody out there???"

Then how come we find evidence in the fossil record of Homo Sapiens fossil bones in rock strata hundreds of thousands of years before we were supposed to even exist?

Not to mention stone tools that are supposedly thousands of years out of place in the same geological strata. (ex: early hominds, say 1,000,000 years ago were not supposed to have stone shaping techniques equivalent to cro-magnon man's stone shaping and tooling techniques of 25,000 years ago.) There was supposed to be a evolution of techniques as hominids got smarter, yet we find many examples of advanced stone shaping techniques in geological strata that should not have them.

Palaeontologists refuse to accept these findings at all and try to discredit them as much as possible, including the removal of funding to the scientist who insists on the veracity of his finds. It seems that anything that goes against the theory of evolution is silenced and ignored even to the point of destroying someones career!

P.S. - Food for thought.

It was believed at one time that we descended from Neandertal man. We can still find on the net many diagrams and drawings of the so called "genetic evolutionary lineage of mankind". It is now clear that we were contemporay with Neandertal man and probably with Homo Erectus as well.

mtDNA evidence proves that we did not descend from Neandertal man
at all. Homo Sapiens and Homo Neandertalis are completely unrelated genetically.

See:
Skull, an evolutionary riddle...

Picture evolution

Yes sir. Repatriation is a must.

Sorry, forgot to add this to my topics list.

yes rather strange that isnt it? we apparently all came from africa but for some strange reason decided to leave that huge country which offered us everything that we could possibly need in terms of food and a warm climate and wandered off to colonise every part of the earth. Incredible how primitive man dressed in animal skins with nothing more than a rough spear and a knife made from flint could circumnavigate the globe.
Also interesting is how modern homo sapiens suddenly appeared 20,000 years ago apparently from nowhere and saw off neanderthal man and then almost immediately began building city states incorporating some of the most sophisticated architecture ever seen and then evolved intellectually at lightning speed to the point where in just a couple of thousand years more was flying to the moon.
And now? well, we are at the point of not only deciphering the codes that decide what all life evolves into but also the creation of life itself. Now thats what I call rapid evolution!