Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Big Bad Voodoo

The mysterious origins of man

34 posts in this topic

The mysterious origins of man

2.jpg

Click here to watch video - 48:22s

Charlton Heston presents this documentary that challenges what we know of the origins of mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First! :D

Still watching this vid, about 10mins in and so far I think its really interesting!

Edit: 16:08 -- its a tiny model of the deathstar!

Edited by Kitana2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent video, very fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: 16:08 -- its a tiny model of the deathstar!

LOL!

Edited by :PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fossilized finger kind of ruined it for me. It was limestone that it was found in, which wouldn't have preserved soft tissue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMAZING more info to throw at my evolution teacher tomorrow to see what see thinks and has to say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of these anomlies have been explained thoroughly. As for the OOParts, there are, sadly, no "million" years old artifacts that are unexplained. However, the discrepancies of 100,000's of years or so, are not entirely anomolous, and there has been recently new evidence uncovered that puts mankind's diaspora from Africa many thousnads of years before the current consensus.

Nice try Charlton! Entertaining and thought provoking vid nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Daveini-challange that magic evilution as much as possible and as frequently as possible. If your brain is honest with you you might receive a wonderful gift someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlton Heston. From the film The Panet Of The Apes. :)

Edited by Evilution13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlton Heston. From the film The Panet Of The Apes. :)

I mean 'Planet'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was also Moses, Ben Hur and the grand master of NRA by the power of God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. But I have a feeling they chose him to present this because of The Planet Of The Apes association with evolution and 'alternate histories' etc. "Lets get the 'apeman' Charlton Heston! *puffs on cigar* He knows all about this sort of thing." :)

Edited by Evilution13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one thing Charlton Heston is just the host/narrator he didn't once mention he was a scientist, no wonder some people don't believe certain things that might be presented to them, they don't pay very close attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did humans come from? Were we here millions of years ago? Did we evolve from those DAMNED DIRTY APES? :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far it doesn't sound promising. I can't view the video but it sounds like they're running through a list of well known OOPARTs that are well known and debunked.

Any sort of bullet points for this video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far it doesn't sound promising. I can't view the video but it sounds like they're running through a list of well known OOPARTs that are well known and debunked.

Any sort of bullet points for this video?

Hey brother Shadowsot! lol

Yes, the video had an intriguing feel to it, but it was filled with non-facts and many assumptions. Everything from the 2.5 billion year old metal spheres, dino prints/human prints together, finger in limestone in the same bedrock, etc. They did an analysis on the finger which showed bone, ligament and soft tissue. I'm not sure on the consensus. Most of the doc was incorrect and I think it was made in the mid 90's or perhaps around 2000. Some of the debunking took place afterward.

The most fascinating aspect of the doc was, when they described land displacement theory. Where the poles gather miles of ice and then shifting the land accordingly. I'm not sure if there's much to this theory, but it basically puts North America at the north pole within the last 20,000 years (or more don't quote me on that!). Then as ice built up and added extreme weight, the whole land mass of earth shifted. This is how they explained mammoths with fresh flowers in their stomach as they were frozen alive. So they were grazing right before the "ice age". IDK, too many inconsistencies, but interesting to think about none the less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey brother Shadowsot! lol

Yes, the video had an intriguing feel to it, but it was filled with non-facts and many assumptions. Everything from the 2.5 billion year old metal spheres, dino prints/human prints together, finger in limestone in the same bedrock, etc. They did an analysis on the finger which showed bone, ligament and soft tissue. I'm not sure on the consensus. Most of the doc was incorrect and I think it was made in the mid 90's or perhaps around 2000. Some of the debunking took place afterward.

The most fascinating aspect of the doc was, when they described land displacement theory. Where the poles gather miles of ice and then shifting the land accordingly. I'm not sure if there's much to this theory, but it basically puts North America at the north pole within the last 20,000 years (or more don't quote me on that!). Then as ice built up and added extreme weight, the whole land mass of earth shifted. This is how they explained mammoths with fresh flowers in their stomach as they were frozen alive. So they were grazing right before the "ice age". IDK, too many inconsistencies, but interesting to think about none the less.

In which case you could read the work of Charles Hapgood. The wonderful part about his life is the amount of money that was used to "debunk" him particularly in the case of the Piri Reis map (Piri is a title and means admiral so calling him Admiral Piri Reis is redundant). Furthermore Einstein endorsed completely his Earth displacement theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hapgood

\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Journalist and Researcher Richard Milton presents a case that what we have been taught about Darwin's theory of evolution is totally wrong and that this most fundamental belief with respect to human origins should be completely re-evaluated by main stream scientific and academic institutions. Author of the book "Shattering The Myths of Darwinism," Richard Milton does not represent the Creationist movement either. He simply states, that Darwin's theory of evolution does not stand up to logical scientific scrutiny. Get the facts in this original uncut interview that was filmed for the production of the NBC Special Documentary "The Mysterious Origins of Man - Rewriting Human History,"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore Einstein endorsed completely his Earth displacement theory

So? Einstein was a physicist, not a geologist.

The wonderful part about his life is the amount of money that was used to "debunk" him particularly in the case of the Piri Reis map (Piri is a title and means admiral so calling him Admiral Piri Reis is redundant).

You don't need money to debunk the map, just a comparison to the coastlines of South Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post 19...

So what do you think guys can Polar bear become like whale creature? Is that Darwin realy claimed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post 19...

So what do you think guys can Polar bear become like whale creature? Is that Darwin realy claimed?

No, Darwin claimed that speciation occurred through natural selection. Which has been backed up by findings from the fossil record and biology studies.

Now, there have been changes to the Theory of Evolution since Darwin introduced it, but the fundamental is still the same.

It wouldn't be a polar beat becoming a whale, but a distant descendant of the polar bear might resemble a whale if it took on re of a marine lifestyle.

Normally I don't resort to ad hominems... but this fellow Milton is heavy on pseudo sciences and known frauds.

Edited by ShadowSot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post 19...

So what do you think guys can Polar bear become like whale creature? Is that Darwin realy claimed?

See below;

Right, so I'll continue and not leave ya hanging.

Let's go back to what I was saying earlier for a moment. That most creationists actually accept "Darwinism" (what they really want to say they reject, but I gather very few have heard of is; reproductive isolation). So I said, that this thing even creationists accept was Darwin's greater of his two contributions to biology, why?

First let's look at what Darwin said about natural selection (don't worry I'll get us to the SOTF eventually :P ). What Darwin postulated, was an explanation for the fact of evolution (those changing species). What he noticed was really 4, almost unremarkable things;

1. There's variation in populations. All he means by this is that children, aren't replicas of their parents. Pretty straightforward.

2. Some of the variation is passed on. Again, straightforward, mankind has realized this for centuries--It's the basis breeding animals. You want to breed the "biggest bull" the "fastest horse" etc.

3. There is only a limited amount of resources in a given environment. One of those things so obvious, that no one had really thought of its implications before. In fact, there is room to doubt that Darwin really put the importance of this together himself. He likely understood the basis of resource capacity from the work of Thomas Malthus.

Malthus was part of the landed gentry of his day, and his concern was the poor, weak and wretched were using all the resources up that rightly belonged to noble and rich. A pretty disgusting sounding fellow, to be sure. But, it wasn't Malthus bigotry that Darwin was interested in. What Malthus showed mathematically was that in an "environment" a population has a carrying capacity. Which means that a population cannot go on growing exponentially, it reaches a "wall" so to speak. What Darwin gathered from this then, is that there would be competition between the individuals of that population for those same resources--What Malthus recognized as a threat to his way of life, Darwin realized applied to all of nature.

So far so good still, nothing unremarkable about Darwin's work.

The fourth piece of the puzzle came to Darwin not through thought of life, rather thought of death--Thought of extinction. Why are there all these forms, fossils and such, who didn't survive? Why had they died out? And why did they so closely resemble the extant (currently living) flora and fauna of the areas? This was the real enigma to be solved.

The answer is, what we sum up as "differential survival and reproduction" (DSR). Taken in light of the above 3 stipulations; variation, heritable variation, competition between individuals, DSR means that only certain individuals will pass on their traits to the future generations. What determines which individuals will pass the traits on? That "environment" the individuals were competing in. Because individuals are variable, some of them will inevitably be better at acquiring those resources, at surviving, at feeding their families, at raising their families and at ensuring survival into the next generation.

Follow me so far? We're coming to your question shortly.

So what Darwin saw of life is one of an individualcentric view--Forms and variants in battle against other forms and variants of the same kind. Competition between individuals. Those which were better at surviving and reproducing we describe in biology as "more fit".

But this battle of individuals, doesn't really explain how new branches get added to the family tree--Or in layspeak; how one "kind" changes to "another". What it explains is a driving principle of how within a "kind" forms (because of the selection from the environment) become "more fit" in their environment. How they prosper, how their descendants prosper and how their descendant's descendants prosper. This milieu that individuals exist in then, determines changes in future individuals which will best "fit" for their environment, by ensuring the "successful's traits" are passed on. And this is what we call an adaptation, not a goal of evolutionary change--Just a byproduct of the individual competition.

The implication of this, scared the bejebus out of some of those landed gentry. Because to them it means, those who reproduce more successfully (the poor) are those who "shall inherit the earth". In fact, people from all walks of life started to draw comparisons to "Darwinism"; business models, social models, economic models etc. The problem for them was of course, they aren't biological systems so they could only ever be an analogy to NS--They couldn't experience NS. But that didn't stop people from trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Herbert Spencer; economist, political theorist, sociologist and many other "ists" tried to adapt "Darwinism" to all these other walks of life and the basis of this principle he saw in Darwin's work was "survival of the fittest".

But this is not a correct characterization of Darwinism, because Darwin didn't say that only the most fit survive, indeed they often die as well--Through chance, through unlucky circumstance or through a really, no good, terrible, rotten day. And indeed many organisms who are "less fit" will survive and reproduce also. So really what Darwin was on about was not the "most fit", rather the "fit enough". That is, the "fit enough" are the "direction shappers" of the future.

But think on all I have said and ponder how that answers the question; why species? Why branches in a family tree?

The answer is it doesn't. Darwin only ever got the view of individuals of a "species", never beyond that. He never "saw the forest for the trees" so to say, but knowing what he knew of heritability I can't really blame him. To answer those questions you need the next piece of the modern synthetic puzzle. Another theory of evolutionary change; reproductive isolation.

So why then is "Darwinism" the main thing taught in school? Because learning is a process which requires "higher knowledge" be built upon a solid foundation. "Darwinism" is the foundation of the modern synthesis and you can't understand the other theories of evolutionary change without the torch of Darwinism to light the way. Its no different than learning algebra before you endeavor to learn calculus. Foundations upon foundations, a pyramid if you will (what I suggested to the artist formally known as Forests). Learning "above" Darwinism requires a wider base and more knowledge than high schools really have time to delve into, you need foundations in genetics, math, population biology, systems biology etc.

Anyway, that is enough rambling for now, back to studying. If you are ever perusing medical schools and they wax eloquently on the fun of "integrated classes" (such as combining gross anatomy, physiology and microantomy into a 1 day, 6 hour lecture with only an hour break), run. Run fast and be afraid. I won't leave you hanging though PA, I know you are just foaming at the mouth to hear the "rest of the story" (you know the answer to that most important question) :P and I will return when I find some time to ramble on some more ;)

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? Einstein was a physicist, not a geologist.

Neither are you.. and you don't have his IQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='ShadowSot' timestamp='1297519552' post='3779148

You don't need money to debunk the map, just a comparison to the coastlines of South Africa.

The fact is the US Geological Services first agreed with Hapgood's finding about the Reis map, then spent a fortune to prove tit wrong.. it's in the history books... it's not a matter of comparing coast lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.