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 2
TheCosmicMind

Ice Age Civilization

696 posts in this topic

Anything is possible (except licking your elbow).

Given all we know about some of the ealier civilisations is what their conquerors tell us it's possible that the conquerors ended up the conquered and a legacy of desctruction ended with them with no trace of who they themselves conquered.

I'm sorry to be "that guy", but there are people who can lick their elbow...it was on Brainiac :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would believe that partial evolution of humans and civilisation have to be very gradual and can also suffer devolution during periods of time hence the idea of a ancient civilisation existing in lost periods of time only seems reasonable as a high civilisation could not have developed in Sumer etc out of nothing and spontaneously the same is the problem with human evolution.Evolutionist nowadays try to explain the origin of man by citing spontaneous evolution (to explain evolution of the human eye and other such complicated organs since there is no proof of intermediate or gradual development) rather then a gradual one but sadly same cannot be applied to civilisation unless you would like to give credit to external sources for teaching us civilization.Also theory of human evolution if not completely is partially based on assumptions and still championed by majority of mainstream you can read Micheal Cremo's "Forbidden archeology" which gives a good perspective.So if humanity has existed since millions of years for which there are numerous anthropoligcal proofs(anatomically modern human skeletons found in strata millions of years old and later rationalised as modern burials etc since they flew in the face of all mainstream theories) then it can be very plausible that civilization existed at a time which we so conveniently ruled out by mainstream academia.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What actually is the first evidence of "culture"? Would that be the ancient Summerian tablets from 3,000BC? The Epic of Gilgamesh dates from around this time does it not? Skara Brae in Orkney was built around the same time.

Anything is possible (except licking your elbow).

Afraid that's not entirely accurite. I know a girl who can do that. I think she's double jointed, but the point is I've seen her do it and I'm not sure if it's attractive or slightly disturbing.

Edited by Urisk
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were their no humans living in the tropical regions at this time? your all talking about the harshest enviroment during the last ice age since these people were nomadic wouldn't they just wander south till the ice receded?

and yes it is possible a advanced civiliation existed. allow me to put forth a theory: advanced civiliation builds a nice place to live cities, towns, and such. climate change comes crops start to fail. groups of people from other parts start moving in bringing disease killing of most of the population. the survivors move off with the second group. hundreds of years later a third group shows up finds the cities and remakes it for it's own purpose wiping out all evidence of first group.

I know I bring up alot of what if's. but heck people still believe in that evolution crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were their no humans living in the tropical regions at this time? your all talking about the harshest enviroment during the last ice age since these people were nomadic wouldn't they just wander south till the ice receded?

and yes it is possible a advanced civiliation existed. allow me to put forth a theory: advanced civiliation builds a nice place to live cities, towns, and such. climate change comes crops start to fail. groups of people from other parts start moving in bringing disease killing of most of the population. the survivors move off with the second group. hundreds of years later a third group shows up finds the cities and remakes it for it's own purpose wiping out all evidence of first group.

I know I bring up alot of what if's. but heck people still believe in that evolution crap.

I was with you up until the last few sentences... Then you crossed the line into my field. Bring it on. What's so "crappy" about evolutionary biology? (I'll redirect you to the thread "Evolution... really?" in Spirituality .vs. Skepticism: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=232905&hl=)

Edited by Arbitran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was with you up until the last few sentences... Then you crossed the line into my field. Bring it on. What's so "crappy" about evolutionary biology? (I'll redirect you to the thread "Evolution... really?" in Spirituality .vs. Skepticism: http://www.unexplain...opic=232905&hl=)

Since you are a evolutionary biologist i would like to pose a question to you ........how did the human eye including the optic nerve and the vision interpreting section of the brain evolve,also how did the complex endocrine system involve.............where are the intermediate phases( or can there be any according to natural selectrion and survival of the fittest)..............and please don't give me the spontaneous evolution crap as then you might as well be a creationist..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harsh,

Is there any evidence for 'devolution"??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decrease in the longevity of humans,decrease in physical strength, can be taken as few examples of devolution also descent from a spiritual to a materialistic existence can probably also be termed as devolution (as suggested by cremo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few stone age settlements found under the waters before the sea levels rose.but not thing I would say was a great or a advanced civilization.

http://www.livescien...sh-channel.html

Edited by docyabut2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you are a evolutionary biologist i would like to pose a question to you ........how did the human eye including the optic nerve and the vision interpreting section of the brain evolve,also how did the complex endocrine system involve.............where are the intermediate phases( or can there be any according to natural selectrion and survival of the fittest)..............and please don't give me the spontaneous evolution crap as then you might as well be a creationist..

Decrease in the longevity of humans,decrease in physical strength, can be taken as few examples of devolution also descent from a spiritual to a materialistic existence can probably also be termed as devolution (as suggested by cremo).

Cremo himself:

As I have mentioned in several of my works, I am a kind of creationist, a kind of anti-evolutionist, but a rare one—some have called me a Hindu creationist, others a Vedic creationist, still others a Krishna creationist. I accept all of these designations. My work as an historian is indeed influenced by the historical texts of ancient Indian, the Puranas, which tell of a human presence on this planet going back hundreds of millions of years, to the very beginnings of the earth’s history.

http://www.mcremo.com/rutot.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you are a evolutionary biologist i would like to pose a question to you ........how did the human eye including the optic nerve and the vision interpreting section of the brain evolve,also how did the complex endocrine system involve.............where are the intermediate phases( or can there be any according to natural selectrion and survival of the fittest)..............and please don't give me the spontaneous evolution crap as then you might as well be a creationist..

As is apparent from your own contributions, you have been sadly influenced by the long-ago discredited Michael Cremo.

To address just one of your above "points" - The evolutionary development of the "eye" has taken many forms.

You may wish to peruse the following paper:

http://wwworm.biolog...4/gehring02.pdf

.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decrease in the longevity of humans,decrease in physical strength, can be taken as few examples of devolution also descent from a spiritual to a materialistic existence can probably also be termed as devolution (as suggested by cremo).

It's already been pointed out by several other posters why no one ought to take Cremo seriously. Real-world, legitimate historical and scientific research will point you in the proper direction.

For instance: decrease in longevity? No. The average person in the Bronze Age lived to be around 35 years old. And this is if you were lucky enough to survive childhood. At least 30% of all children did not reach five years of age, and infant mortality was frightening (probably around 20% of all pregnancies ended in spontaneous miscarriage). This is why, all over the Mediterranean world, girls were often married off as soon as they experienced their first menstruation—this means girls as young as twelve were often married, and having babies within a year's time. They would continue to have babies their entire lives because they well knew many of their children would not live.

Decrease in physical strength? How exactly is such a thing measured? How can one prove this? It's too subjective to be taken seriously, but consider that the average man 3,000 years ago rarely grew taller than about 5'3"; for women an average height was around 4'10". These ancients were not big, intimidating people. What they accomplished was certainly impressive, but one has to balance such things with real-world evidence.

Descent from spiritualism to materialism? Here I cannot argue with you. However, it has little to no effect on the development or evolution of mankind. There's both good and bad in religion, as there is in all things. Religion has often been used as a blunt weapon to keep people in their places. I should think we all prefer the way things are today to the days when the Catholic Church ruled all of Europe and stymied intellectual and scientific pursuits for centuries. I'm actually not trying to demean Catholicism (I was raised Roman Catholic and do not consider myself an atheist). I am only stating a fact.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you are a evolutionary biologist i would like to pose a question to you ........how did the human eye including the optic nerve and the vision interpreting section of the brain evolve,also how did the complex endocrine system involve.............where are the intermediate phases( or can there be any according to natural selectrion and survival of the fittest)..............and please don't give me the spontaneous evolution crap as then you might as well be a creationist..

The "camera" eye, which is present in all mammals, reptiles, and birds, is the product of a long chain of intermediate forms. For instance, the beginning of the chain was most probably something along the lines of a simple compound of photosensitive cells; the next stage would have involved the patch of cells enlarging, and forming a concave indentation, which would allow for better perception of the angle of light and colour; the next stages would involve the deepening and advancement of this concave hollow of cells; at some point, a mucus or otherwise semi-fluid substance would have eventually filled this concave area, allowing for greater clarity still. It's all a very long and complex process, and it's a bit difficult to describe in lay terms. The following video gives a visual example, so it might be easier to understand:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harsh,

Is there any evidence for 'devolution"??

Well, to be frank, "devolution" is really the same as evolution. Whether features are developing or receding, it's all evolution.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decrease in the longevity of humans,decrease in physical strength, can be taken as few examples of devolution also descent from a spiritual to a materialistic existence can probably also be termed as devolution (as suggested by cremo).

Decrease is physical strength is very easily explained when one notes that in civilized countries, one no longer has to walk everywhere or haul heavy loads on a daily basis, as our ancestors did. As for an alleged decrease in longevity, the opposite is in fact correct; the average human lifespan through history has been 30-40 years. Modern hygiene, agriculture, and medicine have ensured that we live much longer today than in times past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decrease is physical strength is very easily explained when one notes that in civilized countries, one no longer has to walk everywhere or haul heavy loads on a daily basis, as our ancestors did. As for an alleged decrease in longevity, the opposite is in fact correct; the average human lifespan through history has been 30-40 years. Modern hygiene, agriculture, and medicine have ensured that we live much longer today than in times past.

I agree.

I'd add that there is no point in human history where we were physically weaker, but otherwise the same as we are now. Thus it is not de-evolution to a more ancient form, but evolution (or perhaps unintentional genetic selection, much like domestication) that is due to our use of technology. It takes more energy to be stronger, so if we don't need the strength due to technology the weaker form will actually be the more efficient and likely to survive.

Same with bad eyesight. There is no time in the ancient past were humans all had bad eyesight, so the fact more and more humans have bad eyesight is a result of our use of technology (Specifically eyeglasses) that compensate, so that good eyesight is not necessary. And thus bad eyesight cesses to be a negative trait and continues to be passed on.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cremo himself:

As I have mentioned in several of my works, I am a kind of creationist, a kind of anti-evolutionist, but a rare one—some have called me a Hindu creationist, others a Vedic creationist, still others a Krishna creationist. I accept all of these designations. My work as an historian is indeed influenced by the historical texts of ancient Indian, the Puranas, which tell of a human presence on this planet going back hundreds of millions of years, to the very beginnings of the earth’s history.

http://www.mcremo.com/rutot.html

To be fair, as a Hindu myself, I can say that Cremo is a bit of a nut... I mean, human presence going back hundreds of millions of years in the Puranas? Hogwash. His interpretations are very, very radical. Fortunately most of us are more sensible. Granted, some people don't much care for hearing us talk about the devas, asuras, etc. as extraterrestrials, but either way... They may or may not exist, and I don't claim to know for sure whether or not they do. The texts are very intriguing, and, if true, incredible awe-inspiring and groundbreaking. The most plausible alternative explanation (and a perfectly valid one) is that the texts are a sort of ancient "science fiction". Which is possible. I will note that the culture which is capable of writing science fiction must have reasonably-sophisticated science, but I'll let that wait for another time...

Edited by Arbitran
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As is apparent from your own contributions, you have been sadly influenced by the long-ago discredited Michael Cremo.

To address just one of your above "points" - The evolutionary development of the "eye" has taken many forms.

You may wish to peruse the following paper:

http://wwworm.biolog...4/gehring02.pdf

.

Sadly this paper is not helpful at all to my query since it is a study of the existing genes which control the development of various eye types,what i am talking about is the gradual evolution of this gene in the first place.Showing how a certain thing works is not always a testament on how it has biologically evolved.I am aware that there are various eye types in nature but what i am questioning is how do you explain the gradual evolution of the first eye type (or the proto eye) or the gene for the same.Variations and selective expression and addition and substraction of nucleotide sequences through mutation and natural selection are possible only after a prototype is evolved.

Explainig the gradual evolution of the eye is one of the biggest debacle experienced by most 'evolutionists' and hence they had to come up with the concept of spontaneous evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decrease is physical strength is very easily explained when one notes that in civilized countries, one no longer has to walk everywhere or haul heavy loads on a daily basis, as our ancestors did. As for an alleged decrease in longevity, the opposite is in fact correct; the average human lifespan through history has been 30-40 years. Modern hygiene, agriculture, and medicine have ensured that we live much longer today than in times past.

Still could be something that you could consider as physical devolution.Since i was asked for a proof which one could relate to hence i brought it up.When i talk of longevity i am not talking about death brought about by external factors directly.You are assuming that hygeine and medicine are modern concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explainig the gradual evolution of the eye is one of the biggest debacle experienced by most 'evolutionists' and hence they had to come up with the concept of spontaneous evolution.

Except that it isn't. And "spontaneous evolution" is a very controversial hypothesis, which is not widely accepted. The related ideas of punctuated equilibrium and saltation are likewise controversial. The evolution of the eye is no mystery at all; it's quite well understood. And even if it weren't, it certainly isn't the root of the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis or its related hypotheses. The idea of spontaneous evolution has been around even longer than Darwin's theory of natural selection (Lamarck was a notorious proponent of the notion, in that his own hypothesis suggested that each and every generation is sufficiently evolved to suite its environment that any particular situation which any given organism might encounter might be solved in its offspring; this, of course, is not how evolution works).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still could be something that you could consider as physical devolution.Since i was asked for a proof which one could relate to hence i brought it up.When i talk of longevity i am not talking about death brought about by external factors directly.You are assuming that hygeine and medicine are modern concepts.

I am not assuming that hygiene and medicine are modern concepts; I do happen to know that our hygiene and medicine today are exponentially more sophisticated than those of yesteryear. As I said, our ancestors, up until around perhaps five-hundred years ago, were relegated to life-spans of only about thirty to forty years. Why? Well, dying of old age seldom occurred (though when it did, it was usually in the late sixties, seventies, or perhaps early eighties, at most), and hygiene and medicine were of such poor quality (among a number of other things; such as food quality and preservation) that life was far shorter. In any case, our longevity is undeniably increasing, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "camera" eye, which is present in all mammals, reptiles, and birds, is the product of a long chain of intermediate forms. For instance, the beginning of the chain was most probably something along the lines of a simple compound of photosensitive cells; the next stage would have involved the patch of cells enlarging, and forming a concave indentation, which would allow for better perception of the angle of light and colour; the next stages would involve the deepening and advancement of this concave hollow of cells; at some point, a mucus or otherwise semi-fluid substance would have eventually filled this concave area, allowing for greater clarity still. It's all a very long and complex process, and it's a bit difficult to describe in lay terms. The following video gives a visual example, so it might be easier to understand: [media=]

[/media]

Again i restate why would the photosensitive cells aggregate.Even if i give you that due to some random mutation(that didn't make the organism sterile or cancerous) do you realise how much of a time period and favourable random mutations along with natural selection it would take for that cell aggregate to enlarge and take a concave shape.Even if i give you that the cell aggregate did give rise to a concave indentation due to some random mutation(that didn't make the organism sterile or cancerous) that was favoured by natural selection again still do you realise that you are still not reaching a stage where this visual information due to photosensitivity is coherent or even interpreted by the organism for it to be favourably to it(the organism) in it's survival as there is no optic nerve.Even if i give you the credence that due to some random mutations over large periods of time and favoured by natural selection due to some oblivous reason the aggregate of photosensitive cells that have given rise to a concave indentation and have suddenly also given rise to a prototype mechanism(like an optic nerve) to interpret the light based signals in some mundane sense do you realise how much time and random mutations it would take(without making the organism sterile or cancerous) and how many generations of this organism would have to exist for these signals to be interpreted by it's brain in the form of any sort of Vision.

In the above paragraph i have only talked about the evolution of a mundane proto eye and it still seems nothing less then a miracle.Inorder to give a faint estimate of the probability of evolution of the eye gradually is less then the probability of the same person being struck by lightening 10000 times or probably even less depending on environmental factors persistent at those times when it was evolving.Once this protoeye along with it's optic nerve and gene group to code for it has been created then further evolution of the same can seem more explainable.Frankly speaking, beleiving in intelligent design seems more plausible then believing in this miraculous set of random events taking place in progression to give rise to the modern eye.

P.S. your description and the video is more suitable for the describing the development of the eye in an embryo when there are already genes to govern it's development but trying to extrapolate it for the gradual evolution of such a complex organ without having the complete set of genes to code for it's development is in my book next to impossible.Like i said i might as well believe that God/Aliens created us rather then in it's gradual evolution theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decrease in the longevity of humans,decrease in physical strength, can be taken as few examples of devolution also descent from a spiritual to a materialistic existence can probably also be termed as devolution (as suggested by cremo).

"As suggested by Cremo."

Who is this Cremo?

Does he have academic credentials to propose such conclusions?

What is his scientific background and training?

Is his papers or books or writings peer reviewed any where?

Cremo has an interesting tactic for making his works look academic - Present his papers and speeches at congresses or conventions held at reputable academic institutions and thereby getting mentioned or printed in their newsletters/journals and magazines. \

There are scientific reasons for all his claims.

Let him prove with a peer reviewed and accepted evidence of Devolution.

then we can say he is a respectful academic and not a fringe author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted - multiple quote

Edited by The_Spartan

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.