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 3
Harsh86_Patel

Why most fringe theories exist.

149 posts in this topic

That's fine. What don't you agree with?

Yes, it is. However, when determining the credibility of a theory, as opposed to whether the theory itself is correct or not, the probability of it being a valid explanation is very much a significant factor.

I won't bother asking you to support this. I will simply let it stand that a postulate on your part does not translate into a fact in reality.

Incorrect. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Assuming, of course, that you have followed proper scientific protocol.

The purpose of research is to discover new things, not to confirm old ones.

Yes, it is very much like that. If you start talking about taking the business in a new direction, but don't bother with a business plan, or benchmarking, or even make an attempt to understand the current business model, then the boss would definitely be well advised to remove you from any position which might make you a threat to the company. Alternatively, if you have the credibility, the knowledge, and the supported business plan, along with projections as well as benchmarks supporting your proposal, and your plan indicates a significant increase in profits on completion, you are going to be pretty well regarded, as well as rewarded with promotion, benefits, and/or money, as appropriate.

See it's simple i have put out what i think in the blog, you can challenge it based on what you know or feel and then we can discuss it. As far as our conversation is heading all i can say is that you buy the logic that we as humans did not advance for 1,95,000 years and then in 5000 years we advanced terribly fast, i don't buy this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Billions of dollars are spent by corporations to do RnD that is actually useful in our life as of now.

Yes, it is. These exact same processes are used for research into the past as well. The tools are the same, even if the end result is intended for profit as opposed to academic advancement.

Since you made the claim that genetic data can be used to figure out population numbers in the past,why don't you back it up with a case study or proof,i can then answer your assertions other then denying them outright.

We can do that, if you are willing to focus on it to the end. I am a little uncertain about you actually being able to understand the process, however.

I and do agree that these ancient civilizations if they existed would have left some debris, i am saying we are not looking for it in all sincerity because we have predecided notions of when civilization began.

How does one look for something unsincerely? If there is an anchronistic porcelain chamber pot buried at a dig sight full of regular ceramic pots, how is the sincerity or insincerity of the researcher going to affect the existence of the porcelain bowl?

I cannot change or explain what i am saying from a different angle,because i am spelling out what i think in a most direct fashion.

It isn't working. Directness is useless if it doesn't communicate what you want it to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, no. At least, this is such a simplification that it comes close to being a misdirection, albeit an unintentional one.

That is a curious, and somewhat precarious, position to hold. Why are you limiting yourself so much?

Yes, it is. To the point that doing the empirical experiments is an Honors high school project. It's the biological equivalent of a paper-mache volcano.

Sure you can.

Nor would you expect to, according to evolution.

It didn't look too good, no.

Maybe not a biblical creationist, but yeah, a creationist of some stripe.

You also don't see any errors in your concept of what science is or what evolution is. Perhaps the problem is indeed in your perception.

Well, for starters, you seem to be under the impression that "Darwinistic" principles of evolution are some sort of scientific theory. This would be incorrect. Also, you don't seem to be familiar with the pre-requisites of scientific methodology, as you seem to believe there is only one valid type of science. Lastly, I am not convinced you understand the general scientific culture in academia, considering some of the statements you have made regarding behaviour of scientist.

How do you define empirical science?

Please provide me with the correct definition of empirical science and how my notions of empirical science are wrong?

I don't give a jack **** about culture in scientific academia, i don't ponder over the courtesies involved,all i care about is Science itself.

What are the pre-requisites of scientific methodology if they are not observing,theorising,experimenting and drawing a valid inference?

I am not a creationist currently as i don't know if there is a creator,neither i am a materialist as it doesn't explain everything, i am yet to decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See it's simple i have put out what i think in the blog, you can challenge it based on what you know or feel and then we can discuss it.

I'll make it easier for you, and myself (as I am not really interested in reading blogs of any kind). Pick a given issue (just one), and we'll discuss it. I won't force you to discuss something you haven't much interest in, or try to guess which issue you consider a priority.

As far as our conversation is heading all i can say is that you buy the logic that we as humans did not advance for 1,95,000 years and then in 5000 years we advanced terribly fast, i don't buy this.

There isn't anything to buy. The data is there. How you choose to interpret it is up to you. Refusing to acknowledge it, however, without giving a valid reason, does make people consider your credibility on the subject. Personal disbelief is a strong subjective force, and allowing it to bias your interpretation is such a common event that it even has a name: Fallacy of Personal Incredulity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll make it easier for you, and myself (as I am not really interested in reading blogs of any kind). Pick a given issue (just one), and we'll discuss it. I won't force you to discuss something you haven't much interest in, or try to guess which issue you consider a priority.

There isn't anything to buy. The data is there. How you choose to interpret it is up to you. Refusing to acknowledge it, however, without giving a valid reason, does make people consider your credibility on the subject. Personal disbelief is a strong subjective force, and allowing it to bias your interpretation is such a common event that it even has a name: Fallacy of Personal Incredulity.

I have already put my contentions at the start of this topic.I have not refused to acknowledge any accurate data,it is the interpretation where most of the errors slip in.For me personal disbelief is only a result of evaluation of evidence and not a precondition for anything,including Unicorns and Leprechauns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you define empirical science?

As one part of science in general. If you wish for this to be the topic of discussion, we can do that.

Please provide me with the correct definition of empirical science and how my notions of empirical science are wrong?

I can talk to you about how empirical science falls in place with the rest of science, and where most of your errors are being made.

I don't give a jack **** about culture in scientific academia, i don't ponder over the courtesies involved,all i care about is Science itself.

That's one of the things you don't understand about science. It doesn't matter whether you care about it or not. It exists, nonetheless.

What are the pre-requisites of scientific methodology if they are not observing,theorising,experimenting and drawing a valid inference?

I am not a creationist currently as i don't know if there is a creator,neither i am a materialist as it doesn't explain everything, i am yet to decide.

Are we decided, then? Do you wish to delve into the realm of what science is, what it promotes, how it works, and what it considers valid, invalid, credible, incredible, correct, incorrect? We aren't going to be switching gears half-way through to a different topic?

I can't promise it isn't going to be a bumpy ride, but I think you will get a kick out of what you will learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As one part of science in general. If you wish for this to be the topic of discussion, we can do that.

I can talk to you about how empirical science falls in place with the rest of science, and where most of your errors are being made.

That's one of the things you don't understand about science. It doesn't matter whether you care about it or not. It exists, nonetheless.

Are we decided, then? Do you wish to delve into the realm of what science is, what it promotes, how it works, and what it considers valid, invalid, credible, incredible, correct, incorrect? We aren't going to be switching gears half-way through to a different topic?

I can't promise it isn't going to be a bumpy ride, but I think you will get a kick out of what you will learn.

Please lets discuss empirical science and applied science.It will help to highlight how some other so called science are outside the bounds of these.

I can talk to you about how the rest of stuff that lies outside the bounds of these two and is not a result of reproducible experimentations or observations,is not really a Science but more of a opinion based cess pool subject to infinite number of interpretations.

I can also talk about how most of the errors being made by you and so many others are due to catering to assumptions made by pseudoscience in the guise of Science.

Lets begin the ride please,i don't care how bumpy it is.And i promise i won't switch gears until we are both satisfied.

You can start with your definitions of empirical and applied science.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like you are taking time. In the mean while this maybe interesting:

Every scientific theory has assumptions, and the theory of evolution is no exception to this. G. A. Kerkut, a British biologist, published a book in 1960 entitled, Implications of Evolution. It is now a rare book, and finding a copy is a challenge. According to Phillip Eichman1, Kerkut lists the following seven assumptions of the theory of evolution:

  • Life arose from nonliving matter (i.e., spontaneous generation occurred).
  • Spontaneous generation only occurred once.
  • Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are interrelated.
  • Multicellular animals (metazoa) evolved from unicellular or single-celled organisms (protozoa or protists).
  • Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
  • Vertebrate animals evolved from invertebrate animals.
  • Vertebrate animals evolved from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to birds and mammals, etc.

Spontaneous generation is an ancient belief that was synthesized by Aristotle. As far as broth spontaneously generating life, Lewis Pasteur disproved this in 1859 2. However, spontaneous generation is critical for the theory of evolution. Atheistic evolution demands that it must have happened, for there is no other alternative to sustain the theory. Even though some prominent evolutionists admit to the extreme improbability of spontaneous generation, they comfort themselves in saying that there were 2 billion years available for this to occur.

http://www.wayhome.org/TheAssumptionsOfEvolution.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more assumptions made by evolutionists wrt human evolution:

Step 1. Assume evolution is true. Evolution has to be assumed as the very first step in the process of dealing with the genomic data because the authors will be using phylogenetic trees as their means of analyzing the genomic data. Barry G. Hall, author of Phylogenetic Trees Made Easy,explains that building a phylogenetic tree from genomic data is valid only if the sequence similarity present in the genes under consideration is due to shared evolutionary ancestry, a condition called homology.2 If the sequence similarity in the genes is due to common function or common design, then it is invalid to assume that building a phylogenetic tree from the sequences will give you real information.

Starting with the assumption that evolution is true, the authors of the paper identified 26,909 high-quality gene sequences that could be used to build gene trees for humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and rhesus monkeys.

Step 2. Align the sequences of each of the 26,909 genes and generate a gene tree for each of them to yield 26,909 gene trees.

Step 3. Assume that rhesus monkeys were the first of the five species to emerge in the species tree (that is, assume that rhesus monkey is a valid outgroup for building a phylogenetic tree with human and great ape gene sequences) and eliminate any gene trees that don’t show rhesus monkeys as the oldest species. This assumption results in the elimination of 1,409 (five percent) of the gene trees from the analysis. 25,500 gene trees now remain.

Step 4. Assume that genes acquire mutations in a clock-like fashion (molecular clock theory). This assumption is the basis for the belief that one can use the changes in gene sequences from one species to another to calculate the time they diverged from one another. Gene trees that generate divergence times inconsistent with the theoretical species tree are discarded because the authors conclude they aren’t behaving in a clock-like fashion. This process eliminates 2,190 (eight percent) of the gene trees. 23,310 trees now remain in the analysis.

Step 5. Assume that the theoretical species tree is correct and eliminate gene trees that differ drastically from the theoretical tree. This assumption eliminates 11,365 (42 percent) of gene trees, leaving 11,945 trees. The scientists identify the remaining sequences as “phylogenetically informative.” This phrase simply means that the remaining gene trees give them more or less the story of the evolutionary relationship they expected to find. In the end, the researchers have rejected ~56 percent of the initial data because, in one way or another, they don’t match the hypothesized species tree.

Step 6. The researchers can now tackle the paper’s real objective—explaining the inconsistency between so many of the gene trees and the theoretical species tree. Armed with the set of gene trees considered valid and making two additional assumptions—that orangutans emerged ~16 million years ago and that the generation time for the species is 20 years—the scientists calculate the probability that gene trees that do not agree with the species tree would turn up in their analysis.

Fortunately for their research, the probability is exactly what they observed occurring in their data. This calculation serves as a justification for upholding the evolutionary paradigm in spite of so much data being eliminated from consideration because it isn’t consistent with the hypothesis. The authors further conclude that the original population of humans was between 24,000 and 49,000. So, having started with the assumption that evolution is true (see step 1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little more on Human evolution and what is behind the curtain scenario where the dates we are told are still being questioned from within:

For example, paleoanthropologist Misia Landau has claimed that many writings in her field are "determined as much by traditional narrative frameworks as by material evidence." According to Landau's book "Narratives of Human Evolution" (Yale University Press, 1991), "themes found in recent paleoanthropological writing... far exceed what can be inferred from the study of fossils alone and in fact place a heavy burden of interpretation on the fossil record -- a burden which is relieved by placing fossils into preexisting narrative structures."

Likewise, Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark stated in 1997 that "we select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions--a process that is, at once, both political and subjective." Clark suggested "that paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science." (G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, eds., "Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research", Aldine de Gruyter, 1997).

Evolutionist Henry Gee, chief science writer for "Nature", has pointed out that limited fossil evidence for human origins poses severe problems for anyone trying to piece together the real story of human ancestry. Writing in his recent book "In Search of Deep Time" (Free Press, 1999), Gee points out that all the evidence for human evolution "between about 10 and 5 million years ago-several thousand generations of living creatures-can be fitted into a small box." As a result, conventional theories of the origin and development of human beings are "a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices." Indeed, such theories carry "the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good example how flawed assumption lead to absurd speculations which are in turn touted as scientific studies or facts:

Grandmas Made Humans Live Longer

COMPUTER SIMULATION: CHIMP LIFESPAN EVOLVES INTO HUMAN LONGEVITY

Tweet this post Share Media Contacts

Oct. 24, 2012 – Computer simulations provide new mathematical support for the “grandmother hypothesis” – a famous theory that humans evolved longer adult lifespans than apes because grandmothers helped feed their grandchildren.

“Grandmothering was the initial step toward making us who we are,” says Kristen Hawkes, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah and senior author of the new study published Oct. 24 by the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

The simulations indicate that with only a little bit of grandmothering – and without any assumptions about human brain size – animals with chimpanzee lifespans evolve in less than 60,000 years so they have a human lifespan. Female chimps rarely live past child-bearing years, usually into their 30s and sometimes their 40s. Human females often live decades past their child-bearing years.

The findings showed that from the time adulthood is reached, the simulated creatures lived another 25 years like chimps, yet after 24,000 to 60,000 years of grandmothers caring for grandchildren, the creatures who reached adulthood lived another 49 years – as do human hunter-gatherers.

http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/grandmas-made-humans-live-longer/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An example of how dating of hominid fossils is made to conform to the established paradigm:

La Sima de los Huesos – the Pit of Bones – has been designated a Unesco world heritage site because of its importance to understandingevolution, and millions of euros, donated by the EU, have been spent constructing a museum of human antiquity in nearby Burgos.

But Britain's leading expert on human evolution, Professor Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, has warned in the journal EvolutionaryAnthropology that the team in charge of La Sima has got the ages of its fossils wrong by 200,000 years and has incorrectly identified the species of ancient humans found there.

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.

"The Atapuerca finds are hugely important," said Stringer. "There is no other site like it in terms of numbers of bones and skulls of our ancient predecessors. It is the world's biggest collection of ancient human fossils and the team there has done a magnificent job in excavating the site. However, if we cannot correctly fix the age and identity of the remains then we are in trouble. Getting that wrong even affects how we construct our own evolution."

"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."

Another criticism is of the method used to date the Pit of Bones. A stalagmite found just above the remains has been dated as 600,000 years old, using natural uranium isotopes, and Sima scientists argue that the fossils must be older. They say the 28 bodies were thrown into the pit as an act of reverence for the dead and that the stalagmite grew over the sediment containing the bones.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/10/fossil-dating-row-sima-huesos-spain

This is a very good example of how credible evidence is reinterpreted to concur with the mainstream. And after doing so,we ask proof for the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do their opinions carry more weight then mine? when you say it is their conclusions means that they by default support it,in this scenario it is the opinion of the neutral party that counts.....you can't be the judge jury and the hangman.

They concluded that the divergence happened in our ancestor and not HSS because the mainstream says that HSS didn't exist before 200,000 years. Circular reasoning.

Which is based on the lack of evidence for Homo sapiens remains prior to c.200,000 BP. Again, one can't base an argument on evidence one DOESN'T have.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is based on the lack of evidence for Homo sapiens remains prior to c.200,000 BP. Again, one can't base an argument on evidence one DOESN'T have.

cormac

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets begin the ride please,i don't care how bumpy it is.And i promise i won't switch gears until we are both satisfied.

You can start with your definitions of empirical and applied science.

Excellent, then let's define--

Every scientific theory has assumptions, and the theory of evolution is no exception to this.
Some more assumptions made by evolutionists wrt human evolution:
A little more on Human evolution and what is behind the curtain scenario...
A good example how flawed assumption lead to absurd speculations which are in turn touted as scientific studies or facts:
An example of how dating of hominid fossils is made to conform to the established paradigm:

**sigh**

Let's...start off with something a bit simpler.

First, let's define exactly what it is that science requires before a theory can claim to be 'scientific'.

For instance, how exactly is a theory formed? Does the data have to preceed the theory, or can the theory preceed the data? At what point do we seperate faith as a belief and faith as a statistic? Is an abstract theory that has only been proven mathematicaly still count as a scientific theory?

The following are what are generally referred to as the pre-requisites of scientific methodology:

1) The first would be that it needs to explain or account for the currently existing data.

2) The second is that it would have to be able to predict future events based on that data, in order to encompass data discovered in the future.

3) The conclusion would have to be logical enough so that an unbiased third party would naturally arrive at the same results.

4) The theory must be falsifiable.

5) The explanation offered must be a verifiable event.

All theories, prior to being considered scientific, must meet all five of these points. Before we start getting into examples, is there any of these you would like further clarification on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!:)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Why there are mythical stories in every civilizations?

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

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :)

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. , 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I see.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.