.

jimbson:
Too much science fiction movies ��

I ask that you examine the evidence I render and judge whether it's a product of science fiction movies or not.

Humans didn't evolve naturally from primates.

I'm not against evolution, I think it's a scientific reality, but one that occurs slowly over an extremely long period of time.

Science tells us that humans evolved from a line of primates. This is what I want to disprove. My refusal to accept this theory is that it is practically impossible given how different humans are from other so-called prehuman primates, and also given the extremely short period of time in which these drastic changes associated with the evolution of man(homo sapiens) couldn't have possibly occurred all at once.

I'm going to be proving 3 propositions.

1. I'm going to prove that humans didn't evolve naturally from primates.

2. I'm going to prove that aliens exist; In our ancient past, medieval period and currently in present times.

3. I'm going to prove that aliens were involved in the creation of man.

NB: When I use the term ALIENS, I don't mean a demon or evil spirit. When I use the term ALIENS I am referring to intelligent life forms that evolved/were created in other galaxies and solar systems long time ago and who have the capacity to travel through space and time to other solar systems & galaxies with the means of technology.

I decided to create this thread because I was urged to by Johnydon22. I also decided to do this because the information I am about to share is vital to the growth of human consciousness and it has the capacity to illuminate our understanding of our origins and occluded past.

This information is for everyone. Whether you are a christian, muslim, atheist or pagan doesn't matter. I just ask that you all keep an open mind.

cc
Nwabekeyi
Vaxx

nwabekeyi:
where is this super being located and how can we verify him/her?

You agreed that humans must have been engineered from apes hence why we share 96% DNA and you said it was done by a super being. You have not provided any scientific acceptable proof to this.

You can't just come here and tell us that a super being removed genes from apes and made humans while he haven't seen the being before.

Your claims are a contradictory and doesn't make any scientific sense, how can you support fact that evolution is still occruing and then claim humans are not involved in the process?

You sound like you barely understand life at the molecular level

I don't think any human completely understands life at the molecular level.

I never said humans aren't involved in the process of evolution. I said that the process of our creation ie our evolution, must l have been accelerated and I provided evidence why. All you have to do is read my earlier arguments which you've since failed to refute convincingly.

On the issue of the existence of this super being, I can't tell you the name or nature of the being that could have been involved in our creation or acceleration of our evolution, but I can provide evidence for existence of beings of higher intelligence that have been involved in our ancient past.

nwabekeyi:
now I get your point, I'm sure you agree with me that humans were pregnated by apes irrespective of whether it was engineered by a super being or via gradual evolution.

Now question is, what proof do you have to support the claim that this genetic engineer was done by a super being?

science is based of facts and not emotional belief. Scientists has provided fossil evidence, done radiocarbon dating to determine the ages of these fossils and created models to actually determine the evolutionary line which made sense to you until it got to the point of how humans evolved.

Are you saying the result gotten from the radiocarbon datings of fossils are inaccurate?

What do you mean by humans were pregnated by apes?

My proof is the fact that evidence points to our evolution being accelerated or our emergence on earth having been a result of some divine transformation. I also have proof that "super beings" have been involved in our ancient past. So if they exist, and have been involved in our past, then it only reinforces my argument.

I've explained countlessly why the evolutionary narrative concerning the evolution of homo sapiens doesn't make sense to me.

The result gotten from carbon dating is exactly the result that renders their claims regarding man's evolution as preposterous.

Butterflyleo:


I don't think its coincidence either.

Besides ancient discoveries have been made (can't recall the tribes now) but they were a mountain people I think somewhere in Australia who had very clear drawings of spacecraft and people they called gods who came down and taught them many things and even genetically modified them (as it were).

Now the link you posted shows that all attention has been shifted to Australia .

There must be some correlation because such talk does not just originate out of the blue. They must have witnessed something of the sort that prompted the very beginning of such stories in all cultures worldwide even in cultures without access to internet or external information, same is applicable.

The scientists can shift their attentions anywhere and it still would leave them confounded simply because their initial suppositions are wrong. If you ask me, I don't think human civilization started at a particular place and then people began to spread out. I think the creator of humans specifically created different human races in different locations at the same time. The Australian aboriginals you made mention of say exactly the same thing the Sumerians and the ancient Indians say. The Sumerians for instance tell stories of Gods who came to earth and created them from less intelligent life forms. The Indians in their vedic texts also have images of all sorts of space crafts. All these stories are scattered across ancient civilizations, but told differently.

nwabekeyi:
you didn't state any proof to support creation sir, I can't see anything, kindly repost proof here.

If you think humans were created distinctly, can you explain why we share 96% DNA similarities with chimpanzees?

Since I've debated on this thread I've consistently said that my opinion on the subject of the emergence of humans on this earth is that either the evolution of humans from primates was accelerated by genetic engineering or they were created anew. If their evolution was accelerated, they of course they'd still share DNA with other species close to them on the evolutionary tree. If they were created anew, then they were probably created using the DNA of other primates and mixing them with the DNA of the beings that created them or some other intelligent beings. Hence the phrase common among ancient religions and cultures of the creator Gods creating humans in their likeness.

nwabekeyi:
why do you think humans were created by a higher being? Because you really contradict yourself if you think evolution is still occurring and you also think humans won't also evolve in a constantly changing environment, how possible is that?

Can you also provide proof to this?

My proof is embedded in my earliest posts where I stated how unrealistic it was from an evolutionary standpoint, given the overnight transformations in anatomical and physiological features, which I listed, that humans evolved from preceding primates.

Butterflyleo:


Now this is what I call a new idea. Something worth pondering on.

How come we experienced such an explosion of change in practically all areas of human evolution in such a short time? How come we are totally different from the rest?

The other allegedly evolved animals still hold many similarities. Even the Ape DNA which we were once said to share similarities at genetic levels with have been proven to be totally untrue and that our DNA is extremely far more different from theirs.

Something definitely isn't adding up.

And I haven't even brought up the big question of consciousness: Why only humans have it and why science hasn't discovered how it originated and it's point of locality in the human body.

People like to think that the ancients who told stories of being created by Gods were all stupid people fabricating nonsense. Well I don't think they were. I think there is some truth in all their similar accounts. They all talk of Gods from the skies coming down on earth and creating humans. Every single human civilization, even our own Nigerian cultures, had this story. I don't think it's a coincidence.

nwabekeyi:
human didn't evolve from anything?

Are you saying evolution of living things never happened, or it stopped at a point then humans were created ?

By anything, I meant from evolving naturally from primates.

Evolution is still happening among life forms on this planet. I'm not disputing that, but in the case of the emergence of humans on earth, human evolution (if I'll even call it that) wasn't natural. It was likely rapidly expedited or humans were created anew by a higher intelligence.

nwabekeyi:
if you don't understand it then don't call them confused sir, I see you are even willing to drop your own ideas first so you can accept new ideas.
If you want us to share ideas, I'm ready, be specific and be open-minded

They are very confused and they will keep on being confused until they change their premise. Humans didn't evolve naturally from preceding primates. We were very likely genetically engineered or created anew by something. You can call it God if you want. I don't care.

It doesn't even take more than common sense to realize that you aren't like other animals.

Here is link showing how confused your evolutionary scientists are concerning the origin of man.

http://theconversation.com/worlds-scientists-turn-to-asia-and-australia-to-rewrite-human-history-88697

nwabekeyi:
I have corrected that post before now, I meant to type Homo rhodesiensis, was in rush to respond to the guy

.

Such a liar.

nwabekeyi:
Homo heidelbergensis via the subspecie Homo rhodesiensis.

The crude knowledge in secondary school won't tell you this, you have to dig further, you can try and learn more about it online

Now you are saying something completely different. At first your claim was that humans evolved from Neanderthals and not from Homo erectus. After your ignorance has been pointed out you are now shifting gears.

Why don't you defend your earlier claim that humans evolved from Neanderthals?

nwabekeyi:
don't tell me not to compare astronomy to evolution because astronomy as a field is somehow linked to evolution.

Evolution goes beyond humans and astronomy details that and even looks at how earth planetary changes has influenced humans in the past and vice versa and it will also be used to predict further evolutionary lines, you really come on your keyboard and call all these guys confused just because you don't understand the concept behind it.

If you read my post carefully you'd see that I specifically said not to compare astronomy with evolutionary science surrounding the evolution of man. And I've said it many times on this thread that I'm not against evolution, I agree it occurs, but it doesn't explain the emergence of man on planet earth, and you've done a piss poor job at refuting my claims.

nwabekeyi:
I don't need primary school knowledge to know evolution, this same primary school knowledge told us that sunrises in the east and sets in the west.

I still stand my ground that homo sapein didn't evolve directly from homo erectus, go back and read well and stop telling me a primary school rhyme.

Homo sapiens never evolved directly from homo erectus

What did homo sapiens evolve from then?

Are you an intellectual masochist? You seem to enjoy being wrong.

vaxx:
interesting,there are differences between anthropologists interpretation on how they interpret the evidence. Those anthropologists who think that H. homo eectus is a separate, distinct species would say that heidelbergensis is the direct ancestor of both H. sapiens and H. neanderthal (and possibly H. denisovan, too). The ancestor of H. heidelbergensis is H. ergaster/erectus found in (Africa).

Those anthropologists who look at the differences between the fossils of H. heidelbergensis do not view it as a separate species, but rather as a conglomeration of transitional individuals. The fossils in Africa link H. ergaster to H. sapiens. The H. heidelbergensis fossils in Europe are transitional between H. ergaster and H. neanderthal.

In either case, H. sapiens evolved from H. ergaster/H. erectus (Africa). The difference is whether there is an intermediate species — H. heidelbergensis — in the family tree. So H. ergaster would be our “father” or “grandfather” species.

Most anthropologists now view H. erectus in Java as a different species than H. ergaster. The evidence indicates that when members of H. ergaster migrated from Africa that one population in Northern China evolved to H. pekinsiensis (Peking Man) and another population in SE Asia evolved to H. erectus (Java Man) that was discoved in the island of java

http://www.efossils.org/species/homo-ergaster....

H. ergaster and the H. heidelbergensis are still very much like the homo-erectus and other pre humans species than they are like humans. Humans are still very much different.

nwabekeyi:
I really do not know where you got this information about changing evolutionary line and saying science is confused about evolution is like saying that astronomers who predicted several eclipses that actually happened were also confused.

Don't compare astronomy with evolutionary science surrounding the origin of man. Astronomy is couched in facts that can be repeatedly tested and replicated. Evolutionary science surrounding the evolution of man is just conjecturing; claims without compelling evidence and fudging of information to suit a historical narrative.

It's still the same scientists that are telling us that human civilization is only very recent when the evidence suggests that it's thousands of years older and far more advanced than we are made to believe.

There is a lot of knowledge that's kept from the population; knowledge that would shake the very grounds of our society and orthodox evolutionary and archeological science is being used as an instrument to conceal this knowledge.

nwabekeyi:
science still believe that we evolved directly from neanthertals and not homo erectus.

Homo erectus were not the immediate pregnitors of humans. I really do not know where you got this information about changing evolutionary line

For someone who created a thread to educate people about evolution, you seem to be very ignorant on the subject.

Even a kid in primary school knows that the currently literature on evolution states that humans evolved directly from homo erectus. I mean this is basic evolutionary history.

I'm very disappointed.

nwabekeyi:
civilization will bring fast evolutionary process, the depletion of forest reserves and disruption of the green house wll further lead emergence of rapid adaptative features. I won't be surprised if one tell me that humans will exhibit drasctic physical changes in few thousand years to come, faster than it has always been.

Rapid industrialization, deforestation and other human activities that has lead to increase change in the earth's atmosphere, Penetration of more radiation, decreased oxygen production, higher temperature etc will definitely lead to faster rate of evolution. Homo habalis that inhabited the iceage will not be able to survive our current environmental if evolution hadn't occurred.

Remember, evolution is tightly linked to environmental change, the faster we contribute to change in environment, the faster we adapt to be able to survive in that environment, if we can't adapt, we will definitely go into extinction.

And don't forget that in this process of adapting, lot of human lives would have been lost, just the most adaptive genes will survive.

Nothing here answers my question. You seem to just be making weak excuses.

Everything orthodox science tells us about the origin of man on earth pre-5000BC is shrouded in conjecturing disguised as fact, deliberate fudging of the data and subtle concealment of information.

Humans didn't evolve from Homo-erectus. I don't know how we were created or how we emerged. What I know is that there is a lot about our history that we don't know and instead of claiming to know let's just be open minded and stop making preposterous conjectures. Not too long ago, science believed humans evolved from Neanderthals, when they couldn't cope with the overwhelming evidence contradicting this notion, they changed the narrative to us evolving from Homo-Erectus. These people are just either confused or pushed by forces who have the true knowledge into lying.

vaxx:
which primate in particular?

Homo-erectus. They are nothing like humans. They are stronger and much bigger. Their bones are denser and thicker. They are very much like the primates that preceded them than they are like humans. All other primates have the same facial morphology, regardless of the evolutionary time line between them. They all had large eye sockets that enabled nocturnal vision, prominent brow ridges, a neck that couldn't move like ours can, large nasal cavities, small prefrontal cortexes hence flat foreheads and loads of other features. Humans are very different.

nwabekeyi:
the first homo erectus was said to be found in Asia About 1.8million years ago, the first homo sapien was found 195000 years ago.

Exactly. But its widely believed that Homo erectus still existed alongside humans and went extinct around 143,000 years due to human dominance.

Even if we say that the last characteristic homo erectus walked the earth 1.8 million years before the first homo sapiens evolved (which isn't the case) where are the transitory fossils that indicate a gradual change? All we see are just entirely human and entirely homo erectus fossils.

Also, if I go with your presumption that all these features evolved within 1.8 million years, how then is it possible since it took about the same period of time for homo habilis to evolve into homo erectus and there was hardly any change in their features. Humans have existed for over 300,000 years, recent data suggest we've been around even longer. This is roughly about 1/5 of the time it took all the features I listed to have evolved and we haven't evolved any new features much less something of that transformational magnitude.

Evolution is a very slow process. The evolution of a new feature in a species is practically a miracle. Homo sapiens seemed to have evolved over 25 news features within a very short period of time(in evolutionary terms). This is what I don't get. How does a specie evolve an entirely new size and density of bone within the same period of time it was evolving a larger pre-frontal cortex, within the same period of time it was evolving speech, within the same period of time all it's facial features were changing, within the same period of time it was losing it's hair. This isn't an evolutionary transition, it's an accelerated transformation or more plausibly, an entirely new creation.

vaxx:
Not my question but i find this interesting. i get Ur point. but not so in total as u mean . Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. try and read from here and how it was observed, but i admit not in all. itwhttps://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one is yet to be observed either , such as a frog changing into a cow. but this is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

I understand evolution and I agree that it occurs. I'm content with most of the scientific literature surrounding animal evolution up to homo-erectus. It's the literature that describes the evolution of man that I don't agree with. it's all just stupid conjecturing in my opinion. I think the evidence in respect to human evolution suggests that the evolution from homo erectus to homosapiens was either accelerated by forces we don't understand, or humans were created using the DNA of primates. But to claim that humans somehow evolved DIRECTLY from a primate that we hardly share any similarity with, is just preposterous.

zzzzy:
Yes, but as demons

What do you mean by as demons? When I talk about aliens I mean intelligent life that exist outside our solar system. I don't mean demonic entities that manifest in our reality or ghosts. Do you think intelligent life exists outside our solar system, bearing in mind that there are literally over a trillion solar systems in our universe?

nwabekeyi:
homo erectus didn't evolve into homo sapiens over a short period of time, it took about more than 1.5million years

The earliest homo sapiens fossils ever found are dated around 300,000 - 200,000 years. Homo-erectus in their characteristic form were around then, even well into 160,000 years ago, so how then did humans evolve all these features from them, when no transitory species exist? It's more like some Homo erectus species transformed into homo sapiens overnight, while the rest just remained the same.

Remember the features we are referring to: Total change of bone size and density; protrusion of the forehead; depression of defined brow ridges; complete change of the throat configuration; the evolution of speech; development of larger pre-frontal cortex; the disappearance of thick hair on the body; the evolution of sweating; the transformation of the walking pattern evidenced by change in feet shape; transformation of eye sockets; loss of nocturnal vision and the evolution of consciousness amongst more - All these features are unprecedented in the evolution of primates and they all occurred at the same time during the so-called evolution of man. Is this how evolution works?

Ladyhippolyta88:
Excuse me I have every right to pick whoever I like call it white washed or brain washed it is not your business.
I enjoy what I read about him and I did not bring his personal life to it let him be a racist or whatever I love his theories and I chose him and a few others as the philosophers I admire in the enlightenment period his racism,
His views about blacks are none of my business because I do not view myself as a beast or subhuman.
Afterall it is not a crime to read his works.

Exactly what a whitewashed intellectual slave would say.

I'm sure you love reading his works about his perception of black people? lol

Mind you his views about black people wasn't just an opinion, it was an elaborate aspect of his general philosophy and he actually wrote papers on the inferiority of black people.

Ladyhippolyta88:

Yeah I do and those are the positions of some of his critics he was against aristocracy and absolute monarchy but I am not focusing on his personality per se but I am focusing on his theories and the role he played.
As for your last sentence that won't be possible.

But it was possible for your ancestors, so why would the case be different for you, or aren't you a negro? John Locke and his friends had no qualms delisting black people as subhuman and enslaving then under extremely callous and dehumanizing conditions. Why wouldn't it apply to you if you were a black woman living in their time? Or are you Caucasian?

I am actually surprised that of all historical figures to pick to meet you had to choose a man who literally referred to black people as beasts. Or have you been so whitewashed by the west to fall in love with their historical figures even if these figures would consider you more of an animal and less of a human?

**

I'm only concerned about the evolution of man and how that fits into the narrative that we are being fed about evolution.

So my question is this: Why did it take homo sapiens so little time to evolve from homo erectus and how did this short period of evolution lead to drastic changes like a complete facial morphological configuration, the development of consciousness, the change in bone size and bone mass, the development of modulation, the shedding of hair along with the evolution of the mechanism of sweating etc. How did all this happen within a short period of time, remarkably so even while Homo-erectus still existed?

cc Nwabekeyi

Ladyhippolyta88:

I modified,John locked because he is believed to be the father of liberalism(I share those views) and someone who believed that man has a right and has philosophies or theories on his position.

Don't you find it ironic that the same so-called father of liberalism was also a racist slave supporter who regarded people that looked identical to you as subhuman? I mean if you existed during Locke's time, he and his intellectual friends would feel no compunction using you as a sex slave and forcing your brothers to work as slaves.

IamPlato:
...


Back To The Beginning, so I Can Restart The World...


Ojoro don Too Much For This Life

What beginning are you referring to? The beginning of time itself? The creation of the earth? The creation/evolution of man? The emergence of human consciousness? The birth of civilization?