Humans came from Asia, not Africa.

[TylerDurden]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2154753/Myanmar-fossil-turns-human-history-head--earliest-ancestors-came-Asia-Africa.html

[Dorothy]

I saw an entire special on this. The documentary showed that people actually came from BOTH Asia and Africa.

[Duke]

but this is ofcourse assuming that darwin's theory of evolution is correct and that all the human race evolved from primates. 

[HIT_it_RAW]

Or is is simply a case of parallel evolution. There are examples of this all over the world. There are at least 3 freshwater dolphin species that evolved in closed bodies of water  separately yet they are remarkably similar. That is because they have the same roll in a similar ecosystem. Function dictates design and evolution is no exception. If it performs like a dolphin it MUST look like a dolphin. It is very possible the same is true for humans. In different places in the world the same or at least similar function were required for survival thus pushing evolution in the same direction. If it works for other animals it does for humans.

It is of course very much politically incorrect to ever suggest such a thing. That would mean that not all are equal. Although even a glance at the most predominantly prevailing species(yes i dare say)in different sports, sciences, and other challenges of life makes this at least a clear possibility.

[Duke]

humans didnt evolve from monkeys. otherwise there wont be monkeys or there would still be humans half-evolved between monkeys and humans, meaning evolution is still taking place.

[HIT_it_RAW]

humans didnt evolve from monkeys. otherwise there wont be monkeys or there would still be humans half-evolved between monkeys and humans, meaning evolution is still taking place.

Read darwin please. he clearly explains why this is NOT true.

[Duke]

What's his reason now? In a nutshell?
An asteroid had hit the earth and stopped this evolution from happening anymore due to release of kryptonite like radiation?

[HIT_it_RAW]

all things in nature are constantly competing. This is the basic drive behind evolution. The extinction of species due to not being able to compete with their better adapted counterpart is a rather fast (evolutionary speaking) process. when modern man came about Neanderthals quickly became extinct because they could no longer compete. again extinction is a fast process. another step in evolution takes much longer. So yes there were periods when more than one type of humans roamed the earth simultaneously, as confirmed by fossil records. We just happen to live somewhere along the evolutionary timeline where our predecessors have already become extinct while our successor has not yet come along(probably).

[CitrusHigh]

Be careful what you think you know HIR, everything might not be as you think it seems.

By all rights, we, and our civilization should be another couple million years in the making, if not more.

http://churchofcriticalthinking.org/missing_link.html

You can accept the bullshit you're fed, or you can actually look at the facts and determine what seems more reasonable. All together, way more likely someone gave us our knowledge (mathematics, astronomy, etc) rather than us slowly attaining it on our own. If that is such, it's likely we were 'created' through genetic manipulation rather than gradual darwinian evolution, though darwinian evolution is certainly a big player as well, though it might not be exactly such as he conceived. 

[TylerDurden]

The Neanderthals did not die out, they interbred with modern humans(non-Africans, anyway). So far, 1-4% Neanderthal DNA has been cited, but I suspect the figure is much higher for certain populations:-

http://www.themythsandhistoryofredhair.co.uk/neanderthalman.html

[HIT_it_RAW]

You're right of course Tyler. I was trying to give a quick example. However the result of the interbreeding (us) did compete the neanderthals out of existence. So the analogy still holds.

[raw-al]

You're right of course Tyler. I was trying to give a quick example. However the result of the interbreeding (us) did compete the neanderthals out of existence. So the analogy still holds.

Aha! So Tyler is 'right' because he goes along with the 'Orthodox Church of the Darwinian Religion' LOL

I bought into the Darwin theory as it was drilled into me at school, and I did right up to the day in my mid thirties when I heard someone right out of the blue (not a Christian BTW) say that evolution was BS. It completely threw me for a loop and I realized that there was an awful lot of reasons to doubt the theory, so I do.

I've listened to the speeches from Dawkins which convinced me even more that it was not true. Dawkins has made a career out of starting with a conclusion and working backwards, just like most people do who buy into the fantasy. Each time there is a discovery that disputes it, someone makes up another bandaid for the theory.

There are a large number of skeletins in the closet that disprove Darwinism, just like when the church tried to convince everyone about where disease came from.

It is not likely that those who buy into it will change their minds because it is a great way to justify calling some races bad names.

[TylerDurden]

So presumably you believe that the flying spaghetti monster or whatever created fossils , the Earth etc. all out of the blue one day, perhaps in 4004 BC as Bishop Usher claimed?  I am unaware of any alternative between darwinism and creationism. I agree, though, that Dawkins is a fanatic, being as bad as the Creationists he attacks.

[raw-al]

So presumably you believe that the flying spaghetti monster or whatever created fossils , the Earth etc. all out of the blue one day, perhaps in 4004 BC as Bishop Usher claimed?  I am unaware of any alternative between darwinism and creationism. I agree, though, that Dawkins is a fanatic, being as bad as the Creationists he attacks.

Tyler, I believe what I believe and feel no compunction to defend it or explain it or define it, as it is my own special belief and I am not trying to start up any religion.

I believe that there is a certain amount of evolution via survival of the fittest that takes place but to believe the whole enchilada is a bit of a stretch...... to me. You can believe what you wish.

So you believe in the flying spaghetti monster do you? Frankly, I'm skeptical!

[TylerDurden]

I am a confirmed atheist who only sees religion as a useful way to add culture to society, nothing more(though I find the old pagan religions of Europe far more pleasant, culturally, than the 3 Abrahamic religions).All I want is that there is no ghastly Heaven in which I have to sing the praises of a vain Christian god. I far prefer the notion of Valhalla or, better still, Buddhist reincarnation, though I would far rather be reborn as a sentient alien thousands of light-years away or in another  parallel dimension, than to be reborn as a cockroach or other animal.

[raw-al]

I am a confirmed atheist who only sees religion as a useful way to add culture to society(though I find the old pagan religions of Europe far more pleasant, culturally, than the 3 Abrahamic religions).All I want is that there is no ghastly Heaven in which I have to sing the praises of a vain Christian god. I far prefer the notion of Buddhist reincarnation, though I would far rather be reborn as a sentient alien thousands of light-years away or in another  parallel dimension, than to be reborn as a cockroach or other animal.

I love it! LOL

Thankfully I have to say that you do not dwell on preaching about evolution.

As a child I rebelled against Christianity. That was partly due to being stuck going to the church on Sunday. I've mellowed a bit, but still have a bit of a jaundiced view of the whole lot as you said, the 3 Abrahamic religions.

I haven't learned a lot about the old pagan religions you mention. Maybe that is my next step. I have learned a small amount about aboriginal NA Indian spirituality. There is a lot of commonality between different spiritual traditions and even current records such as NDE etc.

After studying the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Yoga Vasista of Venkatesananda, and a number of other Vedic texts  as well as a bit of Buddhism and the 'Tibettan Book Of The Dead' and a huge # of 'spiritual type books', I have maintained that there is some sort of something that set everything in motion and watches it somewhat as a child watches a creation of mud and water as it moves along. My belief follows along with a lot of what the TBOTD says.

This world of duality is a mixture of a huge amount of fun and an lesser amount of misery. The trick is to realize this and not allow it to get to you. Take it as it comes. Get the hell out of the wheel when the proper chance arrives.

BTW the TBOTD tells you how to avoid becoming a cockroach or other animal. If you get a chance check out the 'National Film Board Of Canada' film, narrated by Leonard Cohen about the TBOTD. It is very fascinating.

If my memory serves, I believe you lived there as a child.

[Alive]

Either God created me to believe in evolution, or evolution evolved me not to believe in God : )

My favorite religion is Pantheism - which believes that 'God' (or my translation 'Good') is in everything:

www.pantheism.net/

[Haai]

I believed completely in Darwin's theory of evolution until recently when I read the book 'Biology of Bielief', by Bruce Lipton.
Now I still believe in evolution, but not exactly how Darwin described it. This is mainly due to the increasing knowledge about epigenetics. Because environmental conditions affect gene expression in an organism throughout it's life, and these changes can then be inherited by the offspring, it resembles more the theory of evolution by the ridiculed Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

[sabertooth]

I am a confirmed atheist who only sees religion as a useful way to add culture to society, nothing more(though I find the old pagan religions of Europe far more pleasant, culturally, than the 3 Abrahamic religions).All I want is that there is no ghastly Heaven in which I have to sing the praises of a vain Christian god. I far prefer the notion of Valhalla or, better still, Buddhist reincarnation, though I would far rather be reborn as a sentient alien thousands of light-years away or in another  parallel dimension, than to be reborn as a cockroach or other animal.

I find the notion that heaven is a place where everyone floats around making "celestial whoopee"for all eternity; very funny.

I like the ancient Vedas belief about the universal cycles of death and rebirth. They called it the  great Brahma year. They had this Idea that our universe is born and lives out its life and dies about every 100 billion years or so . Its an infinite cycle which inevitably leads to the reincarnation not only of our world, but countless other worlds and beings, within the realm of the great lotus dream.

Regarding evolution of man.

The origin of man may not ever be completely understood, but the fact that we did evolve from lower forms as did all other animals on this planet should not be up for debate.


The science now seems to be leading us to believe, that early humans evolved in Asia then moved back to Africa, then migrated to the middle east, then up to Europe and back to Africa. Somewhere in all the shuffle Modern humans emerged then spread to all corners of the earth.

[TylerDurden]

I actually spent my very early childhood in Nepal, not Tibet. Somehow I doubt foreigners have been welcome there much since the Chinese invasion.

Interesting info re the Vedas, from what SB states, they seem to have come up with the "many worlds" hypothesis, one of the quantum theories of modern physics, thousands of years before!  Personally I have found most religions to  have provided something useful, Buddhism and Hinduism being good examples, it's just the 3 Abrahamic religions which I have never liked.

[HIT_it_RAW]

I am a confirmed atheist who only sees religion as a useful way to add culture to society, nothing more

Hear hear

I believed completely in Darwin's theory of evolution until recently when I read the book 'Biology of Bielief', by Bruce Lipton.
Now I still believe in evolution, but not exactly how Darwin described it. This is mainly due to the increasing knowledge about epigenetics. Because environmental conditions affect gene expression in an organism throughout it's life, and these changes can then be inherited by the offspring, it resembles more the theory of evolution by the ridiculed Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

No doubt lamarck was a genius. And therefore ridiculed. You see a genius understands things nobody else does so when he speaks his mind everyone inevitably thinks hes crazy for they dont(and likely never will) understand it.

I still think Darwin's model holds for at least 90%. The basic principles he discovered are the same principles working in epigenetic evolution which is just a precursor to truly genetic evolution.

Personally I have found most religions to  have provided something useful, Buddhism and Hinduism being good examples, it's just the 3 Abrahamic religions which I have never liked.

I never liked any religion at all but i agree that those 3 are by far the worst. What usefull things would you say the other religions have brought that couldn't have been acquired without belief in some higher power?

[TylerDurden]

Well, the other religions had more of a focus on artistic objects, whereas Christianity and Islam all focused on destroying the artwork of other religions, during their heyday. Plus, most other religions worshipped many gods and goddesses, so that every role in their society had a specific patron-deity, for example, Hera for Ancient Greek wives, Ares for the military etc., rather than some vengeful single male God. Plus, the other religions were usually far more tolerant of other religions, though not always. And, in the Ancient World, there wasn't much religious belief per se, that is there were no monasteries/convents so that religion had less of a totalitarian grip on the human imagination than the 3 Abrahamic religions later on. I mean, scientists in Ancient Greece were able to come up with countless theories which were only rediscovered during the Renaissance when, finally, the Christian Churches started losing power.

[sabertooth]

Who can Know the origins of the world?

Carl Sagan on "God" and "gods"

[HIT_it_RAW]

Well, the other religions had more of a focus on artistic objects, whereas Christianity and Islam all focused on destroying the artwork of other religions, during their heyday. Plus, most other religions worshipped many gods and goddesses, so that every role in their society had a specific patron-deity, for example, Hera for Ancient Greek wives, Ares for the military etc., rather than some vengeful single male God. Plus, the other religions were usually far more tolerant of other religions, though not always. And, in the Ancient World, there wasn't much religious belief per se, that is there were no monasteries/convents so that religion had less of a totalitarian grip on the human imagination than the 3 Abrahamic religions later on. I mean, scientists in Ancient Greece were able to come up with countless theories which were only rediscovered during the Renaissance when, finally, the Christian Churches started losing power.

All right I get your point, and largely agree.

It was however not an answer to my question; What useful things would you say the other religions have brought that could not have been acquired without belief in some higher power?

[TylerDurden]

Well, that's what I meant, the Greeks had their Muses and basic religious mythology which added culture to their society. Plus, the more gullible members of society could feel that their roles in society were favoured by a particular patron deity whereas a monotheistic or atheistic culture would not have been as useful. It's also interesting to note that the birth-rate seems to often go down in line with a drop in religious beliefs.