Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Some Thoughts on Human Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#41 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 11,330 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 04 September 2019 - 07:27 AM

Bear with me as I work my way through some thoughts about time and perspective and evolution and religion and how they're connected. It's a work-in-progress.

 

 

In the context of Deep Time, the Roman Catholic Church is still Western Civilization’s current de facto leader, though he's having a well-deserved rough patch lately. On the subject of time, consider that the Biblical creationists’ worldview that the world (if not the Universe) was created ~6K years ago must mean the Sumerians were really precocious since they invented glue 1000 years before that!

And oddly enough, the paperclip wasn’t invented until the late-1800’s so it took nearly 7,000 years to expand our basic repertoire of office supplies from glue to paperclips. And that’s not even to mention the altar with cave bear skulls on it and the cave art in Chauvet Cave in France that was most recently inhabited 28,000 years ago; since they grow at known rates under various conditions, the calcite crystals growing on the stuff left behind in that cave is rather compelling evidence for their age, among other things well-chronicled elsewhere.


Now let that sink in a moment, while also keeping in mind that the Eleusinian Mysteries endured for a thousand years. A thousand years. That’s nothing in some sense (just ask a rock), but in what we call the year 1019 I’d say life was a bit different for most of us humans (among other species) than it is now.

In that year the freakin’ Vikings controlled what is now Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. The Vikings!

 

So in another sense a thousand years is quite something indeed. The Roman Catholic Church has been around for 1219 years, for comparison. As a cohesive institutional organization with a singular purpose and focus. Let THAT sink in for a minute, and you’ll probably get why we’re not gazing out from our anti-gravity sky-condos on Europa yet, and still have those fucking insulting forms of implicit slavery called “jobs.” Oh, and it’s also a major if not the primary reason why we’re about to collectively toss the whole damned thing into the proverbial and literal fire for no particular reason, too.

I’m joking, but I’m not kidding.

This is why I go on about things that might not seem so significant, such as the utterly absurd notion that this “is” the year 2019. Well, it is under the current Administration, which is why we’re still using the same absurd dating standard, as a brief study of the history of dating methods people have used over the millennia can attest.

 

Just mark my words: In one or two hundred years from now, this will all seem self-evident as everyone’s partying on the last night of the 13-month lunar-cycle based year, only minutes away from celebrating New Year's Day 10,250 AA (After Agriculture; still not perfect but a helluva lot better starting point than what we got now).

At this point I’m not sure which thread to post this in, the Evolution thread or the anti-religion Hitchens thread. They are apparently interconnected to a degree that arguably makes them a single overarching issue. I guess I'll drop it here in the Evolution thread since I've already dropped a bunch of words in the other one today.

 


  • flashingrooster likes this

#42 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,597 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 04 September 2019 - 03:43 PM

Nothing in the world we perceive need define us.  The more we drop, the more we might truly know of ourselves.  Keeping the what isn't in its proper perspective doesn't end or change anything.  We don't lose a thing by ending our ideas of who and what we are. 

 

baby-black-and-white.jpg



#43 flashingrooster

flashingrooster

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 182 posts

Posted 04 September 2019 - 06:01 PM

Bear with me as I work my way through some thoughts about time and perspective and evolution and religion and how they're connected. It's a work-in-progress.

 

 

In the context of Deep Time, the Roman Catholic Church is still Western Civilization’s current de facto leader, though he's having a well-deserved rough patch lately. On the subject of time, consider that the Biblical creationists’ worldview that the world (if not the Universe) was created ~6K years ago must mean the Sumerians were really precocious since they invented glue 1000 years before that!

And oddly enough, the paperclip wasn’t invented until the late-1800’s so it took nearly 7,000 years to expand our basic repertoire of office supplies from glue to paperclips. And that’s not even to mention the altar with cave bear skulls on it and the cave art in Chauvet Cave in France that was most recently inhabited 28,000 years ago; since they grow at known rates under various conditions, the calcite crystals growing on the stuff left behind in that cave is rather compelling evidence for their age, among other things well-chronicled elsewhere.


Now let that sink in a moment, while also keeping in mind that the Eleusinian Mysteries endured for a thousand years. A thousand years. That’s nothing in some sense (just ask a rock), but in what we call the year 1019 I’d say life was a bit different for most of us humans (among other species) than it is now.

In that year the freakin’ Vikings controlled what is now Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. The Vikings!

 

So in another sense a thousand years is quite something indeed. The Roman Catholic Church has been around for 1219 years, for comparison. As a cohesive institutional organization with a singular purpose and focus. Let THAT sink in for a minute, and you’ll probably get why we’re not gazing out from our anti-gravity sky-condos on Europa yet, and still have those fucking insulting forms of implicit slavery called “jobs.” Oh, and it’s also a major if not the primary reason why we’re about to collectively toss the whole damned thing into the proverbial and literal fire for no particular reason, too.

I’m joking, but I’m not kidding.

This is why I go on about things that might not seem so significant, such as the utterly absurd notion that this “is” the year 2019. Well, it is under the current Administration, which is why we’re still using the same absurd dating standard, as a brief study of the history of dating methods people have used over the millennia can attest.

 

Just mark my words: In one or two hundred years from now, this will all seem self-evident as everyone’s partying on the last night of the 13-month lunar-cycle based year, only minutes away from celebrating New Year's Day 10,250 AA (After Agriculture; still not perfect but a helluva lot better starting point than what we got now).

At this point I’m not sure which thread to post this in, the Evolution thread or the anti-religion Hitchens thread. They are apparently interconnected to a degree that arguably makes them a single overarching issue. I guess I'll drop it here in the Evolution thread since I've already dropped a bunch of words in the other one today.

 

 

It gets really crazy thinking about our perception of what history was. Just a bunch of stories passed down, through generations and stored in stone and paper. Who really knows how many civilizations were washed away by an ice age. Pulverizing whatever was right back into the earth. It seems like the more we discover it just keeps pushing back the timeline of earliest recorded man. We only know what we know because of these sort of incredible preservation sites where artifacts are able to survive time. I find it fascinating when people are so arrogant to say only aliens could have created the pyramids. They just assume people were not smart enough to use basic geometry, as well as totally discount the fact that technology can get lost in time. Or rather the effectiveness of technology in masterful hands. They could do these things because they did not have all these modern distractions. Some guys entire life could have just been sanding stones. Assuredly he would have been masterful at it. Look at all the art that has survived over the recent years. They wonder at how someone could be so talented to create this, but they don't say oh, must be aliens. 

 

 Another thing to consider is the explosion of technology in the last 300 years or so. They say that it is expanding at an exponential rate because the more we know the more we can develop, and it just keeps snowballing. Someone once explained that the lack of alien life could be attributed to the massive scale of time. In just under 100 years man has developed the capability to send messages out into space, within that same tiny time frame we also developed the ability to wipe ourselves off the planet. So they theorize the time it would take to even send us a message or to say travel here. The human race will have winked in and out of existence. 

 

 

When we look up at the sky, all we see is old photos of dead stars


Edited by flashingrooster, 04 September 2019 - 06:06 PM.


#44 flashingrooster

flashingrooster

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 182 posts

Posted 04 September 2019 - 06:03 PM

realized I took a hard unintended alien turn there



#45 flashingrooster

flashingrooster

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 182 posts

Posted 04 September 2019 - 06:05 PM

 

Now let that sink in a moment, while also keeping in mind that the Eleusinian Mysteries endured for a thousand years. A thousand years. That’s nothing in some sense (just ask a rock), but in what we call the year 1019 I’d say life was a bit different for most of us humans (among other species) than it is now.
 

 

 

Cool, first time I have heard of this. Always interesting to learn, especially of possible ancient trips


Edited by flashingrooster, 04 September 2019 - 06:06 PM.


#46 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 11,330 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 05 September 2019 - 02:02 PM

Nothing in the world we perceive need define us.  The more we drop, the more we might truly know of ourselves.  Keeping the what isn't in its proper perspective doesn't end or change anything.  We don't lose a thing by ending our ideas of who and what we are. 

 

I still think we're having two different discussions in this thread.

 

Of anything we have dropped, or can drop, how did we pick it up in the first place?

 

In some sense I'm not at the point where I can begin to shed ideas about who and what I am yet. I have to have such notions before I can shed them, and who we are arguably stems from who our ancestors were (or at least that seems reasonable enough). I'm still trying to figure that part out, after which I can begin to discard their paradigm as a boundary condition on whom or what I think I am in the here-and-now.

 

Granted, the past may not have any bearing on what will happen in the future, but I've seen time and time again in daily life that how one perceives all sorts of things is often largely a function of one's point of departure, i.e. where we're "coming from." If that is a relevant factor for such a specific and limited context as contemporary politics then it seems to me that it could be equally relevant to the nature of the expressed behaviors of our species in general.



#47 flashingrooster

flashingrooster

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 182 posts

Posted 05 September 2019 - 08:15 PM

Nothing in the world we perceive need define us.  The more we drop, the more we might truly know of ourselves.  Keeping the what isn't in its proper perspective doesn't end or change anything.  We don't lose a thing by ending our ideas of who and what we are. 

 

I think the more we perceive the more we can know ourselves. When you look outward at others and you can see yourself



#48 flashingrooster

flashingrooster

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 182 posts

Posted 05 September 2019 - 08:17 PM

 

Nothing in the world we perceive need define us.  The more we drop, the more we might truly know of ourselves.  Keeping the what isn't in its proper perspective doesn't end or change anything.  We don't lose a thing by ending our ideas of who and what we are. 

 

I still think we're having two different discussions in this thread.

 

Of anything we have dropped, or can drop, how did we pick it up in the first place?

 

In some sense I'm not at the point where I can begin to shed ideas about who and what I am yet. I have to have such notions before I can shed them, and who we are arguably stems from who our ancestors were (or at least that seems reasonable enough). I'm still trying to figure that part out, after which I can begin to discard their paradigm as a boundary condition on whom or what I think I am in the here-and-now.

 

Granted, the past may not have any bearing on what will happen in the future, but I've seen time and time again in daily life that how one perceives all sorts of things is often largely a function of one's point of departure, i.e. where we're "coming from." If that is a relevant factor for such a specific and limited context as contemporary politics then it seems to me that it could be equally relevant to the nature of the expressed behaviors of our species in general.

 

 

Just like when you meet someone, you wonder why they might act a certain way. Then when you get to know them, learn their past. The mystery dissolves 



#49 roc

roc

    Forum International Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 7,956 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 05 September 2019 - 08:26 PM

Direct link

 

Fossil DNA Reveals New Twists in Modern Human Origins
By Jordana Cepelewicz

August 29, 2019
Modern humans and more ancient hominins interbred many times throughout Eurasia and Africa, and the genetic flow went both ways.
3D illustration of three human skulls, split into left and right halves and nested one inside the next.

Genomic studies reveal how convoluted the emergence of modern humans was. We carry genes from our ancestors’ encounters with ancient people like the Neanderthals, but the Neanderthals already carried some modern human genes from even earlier encounters with vanished groups.

Olena Shmahalo/Quanta Magazine

Humans today are mosaics, our genomes rich tapestries of interwoven ancestries. With every fossil discovered, with every DNA analysis performed, the story gets more complex: We, the sole survivors of the genus Homo, harbor genetic fragments from other closely related but long-extinct lineages. Modern humans are the products of a sprawling history of shifts and dispersals, separations and reunions — a history characterized by far more diversity, movement and mixture than seemed imaginable a mere decade ago.

But it’s one thing to say that Neanderthals interbred with the ancestors of modern Europeans, or that the recently discovered Denisovans interbred with some older mystery group, or that they all interbred with each other. It’s another to provide concrete details about when and where those couplings occurred. “We’ve got this picture where these events are happening all over the place,” said Aylwyn Scally, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Cambridge. “But it’s very hard for us to pin down any particular single event and say, yeah, we’re really confident that that one happened — unless we have ancient DNA.”

The events that do get pinned down therefore tend to be relatively recent, starting with the migration of modern humans out of Africa 60,000 years ago, during which they interacted with hominin relatives (like the Neanderthals and Denisovans) they met along the way. Evidence of interbreeding during any migrations before then, or during events that transpired earlier within Africa, has been elusive.

Now that’s starting to change. In part because of greater computational power, “we’re starting to see the next wave of methods development,” said Joshua Akey, a professor of genomics at the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics at Princeton University. “And that’s allowing us to start making new inferences from the data … that the previous generation of methods couldn’t make.”

As scientists peer further back in time and uncover evolutionary relationships in unprecedented detail, their findings are complicating the narrative of human history and rescuing some formerly missing chapters from obscurity. Clues are emerging about the unexpected influence of gene flow from ancient hominins on modern human populations before the latter left Africa. Some researchers are even identifying the genetic contributions modern humans might have made to those other lineages, in a complete reversal of the usual scientific focus. Confusing and intertwined as these many effects can be, all of them shaped humanity as we now know it.
Old Humans, New Tricks

When researchers first recovered DNA from Neanderthal bones, the available techniques for making sense of it were powerful but relatively simple. Scientists compared ancient and modern sequences, tallied up shared sites and mutations, and conducted bulk statistical analyses. That’s how they discovered in 2010 that Neanderthal DNA makes up approximately 2% of the genome of people today of non-African descent, a result of interbreeding that occurred throughout Eurasia beginning 50,000-60,000 years ago. That’s also how they discovered that Denisovan DNA makes up approximately 3% of the genome of people in Papua New Guinea and Australia.

“But that kind of very simple approach isn’t very good at sorting out the complexity” of how those lost populations interacted, said John Hawks, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Nor does it allow researchers to test specific hypotheses about how that interbreeding unfolded.

Population geneticists could backtrack through the DNA data to identify common ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years ago, and they could detect recent incidents of gene flow from the past few tens of thousands of years. But discerning interbreeding that occurred between those periods, from events “old enough not to be recent but young enough not to be ancient,” Hawks said, “that actually takes an extra trick.” That’s because the more recent events smear their footprints over the older ones; the DNA sequences left behind from those older events are so fragmented and mutated that they are difficult to recognize, and even more difficult to label with a date and location.
Adam Siepel and nine members of his laboratory pose in front of steps on the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory campus.

The quantitative biologist Adam Siepel and his team at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory campus searched through contemporary and fossil DNA for signs of gene flow from modern humans into Neanderthals.

Constance Brukin/CSHL

Adam Siepel, a quantitative biologist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, and his colleagues decided to focus on such gaps in the narrative. They were particularly interested in looking for signs of gene flow from modern humans into Neanderthals. That flow of genetic information is harder to study than the reverse, not only because of how long ago it happened, but also because there are fewer genomes to refer to: Think of all the present-day genomes at researchers’ disposal, versus the handful of Neanderthal genomes left intact, or the single genome recovered from Denisovan remains. The challenge again prompted the need for new methods.

Using one such new technique, first in 2016 and then again in a preprint posted earlier this summer, Siepel and his team found that around 3% of Neanderthal DNA — and possibly as much as 6% — came from modern humans who mated with the Neanderthals more than 200,000 years ago. The same group who gave rise to modern humans throughout the world also furnished Neanderthals with (at least a little) more DNA than the Neanderthals would later give them. “You think you’re just looking at a Neanderthal,” Siepel said, “but you’re actually looking at a mixture of Neanderthal and modern human.”

“That’s cool,” Hawks said. Such a high level of genetic admixture, he added, “is like saying 6% of the cars on the road that you see are red, but somehow you never noticed any red cars. You ought to notice that.” And yet the methods in general use had not. To Hawks, the omission suggests that there may be a lot more shared genetic material still to find even if it can’t yet be quantified accurately. More advanced techniques may change that.
More Than a One-Off

The finding also adds to the already compelling body of evidence that there were multiple migrations of modern humans out of Africa, stretching back over hundreds of thousands of years. Modern humans were thought to have evolved in Africa after the departure of Neanderthals and Denisovans, and to have remained on the continent until their well-known out-of-Africa diaspora 60,000 years ago. But recently, fossil evidence has indicated otherwise: A human jawbone in Israel, reported last year to date back to 180,000 years ago, and a skull fragment in Greece that’s even older, indicate earlier human migrations.

In fact, with that piece of skull, archaeologists may have stumbled across a possible member of the long-ago exodus that Siepel and his team inferred in their genomic study. The fossil, which was classified as Neanderthal when it was unearthed in Greece in the 1970s, was analyzed last month by the paleoanthropologist Katerina Harvati of the University of Tübingen and her colleagues. Structurally, it looked somewhat like a modern human skull, but it was estimated to be about 210,000 years old — supposedly too old to be modern at that location. (Because the structural similarities to modern skulls show up in reconstructive models of the Greek fossil, the conclusion is controversial and will probably continue to be until DNA can be recovered for a genetic study to confirm it.)
Alt text caption: Three views of the Apdima 1 fossil skull.

The Apdima 1 skull fossil found in Greece has many modern structural features but is 210,000 years old — too ancient to be from any of the modern humans who left Africa only 60,000 years ago. It may have come from a hypothesized earlier exodus that left no survivors.

Photograph by Nicholas Thompson, ©️ Katerina Harvati, University of Tübingen

Now the DNA evidence seems to back up this revised migration narrative as well. In retrospect, “it seems quite natural,” Scally said, “to say that human populations and evolution were just as messy 200,000 years ago, and just as subdivided and structured … as they are today.”

“It makes it hard to argue that there was ever some … special evolutionary event or genetic event that triggered the evolution of humans as we know them,” he added. Humans have been continuously evolving through the mixing of varied populations for hundreds of thousands of years. (In fact, Scally posits that our species did not originally evolve from a single population in Africa, but rather from many interconnected populations spread out across the continent.)

“This is telling us, ‘Oh, this is not a weird one-off,’” Hawks said. “It’s a continuing interaction.”

What is curious is that the only migration that seems to have left modern human descendants in Europe and Asia was the one from 60,000 years ago. The groups that migrated earlier apparently all died out or got absorbed into Neanderthal or other ancient populations. “If there were earlier events,” Scally said, “they left essentially no ancestry or negligible ancestry in us today.”

This could mean, he said, that “this Neanderthal legacy could be the only descendants that those people had.” Furthermore, when the Neanderthals then interbred with modern humans during later migrations, perhaps some of that DNA got mixed back into the modern human genome, embedding older signals of Homo sapiens history into the genetic material of individuals alive today.

According to Siepel’s analysis, that sort of nested mixing seems to have been exactly what happened with the Denisovans. When the team looked at the Denisovan genome, they found fragments of DNA in it from an even earlier hominin, vestiges of some population whose own genome has not been found or sequenced. It might have been Homo erectus, which split off from the ancestors of modern humans and spread across Eurasia about 1 million years ago. The contribution from this unidentified group “was at the limits of our detection power,” according to Siepel, because it constituted only about 1% of the Denisovan genome. During later interbreeding events, tiny pieces of that 1% got passed on to modern humans in Southeast Asia, Papua New Guinea and some parts of East Asia. “A small set of extremely divergent DNA sequences present in modern humans, if our analysis is correct, would have been passed through two interbreeding events,” Siepel said.
A Return to Africa

“Basically,” Akey summed it up, “the lesson is that when populations meet, they mix.” Serena Tucci, a postdoctoral researcher in Akey’s lab, said the work shows “the need that we have for more sophisticated computational approaches, for a computational framework to make inferences about our past.”

In Siepel’s case, that meant testing a vast number of hypotheses by inferring the branching inheritance patterns of various genes. Other scientists are starting to rely on different probabilistic approaches. “As computational power continues to become more sophisticated, these types of methods will become increasingly accessible and feasible to do,” Akey said. “And really, you can’t do better than these models. They use all the features of the data.”

Siepel now hopes to apply his approach to other elusive aspects of history. He’s particularly interested in prehistoric population dynamics on the African continent. How ancient genetic admixture events affected modern African genomes has been little studied — although a pair of researchers recently reported in PLOS Genetics that humans in Africa interbred with another ancient hominin group both before and after the ancestors of European and Asian populations split off and migrated away. By the scientists’ estimates, DNA from that unknown group now makes up somewhere between 4% and 8% of modern human ancestry.

That said, Siepel’s technique could perhaps provide deeper insights into those statistics and what they mean: For example, researchers studying how that ancient DNA made its way out of Africa into other populations might follow its trail to map out, if only sketchily, migrations as yet unknown.

“I think Africa is one of the areas that’s going to give a lot more data in the future,” said Chris Stringer, an anthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London and a member of the research team that studied the Greek fossil.

Siepel is also using his algorithm to look for signs of natural selection acting on these DNA sequences: Were ancient hominins any better or worse off for carrying more genes from modern ones? So far, his team has found no evidence for either positive or negative selection in the flow of genes from modern humans into Neanderthals 200,000 years ago, which indicates that “most of this gene flow … is just a signature of populations in contact,” according to Hawks.

“It suggests that maybe Neanderthals actually are us,” he said. “As different as they are, maybe they’re just another version of us.”

That’s something that can be studied in other species as well: Siepel has already started to look into the forces at work in the speciation of certain birds. “What we should be doing is taking these more complicated models that we have now, this messy picture … and applying that to other species,” Scally said.

Of course, inferring these population histories is a complicated process. “There is a limit to what genetics can infer, too,” Akey said. Sometimes, alternative historical scenarios have basically the same effects on the genomic record, and in those situations, even better methods of genetic analysis will be hard-pressed to squeeze answers out of the data. Still, he added, we’re a long way off from reaching that limit.

Scally agreed. “There is an enormous amount of information in human diversity today,” he said. “There’s plenty of stuff still for us to discover.”

This article was reprinted on Wired.com.
 


Edited by roc, 05 September 2019 - 08:28 PM.


#50 Severian

Severian

    Mycophiliac

  • VIP
  • 39 posts

Posted 05 September 2019 - 08:28 PM

 

Nothing in the world we perceive need define us.  The more we drop, the more we might truly know of ourselves.  Keeping the what isn't in its proper perspective doesn't end or change anything.  We don't lose a thing by ending our ideas of who and what we are. 

 

I still think we're having two different discussions in this thread.

 

Of anything we have dropped, or can drop, how did we pick it up in the first place?

 

In some sense I'm not at the point where I can begin to shed ideas about who and what I am yet. I have to have such notions before I can shed them, and who we are arguably stems from who our ancestors were (or at least that seems reasonable enough). I'm still trying to figure that part out, after which I can begin to discard their paradigm as a boundary condition on whom or what I think I am in the here-and-now.

 

Granted, the past may not have any bearing on what will happen in the future, but I've seen time and time again in daily life that how one perceives all sorts of things is often largely a function of one's point of departure, i.e. where we're "coming from." If that is a relevant factor for such a specific and limited context as contemporary politics then it seems to me that it could be equally relevant to the nature of the expressed behaviors of our species in general.

 

 

 

 

 

Where did we pick  it up ?

 

Best answer I've found so far is ' LANGUAGE'

 

Where did that shit come from?

 

Turns out all the smartest linguists on the planet don't have any fucking clue. And all of the theories they do have have evidence directly  refuting them.

 

 

What does language do? On the surface it appears to allow us to communicate with one another. But does it really? It forces our minds to think in preapproved boxes, it creates divisions; it separates us from the direct apprehension of reality and gets us out of touch with the concrete world of sensation and feeling around us- No longer communing but analyzing-  and the EGO, continually chattering away using this programming langauge, creating for itself a verbal home in the mind by continually telling story after story.

 

 

 

 

 

One common misconception surrounding the whole concept of evolution (just like around the Church of Progress), is the complete mental blank surrounding the idea of devolution.  It's assumed that we're moving in an upward direction. That mankind is the pinnacle of evolution, and we need only look back to the apes that make up our fossil record to see that.  WE have IPHONES! we must be more evolved.   Of course, the record which one consults to validate this mindset is the one approved and spread by the establishment authority. 

 

The lack of logic here, especially within the scientific community is disturbing. Exactly the same circular reasoning as "How do you know it's true' Because the Bible told me. But how do you know that what the bible says is true? 'Because it's the word of God'      No different.

 

 

My best guess is that we experienced a long time of highly enlightened incarnations on this planet-  Telepathy, matter manipulation you name it-  This was prior to the extraterrestrial/dimensional introduction of the language virus- which then caused our civilization to collapse.   We're still reeling from the effects.

 

 

I could go on at length, but for want of not totally derailing this thread, I'll abstain.


  • crazy1 and Alder Logs like this

#51 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,597 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 05 September 2019 - 08:58 PM

"Don't tell me my science.  I taught that in school!"

~a guy I used to work with

 

If I ask myself what I truly know about anything, it's not shit.  It's bugger all.   Yes, language lets it all occupy nice neat boxes, and logic is used as a lever with fulcrums placed at random, wherever we choose. 

 

I can't get over the seeing that I wasn't, am not, my body, and that includes the DNA and everything.  I am not the collected stories of a body either.  What am I?  Evolved?


Edited by Alder Logs, 05 September 2019 - 09:00 PM.


#52 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 11,330 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 06 September 2019 - 12:15 PM

Where did we pick  it up ?
 
Best answer I've found so far is ' LANGUAGE'
 
Where did that shit come from?
 
Turns out all the smartest linguists on the planet don't have any fucking clue. And all of the theories they do have have evidence directly  refuting them.
 
 
What does language do? On the surface it appears to allow us to communicate with one another. But does it really? It forces our minds to think in preapproved boxes, it creates divisions; it separates us from the direct apprehension of reality and gets us out of touch with the concrete world of sensation and feeling around us- No longer communing but analyzing-  and the EGO, continually chattering away using this programming langauge, creating for itself a verbal home in the mind by continually telling story after story.

 
I would not expect Linguists to be the ones to crack the mystery of language; that's the turf of Evolutionary Biologists.

 

Other primate species communicate non-verbally, and those methods are also available to us since language is something we added to them.

 

So while language may be confining in some sense, it is also liberating in some sense. Some non-verbal primate species are stuck in smaller epistemological boxes and their social divisions may lack nuance but they are otherwise strikingly similar to us, probably because we're so closely related. So we may still be stuck in a box, but at least we're trying to make it bigger.

 

And as far as I can tell, the Universe only gets more sublime and awesome and mind-blowing the more and the deeper we study it, and that was only made possible by becoming what we are. Which includes being chatterboxes occasionally.

 

I'm glad that I live in a time when I can meditate on Hubble Ultra Deep Field images, and that may be because I am a literal embodiment of that same Universe, looking at itself. It's all connected, right? Well then all quests for understanding must also be journeys of self-discovery.

 

There is usually more than one Path to any given destination. The one that we take is a function of our point of departure; how did we get there?

 

 


One common misconception surrounding the whole concept of evolution (just like around the Church of Progress), is the complete mental blank surrounding the idea of devolution.  It's assumed that we're moving in an upward direction. That mankind is the pinnacle of evolution, and we need only look back to the apes that make up our fossil record to see that. 

 

 

That is indeed a common misconception, unfortunately.

 

But only among the general public. It's not an aspect of the actual Theory of Evolution, and science writing for the general public has been doing a lousy job getting that across, but that is partly a function of the inherent and counter-intuitive complexity involved.

 

Even staunch proponents of Evolution (who lack a strong background in Biology) often misunderstand the basics of the actual Theory, which I discovered when I realized I was one of those people. Reading more in-depth books about the nuts-and-bolts of what the Theory actually entails clears up a lot of these sorts of questions and concerns. This is pretty much the mission that Richard Dawkins is on, and for good reason since it's so sorely needed.

 

 

The lack of logic here, especially within the scientific community is disturbing. Exactly the same circular reasoning as "How do you know it's true' Because the Bible told me. But how do you know that what the bible says is true? 'Because it's the word of God'      No different.
 

 

 I don't follow. What is the circular logic?

 

 

My best guess is that we experienced a long time of highly enlightened incarnations on this planet-  Telepathy, matter manipulation you name it-  This was prior to the extraterrestrial/dimensional introduction of the language virus- which then caused our civilization to collapse.   We're still reeling from the effects.
 

 

Perhaps, though unless some evidence were to come to light then such questions are currently beyond the scope of science to address.

 

 

 

I don't have a narrative of human history that I am trying to promote. I'm trying to discern what the evolutionary history of our species may have been like that has the highest probability of being accurate. Or highest possible probability, anyway.

 

Which is more likely to be the case: That tens of thousands of intelligent and highly-educated individuals around the world who are studying and comparing and cataloging as much evidence as possible (and have been doing so for decades) while constantly developing more and better tools to do so and using those tools to re-analyze past discoveries so as to refine their current models of What Happened would result in the highest probability of coming to accurate conclusions or that ...people who don't do that would come to the most-accurate conclusions?

 

And even if the mainstream scientific community is currently wrong about many things (which it is), it's a work-in-progress of refinement based on continuing to look for evidence. How is science (and I mean the continued practice of it) not the best tool we have for understanding the phenomena that can be studied with it?

 



#53 Severian

Severian

    Mycophiliac

  • VIP
  • 39 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 06:34 PM


Science, at least the way it's mostly practiced-  is not the best tool for understanding the phenomenon because it is perverted by established powers, and predicated on the belief that there is a separation between observer and observed.

 

 

 

Culture is an echo chamber- and so the findings and discoveries are always going to reinforce that reality-box. (with the few and far between exceptions of exceptional human beings who don't give a fuck- but no one listens to them anyway)

 

 

This is what I was trying to get with above-   That people who put their faith in Science,  believe whatever comes out of it- because it's 'Science'- in just the same fashion as religious believers hold fast to whatever their religion dictates- 

 

Wherever we put out attention, that's what we percieve- and All of our collective attention has been trained on that which fits into the dominant world view-  So when Science studies something, it's doing so within the narrow lense of the culturally accepted reality- bringing to it's observation all of the conditioning that occured thanks to that reality box-

 

But when it comes to deeper questions;  the answers lie outside the scope of that Culturally approved reality- and so no manner of study from within the box is going to reveal that which is outside of it.

 

 

The game we live is dependant on a certain coherency- that is threatened by any answers relating to our true nature as beings of power- so there's a clear motive by those in control to distort, spin, or suppress any information of this kind.

 

 

And of course, it must be stated that the realm of science is in no way safe from the clutches of primate politics..

 

 

Tesla, Reich, Bechamp- How many other geniuses have been trashed because their findings didn't fit into the mainstream?

 

 

 

 

Science is great at some things- especially when practiced by lay people- scientific method and all- But it's best to recognize that this type of mentation can only take us so far.  Logic can take us to the edge of infinity  but no further.



#54 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 11,330 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 06 September 2019 - 08:29 PM

That all may be true, but it’s a perspective that won’t have much to add to a scientific discussion beyond criticism of the process. That’s all science is, really (a process), and it’s useful in some-but-not-all contexts. I don’t expect to trace my biological ancestors back to infinity, for example. But the fact that I can’t doesn’t mean it isn’t interesting to trace them back as far as I can, however.

In the context of fossils and paleoanthropology I still find the scientific method useful and the case has not been made that it’s not, at least to a degree that I find persuasive. Everything that we know about our ancestry so far came from such efforts, so to dismiss the method as a whole is to dismiss the relevance of all such discoveries, and that would leave us back where we started (i.e. with a big pile of anecdotes). I for one am glad that others went to the trouble since I find this stuff fascinating and it enriches my experience of being human.

I find the reflexive impulse to dismiss such findings and interpretations interesting, and has shades of dogma that concern me; science knows that it doesn’t get it right all the time, which is why it’s designed the way it is. They caught Piltdown Man eventually, after all. But Velikovsky, et. al. didn’t get it right all the time, either, and it’s a bit patronizing to dismiss astronomers and archeologists as “stargazers and grave diggers” (which is an arguably-disingenuous way of saying they were gathering evidence).


  • roc, crazy1 and flashingrooster like this

#55 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,597 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 06 September 2019 - 09:15 PM

I think the “stargazers and grave diggers” quip was aimed directly at the hatchet-men doing the book-burning and character assassination against him and his work.  Things can be done in righteous way, and those guys, and a few gals, missed that mark.

 

BTW, I still think the evidence of the most recent ice age, the one that sets the landscape for all ideas of ice ages, is still the evidence of a recent axis shift. 


Edited by Alder Logs, 06 September 2019 - 09:18 PM.

  • crazy1 likes this

#56 ItBeBasidia

ItBeBasidia

    Mycophiliac

  • Free Member
  • 78 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 06 September 2019 - 09:52 PM

I think bonobos have a good chance of overcoming the chimps in your scenario. Those apes boink everything! They have a good chance of boinking a hog or something and making a interfamily hybrid that has ridiculous hybrid vigor with how much they get it on.

What if that's how humans came to be? A hominid boinked a pig or some other creature that we share a lot of genes with and we are just some vigorous hybrid.
  • flashingrooster likes this

#57 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 11,330 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 06 September 2019 - 10:39 PM

I think bonobos have a good chance of overcoming the chimps in your scenario. Those apes boink everything! They have a good chance of boinking a hog or something and making a interfamily hybrid that has ridiculous hybrid vigor with how much they get it on.

What if that's how humans came to be? A hominid boinked a pig or some other creature that we share a lot of genes with and we are just some vigorous hybrid.

 

When a chimp attacks, they try rip your face and (if you're male) your balls off. And being as strong as they are, they're pretty damned good at it once they set their sights on you. Search on "chimp attack face transplant" to see how some of the "lucky" human survivors fared. Spoiler alert: Not very well.

 

And thank you for your hypothesis about human evolution. I'm a little curious as to how notions of pigfucking hominids was thought compatible with the established tone of this thread, but only a little so please don't worry about addressing it any further.



#58 ItBeBasidia

ItBeBasidia

    Mycophiliac

  • Free Member
  • 78 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 06 September 2019 - 11:30 PM

TVcasualty,

I respect you dearly and did not intend to offend you. I admire the hell out of all your creations and contributions. There's not a post of yours I dont enjoy.

I was just having a bit of fun. I hope you can see that. If you are interested, there truly is an academic hypothesis about humans being hybrids.

In any case, I was more trying to make a funny about bonobos boinking habits. It wasn't an attack on your hypothesis.

I go to uni and hear this sort of tone about things all the time. Just trying to bring some fun.

You did just give some evidence of inter-hominid conflict though

Edited by ItBeBasidia, 07 September 2019 - 01:24 AM.


#59 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,597 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 07 September 2019 - 12:07 AM

Say this ten times fast:

 

I'm not a fig plucker

or a fig plucker's son,

but I'll pluck your figs

'til the fig plucker comes.


Edited by Alder Logs, 07 September 2019 - 12:07 AM.


#60 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 11,330 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 07 September 2019 - 09:49 AM

Yeah I'm out of this thread. Not where I wanted it to go at all.

 

Unfollowed; have at it.






Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!