NavigationSearchRecent CommentsAOC versus pelosi... in biden is it... 11 hours 1 min ago sarko-le-peddler... in mon dieu ..... 11 hours 19 min ago rearranging the human zoo... in thing one and thing two 11 hours 30 min ago we are sewer rats... in we did not know he could nearly cry... 1 day 20 hours ago peppa pig is not kosher, nor halal... in thing one and thing two 2 days 21 hours ago starting to loose the plot... in FUCK! Trump was a better diplomat than joe Biden is! 2 days 21 hours ago no italian jab for aussieland... in a little prick — for and against... 2 days 21 hours ago using science to deny… science... in equitable globalization with a transhumanist great reset.... 3 days 8 hours ago a vicious campaign... in google journalism... 3 days 9 hours ago Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
the usual suspects .....
Homo sapiens may have been responsible for butchering Neanderthals in the Stone Age. Evidence for this theory has been found on a jawbone in France. The bone was covered in cut marks similar to those found when humans stripped the flesh from animals. Neanderthal man evolved in Europe around 300,000 years ago. It's believed that they survived several ice ages and interglacial periods before dying out around 30,000 years ago, at almost the same time as human beings arrived on the continent from Africa. Some scientists believe Neanderthals couldn't compete with Homo Sapiens for the scarce resources of the times, whereas other researchers believe that Neanderthals were more susceptible to the impact of climate change. However, a recent discovery at Les Rois in south-west France has provided some evidence for a compelling and controversial argument that has been published in a study in the Journal of Anthropological Sciences. The discovery was a Neanderthal jawbone that seems to have been butchered by modern humans. The leader of the research team, Fernando Rozzi of Paris's Centre National de la Récherche Scientifique, believes the flesh was eaten by humans and the teeth used for a necklace. Gus still pushes to his grand theory that our individual consciousness - born from the original soup of enzymes evolved into RNA, then DNA - is greater than that of the entire universe. The universe cannot see us, we have cognition of the universe ... It is a powerful state of being that we muck up daily with our petty squabbles - squabbles that we started with our cousins, the Neanderthals ... and we're still destroying our other natural companions, most of whom have cognition of place and environment, but we deny them the right. We're the only species with the tools and the stupidity to destroy our space and that of the others ... when will we ever grow up? ----------------------- Since the article above was published, other hypothesis were made, such as the possibility of inter-"species" copulation that eventually led to the disapearance of the Neanderthals, and modern humans may all have a bit of Neanderthal genes by the process... Who knows. But humans have evolved from the ape ancestors nonetheless.
|
Sapiens in the mist
(This is part of an unedited chapter in the "The Age of Deceit" project with some annotations referring to other comments on this site, to be inserted at a later stage.)
The image above is obviously wrong, deliberately. So is the original by Michelangelo.
God isn't a gorilla. God even isn't.
Perusing through the scientific record, there is strong evidence that other species of sapiens have trodden the earth. There is a strong chance too that we, the sapiens of sapiens, managed to make them disappear with our rat-like breeding and our avaricious needs... Unless they vanished from lack of survival skills in changing habitats... unless they were wiped out by disease or other accidental events.
And in the paradigm of evolution, the hominid ancestor — the precursor of the apes — would have given ape-lines characteristics to gorillas (as gorillas), and to sapiens in various formats, as non-cross-breedable cousins. As mentioned before I believe Homo sapiens (meaning "wise") sapiens (twice wise) — us, humans— was (and is) a weak species that had to become more astutely cunning to survive... (In my humble opinion our second "sapiens" should actually be "tellingporkiensis")
In regard to other hominids, The "hobbits" or the extinct short people of Flores in Indonesia show signs of being sapiens. Not so bizarre. I remember vividly, although my imagination and memory could be playing tricks, when I was a kid, being taken to a circus where "short people" where exhibited. They did not show any form of dwarfism such as bigger heads, nor were they "kids"... yet most of them were about three foot tall with Leonardo's ideal body proportions and talking like you and me — in their own language... possibly a weird east european lingo... Spooky, I was all but four feet tall.
May not have been a different species but different in size. We know that our species comes in different colours and characteristics (called races) — all stemming from our genetics history of breeding, degrees of separation and the influence of environmental factors, such as dietary supply. No "racism" here. Just plain fact. I lived in Africa for a few years and the people were of a different color than me. No racism here. Just facts.
In Australia though, in the Lake Mungo area, there are bones that could suggest that another species of Homo had reached the inside of this country/continent. Presently, anthropologists categorise the two sets of different remains as robusts and graciles. Only the gracile survived. Their descendants are the aborigines of today.
going back to the root of the tree, says a link:
"The hominid family originated between 10 and 5 million years ago, with a single species of bipedal ape. As usually happens with newly established mammalian lineage: The 1st species gave rise by stages to a range of descendants, producing a relatively luxuriant evolutionary bush. Individual branches were pruned away from time to time as species became extinct and new ones were added. Eventually, the hominid bush was reduced to just Homo sapiens."
Some modern nomenclature add sapiens again, (Homo sapiens sapiens) to diferentiate with Homo sapiens neanderthaliensis...
But some of our extinct cousins survived quite late in the history of hominids. Neanderthals (also sapiens) only disappeared completely about 24,000 years ago, possibly about the same time at which the robusts disappeared from Australia. Much of the Lake Mungo conjecture about the two skeleton types present some arguments about who came first. While some scientists argue that robusts must have come first, present record shows that gracile were here first, but one has to consider that this is by no way a complete record.
So, this condensed-soup exposé about hominids presented here, was to succintly explain our Homo sapiens earthly grounding... and to show that the continuum of humanity isn't a set value of "churchial" dogmas but a true line of evolution gone gangbusters, on heat for some stems of the hominids, while other branches died off.
As humans evolved, culture which defined interaction between individuals and groups also evolved.
I call this the "stylistic" development of our species in which "entertainment" becomes our concern number one. In most societies, survival of the individuals is "assured" by the structure of the group and eventually there is "free time" to share — time during which communication still developed but had no other use than maintaining or creating a relationship, eventually permeating and fusing with all activities, imbuing them with "knowledge" and fairy dust.
And this "entertainment" which now includes religions, money and stand-up comics relies heavily on telling stories in which lies become ingrained to sustain a storyline that often does not stack up against evidence and/or scientific investigation. Actually, stand up comics tend to tell the truer truth with an elastic twist and this is why we laugh. Other dogmatic entertainment are quite serious about their porkies and we pray for forgiveness.
So, how much do we have to accept to maintain our evolutionary integrity versus our need to lie to maintain our beliefs' continuum?
And how do we maintain our relative evolutionary continuum (that idea we never understood) in times of rapid environmental change and antiquated beliefs systems?
Since we humans started to manage our affairs, we have created groups, communities and organisations that claimed to be the keepers of the cultural continuum (the stylistic "entertainment") — even in the simplest form of social structures. Presently, we have countless organisations from churches, mosques, unions to governments and secret societies all geared up to maintain their specific gamut of ideas in the cultural domain — more or less powerfully, mostly designed to take us away from our evolutionary continuum understanding.
As mentioned before on this site, I profess life's purpose is the continued necessary stealing of some other creature's proteins...
But dreaming/talltelling/porkying in our entertainment stylistic side of the world we often fail to connect to other humans as humans. We connect as catholics and muslims, as buyers and sellers, as conquerors and vanquished, as left or right, etc.
Since our birth we are indoctrinated into belief systems that at some stage or another will clash with other belief systems. Some of us get immerse in our endoctrinating beliefs ... But should we realise that our beliefs are wrong at some stage — usually in our adolescence but not exclusively when we see the wider world as it is, with all its flaws, pains other joys and weird offerings — some of us may be confused and unable to adjust. This is why most belief systems place "blinkers" on the mind of their followers to stop them see the proper reality. And these blinkers are dismissive of other interpretations, especially that of our earthly origins.
----------------
Faith schools free to preach against homosexuality
Government plans include sex education for all pupils
Catholic schools welcome clause on teaching 'values'
Polly Curtis, education editor
The Guardian, Tuesday 28 April 2009
Sex education is to be made compulsory in all state schools in England but faith schools will also be free to preach against sex outside marriage and homosexuality, under government proposals.
The plans to make personal, social and health education (PSHE) compulsory from the age of five, published yesterday, include a clause allowing schools to apply their "values" to the lessons and another allowing parents to opt their children out on religious grounds.
It means that all state secondaries in England - including faith schools - will for the first time have to teach a core curriculum about sex and contraception in the context of teenagers' relationships, but teachers in religious schools will also be free to tell them that sex outside marriage, homosexuality or using contraception are wrong. Sexual health campaigners warned that such an approach could confuse teenagers, but Catholic schools welcomed the move.
The government-commissioned review by Sir Alasdair Macdonald, headteacher of Morpeth school in east London, on how to make PSHE compulsory, concludes that schools will be legally obliged to teach pupils about health and nutrition, safety, drugs and alcohol and sex education.
For the first time pupils will be taught how to stay safe - from tackling cyber-bullying to resisting pressure to join gangs - and how to manage their bank accounts.
------------------