I find the top commenter in the Telegraph article to be wise
It's silly to argue about which of the theories is correct; they should all be viewed as working hypotheses that present the evidence as it stands at present. It is presumptuous to assume that sufficient facts are known to fully validate any current point of view. The clamor for the "truth" does not change the fact that we do not yet know it. Both hypotheses are plausible; remain open to the possibility that others will arise, as well. It is undeniable that the European glaciation can have erased significant fossil assemblages that would give rise to different conclusions. We do not know what we do not yet know.
True, and he didn't even mention that sea level is about at the highest point it's ever been, meaning almost all coastal habitation sites are presently underwater, and practically invisible to science. But little underwater archeology has been conducted to date, and I am certain that the most significant archeological finds will be made there.
You can know when someone is lying to you, when it does not allow you to question their truth, and that is what has happened to many of the hypotheses presented by modern scientists, who do not present themselves as hypotheses but as "scientific facts."
The out of africa theory has had several holes for many years, but for some reason some "scientists" and "academics" ignore some things so as not to invalidate their hypothesis, it is a confirmatory bias, and the worst of all is that they use figures recognized from the past to validate their theories, such as Charles Darwin, despite the fact that modern theory has changed a lot with respect to the hypothesis of Darwin, who was essentially racist, although nobody seems to pay attention to this to this day.
Perhaps the strongest influence on science is the power of the purse. Funding, upon which scientists depend totally, is invariably doled out by political organizations, governments or foundations. Even if such grants didn't come with instructions on what was expected in return, merely directing funds at folks likely to support your political leanings sufficiently skews research.
That is very true, in addition, there is also a factor in the recognition of the investigations. In all types of media, including scientists, recognition is not always given to the best research, in feasibility and possibility, but on the contrary, it gives more importance to those that meet or narrow more to the vision or the interests of the diffuser.
And yet I feel there are secret societies that exist today that hide this ancient knowledge from us.. of our true origins. I like to think sometimes, that we indeed evolved from something apelike. It would indeed seem like the natural course of how life progresses, evolution.
But then I also, get these strong vibes, we were "created". In the sense that a higher intellectual, more advanced society came along and needed Earth's resources, so they took the already existing, non-sentient apes, and genetically modified them into humans, with a piece of their DNA, and used us as the slave labor work force needed to do what they needed. Maybe that's crazy, but It is simply my personal theory that sometimes, seems all too real.
If you think about it though, my theory can still function in tandem with evolution theory, because perhaps, millions of years ago, the first created human was indeed different than us. And since then the human species has been evolving into what we are today.
I actually strongly suspect that hybridization far better explains the fossil record. Species show up suddenly without transitional forms, stay relatively unchanged for as long as they endure, and then vanish.
Check out Macroevolution.net (if I remember the name of the site right). The evidence is strong with this one.
I dunno about the 'directed evolution' theory. There's but indirect evidence for it. While most of the evidence we could find would be highly likely to be underwater, since sea level is about as high as it's ever been, you'd think such technology as would be necessary under such a theory would have left some marks.
I see that natural hybridization does occur, and could explain our origin without supposing aliens, or gods, or any unnatural intervention. Clearly, strong physical evidence is necessary for such claims to be superable as fact.
I find the top commenter in the Telegraph article to be wise
True, and he didn't even mention that sea level is about at the highest point it's ever been, meaning almost all coastal habitation sites are presently underwater, and practically invisible to science. But little underwater archeology has been conducted to date, and I am certain that the most significant archeological finds will be made there.
Interesting. We stay watchful.
The post is very beautiful with your science
yes ! you are right written in stone cann't change.
You can know when someone is lying to you, when it does not allow you to question their truth, and that is what has happened to many of the hypotheses presented by modern scientists, who do not present themselves as hypotheses but as "scientific facts."
The out of africa theory has had several holes for many years, but for some reason some "scientists" and "academics" ignore some things so as not to invalidate their hypothesis, it is a confirmatory bias, and the worst of all is that they use figures recognized from the past to validate their theories, such as Charles Darwin, despite the fact that modern theory has changed a lot with respect to the hypothesis of Darwin, who was essentially racist, although nobody seems to pay attention to this to this day.
Perhaps the strongest influence on science is the power of the purse. Funding, upon which scientists depend totally, is invariably doled out by political organizations, governments or foundations. Even if such grants didn't come with instructions on what was expected in return, merely directing funds at folks likely to support your political leanings sufficiently skews research.
That is very true, in addition, there is also a factor in the recognition of the investigations. In all types of media, including scientists, recognition is not always given to the best research, in feasibility and possibility, but on the contrary, it gives more importance to those that meet or narrow more to the vision or the interests of the diffuser.
And yet I feel there are secret societies that exist today that hide this ancient knowledge from us.. of our true origins. I like to think sometimes, that we indeed evolved from something apelike. It would indeed seem like the natural course of how life progresses, evolution.
But then I also, get these strong vibes, we were "created". In the sense that a higher intellectual, more advanced society came along and needed Earth's resources, so they took the already existing, non-sentient apes, and genetically modified them into humans, with a piece of their DNA, and used us as the slave labor work force needed to do what they needed. Maybe that's crazy, but It is simply my personal theory that sometimes, seems all too real.
If you think about it though, my theory can still function in tandem with evolution theory, because perhaps, millions of years ago, the first created human was indeed different than us. And since then the human species has been evolving into what we are today.
I actually strongly suspect that hybridization far better explains the fossil record. Species show up suddenly without transitional forms, stay relatively unchanged for as long as they endure, and then vanish.
Check out Macroevolution.net (if I remember the name of the site right). The evidence is strong with this one.
I dunno about the 'directed evolution' theory. There's but indirect evidence for it. While most of the evidence we could find would be highly likely to be underwater, since sea level is about as high as it's ever been, you'd think such technology as would be necessary under such a theory would have left some marks.
I see that natural hybridization does occur, and could explain our origin without supposing aliens, or gods, or any unnatural intervention. Clearly, strong physical evidence is necessary for such claims to be superable as fact.
Woah. TO anyone who read my comment above, should definitely check out the site you responded with. Extremely interesting. And highly compelling.
Well, the guy wrote the Handbook of Avian Hybrids. He's not some random. He's been a professional scientist his whole life.
He has evidence out the wazoo.