Edgewaters wrote;

"You're misinterpreting the data. They are correct to say our ancestors are from the c. 13000 BP era. Sites like Yana refer to one of many inhabitations of the north during interglacial periods, sites which were abandoned during glacial events. Given its location, it is further likely that this was inhabited by Mongoloids, not Caucasians."

And on what grounds do you build such an assumption, Sir?

My interpretations are basicly conclusions reached from various faculties -Russian, English, American and Scandinavian. There are none of them reffering these Mesolittic or Paleolithic sites to the mongloid culture. Because the items and structures found simply point in the oposite durection. You havent even viewed the material in question - or the repports thereof - and still you think that you are able to postulate the origin of these items and this culture? 

On top of that you place the next presumption, that I am the one "mis-interpretating the data".  Why should your "interpretation" be more valid than the one I prescribed? Except from being "yours"?!

Edited by boreas-is

The mutant somethings from the glacial nowhere:


Along with the mutant Nordic albino tiger from the depths of the Sibiristan:


And other mutations of the Chernobyl cataclism:


... of 1 million years ago, when the mutants dominated Earth...

More mongloids?

http://www.susiluola.fi/eng/archaeology.php

More non-existing mutants?

http://sydaby.eget.net/eng/wolf/wolf_ralf.htm

Edited by boreas-is

Originally posted by Maju Schulz closed his article in Popul�r Arkeologi by pointing out that many years ago people in Central Europe found the remains of a neanderthal man who lived more than 250,000 years ago. "With this background one can perhaps guess that these visitors to the Wolf Cave were an earlier edition of the neanderthal man." Neanderthal-thal-thal-thal...!!! Why are you making us waste our time?!

 

Judging from your latest posts (above) you certainly don't waste time in producing contempt.  Basing your outlines on premature conclusions, heresay and guesses. Just look at the way you used the last quote - to start your infameous bashing again - with no other substance than Mr. Schultz' hintful suggestion. Taken out of it's rigthful context - of course.

You better ask yourself why you keep using time offending other people's intelligence and common sense - not to say your own ditto. Insisting on a point of view doesn't make it more true.

Edited by boreas-is

They gonna keep wondering - because the enigmatic discoveries here reffered - have led leading antropologists to seriously question the present paradigms, based on the OoA-theory. 

Thus I presented these repports - in due order,  so that the readers of this forum-thread should know about them, rather than not.  Inbetween I state what they all point to, - in terms of Nordic and North-European origin. Which are imminently relevant to any adequate analyzis concerning the possible genesis of IE man.

These findings are new facts. Your rabulations are all based on the old/well-known theories. What do you really KNOW about the time-line of Homo Sapies? How much history of science have you studied in order to understand the origin and true basis of these time-lines? In other words; what is the qualitative proofs for h.s.sapiens being 150.000 Yrs? Where are the references of the three independant, double-checked lab-works establishing this time-line? And what are your proof that no older remain of h.s.s. lays hidden around somewhere? How can you exclude such a possibility - by bluntly stating that H.s.s. did not exist - before he showed up in the Levant some 90.000 yrs ago.

Two example more - could possibly make you understand the right question - at least.

In the summer of 2000, when the world press arrived in Sydney for the Olympics - the Australians gave them a dossier on Australian history, starting with the Aboriginals. There they explained that only a year prior to the games a team of Australian antropologers and archologist had completed a six year project - concluding that the oldest site with Aborginal Yeti-items were TL-dated to 140.000 yrs BP.

35 years ago Virginnia Steen-McIntyre, Dr. of Geology, repported a discovery of arrow-heads, tusks and animal bones in the geological strata of Valsequillo Bassin. In 1967 already. 11 years later she was as sure as sure could be - and she went on to publish the evidences - even if they were "way out of the ordinary"; namely 240.000-360.000 years old.  

Mainstream science were shocked. "Horrendously incredible, off course. "Nonsense. Utter garbage. Dangerously misleading of the public. Deceptive!" Etc., etc. Thus she was sacked from her position, and banned among the leading universities - even if she was one of Anericas top ten geologists - only a year before. And those sackers - defending their positions and salaries first - are the ones you trust, unto fundamental proportions?!  http://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk/

At the end of the day you need to explain your frame of reference by yourself.  Then how are you incorporating;

1) The 130-140.000 years old Yetis of Australia and Tasmania? As erectus, heidelbegensis or sapiens?

2) The 40.000 years old Amerindians? Their 340.000 years old ancestors?

What have Dr. Wells told you about this - and where does he place them demograpically?

 

The Human Genetics

�Humbling� was the prevalent adjective used by the scientific teams and the media to describe the principal finding � that the human genome contains not the anticipated 100,000 - 140,000 genes (the stretches of DNA that direct the production of amino-acids and proteins) but only some 30,000+ -- little more than double the 13,601 genes of a fruit fly and barely fifty percent more than the roundworm�s 19,098. What a comedown from the pinnacle of the genomic Tree of Life!

Moreover, there was hardly any uniqueness to the human genes. They are comparative to not the presumed 95 percent but to almost 99 percent of the chimpanzees, and 70 percent of the mouse. Human genes, with the same functions, were found to be identical to genes of other vertebrates, as well as invertebrates, plants, fungi, even yeast. The findings not only confirmed that there was one source of DNA for all life on Earth, but also enabled the scientists to trace the evolutionary process � how more complex organisms evolved, genetically, from simpler ones, adopting at each stage the genes of a lower life form to create a more complex higher life form � culminating with Homo sapiens.

But; Darwinian evolution relies on random point mutations to produce evolved organisms. As mathematician David Belinski points out, Darwinian theories appear far too weak to have brought about the remarkable structures evident in living creatures. If one assumes that all life arose out of random generations of proteins then there�s a problem.

First of all, every known example of genetic mutation either produces no noticeable change or causes death (or in rare cases undoes the mistake of a past mutation). Yet, Darwinian evolution relies on random point mutations creating lots of biological advantages. The ratio of useful proteins to possible random proteins is 1:10500. Therefore, barring incredible luck, it would take about 10500 trials to produce one useful protein when a cell needs a minimum of one to two thousand proteins. Hence, life appeared on earth (and evolved) far too quickly for the present timelines - based on Darwinian theory of evolution - to be completely correct.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web1/baird.htm l

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------

 

Tropic Origin - Arctic Culture

A very important point in case is raised by cell-biologist Stephen Rothman, pin-pointing that adaptive qualities belong to organisms, not genes. It�s the animal that must cope with jungle, desert or ocean, not the genome tucked away in its cozy nuclear compartment. Darwinian evolution makes sense because it places the organism, not DNA, at the center of the action.

"Neo-Darwinism" - on the other hand - is reductionistic. As with machines, the most easy way to understand an organism is to �reduce� it � level it, you might say � recasting it in terms of its parts. Then, in turn, they are �reduced� to their separate parts, and describes as parts. Then the overall functioning do not require an explanation - because once the exact nature of the parts and their interactions is accounted for, the whole picture automatically falls into place.

Evolution exists, but pinning down timelines is complicated and difficult. Moreover,  the basic understanding of genetics is still fresh and incomplete. Thus we need to be very careful about drawing conclusive answers about the causes, as well as the structure and its effects - concerning the human genome. Concluding time-lines, speciation and possible locations and migrations of different (etnic) genotypes - based on bio-chemistry alone - is nothing but premature. 

To establish relevant time-lines we are still entirely dependant on archeological results  - and the adquate dating, respectively. These dating-techniques are, per se, a pretty new and still not well confirmed - although they are improving. Consequently we still don't have no simple or absolute timelines to neither the origin of man, nor the orgin of the respective etnicities. Besides the classical etnology, the new archeological evidence and their proximate dating.

Thus there are no scientific basis for cathegoric conclusions regarding the origin of man - as there are no conclusive evidents about the time or place for the genesis of the Eurasian populations. Except for the plain and obvious demographic fact that they have adapted to the arctic hemisphere - both physically and culturally - and the massive amount of archeological sites that have thouroughly established that this happened well before the end of ice-time. 

There are no reason to let outdated theories, etnic interests, twisted politics or fundamental convictions stand in the way of that reality. 

 

Edited by boreas-is

Rebuilding Germany's Temple of

the Sun

 

Ancient farmers may have used the observatory to check the seasons

A project to faithfully reconstruct a 7,000 year-old solar observatory, the oldest of its kind in Europe, began this week at Goseck in the German state of Saxony.

1. You want to imagine Sapiens where there must be Neanderthals... fine. Just don't put the blame on me but on your hot head.

2. The mammal apendages you mention are false and the article you link to "document" it talks about something else.

3. There are other topics to disuss evolution theory: I'm sure you will findthem amusing - and others will find you too. It's irrelevant for our matter.

4. The "temples" you mention have been known for long, though not in the aboundant numbers they are now. They belong to the Danubian Neolithic, and have most likely nothing to do with the developement of Germanic nations as such (these areas were Celtic some 2100 years ago).

Yes, known for long: those "enclosures", already considered temples or ritual places, were known at least in the 90s, in some isolated places. I remamber a handful of them in different places of Central Europe.

What is new is that there are so many of them, all built by the same pattern, indicating a clear spiritual unity of early Danubians or Western Linear Pottery culture.

The word civilization is probably abusive unless you show me the remains of the cities. But press loves grandious terms.

...

These people were not IEs most likely - unless you favor the Renfrew hypothesis for the expansion of IEs. Most data indicates against it and in this forum has yet to appear a solid defender of such argumentation.

As I think that the Gimbutas paradigm is the valid one, IEs were then still in their embrionary status in the Volga area, and, therefore, neither Germans nor Celts, who weren't still formed, nor any other IE speaking person has anythng to do with that.

Anyhow, the first IE people that we find historically living in that region are Celts. Germans being then located in Lower Germany and Scandinavia. Yet you just can't jump from Linear Pottery to La T�ne ignoring several milennia (c. 4000-400 BCE vanished! ) of major ethnic and cultural change.

Finnish peoples show a male ascendancy quite different from other Europeans, except Baltics and Russians that share it in lesser manner. It's considered an Uralic marker. But by the female side and overall genetics, they seem pretty much Euros like the rest (except Lapps).

Meanwhile Germans and Scandinavians don't have those male (Y-chr) types, meaning a different genesis. They have the types that identify Westerners and Easterners but not the Uralic ones, which are restricted the regions East of the Baltic (and Lappland).

Also, as you will see in the topic on European tongues, I don't think that Uralic can be associated to Native Eastern Eruopeans but rather that it came from the Urals area. I think Eastern Europeans spoke maybe some Caucasic tongue and the Scandinavians spoke then either Atlantic languages (Magdalenian) or one of those Caucasic (Eastern Gravettian) ones.