"Walking with Cavemen"

[King of the Americas]

'Gaps'...

...litter the 'fossil record'.

The LARGEST one is the one that preceeds us. We KEEP finding fossil remains, and yet this 'large gap' just before us remains empty.

Are you suggesting that it is impossible that our origins are extra-terresterial, at least in part?

Moreover, you DO dismiss the historical evidence that suggests this as fiction, right?

 

[hgc]

Re: 'Gaps'...

...litter the 'fossil record'.

The LARGEST one is the one that preceeds us. We KEEP finding fossil remains, and yet this 'large gap' just before us remains empty.

Are you suggesting that it is impossible that our origins are extra-terresterial, at least in part?

Moreover, you DO dismiss the historical evidence that suggests this as fiction, right?

There you go again, using language of quantification (LARGEST) without justification.

What defines, for you, the size of a gap in the fossil record? It seems to me that you are mining the data for significance. I have a strong suspicion that you have a conclusion you are attempting to support. So why not come out with it, and let's debate if the data supports it? You've already dropped a hint or two (eg., came from the sky).

 

[CurtC]

KOA wrote:
We HAVE LOTS of examples of the Neaderthals linage, but a 'gap' of size, ability, intelligence, and technology that coincides with some of our ancient writings...

I'm not sure which fossils leading to the Neanderthal you're talking about - could you provide examples? It looks to me like the transitional details are no clearer for neanderthalensis than for sapiens - in other words, we have no transitions between them and heidelbergensis. So you can accept the fossil record for neanderthalensis, but not for sapiens? They're really quite close relatives:

However, Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar anatomically -- so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification was popular through the 1970's and 80's, although many authors today have returned to the previous two-species hypothesis. Either way, Neanderthals represent a very close evolutionary relative of modern humans.

 

[c0rbin]

It looks to me like the transitional details are no clearer for neanderthalensis than for sapiens

If I recall from the show, the span of time between some of the earlier hominids was on the order of millions of years with decreasing intervals up to modern man.

 

[King of the Americas]

Okay...

...so NOW the contention is that Neaderthal also 'leaped ahead', and exists in front of a fossil gap?

I retort, I'd ask that you qualify that compared with the gap in front of Homo Sapian?

Indeed, I recall the attempt to put these two beings in the same species, with the whole Sapian Sapian thing. But, more recent findings have suggest that the 2 were NOT close related at all, and were very distant cousins, who manage to at one time co-exist.

One did NOT beget the other.

---

What am 'I' suggesting happened?

I hold, that there IS truth to be extruded from ancient historical texts, in relation to our origins.

From this historical evidence, AND the fossil record I gleem that 'we' were changed into our present form asa result of a hyper-evolvutionary state. And that this state was caused by something supernatural, or something NOT of 'nature'.

This is 'easy' for me to believe, because of my own unique personal experience. 'I' have seen first evidence that just such 'supernatural entities' EXIST. So, when I read various records, from differing regions, and I see commonalities...

Then I see a fossil record intact and complete, except when it comes OUR origin.

So I find that the 'probability' of Evolution being the ONLY factor in our development, to be very low.

 

[hgc]

Re: Okay...

...so NOW the contention is that Neaderthal also 'leaped ahead', and exists in front of a fossil gap?

I retort, I'd ask that you qualify that compared with the gap in front of Homo Sapian?

Indeed, I recall the attempt to put these two beings in the same species, with the whole Sapian Sapian thing. But, more recent findings have suggest that the 2 were NOT close related at all, and were very distant cousins, who manage to at one time co-exist.

One did NOT beget the other.

I don't think anyone suggested that one begat the other.

As to how closely related, that is not so well known, and what you mean by "close" is very much dependent on what you are trying to prove when you say it.

What am 'I' suggesting happened?

I hold, that there IS truth to be extruded from ancient historical texts, in relation to our origins.

From this historical evidence, AND the fossil record I gleem that 'we' were changed into our present form asa result of a hyper-evolvutionary state. And that this state was caused by something supernatural, or something NOT of 'nature'.

This is 'easy' for me to believe, because of my own unique personal experience. 'I' have seen first evidence that just such 'supernatural entities' EXIST. So, when I read various records, from differing regions, and I see commonalities...

Then I see a fossil record intact and complete, except when it comes OUR origin.

So I find that the 'probability' of Evolution being the ONLY factor in our development, to be very low.

This is what it comes down to?!? This whole long thread so that you can say that you "gleem" [sic] something from historical evidence (not presented) and the fossil record (not shown to support your argument) about supernatural inteference?

As for you own "unique, personal experience," that and a token will get you on the subway. I presume you wanted to convey some valuable information to the other forum members when you started this thread. Your personal experience, especially considering its uniqueness, is of little value.

What "various records, from differing regions," do you wish show us?

You see a fossil record intact and complete? Are you kidding? "Complete" is another of those quantification words that tend to trip you up. I don't think there such a thing as "complete" fossil record, unless you have fossils from every generation of the interval under question. Ideally it would include a record of the entire organisms, hard and soft tissue.

 

[King of the Americas]

Pardon me...

...but I am not 'gleeming' anything. All that I am saying, all that I meant to say, is that this program didn't talk about the 'gap' or actually 'missing linkS' between us and our ancestors.

Moreover, I GLEEM that itis irresponsible to ignore historical texts that may shed some light on our hyper-evolution.

 

[hgc]

Re: Pardon me...

...but I am not 'gleeming' anything. All that I am saying, all that I meant to say, is that this program didn't talk about the 'gap' or actually 'missing linkS' between us and our ancestors.

Moreover, I GLEEM that itis irresponsible to ignore historical texts that may shed some light on our hyper-evolution.

Not to get persnickety, but you said a lot more than that. You said a lot more than that the program didn't talk about the gap. You said that you inferred from the gap a supernatural involvement. As a matter of fact, I think your intellectual leap from gap to gods/aliens is the whole purpose of this thread. Isn't it?

As for the ancient texts you keep referring to that may shed some light on "hyper-evolution," I ask again: what texts? I can't very well be ignoring texts if I don't even know that they exist.

Now for a little bit of pedantic housekeeping: The word you are trying to use is glean.

 

[King of the Americas]

Indeed...

...I DID say a bit more than that, AND indeed the purpose of this thread WAS to talk about the show's omitions, in regards to whom or where 'I' believe we came from.

You ask what texts...?

Try Genesis:

"And the sons of god, saw that the daughters of men, and that they were beautiful and took wives that they chose. And there were giants in those days, men of renoun."

---

Almost every religion or culture has a genesis-type story that describes the begining of that people. A great many of them note a heavenly being helping to make them better, and aiding their travel and development throughout history.

 

[hgc]

Re: Indeed...

...I DID say a bit more than that, AND indeed the purpose of this thread WAS to talk about the show's omitions, in regards to whom or where 'I' believe we came from.

You ask what texts...?

Try Genesis:

"And the sons of god, saw that the daughters of men, and that they were beautiful and took wives that they chose. And there were giants in those days, men of renoun."

---

Almost every religion or culture has a genesis-type story that describes the begining of that people. A great many of them note a heavenly being helping to make them better, and aiding their travel and development throughout history.

Thank you. I actually suggested many posts up, half jokingly, that you were getting your information from Genesis.

I have considered Genesis, and I have found it to be of no value whatsoever in determining our natural origins. Not only are the scientific information and conclusions we have available today much more compelling, but I also have to consider the source. In the case of scientific (natural and social) disciplines of paleontology, geology, archeology, biology, history, etc, I have a good idea about how they go about gathering their data and understanding reality from it.

As for the writers of the Genesis, I know something about them too (near-eastern semitic people of < 3000 years ago), and I have no reason to think they had access to better information about our origins, nor a better method of gathering and analysing such information.

True that many creation myths have similar elements. Many are also completely different from any others. So what? Some recorders of different creation myths were familiar with similar legends in the oral tradition. Some you would expect to have common elements, since there are natural inclinations in all humans that might lead to common cultural output (eg., why did the river flood my crops? -- hey the clouds came from over that big mountain -- I'll ask the mountain for better weather -- I'll even offer up some of my food to appease the mountain -- etc).

 

[gnome]

It is a personal conviction of mind that a study of urban legends can be useful to illustrate how legends can emerge based on our cultural fears, hopes, or insecurities.

It is not so much of a stretch to suppose that, human nature being universal, that almost completely independent cultures might develop similar legends, having the same instinctual emotions that bring them about.

Add that to the phenomenon of tales based on grains of truth (based on completely mundane events) having a tendency to morph towards these "cultural" legends, and it begins to paint a picture of how these beliefs and legends come about from so many places that seem similar--without needing a remarkable supernatural event to spur them on.

 

[CurtC]

So KOA, I asked a question a few posts ago, which you ignored. Can you answer? These texts you keep referring to - they were written what, 3000 years ago? And they describe something that happened 100,000 years ago? Why would you trust something that's written 97,000 years after the fact, but not something that's written 100,000 years later? Say for example the 1950s era religion of wicca?

You keep harping on this gap thing, but I don't see how the Homo sapiens gap is any different from any other species. There are gaps in the record, and there always will be. There are gaps for Neanderthals, gaps for Homo Erectus, for Homo Ergaster, etc, all the way back. As we find more fossils, we fill in these gaps (so that there are then more but shorter gaps). On what do you base your contention that the gap for Homo sapiens is any different than for any other hominid species?

Then you take the attitude that we're changing our story ("...so NOW the contention is that Neaderthal also 'leaped ahead'"), when in reality it's that you are slowly figuring out what's meant in the simple diagram I posted a link to. When you finally realize what we've been patiently spelling out to you all along, please don't pretend that it's us that's changing.

Also, spelling: omission, sapiens.

 

[voidx]

Sigh...good ole genesis. Here's what I find interesting. Is Genesis to be taken literally or not? Hard line creationists say yes, the timeline is literal, the "evidence" it provides is literal (except that it must be gleaned from obscure language references and is open to mis-interpretation and mis-translation, and also the most over-glaring fact that there are no emphirical theories that could be used to prove any of this "evidence" because it is so vague). You don't seem to take it completely literally as you seem to be ok in accepting evolution going back at the very least 100's of thousands of years. So all at once you believe it has evidence to prevent, but do not believe the "literal" timeline it presents. To me this is just picking and choosing tidbits to as HGC has implied find facts to support a presupposed, and infailable conclusion in you're mind.

You admit that evolution happens, you'll admit certain species up to a certain point, you'll admit we have evolved. But this is what blows me away. You'll agree to this species quite similiar to us evolving riggggght up to the point of almost being us. But this last bit of evolution could not be natural. This last "hyper-evolutionary" period just has to be supernatural, because presently we cannot fill in this gap as you call it. So what makes more sense? Temporarily believing the supposed ideas of science and evolution of what probably happened within this one gap until we can find the evidence, or scientific basis to prove it? Or to follow this mode of thinking, right up to the brink of those species evolving into man, and then because there's a gap in our information, toss that all aside and now conviniently attribute it to a supernatural power, who up until this point has played no part in the evolution of anything, including our cousins, distant or otherwise. This makes no sense to me. I'd love to see any evidence or at least in depth theory as to how Aliens, or something supernatural caused this. Any at all, what did they change specifically? Did it happen in a single generation? I find it odd to have to use this idea when Evolution and science takes it right up to this point, this gap, however large, and then more than likely assumes that whatever happened it lead to modern man. We have a basis to theorize what happened in this approach. And as information is found to clarify and support it, it will become clearer. How does you're explanation...explain anything? Aside from how to take advantage of a convinient gap in the fossil record for you're own sake. I'm open minded to believing you're side, I don't have a problem with being wrong. But give me some texts to read, show me any in-depth theories with some form of experiments to back them up.

Overall this is how I look at it. Believe in Evolution (and realizing that how exactly it works is always being tested and revised as new things become clear to us) which can come very close to almost explaining the entire transition from primate to man. Or believe the supernatural process, which isn't a process because it gives no in depth timeline of how anything occurred and presents no testable theories as to how it might even potentially work. I'll choose the first thank you very much.

 

[voidx]

Also I believe the same Gnome. I even take it as far as leading into the creation of the varying religions around the world. To me its a developmental stage of individual cultures and societies. A beginning frame of reference for a fledgling culture to begin using to explain their world and what they see around them. It evolves and becomes more complex as the culture and society advances, and then with the onset of sciences to explain the world to us, the next developmental stage begins. The old guard ideals of religion are not needed as science begins to provide testable theories on how the world works and its slowly discarded. Slowly because for the large part, many people have trouble letting the ideals go, but over generations it will happen. To me I see religion as trying to keep up, to try and keep molding itself around the current scientific level of understanding, or to try and poke holes in its credebility, in order to remain relevant itself. But its inevitable that it will eventually no longer be able to keep up and will be discarded as an ideal. Heh I'll also state that this is a very stong personal conviction.

 

[King of the Americas]

Thank You voidx:

I apprecaite your response, and your seemingly sincere willingness to see more evidence.

Okay, first of all, you are indeed right. I DO believe that evolution has had a part in making us who we are. And indeed, I do believe that at some point, 'heavenly beings'/Extra-terresterials interacted with an ancestor of Neanderthal who had stayed in Africa. Do directly to this interaction, we BECAME 'Human', able and willing to manupilate our environment, full of wonder, and a willingness to conquer the world and anyone or anything who would try to stop us.

I think that so far, you guys have demonstrated lousy detective skills. When you get to the crime scene, you gather evidence and listen to different people's accounts, knowing full well, there is going to be massive differences between all these different accounts of the same event. However, you CAN look for 'similarities' in the stories, and then draw a conclusion as to what was likely to have happened. Then you can apply the evidence you find to the most cimmon tale, and see if it fits.

What you guys are doing is ignoring the tale, because of noted inconsistancies, and then applying a 'theory' to evidence that is incomplete ignoring the 'size' of the gap just before us.

Evolution happens in small incrimental steps. My dog isn't going to have hairless puppies that walk upright and speak with a British accent. Now, IF indeed that DID happen, I am going to be looking around for an evil scientist's laboratory next door.

You ask for evidence...

...well of what, exactly?

Do you wish to see evidence of a primative people's myths or legends noting how heavenly beings came down out of the clouds and taught them all manner of writing, science, and agriculture?

Do you wish to see pictures of these encounters?

Do you wish to see photo comparisons of THE ancestor we supposedly came from?

---

Most of this is not going to be consistant from one fact to the next, in the way of 'proving conclusively' my stance. However, one can recogonize two common themes:

One, that we just don't have it right yet. We are going to find, 'hopefully soon', that WE have been on Earth, in our current state, for a lot longer than we currently believe. MUCH of our collections of stories of our 'beginning', are actually accompilations from 2 or more beginnings. Of course this includes the myth of the great flood. Our written history doesn't fit, because we are applying it to the wrong time period.

Two, that 'heavenly beings' have acted, on our behalf, to alter our evolution. Throughout history, 'they' have even sent messangers/prophets to speak to us on their behalf. These 'heavenly beings' have been noted to have passed on much guidence and information to us, in an attempt to make us more like them.

Now, given the nature of Science, you aren't going to like that one story differs from another. In this area, the creator-god was an aligator, in this area an elephant. In this story, the gods come on floating islands from the sea, and in another on a cloud that shot out fire.

I urge you NOT to stop at one piece of evidence, but try to get as much as possible, from as many different sources as possible. And indeed, you are going to run into a lot of 'woo woo' stuff. But that is okay. That's what we DO to stories, as humans. They grow and become supernatural overtime. Look at the story of George Washington and the cherry tree, and that was only about 200 years ago. We are talking about relaying a message over more than several millenia.

'I' know that we are no less than 2 histories removed from our creation. There may be more.

---

I will be posting and adding the LINKS to this spot:

http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~shale/humanities/literature/religion/creation.html

http://folkloreandmyth.netfirms.com/creationmyths.html

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/8612/sacred18.htm

http://www.easternstudiesdatabase.com/History-of-Mythology-1-5.cfm

http://www.internetezy.com.au/~mj129/strangephenomenonq.html

 

[CurtC]

KOA,

1: You keep saying that the size of the gap before Homo sapiens is larger than that for other species. On what do you base this? Can you explain in detail, because it looks to me that our gap between fossils is no larger than that for any other hominid species. And that's probably a lot closer than for other mammals. So can you accept that a wolf evolved, even though its evolutionary gap is much larger than ours, or do you think it took some extraterrestrial influence for a modern wolf to become what it is?

2: Are you really sincere, saying that you believe 3,000 year old oral traditions, that they would indicate something that had happened at least 100,000 years before? Wouldn't there be a simpler explanation?

 

[voidx]

The reason I'm so willing to see any evidence from you're point of view is because up to date no one of any creationist type viewpoint has been able to show me anything that can not in some part be explained more reasonably in a scientific nature. I've done a fair amount of reading on this topic and the supernatural just seems an unnessary part of the equation.

When you get to the crime scene, you gather evidence and listen to different people's accounts, knowing full well, there is going to be massive differences between all these different accounts of the same event.

Yes and you also start to, not ignore, but perhaps disregard accounts that have no logical backing, do nothing to further your understanding of what happened, and are based entirely on conjecture.

What you guys are doing is ignoring the tale, because of noted inconsistancies, and then applying a 'theory' to evidence that is incomplete ignoring the 'size' of the gap just before us... Evolution happens in small incrimental steps. My dog isn't going to have hairless puppies that walk upright and speak with a British accent. Now, IF indeed that DID happen, I am going to be looking around for an evil scientist's laboratory next door.

By tale you're talking about Genesis I assume. And it has not been ignored, but by visiting the skeptic's dictionary and talkorigins and other sites I've seen a very thorough refutation of the evidence that Genesis presents for the origin of mankind, so I've disregarded it until such time as it can actually be shown to advance our understanding specifically and technically of our origins, which IMO it has not been shown to do.

The next part is what gets me. You yourself claim to have no idea how large the fossil gap is, so we don't know exactly how much time we're talking about here. Could be a large enough gap to let evolution take its course, we don't know that for certain and neither do you. And even if it did happen see how you yourself are not being a good detective. Instead of objectively giving evolution a chance to explain how in a quick manner it evolved us into Homo Sapien, you instead immediately start looking for this supernatural evil scientist, of whom we have no evidence of being involved at any point up until then. You take it as fact that evolution is a slow process, but that's still up for debate, some believe evolution sometimes happen in large fast spurts with several, make or break mutations happening within a short period of generations. Don't quote me on that exactly, if I can find the Scientific American article on it online I'll link it. Again I'll point out that the revision of the scientific theory
Continues to further our understanding of how we came about. How does Genesis continue to revise theories? It can't, it was written centuries ago.

You ask for evidence......well of what, exactly?

Do you wish to see evidence of a primative people's myths or legends noting how heavenly beings came down out of the clouds and taught them all manner of writing, science, and agriculture?

Do you wish to see pictures of these encounters?

Do you wish to see photo comparisons of THE ancestor we supposedly came from?

Anything at all would be nice. Which peoples did these beings teach? They must have taught all peoples because there's no evidence of a linear progression of one area of peoples teaching the next and the next to write. Why did they teach different languages? Different alphabets? How come area's of great agriculture promise didn't develop agriculture to the same level as less promising area's if we were all taught the same thing? Read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond if you wish to know more about this and other things. If anyone can formulate any logical theory on how all this could be accomplished then I'll be willing to listen to it. What you're missing, and why genesis gets dismissed is that it must give us a basis to show and test how these things can actually happen. Evidence should further our understanding of how said event happened. Genesis and myths and legends do not do this, they merely tell us that it was so and that it happened. They make no attempt to describe how exactly these things may have come about, so how useful are they at the end of the day?

One, that we just don't have it right yet. We are going to find, 'hopefully soon', that WE have been on Earth, in our current state, for a lot longer than we currently believe.

See, you seem to know what we're going to find. I don't, and neither does science. We have an idea of what we expect to find, but we don't know for sure.

Throughout history, 'they' have even sent messangers/prophets to speak to us on their behalf.

Conjecture again. We only have their word that their speaking on "their" behalf, whoever "they" are. You used the detective angle. Which is more valuable in an investigation? Verbal conjecture or forensic evidence? Forensic because it allows us to more clearly understand which verbal conjecture is accurate, and which is not.

Now, given the nature of Science, you aren't going to like that one story differs from another. In this area, the creator-god was an aligator, in this area an elephant. In this story, the gods come on floating islands from the sea, and in another on a cloud that shot out fire.

I like it just fine. There can be as many differing stories as you want there to be. I just want a clear explanation as to which is accurate. The varying descriptions of the creator-god are what speak to me that it is a developmental stage of the culture and society it originated in. Again, did this creator-god send prophets to all societies and peoples across the world at once? He'd be silly not too. And if so, then why and how could his description and message be so miscontrued from culture to culture? And if that's the case what makes your concept of God more valid than that of buddhists, or muslims? What supports your idea that your word is the true word of God? Because its what you grew up with, its what's ingrained in your culture and what your society developed as a concept of what he is, so how objective can it really be.

That's what we DO to stories, as humans. They grow and become supernatural overtime. Look at the story of George Washington and the cherry tree, and that was only about 200 years ago. We are talking about relaying a message over more than several millenia.

Exactly. They become supernatural over time. They are ordinary events that through millenia of mis-translation and mis-interpretatin become the stuff of legend and of the supernatural. There is so little objective remains of what actually happened that their very nearly useless to us now. How would we even be able to verify what minute bit of truth their might be left in them, even if we knew what that was? This is my point. No one ignores these stories. Everyone is aware of them, but because they are so far removed from when they happened, because they have been mis-translated, mis-interpreted, because they do not provide or further any testable theories as to how the nature of the world works, they are disregarded for what they are. Vague conjecture. If you were able to create at least some kind of theory as to how these stories explain our origins, and show how they could be testable, then I'm sure science and myself would take another look at them. Can you or someone else with this viewpoint provide us with that?

'I' know that we are no less than 2 histories removed from our creation. There may be more. I will be posting and adding the LINKS to this spot:

What's a history? How is it they can be numbered? I eagerly await the links so that "I" can see any idea of where it is you're coming from.

 

[King of the Americas]

Okay, I think I'm feel'n ya...

Extraordinary outcomes, don't always require Extra Ordinary Explainations.

And you'd like me to qualify this 'gap'.

Okay, we aren't just talking about a gap in the fossil record, but a leap in technology, wonder, will and ability. THIS gap, represents Human's finality in global dominance. Our cousins, the Neanderthals were NOT 'human', for they lacked the ability to control and or truly manupilate their environment. Their work was for neccessity. But THESE aren't even the species we came from.

We aren't just talking about a next logical step on the evolutionary path. Little hairy dudes, grew several feet taller and got a whole lot smarter. In fact, they had something no other animal seems to possess...'wonder'. We make things for pleasure, and not just for neccessity. We 'leaped ahead' of the Neandethals in a short period of co-existance from WHERE or WHO?

'I' say that this 'gap' is UNUSUAL compared to the rest of the fossil record findings, and that our historical record points to the probability, that there was something very unnatural about our development/creation.

---

A 'history' is a period of time marked by a beginning and an end of notery. 'Lost' or 'partial histories' have been adopted and applied to our present 'ill-conceived hisorical time line'.

WE have no less than one 'lost' history, and we have taken parts of THAT hsitory and applied it to our own time line, to mislead people into think that THIS is the only civilization that has every existed on earth.

 

[CurtC]

OK, KOA, I see now that by saying there's a fossil gap, you're not referring to a long time period with no fossils, you're saying that there is something that seems like a discontinuity to you. First, our (known) immediate predecessor, Homo Ergaster, was not a "little hairy dude." Specimen KNM WT 15000 was 9 to 12 years old, and was already 5 feet, 5 inches tall. They used tools. Neanderthals were known to bury their dead, so they exhibited some of this "wonder" that you're referring to.

What completed the picture is that Homo sapiens' ancestors were selected for language, which requires even more abstract thought. We think earlier hominids used a rudimentary language, but the largest difference between them and us is how we evolved our language instinct to a higher degree.

Is this what you're basing your belief in ETs, or god, or whatver, on? Because if that's it, then I think we can look forward to the day when that bit of unknown information is reduced to nothing, thus making your idea of god obsolete.

By the way, your comments on "histories" don't make any sense to me. Can you give specific examples?

 

[King of the Americas]

OK, KOA, I see now that by saying there's a fossil gap, you're not referring to a long time period with no fossils, you're saying that there is something that seems like a discontinuity to you. First, our (known) immediate predecessor, Homo Ergaster, was not a "little hairy dude."

*Indeed, I WAS incorrect in my characterizations of 'wrokingman'. And yet, I can't help but point at the dis-similarity in these examples and us.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erg.html

THAT is some brow ridge!

Specimen KNM WT 15000 was 9 to 12 years old, and was already 5 feet, 5 inches tall. They used tools.

*Simple stone tools that required little or no 'fashioning'.

Neanderthals were known to bury their dead, so they exhibited some of this "wonder" that you're referring to.

*Exactly, it took our cousins several 'evolutions' to get to simple burial. We 'leap forward' into science, agriculture, exploration and global dominance in ONE giant step. We had art, jewelery, and taylored clothes. But WHERE or WHO did all this 'ability' come from so quickly, and without any evidence?

What completed the picture is that Homo sapiens' ancestors were selected for language, which requires even more abstract thought. We think earlier hominids used a rudimentary language, but the largest difference between them and us is how we evolved our language instinct to a higher degree.

*Extended laguage ability is a BIG issue, but it isn't even the main point I am making. Overall ability & wonder, above and well beyond that of Neaderthal (whom we DIDN'T come from), from an ancestor who just used what he could find lying around.

Is this what you're basing your belief in ETs, or god, or whatver, on? Because if that's it, then I think we can look forward to the day when that bit of unknown information is reduced to nothing, thus making your idea of god obsolete.

*No 'that' alone is not the only information I am looking at...

First, I have the historical record, from many different parts of the world that all carry a similiar message about our pre-historic past. This is what I believe to be KNOWN, thus is was written as such at that time.

Second, the fossil record MATCHES the E.T. explaination, and does little or nothing to 'prove' otherwise.

Third, we are 'unnatural'. We do not live in 'balance' with nature, we 'evolved' hairless skin, only to kill other animals to take their coats. We would find ourselves in danger if exposed to the elements for any extended period of time, without proper civiliational tools or assistance.

The conlcusion is that I find FAULT with the willingness of Science to ignore our historical texts entirely, and write them off as nothing but fiction. I am NOT able to draw the same conclusion, based on incomplete evidence. I find that the Theory of Evolution does NOT fully explain how we became what it is we have become, and it fails woefully to 'disprove' that which we KNOW to be true.

By the way, your comments on "histories" don't make any sense to me. Can you give specific examples?

*Atlantis, Lemuria, and any number of other 'stories of 'lost things, places or people we no longer have 'physical evidence of', but rather just reminates of stories about...