How did humans come about?

[AstralCody]

You were always taught...

First there were dinosaurs, then a big meteor hit the earth and yada yada...

Who was the first human to be here? Of course the bible says Adam and Eve but I don't really think in the way of the bible. The main question here is HOW did the first human get here?

Are we talking about evolution? Do some people on here think we came from apes? etc.

I really don't know, so I thought I would see what you all have to say.:-)

[Sinera]

Watch "Ancient Aliens" on YT and you'll know. :D

[SoulSail]

More and more I'm leaning toward the DNA seed theory, which is what you'll find if you follow Volgerie's advice on the Ancient Aliens bit. There's many twists and theories, but it all comes down to DNA being spread across the Cosmos, toyed with, spliced, planted, etc.

For instance, take the Adam and Eve story in Genesis (actually, it predates Genesis, but we'll keep it short here).

I suspect that "Adam," which roughly translates to "mankind," probably got into trouble after toying with his own DNA (The Tree of the knowledge of good and evil), and wound up introducing so many flaws that you get, well--us. Of course I have no idea and this is all very wild conjecture, but going down this road is fun at a minimum even if you do have to sidestep plenty of hard scientific principles to get very far.


Soul

[ButterflyWoman]

There are plenty of mythologies as to where/how humans were created, not just the Bible. In fact, the study of cross-cultural creation myths is really interesting (and I was just listening to a lecture on this very thing, comparing the Babylonian myth with the Biblical creation account).

Evolution does not propose that "humans came from apes". That's a big misunderstanding. The theory proposes that humans evolved from some very ancient "apelike" ancestor, from which, possibly, some other apes also evolved, all over the course of millions of years. Humans share 99% of their DNA with chimpanzees, so it's not as far fetched as all that, but nobody seriously thinks that humans evolved from chimpanzees, or gorillas, or any other living/known primate.

As for the answer, I don't know, and I don't really much care. I know a lot of theories, scientific, pseudo-scientific, mythical, symbolic, and on and on, and it's all very interesting, but at the end of the day, it's just more questions.

[Barry]

I concur with ButterflyWoman. I think the evolution theory is the correct one.

[SoulSail]

And I concur that "...at the end of the day, it's just more questions."

And really, would having the answers do much? Do answers ever make us fitter, happier, or wiser? If we knew that some clan of beings on a distant star cooked us up in their kitchen and threw us out like a bad batch of goo, would our lives be radically changed one hour after realizing the truth?

Maybe, but I doubt it.


Soul

[Sinera]

If we knew that some clan of beings on a distant star cooked us up in their kitchen and threw us out like a bad batch of goo, would our lives be radically changed one hour after realizing the truth?
Not for me either. And who or what is "us" anyway? The problem is that some who might be disturbed by this theory identify themselves too much with being human(kind). After all, we're all souls and consciousness making experiences in matter.

And maybe we as humans are just experimenters IN the field while other experimenters (ETs, god(s)?) plan(ned), observe, control and influence the experiment from the OUTside in cooperation, maybe we even switch roles from time to time?

- "Hey, Alf, let me go in there the next time while you watch over me and collect the data."
- "Ok, Spock, yeah, let's take turns from now on. Have fun if you can."
- "Thanks, take care."
- "Yeah, See ya."

Hence we're probably all experimenters as well as experiencers.

[ButterflyWoman]

If we knew that some clan of beings on a distant star cooked us up in their kitchen and threw us out like a bad batch of goo [...]
Hang on. Wasn't that an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation?

;)

[CFTraveler]

You were always taught... First there were dinosaurs, then a big meteor hit the earth and yada yada... That's because it's the best explanation for the physical remains that we have. We know that there were dinosaurs, not once but twice, and then there were at least two catastrophes, and after the second one everything else happened- small animals, mainly. The large dinosaurs were no longer there and other animals appeared. And then, geologically not that long ago, small mammalian things, then primates, and then primates and human.
How is the question, and as everyone else said, mythology varies, all details.


Who was the first human to be here? Of course the bible says Adam and Eve A religious friend of mine said something to me that made cultural sense- the bible was written by semites about their world, and you could say that Adam and Eve were the 'first' semites. But if you read the biblical creation accounts carefully, you will see that there were other humans there. After all, Cain and Abel married someone..... etc. And I'm not even counting apocrypha. That's why you can't literalize mythology.




but I don't really think in the way of the bible. The main question here is HOW did the first human get here?Are we talking about evolution? Do some people on here think we came from apes? As BW said, evolution doesn't say we came from apes. Creationists say that. How is not the question, because we can't really know. But if you want to look at a very reader-friendly account of mitochondrial DNA genealogy, read "The Seven Daughters of Eve", by Sykes, because DNA doesn't lie.

So what I have to say is, anything is possible, we could have been seeded by aliens- why not? (but I doubt it, I tend more towards the panspermia-comet hypothesis), evolved the long and boring way or the short and catastrophic way, but either way, you don't have to stop believing in God to accept any of these, unless you believe in a very finite and objective god. In fact, you shouldn't believe in any of them, because when you start believing in a story you stop thinking.

[AstralCody]

Awesome replies everyone. :-D
I suppose at the end of the day it really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter period, because it won't change anything...

Just an interesting topic I thought I would make. With all great replies.:cool:

[SoulSail]

Hang on. Wasn't that an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation?

;)


Yeah, probably. I don't know because I don't watch TV, but there's really nothing new under the sun is there?

Oh wait, everything under the Sun is new. Always. Sorry, Solomon. No offense, but I beg to differ.


Soul

[dreaming90]

Remote viewer Joseph McMoneagle reports that human DNA was "planted" on earth by scientists (who have since departed). And he also reports that we evolved from creatures that were more beaver-like than ape-like.

I tend to lean more towards the orthodox view of evolution, but McMoneagle's observations are certainly interesting. And his remote viewing skills are incredible, so there's that...

[Sinera]

There are several similar theories of seeding by ET scientists or 'gardeners'. Just to complete them here without trying to evaluate it. Many also state that more than one race was seeded, and all over the place as it seems. So it's not just 'out of Africa' which of course might still be true of the current only surviving race, human sapiens sapiens.

Many myths and channellings tell us that Pleiadeans 'seeded' our race or influenced our DNA also in spiritual ways (e.g. the Kryon channelings). Maybe it's a 'meme' that has its own social dynamics and gets repeated all over the place. But who knows?

Seth (Jane Roberts) describes two mankinds before this one. One (the first) still visits us as "ETs", they evolved out of Earth and are a star-species now, probably multidimensional. Another one he called Lumarians, living more or less under the earth at the time of the dinosaurs, he says. They might be the Lemurians after all (similar name).

I remember I read about anthrosposophic (Steiner) and theosophic (Blavatsky) evolution theories, supposedly from Akasha readings, which are also mentioning different 'humankinds', but not at once, rather taking turns, or maybe overlapping.

In Theosophy, e.g., there were several 'mankinds' described as "root races" that evolve and fall in long cycles. E.g. before us there was the Atlantean race, and before them the Lemurian race. Hyperboreans are another race before that. But within each race there are other sub-cycles too.

I once stumbled across this site and it seems to 'promote' the same theory somehow (also mentioning the Lumarians/Lemurians, btw):

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/huntley/esp_huntley_5.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_huntley/SphereOfAmenti.jpg

But wherefrom do these guys have all the "information"? http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/jgtq-2-c81e.gif

As of recently I read some D. Cannon past life regression books, I recommend chapters 12 and 13 online from this book here. It more or less also supports the idea of seeding of life and more than one races by "scientists" from other worlds acting according to a plan (universal "life charter"). No talk about beavers though. :wink:

http://books.google.de/books?id=aFXWNpviJSsC&pg=PA119&dq=Dolores+Cannon+%22Keepers+Of+The+Garden%22+%22C hapter+12%22&hl=de&sa=X&ei=LVjcT_r2OfTP4QTT3bSZCg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I also remember Nanci Danison revealing information about human evolution from her NDE, but haven't read her book yet. Anybody did and how does it fit with the other theories?

[Korpo]

One of the more interesting things about human evolution is that they can't really explain the sudden explosion of culture and civilization on the scene 20,000-50,000 years ago. All the ingredients seemed to have been there for quite a while, and they haven't pinpointed a neurological/biological reason why suddenly we should make that jump (into the stone age, that is).

I tend to think that this was the time when human souls finally got more fully involved with - well - human beings. Or rather the consciousness that we now call human became more fully involved with the human physical body.

[mick]

This may interest. Suggests identification of the gene that slowed the human brain development enabling a higher complexity and being useless at birth. :)

"By duplicating itself two and a half million years ago the gene could have given early human brains the power of speech and invention, leaving cousins such as chimpanzees behind.

The gene, known as SRGAP2, helps control the development of the neocortex – the part of the brain responsible for higher functions like language and conscious thought.

Having an extra copies slowed down the development of the brain, allowing it to forge more connections between nerve cells and in doing so grow bigger and more complex, researchers said.

In a study published in the Cell journal, the scientists reported that the gene duplicated about 3.5 million years ago to create a "daughter" gene, and again a million years later creating a "granddaughter" copy.

Although humans and chimpanzees separated six million years ago, we still share 96 per cent of our genome and the gene is one of only about 30 which have copied themselves since that time.
Related Articles

The first duplication was relatively inactive but the second occurred at about the time when primitive Homo separated from its brother Australopithecus species and began developing more sophisticated tools and behaviours.

Evan Eichler at the University of Washington, who led the research, said the benefit of the duplication would have been instant, meaning human ancestors could have distanced themselves from rival species within a generation.

He said: "This innovation could not have happened without that incomplete duplication. Our data suggest a mechanism where incomplete duplication of this gene created a novel function 'at birth'.""

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/9244310/Gene-which-sparked-human-brain-leap-identified.html

[mick]

One of the more interesting things about human evolution is that they can't really explain the sudden explosion of culture and civilization on the scene 20,000-50,000 years ago. All the ingredients seemed to have been there for quite a while, and they haven't pinpointed a neurological/biological reason why suddenly we should make that jump (into the stone age, that is).

In the bigger scheme of things one example of an industrial scale step to an organised society is attributed by some to the pressures that forced the nomadic tribes of North Africa to concentrate about the Nile. With the greater region experiencing climate conditions (reduced rainfall) that reduce habitability of what is now the Sahara region there grew a need for cooperation and planning with a move to an agrarian society dominated by seasons. The result, the Egyptians.

[PauliEffect]

From sea otters ->

http://www.monroeinstitute.org/resources/downloads/cat/explorer-series

"Explorer Series #27 The Origins of Man"

In the above TMI Explorer "tape" No 27, around 4:00 - 7:10, one of the Explorer talks
about some creatures who look like sea otters, very human like, intelligence in the
eyes, stand upright, etc. I have no clue who this Explorer is, but it seems that the
initials are HAP.

[SiriusTraveler]

The real question perhaps is, what makes us human and where did it start? But my theory is evolution, with the theosophical view on it.

[CFTraveler]

This may interest. Suggests identification of the gene that slowed the human brain development enabling a higher complexity and being useless at birth. :)

"By duplicating itself two and a half million years ago the gene could have given early human brains the power of speech and invention, leaving cousins such as chimpanzees behind.

The gene, known as SRGAP2, helps control the development of the neocortex – the part of the brain responsible for higher functions like language and conscious thought.

Having an extra copies slowed down the development of the brain, allowing it to forge more connections between nerve cells and in doing so grow bigger and more complex, researchers said.

In a study published in the Cell journal, the scientists reported that the gene duplicated about 3.5 million years ago to create a "daughter" gene, and again a million years later creating a "granddaughter" copy.

Although humans and chimpanzees separated six million years ago, we still share 96 per cent of our genome and the gene is one of only about 30 which have copied themselves since that time.
Related Articles

The first duplication was relatively inactive but the second occurred at about the time when primitive Homo separated from its brother Australopithecus species and began developing more sophisticated tools and behaviours.

Evan Eichler at the University of Washington, who led the research, said the benefit of the duplication would have been instant, meaning human ancestors could have distanced themselves from rival species within a generation.

He said: "This innovation could not have happened without that incomplete duplication. Our data suggest a mechanism where incomplete duplication of this gene created a novel function 'at birth'.""

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/9244310/Gene-which-sparked-human-brain-leap-identified.html I like this one.

[PauliEffect]

Here is a Moen talk about 11 years ago, when he still only had published 3 books.
It's not completely about the absolute beginning, but at some point in time, before
there was time, something, some substance became self-aware. :)

Moen is communicating with a huge intelligent being. Here's the video clip:

Bruce Moen talks about "how everything started (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY3dNhBdFLg&feature=relmfu)" around 4:50 - 9:22. Most of the
stuff he mentions during the whole youtube talk of this series, entered his fourth
book the same year.

He also mentions some details of his experiences which I can't remember from
his books.

[mick]

From sea otters ->

http://www.monroeinstitute.org/resources/downloads/cat/explorer-series

"Explorer Series #27 The Origins of Man"

In the above TMI Explorer "tape" No 27, around 4:00 - 7:10, one of the Explorer talks
about some creatures who look like sea otters, very human like, intelligence in the
eyes, stand upright, etc. I have no clue who this Explorer is, but it seems that the
initials are HAP.

Interesting, we sometimes view a large fish/sea mammal like form moving about in the etheric. Sometimes our attention may be drawn to some structure and one might exit and swim off. We call them Snarks, partly in a joke sense and also because their form is shark like but could also describe them and their motions as being Dolphin or Sea otter like. Don't have conclusive thoughts on their reason for being but sometimes it comes across as a morph form (or a projection form or of course a native form?) used when exiting one area and slipping off to some place else.

[GRANT]

The Emerald Tablets Of Thoth, The Book Of Thoth, The Lost Books Of Enki, The Epic Of Gilgamesh--all good readings, and then there's Keylonics to boot. Enoch I, II, III. Jubilees. The Lemurian Scrools. The Egyptian Book Of The Dead. The Bhagavad Gita
Grant

[SoulSail]

The Emerald Tablets Of Thoth, The Book Of Thoth, The Lost Books Of Enki, The Epic Of Gilgamesh--all good readings, and then there's Keylonics to boot. Enoch I, II, III. Jubilees. The Lemurian Scrools. The Egyptian Book Of The Dead. The Bhagavad Gita
Grant

Grant, you're the man.

I only wish these things came in Cliff's Notes...so little time to read and so many important works.

Soul

[Frozen Astral]

The Emerald Tablets Of Thoth, The Book Of Thoth, The Lost Books Of Enki, The Epic Of Gilgamesh--all good readings, and then there's Keylonics to boot. Enoch I, II, III. Jubilees. The Lemurian Scrools. The Egyptian Book Of The Dead. The Bhagavad Gita
Grant

I prefer Enoch 1 although it doesn't really describe creation it really does offer a lot of unspoken wisdom. As you said of course the Ancient Sumerian Epic of Creation offers a lot. Honestly all of the books you mentioned do, I have read most of them myself. Enoch 1 is my favorite book of all times though, I love how it tells you what each Angel and Fallen angel did for man and taught man.

[heliac]

Hope I'm doing this part right.

Adding to this thread from another thread.


In what way is man's origin from primates controversial?

I think the most popular controversy surrounding man's origin from primates comes from religious ideas. In particular the main monotheistic religions.



That is a multi-layered question and we are going off topic here.

To answer that completely (which I won't do) would take a LOT more time than I have. I truly cannot go into this without, in some way, picking apart the Darwinian theory... which is not what I wish to do. While my knowledge and guidance shows me something far different than Darwinian theory, it is not my place to tell you what is right or wrong for you.

You can, if you really want to expand your awareness in this area, research the many theories of evolution. There are various religious theories, scientific, new age, etc. :-)

I don't think you should worry about offending anyone by picking apart Darwinian theory. I think most people who are familiar with the details would usually welcome discussion on the theory's validity. But yes it is a massive subject and usually the discussion brings up lots of questions.

[heliac]

And I concur that "...at the end of the day, it's just more questions."

And really, would having the answers do much? Do answers ever make us fitter, happier, or wiser? If we knew that some clan of beings on a distant star cooked us up in their kitchen and threw us out like a bad batch of goo, would our lives be radically changed one hour after realizing the truth?

Maybe, but I doubt it.


Soul

Some people find the discovery/learning process involved in thinking critically very rewarding. I imagine it makes them feel like they are capable of understanding more than they did prior to asking questions. I would even go so far as to say that some people make understanding a main purpose in their lives. So when you say, it's just more questions, to you it may be just more questions, to others it is an energizing ongoing journey of discovery.

[PauliEffect]

I think the most popular controversy surrounding man's origin from primates comes from religious ideas. In particular the main monotheistic religions.
Well, yes, but that's religion, unsubstantiated belief. I was more wondering how
S Greer's statement was controversial. I don't get it, as I don't view Greer's
statement with colored glasses or from any religion. Where's the controversial
part of it? Humans origin from primates.

[heliac]

For the time being i think evolution theory is the best explanation for our origins so i don't think it should be as controversial as it seems to be. In the USA it is still a pretty controversial issue, in some areas, so much so that policy makers try to make rules/laws that allow alternative theories, like creationism, public credence.

[DarkChylde]

evolution theory is the best explanation for our origins so i don't think it should be as controversial as it seems to be.
ditto.

[IA56]

So...human and all species who can breed another flesh body ..is like a copy only of the both male and female kind/species...it has to learn by copying behaving´s and doing´s....it is like a robot kind of....this is one part...in some point the body will be inhabitet by an inteligence ...a consiusness....and now we can talk about to wake up...but...as I asume....the inteligence do not have to enter the body by birth, it can enter later also....so before the entrance the body did exist because it has all what it need´s...an autopilot by the DNA inprogrammed....I did see this in a metaphore in a vision for some years ago...I am not ready with the whole thought about this...but the vision I saw the human body be ihabitant by another inteligence....

But this discussion has to do with evolution..I do believe also in evolution from the sea...but what I wrote abowe has also to do with evolution...who does inhabit a human body has to do with evolution also...because I believe we are consiusness from several inviroment´s...I will return and write more but as I wrote my thought is not finished to be understood ...yet...:-) or ever...Those who have not wake up yet is like evolution filling´s on autopilot...