Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:06 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 934
Location: Brooklyn NY
How does this discovery fit into TUB's narratives on the prehistory of humanity?



_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:09 pm +0000
Posts: 1817
It appears that this is a further indication or human-like ancestors before actual humans occurred. Actual humans first appeared in China/India, not Africa. The fossil records can't show when humans first appeared on the planet -- the advent of human beings was the result of mental/spiritual evolution, a connection to the sixth and seventh adjutant mind spirits, not a physical change. Human-like animals existed long before human beings showed up about 1 million years ago.

Larry


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 924
One important realization in the scientific world helped by this discovery is that the physical characteristics that made our species human did not arise in one single evolutionary episode. Most of the fairly uniquely human physical traits first occurred at varying times in earlier species.

Humans aren’t so special after all: The fuzzy evolutionary boundaries of Homo sapiens
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/ ... sapiens/1/

What that may ultimately boil down to is essentially pan-species or non-local evolution toward some kind of common goal or pattern. In other words, something other than pure chance and natural selection is at work. (The overview of evolution described in TUB).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 934
Location: Brooklyn NY
lwatkins wrote:
It appears that this is a further indication or human-like ancestors before actual humans occurred. Actual humans first appeared in China/India, not Africa. The fossil records can't show when humans first appeared on the planet -- the advent of human beings was the result of mental/spiritual evolution, a connection to the sixth and seventh adjutant mind spirits, not a physical change. Human-like animals existed long before human beings showed up about 1 million years ago.

Larry


I am assuming you're referring to the Andonites. If so, is it possible the Andonites is reference to homo erectus?

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 934
Location: Brooklyn NY
Riktare wrote:
One important realization in the scientific world helped by this discovery is that the physical characteristics that made our species human did not arise in one single evolutionary episode. Most of the fairly uniquely human physical traits first occurred at varying times in earlier species.

Humans aren’t so special after all: The fuzzy evolutionary boundaries of Homo sapiens
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/ ... sapiens/1/

What that may ultimately boil down to is essentially pan-species or non-local evolution toward some kind of common goal or pattern. In other words, something other than pure chance and natural selection is at work. (The overview of evolution described in TUB).



Do you think the Sangik races mark the beginning of homo sapien?

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:09 pm +0000
Posts: 1817
The Sangik races appeared 500,000 years after homo sapiens, the Andonic aboriginal race.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 934
Location: Brooklyn NY
lwatkins wrote:
The Sangik races appeared 500,000 years after homo sapiens, the Andonic aboriginal race.



okay thanks.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 924
brooklyn_born wrote:
I am assuming you're referring to the Andonites. If so, is it possible the Andonites is reference to homo erectus?


Scientists now are collectively undecided whether homo erectus is a different species from homo bergensis. The revelators tell us that the early Andonites were homo bergensis. Homo erectus appeared far earlier than one million years ago. The reasonable opinion based on TUB information is that some Andonites mixed with the older, presumably non-human species including homo erectus, and that's why there is a blurring of the two types in the fossil record.


Last edited by Riktare on Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:05 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 924
brooklyn_born wrote:
Do you think the Sangik races mark the beginning of homo sapien?


More or less, as far as the known fossil record according to the belief of most scientists. Remains of humans earlier than about 300,000 years ago tend to be very archaic physically. No older remains have yet been found and presented that could in any way be called "anatomically modern humans". What we (mainstream scientists) don't know is whether those archaic characteristics are due to interbreeding with Neanderthals or other non-homo sapiens lines. It's known from genetic testing that ancient North American Indians have a significant amount of Neanderthal SNP's just as do Europeans and Asians.

Here I'm using the term homo sapiens as mainstream scientists and the public do to refer to "anatomically modern humans". So the "human" lines according to the revelators would be homo bergensis, homo neandertal and homo sapiens.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 934
Location: Brooklyn NY
Riktare wrote:
brooklyn_born wrote:
I am assuming you're referring to the Andonites. If so, is it possible the Andonites is reference to homo erectus?


Scientists now are collectively undecided whether homo erectus is a different species from homo bergensis. The revelators tell us that the early Andonites were homo bergensis. Homo erectus appeared far earlier than one million years ago. The reasonable opinion based on TUB information is that some Andonites mixed with the older, presumably non-human species including homo erectus, and that's why there is a blurring of the two types in the fossil record.



understood

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 934
Location: Brooklyn NY
Riktare wrote:
brooklyn_born wrote:
Do you think the Sangik races mark the beginning of homo sapien?


More or less, as far as the known fossil record according to the belief of most scientists. Remains of humans earlier than about 300,000 years ago tend to be very archaic physically. No older remains have yet been found and presented that could in any way be called "anatomically modern humans". What we (mainstream scientists) don't know is whether those archaic characteristics are due to interbreeding with Neanderthals or other non-homo sapiens lines. It's known from genetic testing that ancient North American Indians have a significant amount of Neanderthal SNP's just as do Europeans and Asians.

Here I'm using the term homo sapiens as mainstream scientists and the public do to refer to "anatomically modern humans". So the "human" lines according to the revelators would be homo bergensis, homo neandertal and homo sapiens.


Very interesting.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 941
brooklyn_born wrote:
How does this discovery fit into TUB's narratives on the prehistory of humanity?




hard to say much since the fossil hasn't been dated yet...but considering this:

Quote:
65:3.4 (734.1) Even the loss of Andon and Fonta before they had offspring, though delaying human evolution, would not have prevented it. Subsequent to the appearance of Andon and Fonta and before the mutating human potentials of animal life were exhausted, there evolved no less than seven thousand favorable strains which could have achieved some sort of human type of development. And many of these better stocks were subsequently assimilated by the various branches of the expanding human species.


considering that "many" stocks were assimilated by "various" branches...and considering the improbabilities of fossil formation and discovery...it's possible that none of the homo fossils found dating to the times of Andon and Fonta and their progeny are what the UB would define as human.

another quote to consider:

Quote:
64:2.1 (719.4) 900,000 years ago the arts of Andon and Fonta and the culture of Onagar were vanishing from the face of the earth; culture, religion, and even flintworking were at their lowest ebb.

64:2.2 (719.5) These were the times when large numbers of inferior mongrel groups were arriving in England from southern France. These tribes were so largely mixed with the forest apelike creatures that they were scarcely human. They had no religion but were crude flintworkers and possessed sufficient intelligence to kindle fire.


so, despite modern scientific beliefs, neither skeletal type nor toolmaking can be used to identify humans


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 924
First humans arrived in Britain 250,000 years earlier than thought
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010 ... tone-tools

In more recent years the date has been refined to 980,000 years before present. The settlement was found along the ancient banks of The Thames as it flowed at that time just as the revelators have said.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 934
Location: Brooklyn NY
Makalu wrote:
so, despite modern scientific beliefs, neither skeletal type nor toolmaking can be used to identify humans



But according to TUB, shouldn't statements on the physical sciences presented in the text fall in line with scientific discoveries and not the other way around?

101:4.2 "... within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries."

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 941
brooklyn_born wrote:


But according to TUB, shouldn't statements on the physical sciences presented in the text fall in line with scientific discoveries and not the other way around?

101:4.2 "... within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries."


erm the quote doesn't describe any blanket rule...as it pertains to the scientific discovery of human ancestry, you would have to propose that you can physically detect the spirit of worship in a fossil. The UB is pretty clear that there were many dead-end branching "cousins" outside the line of our direct ancestry, and that is also what paleontologists have been discovering...so i really don't see any conflict.

just to clarify...the UB does cover five basic skeletal types:

Quote:
81:4.1 (904.5) As contact is made with the dawn of historic times, all of Eurasia, northern Africa, and the Pacific Islands is overspread with the composite races of mankind. And these races of today have resulted from a blending and reblending of the five basic human stocks of Urantia.

81:4.2 (904.6) Each of the Urantia races was identified by certain distinguishing physical characteristics. The Adamites and Nodites were long-headed; the Andonites were broad-headed. The Sangik races were medium-headed, with the yellow and blue men tending to broad-headedness. The blue races, when mixed with the Andonite stock, were decidedly broad-headed. The secondary Sangiks were medium- to long-headed.

81:4.3 (904.7) Although these skull dimensions are serviceable in deciphering racial origins, the skeleton as a whole is far more dependable. In the early development of the Urantia races there were originally five distinct types of skeletal structure:

81:4.4 (904.8) 1. Andonic, Urantia aborigines.

81:4.5 (904.9) 2. Primary Sangik, red, yellow, and blue.

81:4.6 (904.10) 3. Secondary Sangik, orange, green, and indigo.

81:4.7 (904.11) 4. Nodites, descendants of the Dalamatians.

81:4.8 (904.12) 5. Adamites, the violet race.

81:4.9 (904.13) As these five great racial groups extensively intermingled, continual mixture tended to obscure the Andonite type by Sangik hereditary dominance. The Lapps and the Eskimos are blends of Andonite and Sangik-blue races. Their skeletal structures come the nearest to preserving the aboriginal Andonic type. But the Adamites and the Nodites have become so admixed with the other races that they can be detected only as a generalized Caucasoid order.


but as you see there is overlap and "tendencies" within those five types in the simplified cranial description and you can expect the same from the skeletons of the many cousins.

perhaps i'm not sure what it is you are expecting from scientific discoveries and methods of sorting....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group