Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:56 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: First Humans
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:47 am +0000
Posts: 171
From the UB:
Quote:
62:5.1 From the year A.D. 1934 back to the birth of the first two human beings is just 993,419 years.


From http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/25/8290303/father-humans-239000-years-ago-iceland-genome
Quote:
A 2013 study from the University of Arizona estimated that the age of the father of all humans is about 340,000 years old. But the Icelandic analysis indicates he probably lived about 239,000 years ago — a number that’s much closer to the estimate for humanity’s most recent common female ancestor, who lived about 200,000 years ago.


The estimates appear to be heading in the wrong direction, according to the UB.

_________________
"If a man places a gulf between himself and God, this gulf will bring fear. But if a man finds the support of the Invisible and Ineffable, he is free from fear." --from the Taittiriya Upanishad


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First Humans
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 9:58 am +0000
Posts: 398
Location: Boulder
These dates depend on the definition of "human". The definitions have changed over time. Is it a physiological thing, like bone structures or bipedalism? Or is it a behavioural thing? Does it have to do with being rational? Control of fire? Is the defining difference the capacity for abstract thinking? Tool usage, perhaps?

The debate is ongoing and evolving as we discover more about our history.

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human we read:
Quote:
Modern humans (Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens) are the only extant members of the hominin clade, a branch of great apes characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion; manual dexterity and increased tool use; and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies. Early hominids, such as the australopithecines whose brains and anatomy are in many ways more similar to non-human apes, are less often thought of or referred to as "human" than hominids of the genus Homo. Some of the latter used fire, occupied much of Eurasia, and gave rise to anatomically modern Homo sapiens in Africa about 200,000 years ago. They began to exhibit evidence of behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago...

The following is a blast from the past....

At http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Native_Ame ... ristianity we read:
Quote:
Major reasons offered by Europeans for why Indians were not human:
1. They seemed incapable of embracing European notions of reason;
2. Their passions and brutality made them only slightly better than animals;
3. They could not master the “Arts of civil Life & Humanity.”
4. Their sexuality was "animalistic" (as compared to the plain-old missionary position procreative sex that Christian missionaries held up as an ideal)
5. They chose to show a little skin, and not cover their bodies like "decent" God-fearing people.

One needs to ask who is doing the defining, and when, and for what purpose?

So when The Urantia Book uses the word "human", is it using the word as the scientists of the Thirties would have used the word, or does the text imply a different definition that can only be derived by doing a comprehensive textual analysis?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First Humans
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:47 am +0000
Posts: 171
Good points and I had considered that the definition of "human" was definitely a mitigating factor. The UB authors appear to include physical as well as mental, emotional and spiritual development in their definition. Having not read the actual scientific paper referenced in the article, I don't really know what definition they may have used, if any. My suspicion is that it would probably skew mainly to the physical and trivialize or ignore the others the UB mentions. Physical development is probably the most easily quantifiable by science. The others have varying levels of increased difficulty.

Quote:
62:5.2 These two remarkable creatures were true human beings. They possessed perfect human thumbs, as had many of their ancestors, while they had just as perfect feet as the present-day human races. They were walkers and runners, not climbers; the grasping function of the big toe was absent, completely absent. When danger drove them to the treetops, they climbed just like the humans of today would. They would climb up the trunk of a tree like a bear and not as would a chimpanzee or a gorilla, swinging up by the branches.

62:5.3 These first human beings (and their descendants) reached full maturity at twelve years of age and possessed a potential life span of about seventy-five years.

62:5.4 Many new emotions early appeared in these human twins. They experienced admiration for both objects and other beings and exhibited considerable vanity. But the most remarkable advance in emotional development was the sudden appearance of a new group of really human feelings, the worshipful group, embracing awe, reverence, humility, and even a primitive form of gratitude. Fear, joined with ignorance of natural phenomena, is about to give birth to primitive religion.

62:5.5 Not only were such human feelings manifested in these primitive humans, but many more highly evolved sentiments were also present in rudimentary form. They were mildly cognizant of pity, shame, and reproach and were acutely conscious of love, hate, and revenge, being also susceptible to marked feelings of jealousy.

_________________
"If a man places a gulf between himself and God, this gulf will bring fear. But if a man finds the support of the Invisible and Ineffable, he is free from fear." --from the Taittiriya Upanishad


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First Humans
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 672
This most recent common male ancestor study only says that a certain small group of males living today (the study sample group) all share DNA passed down from one man...the assumption that therefore all humans living today would yield the same result is just an assumption. The main thing to understand is that the studies don't say that this one particular man was the only person living at the time (and therefore the first human)....they only say that no other mans DNA alive at that time was passed along into the sample group (meaning the patriarchal lineage of fathers having sons was broken at some point between now and then).


I hope this helps to clarify what they are doing.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First Humans
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:09 pm +0000
Posts: 1817
The tribe from which Andon and Fonta came used tools and fire but they were not human.

Andon and Fonta recognized that their parents loved them; their non-human ancestors expressed love as humans do.

Mid-mammals walked upright, they were precursors to the primate line from which Andon and Fonta evolved. Although TUB doesn't say, the skeletons of both mid-mammals and that primate line could have been indistinguishable from modern human beings since human, according to TUB, is not a physical condition but instead is a condition where mind has evolved to the point that all seven adjutant mind spirits are engaged (worship and wisdom are functioning), and volitional free will choices can be made. These conditions were met when Andon and Fonta were eleven years old. For how many millions of years prior to the birth of Andon and Fonta had human-like animals inhabited the earth? We don't know, but we do know the precise time when true human beings appeared... From the year A.D. 1934 back to the birth of the first two human beings is just 993,419 years. This is not a date that can be validated by science.

Science can say human beings walked the earth 3 million years ago, or 600,000 years ago. Their findings are based on physical findings from caves and stone. These discoveries are uncommon and unique; they point to facts but they don't disclose reality. For example, anthropologists are concentrating their research into early humans in Africa; TUB explains that human beings originated in China. This may eventually be validated by science, but perhaps it never will be.

There were at least two strains of human life developing, Andonic descendants and Andonic inheritance mixed with mid-mammal and primate bloodlines. Andon and Fonta looked like modern human beings. What we think of as cavemen were Andonic descendants who had bred with animal-like cousins.

Larry


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot]


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group