RE: H. denisova Shown to have Persisted Almost to the Younger Dryas
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
First, what a great article and hypothesis. The Nazis destroyed evidence, lots of evidence, the Islamists destroy lots of evidence these days and we can be sure that the Catholics went all into destroying evidence. I mean the Vatican up to this day owns a majority of the big optical telescopes, they are known to influence science.
Were they really all different species? (the old lumpers vs. splitters debate) There is a big incentive in finding a new species. The Hobbits (and often it is only a few bones that were found and often only of one individual) could have been just small humans. DNA analysis would reveal, but samples are rare. There is no natural law preventing a big intraspecies divergence, in fact, it is rather the norm than the exception.
This
What do you know about gnostics? :)
I would argue that gnosticism was the default but with the emergence of big empires/ politics we shiftet to a purely materalistic and mechanistic world view. When I say old I dont refer to Romans, Germans, Gauls, Skytians, Agyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Maya and so on. I mean before those civilisations emerged so the "Cradle of civilization", before humany entered the exponential virus like growth dynamic (which was 40,000 years ago). So 30,000 years of populatory succes are without any civilatory explanation. And even before 40,000 BC there are 300,000! years modern hunting humans inhabiting for example Germany (Schöninger Speere).
The mistake modern humans do is taking empires, expansion, pyramids and mega-structures as evidence for intelligence. No, fuck that shit, its only evidence for a master-slave dynamik. So before, humans simply operated different.
So you think Gnostics or old high culture with decentralization // pagans
Only managed to get those great architectures through slavery?
What if they were just the consequence of a non materialistic, also non religious premise?
yeah, I get your point and maybe even our bodies can be used in ways we don't know, and here is the thing: it would implement the most extreme censorship possible. It would literally mean that I or you have absolutely no idea about history. It is possible! This would mean that they are almost almighty, so why should the knowledge about gnostics (which is out there) not be part of their plan?
Those alternative truths and options are very often energy traps, did you already get in touch with a non-materialistic truth/technology?
I dont think they are almighty.
That's what they want you to believe/think.
That's why they might become almighty (if all do so // obey).
That's also what gnostics told.
Yeah gnosis survived. That doesnt mean they didnt try to delete it completely.
They genocided gnostics, cuz they just wont obey.
There are great quotes from gnostics last words. And I even see Giordano Bruno in a gnostic Light.
Tell me about censorship. Can you even talk about present? Let alone history..
I will point out that Gobekli Tepe is a refutation of your thesis that megalithic construction was the product of master/slave dynamic. There is no theory presently being advocated that contends even agriculture supported the builders of Gobekli Tepe, which all researchers seem to currently agree was built by egalitarian voluntary hunter/gatherer builders. This is confounding historians and politicians alike, who insist that society, particularly civil society, is only possible after centralization enabled overlords.
I absolutely do not agree that centralization is necessary to the highest degree of civilization and contend that the most impressive examples of architecture, megalithic structures, were all produced by decentralized, egalitarian societies.
Also, unless you consider wage slavery to be actual slavery, the use of the term master is problematic in this context. I am more guilty than most of misusing the term to refer to political manipulation, so I do not levy this charge out of ignorance of my own mischaracterization, but as commiseration.
Great Info :)
Cladistics is in flux and the term species is at the heart of contention. The old definition that included exclusivity of breeding is impossible to support because hybrids exist, and likely the most common mechanism of speciation, although the Darwinian model doesn't support this.
Something along the lines of 'commonly exclusive breeding unit' is presently the contentious concept often put forward, but I prefer to ignore that metric, as it's clearly more observed in the breach, and focus on genotypic and phenotypic traits specific to populations.
I am a splitter myself, as such differences are conserved for evolutionary reasons, and quite significant differences in behaviour are induced by quite minor differences in phenotype, as well as being phenotypic differences themselves, despite we are largely unaware of mere behavioural genetic differences, and only becoming aware of them in the more extreme cases, such as 2R MAOA.
Hybridization is a core mechanism of speciation, and Dr. Eugene McCarthy (macroevolution.net), the author of 'The Handbook of Avian Hybrids' is a strong source of evidence in this regard, which well conforms to the fossil record, which gradualism does not.
As to few and minor bones enabling informed guesses as to speciel differences, The Iguanodon is a marvelous example of how this is both problematic, and resolved over time by adding material through new discoveries. The jaw bone found in the cave above mentioned remains impossible to prove is Denisovan with DNA, but the teeth found in Siberia show that Denisovans were of almost inhuman stature, perhaps averaging 7 feet in height, which is supported by legends of giants and trolls found in every culture globally, including American natives, which is also supported by claims giant skeletons were concealed by archeologists, and this jibes with my own, and commonly held, observations that our history is being deliberately concealed.
I am not claiming that any of this is probative, but merely that it is evidence which should not be ignored. We see often in the annals of scientific discussions that bullying, logical fallacies, and outright criminal fraud have been used in attempts to control the political narratives seeking to use claims of scientific support as means of controlling political power, and for this reason we should endeavor to strongly favor claims that do not feature such attempts to deceive.
I feel we should give claims we were and are different species broad allowance, particularly in view of such large phenotypic divergences as are suggested by fossil remains, and the fluidity of the definition of species. The political charade used to conceal evidence of our evolutionary divergences is perhaps the most compelling evidence we are different of all.
Thanks!