Some Anthropologists believe that humans are descended from two or more related populations of Ape-like ancestors. This is entirely possible. Gorillas and Chimps are very similar biologically, and it turns out that Chimpanzees divide into geographic sub-populations that are very different from one another. Bonobo's have even been classified as a seperate species. The same is true for the Orangutangs. Biologists are having trouble dealing with the complexity of populations that are different from one another and yet can interbreed, but that was the probable case with our ancestors some 3 million years ago.
At any rate, one hypothesis is that there was a primarily vegetarian line of hominids that first began to evolve living on the ground, and that these interbred with a more culturally variable and omnivorous "cousin line" and produced the line that eventually evolved into Humans. The vegetarian line lasted a long time ago and died out years later. They would have resembled long legged Gorillas, or big-foot. They were initially well adapted to living on the ground but could also take to the trees. They had evolved "locking knees" which allowed them to stand up a long time. Their cousins hadn't. Those cousins evolved into Chimps.
Chimps are the smartest apes out there [other than us]. They are omnivores, behaviorally variable, learn from experience, use tools, have complex communication, and make war on each other. It's no wonder that anthropologists think we might have borrowed something from an offshoot of that stem. We are way more like Chimps than we like to admit. If they could sing and talk we'd be in trouble -- or they would.
We humans have legs for walking, a digestive system designed for omnivorous eating, and are very clever. Making war on one another seems to be part of our territorial instinct and mating ritual. Can we get past this? Can we survive?
Chris
Posted by cholte at November 28, 2006 07:56 AMCris:
The conventional idea that man evolved from apes or other primates has been generally accepted in academic circles and with the public at large for quite some time now.
There are people out there that have a differinf idea, based on evidence that has been shunned by the academic establishment. Michael Cremo, author of "Forbidden Archeology," and "Human Devolution," follows the vedic idea that modern human beings did not emerge from apes a few million years ago, but have have existed here on earth for hundreds of millions of years.
This is not some Scientology idea of humans being being dumped here from other parts of the galaxy, but a theory that is alluded to in the Vedas and in Buddhism with it's description of the kalpas and Buddhas before Shakyamuni. This idea of high human culture, intellect, and development is not devoid of evidence either. One must be aware that any contrary evidence to the established orthodoxy of primate to man evolution would get the bum's rush in academia.
I engaged in a lively correspondence with Michael Cremo a couple of years back, explaining to him the kalpa system structure and the sutras that describe pre-Shakyamuni Buddhism and society. It is most convenient to ascribe Buddhist/Vedic history and cosmology as metaphorical, but IMHO, that would be the easy way out.
One thing is abundantly clear to me. Although it appears we are scientifically advanced, being able to look back into the beginning of time of our universe, our era is nearly as backward as the days of Shakyamuni when one thinks about it. Our understanding of our planet and the universe is being revised everyday. In fact, we don't know much for sure about our history or the cosmos - we just think we know.
"Forbidden Archeology" and "Human Devolution" present compelling counter evidence to the establishment certainity that human history may be far more consistent with the Vedas and Buddhist Sutras than Western anthropology.
Charles
Posted by: Charles at November 28, 2006 07:36 PMOccams razor says that when presented with a complex theory which doesn't fit the facts versus a simpler theory which does fit the facts, one should go with the simpler theory. There is very little evidence of civilizations prior to about 10,000 years ago. Of course naysayers could say that the evidence has simply worn away, but civilizations leave traces.
My own hypothesis for the Dinosaurs is that they evolved an intelligent species and then lost their lease on the Earth. But that is based on a David Brinn series of books (or the Hitch-hikers guide to the Universe) and not any credible evidence.
My point in discussing archeology was to talk about human behavior now. The peaceful uprighting vegetarian ape seems to have mixed it up with the violent war-fighting sneaky one and we are descended from the mix. We seem to have a deep seated need to make war on one another, to play games, and to try to upstage and undermine one another. That is an allegory for the present time. I'm hoping and praying we aren't done evolving.
De-evolution makes a myth too. To me it is a less attractive one. In a sense it is true. The evolution from more "Robust" to more "Gracile" humans is in a sense a "de-evolution" of our physical traits in favor of bigger brains and more socialization.
This need to literally believe the stories of Buddhism and Hinduism is disturbing. It is as much "abusive mythologizing" as any "Creation Science" efforts by mythophile fanatic Christians. I'm comfortable with being related to Chimps and Gorillas. We can learn from them.
Chris
Posted by: chris at December 2, 2006 02:55 PM