Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,083 comments
  • 1,007,193 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 616 30.5%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 18.2%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,035 51.3%

  • Total voters
    2,018
If you'd like to go on a long, slow, patient learning process of exploration with me, we can start over here: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/ancient-history-ancient-mystery.369760/page-3#post-12304755
But first you'll want to give me a "like" or two.

I'll like it if you provide relevant information. That post you linked to contains nothing about Denisovans, let alone them being 7 foot tall and having math, music and astronomy, nor autistic consciousnesses, whatever those might be.

It sounds interesting at first glance, but basic Google-fu suggests that there's only a handful of fossils that led to the discovery of the Denisovans at all. To go from that to detailed analysis of their culture and consciousness seems like another Dotini fantasy, but I thought I'd give you the opportunity to at least add a little more to the discussion before I accused you of pulling the whole thing out of your back passage.
 
I'll like it if you provide relevant information. That post you linked to contains nothing about Denisovans, let alone them being 7 foot tall and having math, music and astronomy, nor autistic consciousnesses, whatever those might be.

It sounds interesting at first glance, but basic Google-fu suggests that there's only a handful of fossils that led to the discovery of the Denisovans at all. To go from that to detailed analysis of their culture and consciousness seems like another Dotini fantasy, but I thought I'd give you the opportunity to at least add a little more to the discussion before I accused you of pulling the whole thing out of your back passage.

The sheer size of the finger, jawbone and teeth indicate a robust being over 7 feet tall.
Jewelery was sophisticated, including high speed drilled holes. 70,000 yers old.
Very slender bone needles indicate tailored clothing.
Domesticated horse?.
Used whistles and flutes,
Advanced pressure flaking stone tools begins with Denisovans
Lunar movements, eclipse cycles indicated by artifacts found.
Used bird symbols in shamanistic practices, possible focus on certain stars and constellations. Sky religion indicated.
Genome spread SE from Central Asia into India, Indonesia and Americas, but also Finland.
Genes relate to autistic savant mindset, math skills.
Their ancestry goes back much further than Homo Sapiens. May relate to Homo Heidelbergensis very large, robust hominid.
 
Last edited:
Could be worse, at least it's on topic (albeit rather brief) and not something along the lines of "Kaz should put God in GT Sport, but not before tracks!!!!!!1!" or "God is the reason my driver rating fell today and gave me penalties."
 
laughslap.gif
 
The sheer size of the finger, jawbone and teeth indicate a robust being over 7 feet tall.

And requires assumptions about physiology that do not necessarily apply. You cannot extrapolate height from a single bone if you've never seen an example of what a full size skeleton looks like.

Jewelery was sophisticated, including high speed drilled holes. 70,000 yers old.

Quite interesting. However, found in the same layer as Denisovan bones only. It's indicative that it may have been made by the Denisovans, it's hardly conclusive. Given that the mineral had to come from some distance away, the link to the Denisovans is tenuous.

Very slender bone needles indicate tailored clothing.

Great?

Domesticated horse?.

Emphasis on the question mark. They found a genome with a partial match for a certain sub-group of modern horses. To go from that to domestication is an enormous leap.

Used whistles and flutes,

Great?

Advanced pressure flaking stone tools begins with Denisovans

You mean that it's the earliest examples observed.

Lunar movements, eclipse cycles indicated by artifacts found.

I can't find anything relating to this.

Used bird symbols in shamanistic practices, possible focus on certain stars and constellations. Sky religion indicated.

Or this.

Genome spread SE from Central Asia into India, Indonesia and Americas, but also Finland.

What does this have to do with the price of fish?

Genes relate to autistic savant mindset, math skills.

What? I need a source for this.

This would seem to suggest a massive misunderstanding of how genes work on the part of whoever came up with it. There isn't a gene for being a autistic savant or for math skills. Genetics is far more complex than that, and let's add in the fact that in order to make this assumption one has to assume that how these genes express themselves in modern humans is how they would be expressed in Denisovans.

Their ancestry goes back much further than Homo Sapiens. May relate to Homo Heidelbergensis very large, robust hominid.

No, their ancestry goes back to the common ancestors of Homo Sapens and Homo Neandertalensis. Given the assumption that they were capable of breeding with Homo Sapiens, they're more like a racial sub-group than a separate species.

Do we say that the ancestry of Africans goes back much further than that of Europeans? Not really, because it's a misunderstanding of how ancestry works.

And if they interbred with Homo Sapiens, then their ancestors are also our ancestors.

tim-and-eric-mind-blown.gif
 
Most people are so degenerated they dont even recognise their environment. They never would be able to recognise that there is something much more bigger than their icecream or burger. :ouch:
 
Most people are so degenerated they dont even recognise their environment. They never would be able to recognise that there is something much more bigger than their icecream or burger. :ouch:

Most people are so degenerated that they can't tell fantasy from reality. They never would be able to recognise that just because something isn't understood doesn't make their fantasy the truth.
 
@Imari

From: https://www.livescience.com/22836-genome-extinct-humans-denisovans.html
Denisovans began to diverge from modern humans in terms of DNA sequences about 800,000 years ago. Among the genetic differences between Denisovans and modern humans are likely changes that "are essential for what made modern human history possible, the very rapid development of human technology and culture that allowed our species to become so numerous, spread around the whole world, and actually dominate large parts of the biosphere," Pääbo said.

Eight of these genetic changes have to do with brain function and brain development, "the connectivity in the brain of synapses between nerve cells function, and some of them have to do with genes that, for example, can cause autism when these genes are mutated," Pääbo added.

It makes a lot of sense to speculate that what makes us special in the world relative to the Denisovans and Neanderthals "is about connectivity in the brain," Pääbo said. "Neanderthals had just as large brains as modern humans had — relative to body size, they even had a bit larger brains. Yet there is, of course, something special in my mind that happens with modern humans. It's sort of this extremely rapid technological cultural development that comes, large societal systems, and so on. So it makes sense that, well, what pops up is sort of connectivity in the brain."

The fact that differences are seen between modern humans and Denisovans in terms of autism-linked genes is especially interesting, because whole books have been written "suggesting that autism may affect sort of a trait in human cognition that is also crucial for modern humans, for how we put ourselves in the shoes of others, manipulate others, lie, develop politics and big societies and so on," Pääbo said.





Good sized molar - from juvenile female?

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAzMC81NTYvb3JpZ2luYWwvbW9sYXItMTIwODMwLmpwZWc=

Scientists have just completed sequencing the entire genome of a species of archaic humans called Denisovans. The fossils, which consist of a finger bone and two molars, from
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    149.6 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
Among the genetic differences between Denisovans and modern humans are likely changes that "are essential for what made modern human history possible, the very rapid development of human technology and culture that allowed our species to become so numerous, spread around the whole world, and actually dominate large parts of the biosphere," Pääbo said.

Eight of these genetic changes have to do with brain function and brain development, "the connectivity in the brain of synapses between nerve cells function, and some of them have to do with genes that, for example, can cause autism when these genes are mutated," Pääbo added.


It makes a lot of sense to speculate that what makes us special in the world relative to the Denisovans and Neanderthals "is about connectivity in the brain," Pääbo said. "Neanderthals had just as large brains as modern humans had — relative to body size, they even had a bit larger brains. Yet there is, of course, something special in my mind that happens with modern humans. It's sort of this extremely rapid technological cultural development that comes, large societal systems, and so on. So it makes sense that, well, what pops up is sort of connectivity in the brain."


It seems to me what they're saying is not that Denisovans were smarter or anything. Rather that the genetic differences between Homo Sapiens and Homo Denisova are what has allowed Homo Sapiens to be so successful. The problem with the Denisovans is that they weren't out there with math, astronomy and the like. This guy is saying it's because they lacked connectivity in their brain that Homo Sapiens have, presumably that allow them to do math etc.

The fact that differences are seen between modern humans and Denisovans in terms of autism-linked genes is especially interesting, because whole books have been written "suggesting that autism may affect sort of a trait in human cognition that is also crucial for modern humans, for how we put ourselves in the shoes of others, manipulate others, lie, develop politics and big societies and so on," Pääbo said.

Again, this isn't suggesting that the Denisovans had autism or an "autistic consciousness". It's suggesting that those genes which can be related to autism in modern humans are part of the difference between Homo D and Homo S. It sounds to me like he's suggesting that Homo S are more "autistic" than Homo D, as that behaviour (in limited amounts) is fairly crucial to our societal structures.

Scientists have just completed sequencing the entire genome of a species of archaic humans called Denisovans. The fossils, which consist of a finger bone and two molars, from

I know you're quoting so I'm not criticising you here, but it seems like a reach to me to claim that one has sequenced the entire genome of a species from a finger bone and two molars. If some scientist sequenced the genome of you, me and Charlie Chaplin I hardly think it could be described as the genome of the entire species. They've sequenced the entire genome of three individuals (well, one in that paper but I assume they've done the rest by now). What if they were abnormal? What if that cave was where the Denisovans locked up their prehistoric equivalents of Ralph Wiggum?

There's interesting stuff here, but there's so little information that there's only a few areas that are scientifically justified to be making claims for. Which is why the papers surrounding it are pretty solidly in the "let's gather information" phase. They're mapping the genomes, the cave, the artifacts, the geology, so that if and when more information turns up they're prepared to put it all together into context. There's stuff to be said about how Homo Denisova as a species/sub-species fits into the Homo lineage, but trying to interpret stuff about individuals and how they lived and thought seems like a half dozen bridges too far to me. You just can't do that based on a finger bone and two teeth.

This is what pop science loves, something where there isn't enough information and so they can make up whatever they like in order to drive clicks. Svante Paabo is pretty highly acclaimed within his field, so I suspect that it's LiveScience selectively quoting him to make it more exciting than it would otherwise be. You don't make clickbait out of equivocating statements.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/222.full

I assume this is the paper that article was based around. It's far less categorical in it's statements than that article would make it sound. It provides data and some interpretation, but tends to acknowledge that reading phenotype from a genome is not exactly guaranteed even in Homo S. At least in the few bits I skimmed through. There's less than 50 papers out there that I could find quickly, most of them around the genome (unsurprisingly, it's the area with the most potential for analysis). But I think if you read the papers themselves rather than pop science outlets you'll find the story a little different.

We can't recommend piracy on this site, but there are ways to view most papers for free if you wish. Google Alexandra Elbakyan. As a scientist I pay my fair share of money to journals, but the prices these days are insane unless you're a company. And locking the general public away from scientific discoveries does no one any favours; it only makes science more insular and obscure.
 
@Imari

Maybe not yet the rock-solid proof everyone wants, but...."indications". Indications perhaps sufficient, in connection with other evidences yet to be fully presented, upon which to hazard an opinion in an opinion forum.


who_are_the_denisovans_and_how.jpg


100,000 year old skulls may belong to elusive Denisovans

Ann Gibbons
Science Magazine
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 14:00 UTC


Since their discovery in 2010, the extinct ice age humans called Denisovans have been known only from bits of DNA, taken from a sliver of bone in the Denisova Cave in Siberia, Russia. Now, two partial skulls from eastern China are emerging as prime candidates for showing what these shadowy people may have looked like.

In a paper published this week in Science, a Chinese-U.S. team presents 105,000- to 125,000-year-old fossils they call "archaic Homo." They note that the bones could be a new type of human or an eastern variant of Neandertals. But although the team avoids the word, "everyone else would wonder whether these might be Denisovans," which are close cousins to Neandertals, says paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London.

The new skulls "definitely" fit what you'd expect from a Denisovan, adds paleoanthropologist María Martinón-Torres of the University College London-"something with an Asian flavor but closely related to Neandertals." But because the investigators have not extracted DNA from the skulls, "the possibility remains a speculation."

Back in December 2007, archaeologist Zhan-Yang Li of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) in Beijing was wrapping up his field season in the town of Lingjing, near the city of Xuchang in the Henan province in China (about 4000 kilometers from the Denisova Cave), when he spotted some beautiful quartz stone tools eroding out of the sediments. He extended the field season for two more days to extract them. On the very last morning, his team discovered a yellow piece of rounded skull cap protruding from the muddy floor of the pit, in the same layer where he had found the tools.





The team went back for another six seasons and managed to find 45 more fossils that fit together into two partial crania. The skulls lack faces and jaws. But they include enough undistorted pieces for the team to note a close resemblance to Neandertals. One cranium has a huge brain volume of 1800 cubic centimeters-on the upper end for both Neandertals and moderns-plus a Neandertal-like hollow in a bone on the back of its skull. Both crania have prominent brow ridges and inner ear bones that resemble those of Neandertals but are distinct from our own species, Homo sapiens.

However, the crania also differ from the western Neandertals of Europe and the Middle East. They have thinner brow ridges and less robust skull bones, similar to early modern humans and some other Asian fossils. "They are not Neandertals in the full sense," says co-author Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis in Missouri.


© Xiujie Wu
Virtual reconstructions of the Xuchang 1 and 2 human crania, superimposed on the archeological site where they were discovered.
Nor are the new fossils late-occurring representatives of other archaic humans such as H. erectus or H. heidelbergensis, two species that were ancestral to Neandertals and modern humans. The skulls are too lightly built and their brains are too big, according to the paper.

The skulls do share traits with some other fossils in east Asia dating from 600,000 to 100,000 years ago that also defy easy classification, says paleoanthropologist Rick Potts of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. Those features include a broad cranial base where the skull sits atop the spinal column and a low, flat plateau along the top of the skull. The Lingjing crania also resemble another archaic early human skull that dates to 100,000 years ago from Xujiayao in China's Nihewan Basin 850 kilometers to the north, according to co-author Xiu-Jie Wu, a paleoanthropologist at IVPP.

Wu thinks those fossils and the new skulls "are a kind of unknown or new archaic human that survived on in East Asia to 100,000 years ago." Based on similarities to some other Asian fossils, she and her colleagues think the new crania represent regional members of a population in eastern Asia who passed local traits down through the generations in what the researchers call regional continuity. At the same time, resemblances to both Neandertals and modern humans suggest that these archaic Asians mixed at least at low levels with other archaic people.

To other experts, the Denisovans fit that description: They are roughly dated to approximately 100,000 to 50,000 years ago, and their DNA shows that after hundreds of thousands of years of isolation, they mixed both with Neandertals and early modern humans. "This is exactly what the DNA tells us when one tries to make sense of the Denisova discoveries," says paleoanthropologist Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. "These Chinese fossils are in the right place at the right time, with the right features."

But Wu and Trinkaus say they can't put fossils in a group defined only by DNA. "I have no idea what a Denisovan is," Trinkaus says. "Neither does anybody else. It's a DNA sequence."

The only way to truly identify a Denisovan is with DNA. IVPP paleogeneticist Qiaomei Fu says she tried to extract DNA from three pieces of the Xuchang fossils but without success.

Regardless of the new skulls' precise identity, "China is rewriting the story of human evolution," Martinón-Torres says. "I find this tremendously exciting!"
 
There is no claim here that cranial/brain size per se equates to superior intelligence; whatever that is and however it is defined is not totally clear. My primary personal opinion as previously stated in relation to Denisovans is...

I think homo sapiens is not well suited to believe in god or have religions. I think the species that bequeathed (cursed?) us with their beliefs were, at the time, larger, stronger, more adept at math, music and astronomy than us, but also afflicted with what we would call autism, a defective state of consciousness.

Firstly, my apologies for my judgmental characterization of autism. But DNA, brain wiring and autism are a significant part of what little science so far there is on Denisovans. Their entire species was only recently discovered in Siberia, and their story is in only our first chapter or two.
 
There's a wilful misreading (or misrepresentation) of a lot of the quoted material, but above all is the notion that humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) developed beyond Denisovans (Homo sapiens denisova) because they had autism and we didn't. It's literally the exact opposite way round and even says that in the quoted article.

Autistic characteristics are among the key traits that elevated humans and thrust us along the path to where we are today.
 
There's a wilful misreading (or misrepresentation) of a lot of the quoted material, but above all is the notion that humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) developed beyond Denisovans (Homo sapiens denisova) because they had autism and we didn't. It's literally the exact opposite way round and even says that in the quoted article.

Autistic characteristics are among the key traits that elevated humans and thrust us along the path to where we are today.

If I'm misreading, my further apologies. Please, do clearly cite the way and place I'm misreading. But I deny any willful misleading, knowing that is an infraction of the AUP.

Bearing in mind there is a lot of material we have not looked at yet, I will clarify my opinion on the autism issue:

Firstly, Denisovans didn't develop beyond us. We have now developed way beyond their highest development, and they are long extinct. But at the time, 40,000 to 70,000 years ago, they seem to have had marginally more development in certain areas.

Secondly, the Science articles use the term autism; it's not my choice. I would have preferred to say they had different brain wiring, a different state of consciousness, one that was more responsive to imaginary concepts such as gods and religions than homo sapiens at the time. My opinion is they developed the first Death Cult Sky God religion (migration of souls after death to certain places in the sky) that found its way over the gulf of time and upheaval (Pleistocene/Holocene boundary) to modern humans.
 
Last edited:
@Imari

Maybe not yet the rock-solid proof everyone wants, but...."indications". Indications perhaps sufficient, in connection with other evidences yet to be fully presented, upon which to hazard an opinion in an opinion forum.

Certainly not rock-solid proof. In fact the cited article says it's nothing more than pure speculation.
 
Certainly not rock-solid proof. In fact the cited article says it's nothing more than pure speculation.
Sure, but consider that these speculations are from scientists and are being published in a formal science publication, and in this case a good measure of hard science in the DNA research. I see it as acceptable, even desirable, for the lay person to form an opinion buttressed by scientific speculation. It is certainly not worst basis upon which to form an opinion! What is the big difference between an opinion and speculation? Allowing for my personal shortcomings, am I making generally outrageous or abhorrent claims? Or do they seem acceptable and justified in a general opinion forum concerning the origin of deities and religions in our culture? At the least @Imari has said he found the discussion interesting.
 
Last edited:
Sure, but consider that these speculations are from scientists and are being published in a formal science publication, and in this case a good measure of hard science in the DNA research. I see it as acceptable, even desirable, for the lay person to form an opinion buttressed by scientific speculation. It is certainly not worst basis upon which to form an opinion! What is the big difference between an opinion and speculation? Allowing for my personal shortcomings, am I making generally outrageous or abhorrent claims? Or do they seem acceptable and justified in a general opinion forum concerning the origin of deities and religions in our culture? At the least @Imari has said he found the discussion interesting.

Oh sure, informed speculation and opinions are just fine and dandy. It just seems to me that you're coming across as saying "probably Denisovan" rather than "maybe Denisovan". The image of the three skulls in particular I find to be particularly disingenuous, given that it clearly shows a jaw bone which they did not find. I have to wonder what other parts of the illustration are also just made-up.
 
Oh sure, informed speculation and opinions are just fine and dandy. It just seems to me that you're coming across as saying "probably Denisovan" rather than "maybe Denisovan". The image of the three skulls in particular I find to be particularly disingenuous, given that it clearly shows a jaw bone which they did not find. I have to wonder what other parts of the illustration are also just made-up.
The photo came with the Science article, it was not my doing.
But speaking of jawbones, here is the Penghu jawbone.

Of the other known archaic robust species, Neanderthal and Heidelbergensis, it seems obvious to me that Denisovan, like an Asian neanderthal with a genome connecting to the Pacific Islands and Americas, is an interesting fit to the question of a lost race of "giants" influencing native legends and belief systems around the world.

sn-fossilH.jpg


Ancient human jawbone surfaces off coast of Taiwan

By Ann GibbonsJan. 27, 2015 , 1:30 PM

A fisherman who pulled in his nets 25 kilometers off the coast of Taiwan got a surprising catch: the lower jawbone of an ancient human. The bone (pictured)—dredged from a watery grave in the Penghu Channel—is robust and sports unusually large molars and premolars, suggesting that it once belonged to an archaic member of our genus Homo, according to a report published online today in Nature Communications. The Penghu jaw and teeth most closely resemble a partial skull of H. erectus from Longtan Cave in Hexian on the mainland of China, as well as earlier H. erectusfossils. Although it wasn’t possible to date the jawbone directly, it was found with an extinct species of hyena that suggests this archaic human was alive in the past 400,000 years and, most likely, in the past 200,000 years. If so, the find suggests that H. erectus persisted late in Asia, or that there were several other types of humans still alive at the time in this region. It might even be a member of the mysterious Denisovan people, a close relative of Neandertals known only from a finger bone and two teeth from Denisova Cave in Russia and its ancient DNA. But “if Penghu is indeed a long-awaited Denisovan jawbone, it looks more primitive than I would have expected,” says paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, who was not a co-author on the paper. And that question can only be answered if researchers can get DNA from Penghu.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/ancient-human-jawbone-surfaces-coast-taiwan
 
Last edited:
@Imari

Maybe not yet the rock-solid proof everyone wants, but...."indications". Indications perhaps sufficient, in connection with other evidences yet to be fully presented, upon which to hazard an opinion in an opinion forum.

I'm not claiming that you need rock-solid proof, so let's put that little strawman aside. But I think it's fair to say that there's somewhere between pure speculation (the aliens that live on Charon are silicon-based organisms with 5 limbs arranged in such a way that each is perpendicular to all the others) and solidly observable fact (da apple bonks Newton on da noggin) where it becomes reasonable to start talking about these things as if they might be real and true.

I feel like you're getting a little too far towards Charon with your Denisovan statements. And things like your "autistic consciousness" are based on a misreading of a pop science article of a paper that said nothing of the sort. Maybe you wanna reel it back a little?

As I frequently say to the God botherers in this thread; sometimes it's OK to admit that you don't know something. Or that something isn't known by humans at all.

As far as those skulls, they haven't even confirmed that they're Denisovan. They're at or about the correct age, but that age range is enormous. They could be Homo D, or they could be some already known species, or something else new altogether. As above, it's OK not to know. Stop trying to fit information into categories without any justification just so that you can build a narrative.

Firstly, my apologies for my judgmental characterization of autism. But DNA, brain wiring and autism are a significant part of what little science so far there is on Denisovans. Their entire species was only recently discovered in Siberia, and their story is in only our first chapter or two.

The little science about autism and the Denisovans shows that they're less autistic than Homo Sapiens. This isn't matching up with what you're saying about them being afflicted with autism.

If I'm misreading, my further apologies. Please, do clearly cite the way and place I'm misreading. But I deny any willful misleading, knowing that is an infraction of the AUP.

Well, I pointed it out in your quote from LiveScience.

My opinion is they developed the first Death Cult Sky God religion (migration of souls after death to certain places in the sky) that found its way over the gulf of time and upheaval (Pleistocene/Holocene boundary) to modern humans.

Anything to support this even a little bit?

Allowing for my personal shortcomings, am I making generally outrageous or abhorrent claims?

Not abhorrent, but outrageous certainly. You've got a ratio of about one mildly plausible idea to a dozen insane ones.

At the least @Imari has said he found the discussion interesting.

Homo Denisova is interesting, but your wilful misinterpretation of scientific data is more frustrating than anything. You're clearly intelligent enough, but your need to create fanciful stories from the faintest of parts and pass them off as factual statements is very irritating. You appear incapable of absorbing facts without trying to weave it into some grand narrative for which you will be exalted as the first person to figure this out.

It's hard to have a discussion when you know that someone will mix relatively solid facts with rampant speculation with no indication as to which is which. It means that either I have to do all the work to fact-check each statement myself, which is annoying because I know that you have the basis for your statements to hand and could easily include it, or it means that I have to largely disregard anything you say as rampant speculation. Which is unfortunate, because you have legitimately interesting things to say sometimes, but your refusal to identify what is fact and what is fantasy makes you annoying as 🤬 to try and have a real discussion with.

Speculation is fine, but if you're going to then at least have the decency to label it as such. Let's take the example that started this off.

There are indications 7 foot tall Denisovans developed math, music and astronomy before homo sapiens. But they had a different sort of (autistic) consciousness than we. It proved to be self-destructive. They had visions which persuaded them they needed to follow the path of souls to the stars.

This is almost all speculation. The Denisovans may or may not have been physically tall, it's impossible to tell for sure from a finger bone, two teeth and a genome. You haven't shown any evidence for math or astronomy, and a flute or whistle does not mean that they made music. They did not have an autistic consciousness, Homo Sapiens has an autistic consciousness. You haven't shown any evidence for visions or belief in souls on a path to the stars.

The only thing for which there's even an indication is that the Denisovans were physically large, and that's based on very little information and at a time when larger versions of Homo were not uncommon. The rest is straight from the brain of Dotini, not from any research or scientist. Other than that one thing, none of it is based on any facts at all.

Do you at least understand why I and others find you frustrating? If you were just a dribbling lunatic we'd dismiss you. But the fact that you're sometimes informative, educational and interesting makes it even more annoying that it's unclear when we should be paying attention. Nobody's perfect, but that you sometimes appear to be intentionally misleading is very demoralising.
 
Nobody's perfect, but that you sometimes appear to be intentionally misleading is very demoralising.

Sorry to disappoint! I am in declining general health at age 70, and it shows in the inability be profound on cue every 24 hours. :ouch: After reviewing additional available data on the genetics of autism, I now see how wrong I was. I was 100% off base on that. :guilty:

At this point, I can step away from the entire subject on the grounds of humiliation and embarrassment, or plow on with a different tack. It may be that there are tangents yet to be explored on the opinion that archaic human ancestors influenced our (religious) culture: Astronomy and Death Cult Sky Gods. I have pretty good looking sources for astronomy of eclipses, lunar, solar and planetary cycle knowledge 20,000 years ago, for instance. Also astro-religious imagery found in Ice Age caves may be worth discussing. Or I could take it to the Ancient History/Ancient Mystery thread. But ultimately, the idea of souls on a path to the stars must play a part here. I think this was the predominant belief system of most pre-Columbian native American tribes, with roots in the Pleistocene.
 
...ultimately, the idea of souls on a path to the stars must play a part here. I think this was the predominant belief system of most pre-Columbian native American tribes, with roots in the Pleistocene.

I can easily accept that along with many other cultures they felt they shared the Earth with 'divine' or cosmic entities, those things are after all at the centre of many belief/explanation systems. I think 'a path to the stars' over-romanticises a little and presumes too much from too little evidence.
 
I can easily accept that along with many other cultures they felt they shared the Earth with 'divine' or cosmic entities, those things are after all at the centre of many belief/explanation systems. I think 'a path to the stars' over-romanticises a little and presumes too much from too little evidence.
Are you claiming there is little evidence for the well-established native American belief in a death journey of the soul - or rather that there is little evidence for native Americans actually having a soul and/or that it actually takes such a journey?
 

Latest Posts

Back