Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Hominoids, evolution, and us (video)

Pat Macpherson, Dhr. Seven, CC Liu (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly; LloydPye.com; SciShow
Science vs. science: We did not evolve by gradual transition as we are taught (26:50).
Human origins? Everything we are told is wrong. But science and truth will surface.
The revolving evolving theory (RU)
(Nov. 2011) Lecturer Lloyd Pye puts it all together -- human origins and who we are as a species. Pye explains, with an amazing degree of scientific certainty, the four types of hominids on the Earth today (their archeological lines and distribution on the planet). Why has Wisdom Quarterly been talking about cryptozoology, "forbidden" archeology, ancient Indian and Sumerian mythology, or any other "outlandish" topic? We dare to question, to find in these verboten topics something about ourselves as earthling human beings. There are other kinds of humans, as we have pointed out before. But it will be a long time before mainstream science will admit its biases, errors, and cover-ups.

Hominoids (primates, prehumans): Yetis (upper montane, Himalayan range), Sasquatches (lower montane forests generally peaceful, probably omnivorous mainly-plant eaters, to be distinguished from cannibals, which Native Americans and Forest Service anthropologist Kathy Moskowitz Strain call "Hairy Man" and consider human), Almas (lower montane, possibly remnant Neanderthals, a human species surviving in Southern Russia and Western China), and Agogwes or the pygmies of the group mainly residing in jungles (South America [duende?], Africa, Indonesia). Where this would leave Australia's Yowie/Yahoo is unclear, but it is described as a Sasquatch by Aboriginals down under.

All of these "ogres" may be described by the general Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain term "yaksha" (yakshi, yakkha, yakshasa, rakshasa) -- intelligent brutes and beasts living apart from humans. The most famous is featured in the texts by the name of the Yakkha Alavaka. Yakkhas are cannibalistic hominoid* creatures so crafty and mean that the term is often simply translated as "demon." This is not to suggest that they are actually "demons" (titans, hellions) or devils, but simply brutally callous to human suffering.
The Buddha and the ogre (yakkha) Alavaka
The closest Buddhism comes to a "creation myth" is the arrival of advanced life forms on Earth (Bhumi) from space/sky (akasha deva loka) or "the heavens," a celestial plane. They then devolve into us, "Man." Interestingly, the word for the human realm is manusya-loka. This is gleaned from the Aggañña Sutra. What most fail to notice is that this discourse, often translated as "A Buddhist Genesis," does not talk about how life or existence originated. The story is about how "human" or humanoid life arrives on this planet cyclically. This did not happen one time; it happens over and over. The Buddha is famous for using Vedic lore and popular conceptions, imbuing them with a lesson, a parable of sorts. The sutra is very general and covers spans of time only Michael Cremo could countenance because ancient Indian time is measured in great aeons (maha kalpas), ages (kalpas), and epochs, which are indeterminate periods of time too large to measure and staggering to contemplate.
We are lied to about our origins on Earth
*HOMINOID: Some or all hominoids are also called "apes" [humans being the "naked ape" according to Desmond Morris; see below]. However, "ape" is used in different senses. It has been used as a synonym for "monkey" or for any tailless primate with a humanlike appearance. So the Barbary macaque, a kind of monkey, is popularly called the "Barbary ape" to indicate its lack of a tail. Biologists have used "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans, or more recently to mean all members of the superfamily Hominoidea, so that "ape" becomes another word for "hominoid." See Primate: Historical and modern terminology.

(Nov. 2013) The SciShow (Subbable, Facebook, Tumblr) explains where this over-simplified "March of Progress" magazine image of Darwin's evolution comes from. The scientist who used it was not confused, but we have been led to take this literally. What is it actually supposed to mean? SOURCES: wiki, evolution.berkeley.edu, mentalfloss.com, sci-news.com
The truth is much stranger than fiction.
We may be related to the "apes," but we did not evolve on Earth as they did. Archeologist Michael Cremo has found and presented evidence for the extreme antiquity of "modern" humans (Homo sapien sapiens). We are far older than 120,000 years, far older than 1,000,000 years, older than 100,000,000 years... How is this possible? What was here, what has been here and come to its demise, did not evolve from the popular fossil record many scientists use to theorize our origins on the planet. Evolution is occurring; this is not a fundamentalist Christian argument. But, as Cremo points out, we are currently devolving. Intentional genetic manipulation made us who we are, as Pye describes, and as the historical record from ancient Sumer and Egypt documents.
The Naked Ape
Naked Ape (amazon.com)
"A startling view of man [modern humans, the Homo sapien sapiens], stripped of the facade we try so hard to hide behind." In view of [hu]man's awesome creativity and resourcefulness, we may be inclined to regard [ourselves] as descended from the angels, yet, in his brilliant study, Desmond Morris reminds us that man is relative to the apes -- is in fact, the greatest primate of all. With knowledge gleaned from primate ethnology, zoologist Morris examines sex, child-rearing, exploratory habits, fighting, feeding, and much more to establish our surprising bonds to the animal kingdom and add substance to the discussion that has provoked controversy and debate the world over. Natural History Magazine praised The Naked Ape as "stimulating... thought-provoking... [Morris] has introduced some novel and challenging ideas and speculations." "He minces no words," said Harper's.  "He lets off nothing in our basic relation to the animal kingdom to which we belong... He is always specific, startling, but logical." More

No comments: