SH Archive Human Origins: Are We Hybrids?

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2020-05-26 20:13:17
Reaction Score: 0

The problem is that with the instrument we have in use, our thinking, we can not grasp life AT ALL. It was not intended for such purposes. Don't tell me that animals do not think - they do think. But in man it has become a very complex structure, and the problem is how to free ourselves from this structure and use it only as an instrument to function in this world -- it has no other use at all -- it has only a contingent value, to communicate something, to function in the workaday world -- "Where is the railway station? Where can I get tomatoes? Where is the market?" - that's all. Not philosophical concepts - that has no meaning at all. Wanting anything other than the basic needs - food, clothing and shelter - that is where your self-deception begins, and there is no end to our self-deception there. So all this thinking has no meaning at all - it just wears us out.

Wow, this is good. So you are saying, I think, that there really in just materialism, and that thought and speaking are just materialistic concepts. There is no spiritual element to life, these are just constructs of language - we've confused ourselves by getting too elaborate with what we're talking about. So no 'enlightenment'or any such thing. No god/creation spirit or some such even - these are just mental manifestations. Do I get your position?

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: tupperaware
Date: 2020-05-26 20:14:20
Reaction Score: 0

If such a thing were possible or even probable I would expect to see more of such "natural" behavior. Why not shark/alligator/eel hybrids?

Why not turtle, skink, snake hybrids?
Where are all the promiscuous, non-discriminating skunk, raccoon, possum hybrids? You'd think if interbreeding were a natural occurrance between species, we'd see evidence of it all over the place. Animals aren't that picky it seems.

Only the smart animals like apes would have the "skills" and drive to continue the hybridization after the first generation is born. That's why I think bonobo chimps and one colony along with a wandering pig might have been our Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden. The pig of course was Adam and the mother bonobo chimp (Eve) after chatting with a snake started the entire chain of interesting events.

Meet Eve and Abel:

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: plamski
Date: 2020-05-26 20:35:37
Reaction Score: 1

Wow, this is good. So you are saying, I think, that there really in just materialism, and that thought and speaking are just materialistic concepts. There is no spiritual element to life, these are just constructs of language - we've confused ourselves by getting too elaborate with what we're talking about. So no 'enlightenment'or any such thing. No god/creation spirit or some such even - these are just mental manifestations. Do I get your position?

Provided we agree that that there's only energy out there and matter (like thought) is energy too only in different frequency. In that case: Yes.

Which is why, I believe that everything was once "alive" and "thinking". Hence no creation, no begging nor end. You can't say anything about that energy - it is already manifesting itself, expressing itself in a boundless way - it has no limitations, no boundaries. It is not yours, not mine - it belongs to everybody. You are part of that. You are an expression of that. Just as the flower is an expression of life, you are another expression of life. What is behind all this is life. What it is, you will never know.

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2020-05-26 21:21:17
Reaction Score: 1

Provided we agree that that there's only energy out there and matter (like thought) is energy too only in different frequency. In that case: Yes.

Which is why, I believe that everything was once "alive" and "thinking". Hence no creation, no begging nor end. You can't say anything about that energy - it is already manifesting itself, expressing itself in a boundless way - it has no limitations, no boundaries. It is not yours, not mine - it belongs to everybody. You are part of that. You are an expression of that. Just as the flower is an expression of life, you are another expression of life. What is behind all this is life. What it is, you will never know.

Ok, so how would you explain concepts like mathematics or logic? What are they? They seem to exist whether we know them or not, they're not alive, but they seem to be there. They are useful too to humans, once we uncover them to you can do all sorts - to better guess how things will work, whether someone has their story straight, etc. Where did these concepts come from? Are they (maths, logic) life too, or the rules of life, or something else to you?

Also, you say behind it all is life. Fine. But we are life too, right? So language and thinking is part of life too. Or not? We can ask questions about what is behind it all but that is somehow anti-life? You said: "It [thinking] was not intended for such purposes." So, in your view, to consider that there is a god is to have confused oneself with words and concepts that aren't part of life? I guess what I'm driving at is why do we even do all that thinking, ask those questions, etc, if we can never know. Why has life created anti-life stuff, like us and our thoughts?

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: plamski
Date: 2020-05-26 22:34:47
Reaction Score: 1

Math and logic are only perceptions and good for keep the constant train of thoughts in our heads. As any perceptions they could also be very deceiving. For example, observational logic tells us that the tree leaves are green. However, the leaves of a tree are absorbing every color blue, red, yellow to utilize in photosynthesis and, in fact, the only colour which is not being absorbed, the colour which is bouncing off the leaf into our eye, is green. So, a tree is every other colour but green.

Yes, they can be useful to an extend but the fact that we can not decide where the usefulness starts and where it stops and we keep digging deeper and deeper tells me that they are nothing but different thinking philosophies. Obsessions.

Take medicine for example, it has long exhausted its usefulness as a keeper of health and it is now turning into the exact opposite - a death science. Because we can not stop thinking about it.

Thinking is unnecessary except to communicate with somebody. Why do I have to communicate with myself all the time? What for? "I am happy," "I am unhappy," "I am miserable," "That is a microphone," "This is a man," "He is something" -- you see, why are we doing it? Everybody is talking to himself - only, when he begins to talk aloud you put him in the mental hospital. LOL

Philosophies are products of obsessive thinking in one's head.

Why has life created anti-life stuff, like us and our thoughts?

We will never know what life is. Nobody can say anything about life. We can give definitions, but those definitions have no meaning. We can theorize about life, but that is a thing which is not of any value to us - it cannot help us to understand anything.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Banta
Date: 2020-05-26 22:40:35
Reaction Score: 1

If such a thing were possible or even probable I would expect to see more of such "natural" behavior. Why not shark/alligator/eel hybrids?

Why not turtle, skink, snake hybrids?
Where are all the promiscuous, non-discriminating skunk, raccoon, possum hybrids? You'd think if interbreeding were a natural occurrance between species, we'd see evidence of it all over the place. Animals aren't that picky it seems.

Maybe some animals we have classified otherwise are in fact hybrids. This is what is argued in the gorilla example that McCarthy cites. However, this does lead into the skepticism that I have regarding this theory. Since getting viable offspring seems very difficult, the theory almost requires nearly inconceivable amounts of time to make it work. Most scientists are comfortable working with "millions of years" but that's definitely something that I'm not willing to just grant.

 

[mifletzet]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Mifletz
Date: 2020-05-26 22:54:40
Reaction Score: 1

After the Serpent had sexual relations with Eve in the Garden of Eden, and angels with women (Genesis 6), serpentic and angelic DNA entered the human gene profile.

The flux of a woman every month is an attempt by the body to rid itself of the serpentic DNA in particular, hence the strict laws of menstrual impurity applying to Israelites in the Torah.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Banta
Date: 2020-05-26 22:55:44
Reaction Score: 1

Only the smart animals like apes would have the "skills" and drive to continue the hybridization after the first generation is born.

This is a possibility, but as I state above, I think given enough time, all sorts of random pairings are possible. It's the whole "monkeys writing Shakespeare" thing (though they do use monkeys as the example...).

I enjoy this thread. The debate between Feralimal and plamski are thoughts I've debated internally on occasion. Though, every fiber of my being has always indicated that there is more to us than mere flesh. However, I definitely also think that language and our conceptual abstract thinking creates barriers to inner peace or true unity, that animals seem to possess "naturally."

Fine line again between thoughtfully analyzing and redundant pointless over-thinking. It's the paradox of the wisdom of many spiritual advisers who say, "clear your mind of thoughts" and the practicality of planning. It's like how the Timothy Learyism of "turn on, tune in, drop out" is both somewhat truthful and also a cointelpro-type deception to get people to ignore the hell going on around them. I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2020-05-27 00:02:52
Reaction Score: 9

This is a possibility, but as I state above, I think given enough time, all sorts of random pairings are possible. It's the whole "monkeys writing Shakespeare" thing (though they do use monkeys as the example...).

I enjoy this thread. The debate between Feralimal and plamski are thoughts I've debated internally on occasion. Though, every fiber of my being as always indicated that there is more to us than mere flesh. However, I definitely also think that language and our conceptual abstract thinking creates barriers to inner peace or true unity, that animals seem to possess "naturally."

Fine line again between thoughtfully analyzing and redundant pointless over-thinking. It's the paradox of the wisdom of many spiritual advisers who say, "clear your mind of thoughts" and the practicality of planning. It's like how the Timothy Learyism of "turn on, tune in, drop out" is both somewhat truthful and also a cointelpro-type deception to get people to ignore the hell going on around them. I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

I'm reminded of the saying, "the unexamined life is not worth living" and I see evidence of the truth of that in every day life.

I disagree that we can never know what life is but my thoughts on the matter are from a religious/spiritual point of view. To me, life is embodied in the Christ who is very knowledgeable. And that is as much preaching as I'll do on that subject.

As far as origins of life: I think the Creator had a basic "mix", like Bisquick, if you will. From that one box of "ingredients" many similar things can be made. Back to our Bisquick comparison, you can make cobbler, pie, cake, biscuits, pancakes, waffles, etc. Just add slightly different extras to the basic mix to get a totally different dish.
All life is carbon based (so we're told). A lot of things are similar but different enough and no mingling is required to attain the differences. Wheat grass juice is one molecule different than blood. Exchange a magnesium molecule for an iron molecule and see the difference. Fake butter is almost identical to plastic road cones but different enough that one would never wind up on your dinner plate.
The point being that just because we notice similarities between life forms does not mean those life forms have the same origin. It's a bit of faulty logic to assume hybridization when another (more likely) answer is that we all started out with the same basic "ingredients" for life.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Recognition
Date: 2020-05-27 02:23:29
Reaction Score: 3

Though, every fiber of my being as always indicated that there is more to us than mere flesh. However, I definitely also think that language and our conceptual abstract thinking creates barriers to inner peace or true unity, that animals seem to possess "naturally."

I like this and I agree! Many animals are telepathic, i.e. if you picture your dog coming over to you, and you rewarding him, he will come over! Same in the opposite direction, the cat owner who constantly pictures coming home to a peed on house, will probably get that experience, as animals are literally able to read the pictures in our minds. Perhaps with the use of spoken language, the parts of our brain that are able to “read” others thoughts in this way, have fallen into disuse. I learned about the animal telepathy in a book by a vet, I’ll see if I can find it.

 

[asatiger1966]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: asatiger1966
Date: 2020-05-27 06:29:05
Reaction Score: 10

Well this is an interesting thread. I do have to ask what might be the reason to create (and keep) such a genetic experiment if that is what we are?

I can understand scientific curiosity in dabbling with hybridization but why keep such a freak of nature?

If there was a specific purpose in mind (Sitchin suggests mining capabilities), why keep us around when the job is done?

Were we made as a novelty item for bragging rights? If so, we've gotten entirely out of hand so, again, why keep us around?

Scientists make chimeras today, allegedly for medical advancement research, but the hybrids are not kept, nurtured and encouraged to breed. If we were made as spare parts incubators then surely 7 billion of us aren't needed for that purpose. Plus, we're indiscriminate breeders totally messing up the genetic "purity" of the seed lines.

Maybe I suffer from lack of imagination but I just can't think of one good reason to cross a chimp with a pig, repeatedly back cross them with one parent line or the other in order to produce a "human" race.

I think we are fearfully and wonderfully made-just not in a laboratory test tube.

We as a people have trouble grasping the breath and width of history. There are numerous writing and teaching that state that keeping your blood lines pure keeps one closer to the original. Inter breeding and marriage , people and animals,dilutes the DNA power and abilities that we were born with.

If we have a common enemy that has been able to hide all these years because they know that we can defeat them "with our old gifts",
So this enemy found a way, possibility after a cataclysmic event, to deceive us about who we are, and proceeds to split us apart from each other, further weakening our self preservation odds. Why would they not want to weaken our "unknown" abilities? Unknown to us.

So destroy us in any way,possible shape or foam. Make up a phony IQ test that is used as a tool to manipulate people.We do not even know what water is, electricity, gravity.
Pick a subject and we do not really know.
But the old ones said to keep your blood pure. What did they know ? Know your enemy as your self.

The smartest man I ever met was an African Bushman. He only spoke when necessary, never changing his expression. He listened deep. His tribe came first then his family and his Gods. He knew that reincarnation was real.

We do not know.

Old thinking, lost my way LOL

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2020-05-27 09:12:46
Reaction Score: 3

Math and logic are only perceptions and good for keep the constant train of thoughts in our heads. As any perceptions they could also be very deceiving. For example, observational logic tells us that the tree leaves are green.

That's not what I had in mind. The concepts that are conveyed by, for example, numbers - they are non-existent in themselves, but right everytime in reality. So when we say '1+1=2' this is conceptual, there is no 1 or 2 that we can point at. But it applies to any instance of counting say, of apples or trees. This is to say it is an underlying concept. You might say its something that is overlaid over reality, a map that makes thing easier for us. But I don't think so, as it doesn't fail. It seems more like an underlying principle, perhaps an expression of code.

Thinking is unnecessary except to communicate with somebody. Why do I have to communicate with myself all the time? What for? "I am happy," "I am unhappy," "I am miserable," "That is a microphone," "This is a man," "He is something" -- you see, why are we doing it? Everybody is talking to himself - only, when he begins to talk aloud you put him in the mental hospital. LOL

Philosophies are products of obsessive thinking in one's head.

Do you know, I link thinking and talking? They are different sides of the same coin to me.

I absolutely agree that both can be a cause of unhappiness and confusion. I tend to think that is by intent, we are confused and mislead in our education. However, I put the negative effect down down to improper and careless use of the ability. (I think the proper use requires distinguishing of the subjective and objective worlds, resolving confusion between the map and the terrain, awareness of the mis-use of the verb 'to be', but that's another story.) Once we straighten that out, thinking and language are fantastic tools, I have no I problem with them. Within nature, see them as our special gift - dogs can smell better than us, hawks can see better, but humanity has the ability to develop ideas, and to relay them to others.

Overall, this I see thinking and talking as an area that has been gamed, and that it can (and most often is) a block between us and meaningful existence. We can live in our own heads or our words. But that is through incorrect use of the ability. I think it can also be a blessing to help us reach higher. I'm not down on thinking or language at all, it's just a tool or ability we have.

We will never know what life is. Nobody can say anything about life. We can give definitions, but those definitions have no meaning. We can theorize about life, but that is a thing which is not of any value to us - it cannot help us to understand anything.

Is this a case of those who know keep silent? I can't help but think you are conveying your view here, there is thinking on your part about what life is, and I am listening to it. If this conversation has value to me, doesn't that disprove your case? I mean, I don't expect to get god-like omniscience, but I can better understand the world via the exchange of ideas, right?

 

[wild heretic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: wild heretic
Date: 2020-05-27 09:34:55
Reaction Score: 3

I am not saying it is completely impossible but the problem I have with these kind of theories is that they are extremely egocentric. They somehow suggest that we're somewhat special and the object of special attention by the gods. This again is all driven by the fear of immortality syndrome we seem to suffer from. It is the main reason why we are so disconnected from our environment and why we could never be happy and content.

We are not created for any grander purpose than the ants that are there or the flies that are hovering around us or the mosquitoes that are sucking our blood. If anything, I consider all other creatures a lot more content with what they are than we are. It is the main reason why the hybrid hypothesis of human origin rings so true. We're a bit off.

I disagree that that idea comes from a backdrop of feeling special. The opposite actually in some respect. Adam and eve were supposed to be special. In the above theory we arent from adam or the sons of god. We are built from animal parts in a human blueprint. I imagine some of the elite see us no better than animals to be slaughtered. Not very special at all lol. Quite demoralising in fact.

The experiment is still worth continuing at some level as we are still here. So there is that small comfort.

If we artificially managed to mix pigs and chimps today, how many offspring would it take to get two possible mating pairs to walk upright and speak with much bigger brains? Seriously. See what i mean? Its not just the infinite improbability of it, but that the offspring have to have created something out of nothing like bigger brains and being able to speak etc. Then there is the problem of having two viable male and females that are genetically dissimilar and yet similiar enough to breed and so on and so forth in continued incestuous relationships.

I honestly cant see that happening artifically without blueprint intent in any way whatsoever, let alone naturally. One in a gadzillion gadzillion gadzillion if not impossibly never.

It has to be artifical with specific intent on the blueprint. The fused chromosome alone shows this.

We also dont know the true purpose of the earth or the humans. It may not be a positive one at all, or it may be. Does the farmer view his chickens as special?

This is a possibility, but as I state above, I think given enough time, all sorts of random pairings are possible. It's the whole "monkeys writing Shakespeare" thing (though they do use monkeys as the example...).

I enjoy this thread. The debate between Feralimal and plamski are thoughts I've debated internally on occasion. Though, every fiber of my being has always indicated that there is more to us than mere flesh. However, I definitely also think that language and our conceptual abstract thinking creates barriers to inner peace or true unity, that animals seem to possess "naturally."

Fine line again between thoughtfully analyzing and redundant pointless over-thinking. It's the paradox of the wisdom of many spiritual advisers who say, "clear your mind of thoughts" and the practicality of planning. It's like how the Timothy Learyism of "turn on, tune in, drop out" is both somewhat truthful and also a cointelpro-type deception to get people to ignore the hell going on around them. I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

I know there is more than flesh because ive experienced it. I dont equate myself solely to the human form i am partaking with at all. My core identity is something else entirely. its subtle, but its there. Consciousness is a strange thing and isnt necessarily localised.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: plamski
Date: 2020-05-27 11:02:06
Reaction Score: 1

The concepts that are conveyed by, for example, numbers - they are non-existent in themselves, but right everytime in reality. So when we say '1+1=2' this is conceptual, there is no 1 or 2 that we can point at. But it applies to any instance of counting say, of apples or trees. This is to say it is an underlying concept.

Math has its problems too. Example: 89 year old man and 15 year old boy. The number 89 is greater than 15 if we look at them from theoretical point of view. But when you put them in real life situation we get a paradox - 15 has more life, energy and vitality than 89, so 15 > 89.

Math tries hard but it can not describe life. As the case above illustrates, it even struggles to reflect life in its dymamics.

If we artificially managed to mix pigs and chimps today, how many offspring would it take to get two possible mating pairs to walk upright and speak with much bigger brains? Seriously. See what i mean? Its not just the infinite improbability of it, but that the offspring have to have created something out of nothing like bigger brains and being able to speak etc. Then there is the problem of having two viable male and females that are genetically dissimilar and yet similiar enough to breed and so on and so forth in continued incestuous relationships.

If we breed chimp with pig today and allow time for backcrossing we may still not get the same type of humans because the environmental conditions/pressures never stay the same. But what we have observed and analyzed is that ALL hybrids usually exhibit lowered fertility. This "problem" is described in more details in the original post. if anyone can find a different answer for this human feature then we can examine it and explore it further. For now, only the hybrid hypothesis provides an idea.

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2020-05-27 11:14:21
Reaction Score: 1

Math has its problems too. Example: 89 year old man and 15 year old boy. The number 89 is greater than 15 if we look at them from theoretical point of view. But when you put them in real life situation we get a paradox - 15 has more life, energy and vitality than 89, so 15 > 89.

Math tries hard but it can not describe life. As the case above illustrates, it struggles to even reflect it objectively.

You can use maths to measure time (age) or energy, or height, or weight, whatever. If then compare 2 categories say time vs energy, or height vs weight, you are plainly not comparing like with like.

But really you have missed the point I was making about maths. I'm saying it is a background non-physical concept that works. Our minds uncover it, but it was there already, whether we uncover it or not. Mathematical and logical concepts like '1+1=2' will be true in any circumstances, in a vacuum, on the ground, anywhere. So did life create the conceptual framework for itself on which it rests?

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: plamski
Date: 2020-05-27 12:03:53
Reaction Score: 0

You can use maths to measure time (age) or energy, or height, or weight, whatever. If then compare 2 categories say time vs energy, or height vs weight, you are plainly not comparing like with like.

But really you have missed the point I was making about maths. I'm saying it is a background non-physical concept that works. Our minds uncover it, but it was there already, whether we uncover it or not. Mathematical and logical concepts like '1+1=2' will be true in any circumstances, in a vacuum, on the ground, anywhere. So did life create the conceptual framework for itself on which it rests?

If math was a real concept that "was there already" needed to survive in this world, it would have been uncovered by other species too. But all the rest of them seem to go without it with no problems. For that reason, I see it as another human philosophical concept. It is not out there, it is in the humans thinking bubble.

There is a system to our madness and it's called - maths and logic.

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2020-05-27 15:16:09
Reaction Score: 0

There is a system to our madness and it's called - maths and logic.

Oh dear. And the cure is 'life', but that can't be meaningfully talked about? End of conversation?

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: plamski
Date: 2020-05-27 15:36:51
Reaction Score: 0

Oh dear. And the cure is 'life', but that can't be meaningfully talked about? End of conversation?

I'm sorry I didn't mean it this way but seriously we can have endless conversations and yet be going nowhere.

If there's such thing as "enlightenment" it must be a purely biological phenomenon, that only when we are completely free of culture, conditioning, religious thinking and intellect, can the body, with its own 'extraordinary intelligence', free the human being.

No amount of philosophy will take us anywhere. Besides this thread is about the hybrid hypothesis and we're getting too philosophical here. Perhaps, finding our true biological origin can help us find our true natural state. Nothing else will. And we better hurry up as technology is doing away with the body bit by a bit.

That's the main reason I started this topic.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Banta
Date: 2020-05-27 15:36:52
Reaction Score: 5

This is getting very complicated and maybe there should be a thread on mathematics itself, because I can see both viewpoints but I feel like expanding on it might completely derail this thread, if that hasn't happened already.

But I can't resist, because I sort of want to work this out. For math to have any real context, we need to be specific. If you have one apple and take another apple, from a tree or from bullying the little kid for his lunch, you then have two apples. The apples are objectively real and the mathematical process has a reflection in reality. What we have done is named the apple and also assigned a number labeling system that stays consistent. "One" of something "plus" "one" of something will always lead to "two" of something. This has a direct correlation to physical reality.

The larger question behind this is... is it necessary/"natural" to do this? Developing the mathematical concept outward from the point of "1+1=2” does allow us to convey more abstract concepts that are completely divorced from an analogue in physical "reality" but they also allow us at times to design plans that result in technology that is able to manifest a physical form. How necessary/"natural" any of this is depends purely on perspective. It does show a degree of "intelligence" in the way we've defined it, but with that definition, the presumption of "superiority" is often baked into it. Is that justified or madness? Ultimately, I don't think we as humans can determine that, we would need an objective third party and we've yet to conclusively find one who wants or has the ability to tell us. At least as far as the general population is concerned, individual experiences may vary!

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: plamski
Date: 2020-06-01 22:39:52
Reaction Score: 0

The article below fits perfectly well with the hypothesis of the hybrid origin and raises some more questions which haven't been covered here. I'll copy it in its entirety as I think it's quite important.

This theory is not new for this forum and it ties in pretty well with the Doctrine of Suffering and all the religious propaganda around the world. It could explain the reason why we are constantly being terrorized and traumatized as in the latest coronahoax.

Human Origin Questioned by Mainstream Science
ON MAY 29, 2020 BY JACKYUKON


I would like to make the most impassioned plea to your mind, it is most improbable or downright impossible that humans evolved into hairless creatures during the Ice Age. A better theory is that we were genetically engineered hybrids without much hair. Humans never lost their fur, they were “created” by the parent race as a hybrid crossbreed with minimal body hair that definitely is not fur.


Fur is such a good adaptation that no primate would be caught without any. In the most sweltering jungle monkeys and apes have lots of fur, as fur keeps them from losing heat at night, keeps the bugs off them during the day, and keeps them from sun burning or getting scratched up when going through the bushes. There is no reason why an evolving hominid would lose fur on a cold planet.

I HAVE A BIG F**king NEWS FLASH FOR YOU
WE DID NOT EVOLVE ON EARTH, WE DIDN’T LOOSE OUR FUR BY NATURAL SELECTION

Fur is a dominant adaptation of mammals on a ice age planet. Fur allowed the mammals to flourish and take the planet as the dinosaurs died out from lack of fur. Surviving dinosaurs in cold climes are covered in feathers. The problem of our lack of fur is really a big deal in anthropology and the question has spawned alternative theories like the Aquatic Ape hypothesis.
The aquatic ape theory, now largely dismissed, tries to explain the origins of many of humankind’s unique traits. Popularized in the 1970s and 1980s by writer Elaine Morgan, the theory suggests that early hominids lived in water at least part of the time. This aquatic lifestyle supposedly accounts for our hairless bodies, which made us more streamlined for swimming and diving; our upright, two-legged walking, which made wading easier; and our layers of subcutaneous fat, which made us better insulated in water (think whale blubber). The theory even links an aquatic existence to the evolution of human speech.

Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes


The extraterrestrial theory of origin can explain every problem anthropologists have with human origin. We look the way we do because we are copies of our parent race. Lack of fur problem solved. Missing chromosomes are no problem either, all our features can be explained down to every genetic defect that humans have, if we were created in a lab as a “rush job” then human adaptation problems are solved.

HUMANS WERE A RUSH JOB TO CREATE A SLAVE RACE
PROOF OF THIS IS OUR UNIQUE 4,000 DISEASES WHILE THE REST OF THE PRIMATES HAVE ROBUST IMMUNE SYSTEMS

I lived in Hawaii for many years and due to the heat I wore little clothes, I was constantly bit by mosquitoes and scratched by plants, I was in a constant state of tending to my cuts on my legs not to mention all the bites. The cats and dogs that live there, I observed, did not have my problem of bites and scratches. Neither did the island pigs. Just me, the bare naked fragile human was made mince meat to the native plants and insects.

Try running naked through the jungle and see what happens to your bare skin. On the Big Island dry side (Kona) there is an horrible imported thorn bush called Kiawe whose huge thorns will penetrate your flip flops or tennis shoes with ease. No one lives there without getting nasty puncture wounds from this devil’s bush. But not the Hawaiian feral pigs, they run right through that stuff without a scratch.

ONCE YOU WRAP YOUR MIND AROUND THE HUMAN “NAKED APE” YOU CAN HAVE A BIG LAUGH AND A DRINK ON ME
HUMANS WERE ENGINEERED AS HAIRLESS APES BY THE ANUNNAKI SPACE PIRATES BECAUSE THEY LUST FOR OUR BEAUTIFUL “HAIRLESS” WOMEN

There are two main camps in the debate on how humans came to be. The original one is in Genesis, God made us in one day; the more modern theory is that we evolved from a common ape ancestor. Neither is worth a shit. Magic vs. Evolution are two false paradigms of origin. Most people will be in either one of these camps and they will defend their egos to death about what they were (taught) to believe.

I was taught Genesis and Evolution, but now I do not think either is valid in respect to human evolution. I think it is most improbable or downright impossible that by Natural Selection we lost our fur, especially when all of human evolution has been in the Ice Age, which is the last 2.6 million years of earth history.

IF YOU THINK HUMANS EVOLVED WITHOUT FUR IN A MOTHER F**king ICE AGE THEN YOU ARE NOT JUST A STUPID MOTHER FUCKER
YOU ARE SO GOD DAMNED STUPID YOU CAN CALL YOURSELF AN ANTHROPOLOGIST WITH A PhD IN DUMBFUCKOLOGY

The most recent theory of origin is that we were put here. This is the Zacharia Sitchin or Ancient Alien theory, humans were either brought to earth or genetically engineered on earth. I also think that earth is probably not the only seeded planet, because humans are such useful slaves that the alien overlords have their slaves on many planets no different than humans having many cattle ranches.



Humans have such unique features that it is a really big question of how we got here. We sunburn unlike any other animal. We also have hooded noses unlike any other primate. The big smoking gun is our 23 pairs of chromosomes when all the primates have 24. The problem with 23 is that humans are the last branch on the primate limb, and all our relatives have 24.

23 CHROMOSOMES IS THE SMOKING GUN OF HUMAN ORIGIN
NO WAY THAT HAPPENED BY NATURAL SELECTION, WHERE’S THE HUMANS WITH 48s

If 23 chromosomes happened naturally then their would still be 24 pair chromosome individuals in the population, but there are none. That is because we didn’t evolve, we were made, in a lab, by and advanced race that researchers call the Anunnaki. This also means that Genesis is partially correct, except the gods that created us were not gods but a more advanced race of hominids.



Of all my writings this lack of fur issue with the human specie is most important. Science has no explanation for our vocal cords, hooded nose, fat tissue, frail bone structure. The implications of a furless hominid with 23 pair chromosomes are huge, it means that we didn’t evolve here like scientists think, and because they won’t embrace extraterrestrial origin they are at a loss to explain the evidence.