Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Finny

The aquatic theory is interesting, but I think it may well be flawed. We seem equally well-suited to the open savannah, and are good long distance runners and walkers. There seems equal weight there.

Still, if you're looking for evidence of early man, you'll find it at the edge of the water, certainly. I think that's due to the easy availability of food, though, rather than an aquatic environment.

I used to surface collect Chumash artifacts in the area in CA where I used to live. Lots of the area was pretty picked over, though, so I studied a topo map of the area and identified areas where the water's edges would have been in times of higher ocean levels. Immediately, I began finding new places to locate artifacts.

The Chumash were there at least 6000 years, maybe more. I found signs of encampments in places nobody had even looked before. Very interesting. All near water, or where water used to be.


79 posted on 02/28/2006 12:24:22 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]


To: MineralMan
Here's my theory. Too bad it's wrong...

The First Man Was a Woman

I can't prove it, but I believe the first man was a woman.

Modern science has used mitochondrial DNA to track human origins back to a single female. This is the so-called Eve hypothesis.

I believe that this was the first fully human Homo Sapiens. A girl was born with a genetic 'defect' in her mitochondria. The mitochondria control the enzyme activity in the cell. This change affected her metabolism at a deep cellular level.

The first human had an altered metabolism that manifested itself in a suite of gross differences:

She lacked vibrissae, the sensory whiskers common to all other mammals.
She had full lips, not the thin line at the rim of the mouth typical of other species.
She was weak, compared to others of her kind.
Her features retained a more child-like appearance as she grew up.
But, the two most critical differences were a lack of body hair, and a monthly estrus cycle.

Why are the last two most critical?

The lack of body hair provided an interesting advantage. To understand this, let's look at cats. There is a breed of hairless cat. Instead of fur, they have a velvety skin. Their owners often comment on how affectionate their cats are. Affectionate? Not really, these cats are just COLD, they snuggle to keep warm!

Back to our first human, she sure is cuddly. She is much more desirable than her standoffish hairy sisters.

Rather than the annual fertility cycle, she is 'in heat' all of the time. Cuddly and friendly too!

Lacking muscle strength, she needed to be protected. The beginnings of love as we now understand it.

That she needed protection is deeply ingrained it the human psyche. In propaganda there are surprisingly few common themes. The enemy is depicted as snakes, spiders, octopus, and, ... and ... hairy ape-men seizing the furless women. The massive muscular King Kong is interested in the petite Fay Rae. Did you ever wonder why this resonated with the audience?

Simple. The first man was a woman...

86 posted on 02/28/2006 12:32:23 PM PST by null and void (I nominate Sept 11th as "National Moderate Muslim Silence Day". - Mr. Rational)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: MineralMan
I used to surface collect Chumash artifacts in the area in CA where I used to live.

Archaeologists call folks who do that... Well, it isn't pretty.

Lots of the area was pretty picked over, though, so I studied a topo map of the area and identified areas where the water's edges would have been in times of higher ocean levels. Immediately, I began finding new places to locate artifacts.

The ocean was always lower than at present during the time that area was occupied. You must have been finding items at old lake stands?

The Chumash were there at least 6000 years, maybe more. I found signs of encampments in places nobody had even looked before. Very interesting. All near water, or where water used to be.

The area appears to have been continuously occupied for some 13,400 years. We know very little about the earliest inhabitants, but the last ten or so years have been pretty productive. I'm sure there is more to come.

158 posted on 02/28/2006 5:06:33 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson