I think you are missing the point.

The gripe is you seem to believe that humans first appear in Mesopotamia and you back that up by saying they are the first few civilizations. The point is, are you saying early humans in Africa are NOT humans simply because they are not 'civilized' ?

Civilization DOES NOT equate existence.

erk, i dun mean to be mean but can pls read back my early post? im pointing about early civilization frm the beginning. I mentioned about human early recorded activities. Did i mention early humans in Africa are not human? @__@ well, some historian agreed to be human means to be civilized (as for ur question, it depends on which definition of civilization u r talking bout). After all, that what's human all about that makes us different frm any being.

you are not really thinking if you take whatever agreeable opinion as truth without doing any analysis.

anyway, you are looking at secondary school level of understanding of a civilization, but even in that context, mesopotamia is only one of the several "first civilizations" (note the plural) along with egypt, china, and indus valley. and yet you manage to twist it around to "mesopotamia is THE first civilization"

nope, not a secondary school level of understanding of civilizations. This is part of the learning in history lesson at university. Indeed, they are many more civilizations in this world, like the Maimonides, the Canaanites (group of ppl which later on form a civilization in ancient Palestine) but they arent famous when it comes to civilization, AND please do read first before saying im saying it's the only early civilization? they dont come at the same time. U r trapping me by using my words so that ppl will tend to look as if im saying Mesopotamia is the ONLY early civilization im talking about? I talk based on what i learned, frm what have the lecturer taught us. You?

http://www.historiasiglo20.org/egypt/proye...timeline%5D.htm

This post has been edited by Blaze_hit: Apr 13 2010, 02:05 PM

Surely whether a pre-historic human is a human or not, does not depend on the definition of civilization. If the pre-historic human possesses the full features of a human being, what makes him less human? If an ape is trained by human as compare to an ape in the wild, would that domesticated ape become a human?

Sounds like planet of the apes to me. My answer will be no. Why? because no matter how much u trained an ape to be like a human it will never be. Im curious if there's any domesticated ape in this world in the first place to be compared with? If u have one pls show me then we can do the comparison

Please get back to the topic. Discussion of human civilisation doesn't really add anything to a thread about human evolution.

So the point is regardless if the human lives in the wild or not, as long as he is a human physically, he is a human by definition. Hence the origin of human does not depend on the origin of civilization or how that is defined but instead depends on similarity in features between a modern human and a pre-historic primate. The theory of evolution predicted there is a gradual increase in similarity the younger fossil is to modern human and that is exactly what we found. At some point in time, some 5 millions years ago, human like primate emerged and branched from a common ancestor with chimpanzee. Primate with all features of a modern human emerged some 2.5 millions years later.

1. sorry, i should have realized facts is a popularity contest.

2. no, i did not say you said "they are the only early civilization"; rather you said "they are THE EARLIEST civilization" which is mentioned here:



where you implied that humans originated from middle east and spread to the rest of the world and natural adaptation then made africans dark skinned. when evidence show that it is likely to be the other way round.

also, you mentioned



which is false as human activities/culture/community/language/whatever has been recorded as far back as 7k bc in china and 20k+bc in egypt compared to 5k+be in middle east.

if your lecturer claimed that sumerians are the earliest civilization (rather than one of the early civilization) perhaps you need to question him for his reasons when wikipedia (among other sources) seemed to say that it is not.

one of my lecturer used to end class by saying, "of course i could be wrong/lying, so you better confirm the facts yourself"

Ancient human-like creature's skull probed.
BBC News

Hobbit island, Indonesia.


Human evolution is like growing up process, one cannot be an adult before adolescent is the simplest explanation I know of that support all kinds of living things.

This post has been edited by 3dassets: Apr 14 2010, 02:21 AM

Remember too that early humans were hunter-gatherers. They are far from our notions of a civilized species but they are humans nevertheless.

They probably exhibited very simple social behavior, with simple forms of language not different from those found among the greater apes. For a very long time, we probably communicated like how cats do, using cues. Even if they have the greater mental capacity, nuclear physics isn't introduced overnight.

Man from apes?You gotta be kidding me.

yeah, it is a little too unreal compared to man come from dust and clay (and woman from ribs). what were the scientists thinking?!

Actually fossil record is only part of a mountain of evidence that support the theory of evolution. For you to express incredulity that human and apes once shared a common ancestor or for the fact of evolution that explains the orgin of the human species, is purely based on ignorance. Maybe you read and believe too much creationist sites.

Issit about the DNA-thingy similarities again?

This post has been edited by Turnip: Apr 26 2010, 08:20 PM

And how do we evolved the mental capacities in the 1st place? If apes can be thought to of a higher class of psychological processes to what not equal but at least close to of a human; who taught us? Whales developed a far more sophisticated language than us but why whales does not become any smarter?

why is whales language more sophisticated the human?

this sort of argument sounds familiar,did you get it from answeringenesis?

dunno bout that.

This post has been edited by Turnip: Apr 28 2010, 06:34 PM

or may be from other creationists' websites,particularly harun yahya,who is known to spread misleading information?

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 28 2010, 06:51 PM