Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I am not a native speaker and I am currently working on a book about Genesis (before the "Flood") as I have understood it refers to the african Matriarchy that preceded civilisation. 

In short, each text before the flood has several analogic meanings. The seven "Days" are seven "faces of light" (1.5 God named the light : "Day") and not a week... and one meaning of the seven Days is the growth of a human being, from conception to adulthood : 1.1-3 "In the beginning, God created the (heavens) respiration, inspirations... and the (earth, Adama in Hebrew) flesh. The flesh had been empty and void, before the conception. Darkness was covering the amniotic abysses and the Breath/Spirit of God was hovering above the waters... until birth, when God saw the light and shouted..."

The more litteral meaning of the seven Days is derived IMO from the idea that the ecosystem grew in seven spiritual steps, just like a human being whose first Day extends from the conception to birth : it is the "foetal Day". And the litteral meaning introduces the second chapter : The Garden of Eden. The word "Eden" means pleasure and there is only one species having sex for pleasure : humans. Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans share a particularity : our males are active all year long, during adulthood. That is very rare (even unique?) as the natural norm is a cyclic and feminocentric sexuality. We thus developped sexuality for pleasure, as a way to deal with virility : Orang Útans rejected it; Gorillas were the strong dominant males who were not frustrated; Chimpanzees created prostitution and warfare; Bonobos abolished it by making sex free; prehumans developped sexuality for pleasure, as a way to deal with the menopause (make her like it more!)

So, this led to the Garden of Eden : a cultural Garden where sex was associated with pleasure... that which occulted the link between sexuality and reproduction. The name "Eve" only differs by one letter with "Yehova" because she was God, "creating" the children, until she became the wife, con-cieving the childrens. At the same time, the Garden of Eden refers to the first Day as Adam's actions can be seen as the steps of foetal growth : created, then put on the ground of the garden (uterus), then starts hearing, then discovers the mother... and is ultimately expulsed from the uterus, where it is forbidden to return... 

The book is more complex, as this unveiling of the link between sexuality and reproduction lead to agriculture and animal breeding (Caïn and Hebel), but those sons also refer to the birth of writing (making lines in the soil) and politics/religions (leading the herd). This perspective thus leads to the Flood, that is an analogy for the veiling of the Matriarchy : the Universal Mother lost her waters and her story was forgotten.

There are numerous fields of science required to develop all of these ideas. But one question that I have is about lips morphology. 

I suspect there was not only an ontological controversy, when the concept of "father" was "invented", but also a big change in language. Khoi'xan (Bushmen) do not use "Adam's apple" as much as everyone else and they separated from the Bantú when these developped animal breeding, thus after discovering the link between sexuality and reproduction. 

Bantú have a particularity that I think is unique : bi-color lips. It is very common in western Africa, from Togo to Kongo, at least, that people have an upper lip that is dark while the lower lip is pink. Everyone else, as far as I know, has lips the same color.

So, is it possible that Bantú established as a distinct group from the Khoï'xan and that this lead them to develop this feature? I mean, could they have changed the color of their lower lip from speaking as most humans do today, instead of "clicking" like the Khoï'xan - that which does not cause the tongue to often touch the lips? 

The Bantú would thus have spoken, "with their Adam's apple", as most people do today, for quite some time before this way of speaking became the norm, as they spreaded and gave birth to other cultures (Egypt, Krishna means "black", Enkidú taught Gilgamesh, the Kunte dynasty of China were africans...)

Is it possible for the bantú lips to have changed from the rubbing of the tongue? How long would it have taken for such a morphological evolution to happen? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ashwatthama said:

So, is it possible that Bantú established as a distinct group from the Khoï'xan and that this lead them to develop this feature? I mean, could they have changed the color of their lower lip from speaking as most humans do today, instead of "clicking" like the Khoï'xan - that which does not cause the tongue to often touch the lips? 

Firstly, evolution does not work that way. Things do not change because you change the way you use them. (This was the basis of the Lamarckian theory of evolution which was proved to be wrong).

Secondly, even though Khoï'xan (and many other languages around the world) include a variety of clicks, I am not sure this means that linguolabial consonants are used less. 

Finally, all languages including those with clicks, use "the Adam's apple" (by which I assume you mean the vocal chords). In Khoï'xan there are both voiced and unvoiced clicks, so this makes no difference to the use of the vocal chords.

2 hours ago, Ashwatthama said:

The name "Eve" only differs by one letter with "Yehova" because she was God

That is not the etymology of Eve.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Eve

2 hours ago, Ashwatthama said:

the Kunte dynasty of China were africans

There is no such thing.

2 hours ago, Ashwatthama said:

Enkidú taught Gilgamesh

There is no reason to think Enkidu or Gilgamesh were African. (And they are mythical, anyway.)

2 hours ago, Ashwatthama said:

I am not a native speaker and I am currently working on a book about Genesis (before the "Flood") as I have understood it refers to the african Matriarchy that preceded civilisation. 

I'm sure you can create a convincing narrative along these lines. But don't expect any scientific support for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ashwatthama said:

The word "Eden" means pleasure and there is only one species having sex for pleasure : humans.

Not true, just one example, Dolphins but there are many more. BTW Dolphins also present homosexual behavior. 

2 hours ago, Ashwatthama said:

Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans share a particularity : our males are active all year long, during adulthood.That is very rare (even unique?) 

Also not true. Please show a source for this.

2 hours ago, Ashwatthama said:

he name "Eve" only differs by one letter with "Yehova" because she was God, "creating" the children, until she became the wife, con-cieving the childrens.

 

2 hours ago, Ashwatthama said:

The book is more complex, as this unveiling of the link between sexuality and reproduction lead to agriculture and animal breeding (Caïn and Hebel), but those sons also refer to the birth of writing (making lines in the soil) and politics/religions (leading the herd). This perspective thus leads to the Flood, that is an analogy for the veiling of the Matriarchy : the Universal Mother lost her waters and her story was forgotten.

Here I presume you dropped something on your keyboard and accidentally pasted gibberish it in your post.

Edited by Silvestru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

חוח

יחוח

difference : 1 letter

No time to waste with the other nonsense that you spit. 

Why can't you simply answer the fucking question? Why are so called "scientific minds" always busy insulting people and never sharing anything? I don't give a shit about your opinion on the Bible. I just gave an introduction of the question, a context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well I suppose that's the way young people say "thank you" nowadays. 

I thought you would welcome some factual information on evolution and linguistics.

You're welcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skin pigmentation is an evolutionary trade off between vitamin D synthesis and UV protection. As the inside surfaces of the mouth are not generally exposed to sunlight, there is no selective advantage of increased melanistic expression in these tissues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ashwatthama said:

חוח

יחוח

difference : 1 letter

No time to waste with the other nonsense that you spit. 

Why can't you simply answer the fucking question? Why are so called "scientific minds" always busy insulting people and never sharing anything? I don't give a shit about your opinion on the Bible. I just gave an introduction of the question, a context.

!

Moderator Note

Please lose the attitude, and the insults.

All: As this is posted in a science section, you are expected to discuss science. As far as I can tell, the Biblical pretext is completely unnecessary as context for the question. Please leave it out of the discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 37, so I am not young. And I don't have to thank trolls. The title is clear, the section is clear. And everything you two wrote is false. Everything! Besides the fact it is off-topic. And it irritates me as it seems more and more people on the internet have nothing else to do but shun any newcomer.

I explained the reason that lead me to think of how bantús developped bi-color lips. It gives a time perspective and shows I am not interested in the chemical details : it's just a small point in a 300 pages book that none of you has read and that I cannot explain fully in a small introduction to a question. 

Zog zog

 

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "bantous"Image associée

 

See those examples of photos I just searched. The woman on the left has a pink lower lip. And the boy in the middle has that too, quite clearly (as wel as the one on the right, but more discrete). I have had bantú friends for ten years before noticing that. And I wonder how this could be explained as it seems unique to the people of this region (and not all of them have that)

Edited by Ashwatthama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ashwatthama said:

I am 37, so I am not young. And I don't have to thank trolls. The title is clear, the section is clear. And everything you two wrote is false. Everything! Besides the fact it is off-topic. And it irritates me as it seems more and more people on the internet have nothing else to do but shun any newcomer.

I explained the reason that lead me to think of how bantús developped bi-color lips. It gives a time perspective and shows I am not interested in the chemical details : it's just a small point in a 300 pages book that none of you has read, that I cannot explain fully in a small introduction to a question. 

Zog zog

 

Sexual selection is a very strong part of evolution, while i am not familiar with Bantus lip color sounds like on of those things that would be selected in that manner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ashwatthama said:

I am 37, so I am not young. And I don't have to thank trolls. The title is clear, the section is clear. And everything you two wrote is false. Everything! Besides the fact it is off-topic. And it irritates me as it seems more and more people on the internet have nothing else to do but shun any newcomer.

I explained the reason that lead me to think of how bantús developped bi-color lips. It gives a time perspective and shows I am not interested in the chemical details : it's just a small point in a 300 pages book that none of you has read, that I cannot explain fully in a small introduction to a question.

I've only been on the forum a short time, but I have been impressed by the breadth of knowledge and insights of Strange. My exposure to Silvestru's posts is more limited, but those I have seen have been well reasoned and to the point.

As you are 37 and have, it seems, some knowledge of science you are surely aware that assertions are necessarily questioned, often quite aggressively. That can feel uncomfortable, but I ams sure you know it is an essential part of science. At any rate, if you wish helpful input there are better ways of going about it than calling well established members trolls and using obscenities to demand a response you consider satisfactory. (It's also considered bad etiqutte - and is probably against forum rules - to argue with a moderator's remarks in the thread.)

As to your questions, Moontanman's suggestion looks the best bet so far; my amateurish view is that this could be accomplished in several thousand, but not tens of thousand, years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no need for aggressivity. It is not productive. And trying to "break" hypothesis that have not been presented is pure madness. If you want the whole reasonning, you'll have to buy the book, once it will be translated in english. So put it on next years christmas list, at best... :P

Bushmen must have separated from the Bantus less 30 000 to 50 000 years ago. And they became tillers and animal breeders and founded the first country, around Kongo. In Genesis, they mention "Havila", which means circle in Hebrew. And it says the river goes around the country and that there is gold and precious stones and amber (thus wood). The Kongo river is almost a circle and the merchandises are found there. Right before the Exodus, Amenhotep defeated Kúsh (the second country mentionned in Genesis) and reestablished this trade. they sent expeditions to bring back gold, stones, wood. Bantús were the ancestors of the egyptians, who kept in their record the location of the tribal mines and sent expeditions there everytime they could. 

And I suspect there was a deep controversy about the origins when the only religion that existed collapsed : that of the Universal Mother, the Creator of Children, as people thought in these days. This controversy would explain why they spent some time lingering in Kongo, before spreading the news, that which lead to agriculture and animal breeding everywhere. The developpment of agriculture and animal breeding was more or less simultaneous everywhere because it were a discovery : the discovery of the link between sexuality and reproduction

Could the Bantús have spoken so much and for so long before actually doing something from this discovery... that their lips turned that way?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ashwatthama said:

And everything you two wrote is false. Everything! Besides the fact it is off-topic.

This is a very big problem. You want to write a book, but you can't recognize someone trying to help by correcting your misunderstandings. You're making mistakes, you come to a science site to discuss science with more knowledgeable people, and you're claiming they are the ones who are wrong. Very big problem for a writer.

 

1 hour ago, Ashwatthama said:

And it irritates me as it seems more and more people on the internet have nothing else to do but shun any newcomer.

What?! Disagreeing with you is not the same as shunning you. You're wrong, and people are trying to help. Why are you irritated? Didn't you come here looking for knowledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ashwatthama said:

And everything you two wrote is false.

I can support everything I said with references. But given your attitude, I don't think I will bother.

30 minutes ago, Ashwatthama said:

There is absolutely no need for aggressivity.

You are the only one who has been aggressive.

36 minutes ago, Ashwatthama said:

Bantús were the ancestors of the egyptians

Apparently not:

"ancient Egyptians "closely resembled ancient and modern Near Eastern populations, especially those in the Levant, and had almost no DNA from sub-Saharan Africa. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt#Population

36 minutes ago, Ashwatthama said:

that their lips turned that way?

Again, that is not how evolution works.

38 minutes ago, Ashwatthama said:

The developpment of agriculture and animal breeding was more or less simultaneous everywhere

Again, apparently not: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/rice/historyofrice/spread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can gather, the trait under discussion is the fact that darker skinned humans have a red, inner lip and a melanistic outer lip. This can simply be explained by the inner lip being rarely exposed to sunlight, therefore increased melanism is not selected for and the tone appears red due to the vascularity of the interior of the mouth.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus far the postulated difference in lip character (upper versus lower) apparently related to a specific ethnic group appears to be purely anecdotal. Ashwatthama, do you have any formal observations of the two populations that would statistically support your suspicion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do take notes of the answers to correct the mistakes, otherwise I would not come to a forum. It's easier to just write down anything. But I do not agree with making excuses to be impolite. "Breaking" theories seems to be a very good way to build up scientific knowledge, but it works amongst colleagues, who respect each other and already know each other's perspectives. Otherwise, it is not a good social attitude, since you just don't know who you are talking to and what the person means. I I say, in today's world : "I believe in God", it means nothing because not everyone agrees on "believing" and "God".

IMO, a good attitude would have been to ask "What do you mean by pleasure?" for instance, instead of stating that it is not true humans are the only species having sex for pleasure.

http://www.dolphincommunicationproject.org/index.php/2014-10-21-00-13-26/dolphin-science-factoids/item/94358-top-5-dolphin-myths-dispelled

As this article states, having sex for other reasons than reproduction does not mean having sex for pleasure. When I mention "sex for pleasure", I refer to the act of mutual enjoyment, not just having a few hormones making you high for a few seconds...  But then I should have taken into consideration most men have a short wimpy and only last 3 minutes, on average, that which shows little understanding of reciprocity... Women have strong orgasms and that is unique and males caused this, to circumvent menopause that was making her refuse sex while the male continued asking at the same age... 

So, I certainly shoud review my formulation, especlially in a foreign language, but what I stated is not false... And questions instead of judgment might have avoided conflict... Do you wonder why there are so many creationist in the USA? I say it's because people say "no" instead of "how?why?"... and it made those people stubborn. How do you expect people with little knowledge to learn from you if you behave like a gorilla? And this goes very far... IMO, we also live in an era of scandals : BLM, SJW, Antifas... are always interrupting people and telling them "No" because they perceive "breaking" the other is the way to settle an argument. They feel they have to "obliterate" the other verbally to prove their point. And they behave in a rather violent way sometimes because of that, since most people have very few arguments and yet try to be recognized as "experts" as everyone believes only an expert can say intelligent things. I think the scientific clergy sounds way too churchy.

The same goes with the idea only gorillas, chimps, bononos and us share a rare trait. I had clearly put "or even unique" in between brackets and with a question mark, that which clearly establishes I am less sure of that and question this part of the statment... How can you say a question is wrong??? 

I understand and know mythology way better than than exact sciences and the book is mostly about psychology and systemic behaviours, but there are physical and biological facts needed to build the reasonning and I want to formulate them right. I am quite sure of my interpretation of Genesis as I spent ten years on it, after opening the book by pure curiosity as I had realized I had never opened the Bible and did not know even the first sentence...  but then there are the concepts in it as it is an abstract book, and the reality of it. 

Adam is introduced in the tale by a sentence that refers to Egypt, the only place Moses ever knew. In Egypt, a "breath in the nostrils" was a ritual performed on deceased people. And since the book tells Moses was raised by the queen, we can certainly assume he knew this omnipresent ritual of Egypt. They believed it helped the soul leave the body. 

Adam is thus a symbol for the foetus, on an individual level, as life begins by the "death" of two cells that become a living being (multiplying and fructifying - that which the two cells do not do before they meet). And he is also a symbol for the father that was added in the genealogies by the end of the Matriarchy.

Yehúeh is Youd-He-Vav-He, thus "hand, breath of life, nail, breath of life" as all hebrew letters are associated with one or two words. That gives a meaning to "Hava" (Eve) : He-Vav-He...

The man gives (hand) and the woman builds (nail) and they create the breath of life, they con-cieve. Before people understood that, there was only "he-vav-he" : it expresses the idea people ignored the fact the man gives something to the woman. It were believed the breath of life came from the Universal Mother and was built by the woman only. That is also why Eve bears this somewhat strange title of "Mother of all livings". The woman is not the mother of all livings, but when people ignored fecondation, they thought she did. Adam states what was believed in his lifetime, that she was the Mother of ALL livings...

And Caïn and Hebel are the storytellers of this book : the scribes (Caïn) and the orators (Hebel), who created Adam (that which explains why the word "field" appears before Adam, amongst other evidences of this perspective). They did not know who their father was : only who their mother was. And thus tried to explain how it happened, how the word "father" appeared and how mariage was instituted. It is clearly stated the woman "saw the Tree was good", right before she takes the fruit... This detail indicates she already had "knowledge" of good and evil : the children were believed to be her children, exclusively, and therefore, she was judging of what was ok and what was not, until she shared the authority on the definition of "good" and "evil". Sharing is not a perverted act, is it? 

So, this is the reasonning. In this context, there was a major controversy which was the beginning of History (historia : enquiry, from latin). People had to redefine the origins, as their ancestors had built all knowledge without really knowing themselves. The observer was wrong, and thus everything needed to be reviewed. it were certainly the biggest controversy ever, as there were few humans in those days and there was only one language (roughly), one belief system... and it all collapsed the day the guy shouted : "What? You're telling me she is the flesh of my flesh and the bones of my bones?" 

Think of it, it were the Major WTF moment in human history... and the beginning of the "theories" that lead to all religions and all cultures. 

So, my problem here is this time period when people stopped calling themselves "children of". Khoï'xan is a Khoïkhoï name and means "childrens of 'Xan" in reference to "Xangúa" : God in Khoïxan language. Bantú on the other hand means "human beings or fires or heads". Their name tells us what happened : the sharing of the fruit (of the union). Understanding fecondation divided nature into sexual categories, the species; it divided mankind in ethnicities, because opinions diverged on the "true origin"; it divided the autority on children, between the two parents. Before the sharing of the fruit, none called himself "human beings", but "childrens of... the Mother". The name of the Bantú shows they separated themselves from nature, so to say, that which explains why the relationships with neandertal, for instance, became more violent later on : they were first seen as brothers ans sons of Mother nature, but then were seen as foreigners, a concurrent species. 

And I wonder why this lips particularity exists. I imagine they may have first built up a society based on the understanding of fecondation, before bringing the news to others. And so they would have lingered, around Kongo, before some of them spreaded, at the beginning of civilisation.

References are a key issue in Genesis, but it clearly states Caïn killed Abel... and that is true : if you build the history of civilisation based on written accounts only, you miss the pastoral heritage that gave birth to the various scriptures... Humans spoke long before written accounts existed... Animal breeders spreaded from Kongo, to Kúsh, then the Euphrates and other locations, before anything was written. It is their culture that is the missing link between the Garden of Eden and civilisation. Enkidú was one of these pastors, very likely, who might have met a negroïd because there was nothing else in these days, or who met a local, less negroïd, and taught him a great news : men have a role in procreation. It were a huge thing when it came out...  

Animal breeding was the main reason for the spreading of mankind. And during this spread and until the second wave that brought more advanced models of society, there is an era that is obviously hard to understand and can certainly not be proven with writings and references, but surely exists... Animal breeding, through the glacial era, was way easier than agriculture as there were plenty of available pastures and it were a heating method. Agriculture was delayed by the glaciation, and animal breeder, meeting more people, had much more to say than their brothers, who laid down their story and built the "references"... 

 

  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ashwatthama said:

Yehúeh is Youd-He-Vav-He, thus "hand, breath of life, nail, breath of life" as all hebrew letters are associated with one or two words. That gives a meaning to "Hava" (Eve) : He-Vav-He...

While the etymology of Yahweh is not clear, this does not correspond to any theories I am aware of. Can you provide a reference for this derivation?

 

14 minutes ago, Ashwatthama said:

And I wonder why this lips particularity exists. 

I would second Area54's request for some evidence that this trait does exist, and that it is specific to Bantu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Strange said:

While the etymology of Yahweh is not clear, this does not correspond to any theories I am aware of. Can you provide a reference for this derivation?

Well, read the whole post... References have their limitations. According to references, there was a talking snake that caused us to eat a fruit, that which was an "original sin". Sorry for not buying that... References are into the book of Genesis itself, not in the writtings of converts and clergies... You want humanity to only consider "references", then scrap everything but the first book... Yehúeh Elohim is a name for Homo Sapiens : he who knows he names - that which explains why names have names, even if there are no references for that. And Homo Sapiens became culturally Sapiens Sapiens : who knows he names and knows he is born from an union. But maybe you believe you or your culture is an "immaculate conception" and not the result of a chain of events... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ashwatthama said:

References are into the book of Genesis itself, not in the writtings of converts and clergies...

That is not (by itself) a source for the etymology of the word. I was hoping for a reference to work by historians and/or linguists. 

Most sources seem to trace it to the verb "to be", as far as I can tell. 

6 minutes ago, Ashwatthama said:

Homo Sapiens : he who knows he names - that which explains why names have names

That is not what it means. 

7 minutes ago, Ashwatthama said:

But maybe you believe you or your culture is an "immaculate conception" and not the result of a chain of events... 

I have no idea what would make you think that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Strange said:

I have no idea what would make you think that. 

 

Confusion and assumption, as far as I can tell...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ashwatthama said:

But I do not agree with making excuses to be impolite. "Breaking" theories seems to be a very good way to build up scientific knowledge, but it works amongst colleagues, who respect each other and already know each other's perspectives. Otherwise, it is not a good social attitude, since you just don't know who you are talking to and what the person means.

Please understand that this isn't a social site, it's a science discussion forum, more akin to a classroom or conference table than FB or Twitter. Our priority rules call for civility always, and we don't attack people who have ideas. We do, however, attack the ideas. This is what science does, the way it stays healthy, relevant, and focused on each step of the process. Nobody is being impolite by correcting mistakes in your idea. They are trying to help. It would be a very good idea for an author to listen to experts in the fields he chooses to write about. Now is the time to fix mistakes, before they creep into your book unwanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None here is an expert on the book of Genesis. You may call it an assuption or a wild guess, but it's not the topic anyways. It's just the context, explaining the birth of this group. The whole interpretation is clearly thinking outside the box and it takes hundreds of pages to explain these few pages of the Bible. It is a big dogma breaker, but I want to make sure the scientific facts are more or less accurate, though the main goal is to explain the general perspective. Even in the first six letters, "in the beginning", there are references to hindouism, for instance and this cannot be explained quickly... It must be presented in a book, that one must read from A to Z, otherwise, it will just cause people to say "but that's not what the Church says"... I do not work with singled out words and sentences, otherwise, I would be a critic or an orator :P

Then, the answers to this topic are quite short so far... maybe I should just scrap this observation about the lips of the Bantú, as it really isn't an important issue, just an anecdote. I will keep believing Bantús are the original bla bla artists... and that they were marked by the pipe... as there must be a reason why Shiva Sativa is a variety of Ganja, in the country where "Ganga" and "Gan(j)esh" are sacred. And there must be a reason why there are "seven leaves" in one week... And there must be a reason why Mary and Juan (John-the baptist) gave birth and renewal to an immaculate conception... When you kill the young male plants, as it happened in Cannan, before the "Bis" day, the female plants produce an immaculate conception... and with this, you can create the "heavens" (smoke) and the "earth" (ashes), that were the Shaman's first creation... 

I think it were Carl Sagan who said this plant may have been the origin of agriculture and this combination of idea really makes me think they lingered quite a bit before becoming teachers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ashwatthama said:

None here is an expert on the book of Genesis.

Maybe not. But some of us know about evolution, biology, historical linguistics, etc.

I think providing new interpretations of myths is a good thing to do. However, if your interpretation overlaps with science (evolution, biology, historical linguistics, etc) then it must be accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ashwatthama said:

Then, the answers to this topic are quite short so far... maybe I should just scrap this observation about the lips of the Bantú, as it really isn't an important issue, just an anecdote.

Unless you can demonstrate that the difference you can speak of actually exists and is not the result of observational bias then you should certainly drop all reference to it. Critics will quite rightly single out any weaknesses or errors in your thesis, even when these are not central to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ashwatthama said:

None here is an expert on the book of Genesis.

!

Moderator Note

The book of Genesis is not an allowable discussion topic in a science section, discussing evolution of lips. You were told as much earlier. I take this to mean that the topic under discussion is finished

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.