Monkey Man an Evolutionary process of the Spirit of Humanity
Will You Take the Red Pill or the Blue Pill?
For the Red Pill and its opposite, the Blue Pill, are popular culture symbols representing the choice between embracing the sometimes painful (Red Pill) truth of Monkey Man reality which of itself is not a negative or positive thing. All material beings are formed from a mold, which molds their form. Thus we may simply have a Monkey Man Primate connection in our body form, where others may have an Insect connection, or Reptile connection, etc..
Where for the (Blue Pill) blissful ignorance of the illusion of Humanity being the only material sentient being made in the image of their God. For all sentient beings are made in the image of the creator. For it may be the case that man, (Humanity) has created God in their image. Therefore living in an illusion of separation from all other forms of life.
“You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”
The Blue Pill
Sow you have taken the Blue Pill, Great choice! For taking of the Blue Pill, you have found your bliss in the ignorance of the illusion you wish to believe. Therefore there is no reason to fill ones mind with useless information that will only sever to confuse and upset. Don’t worry be happy in your illusion! Go on with your day-to-day existence reflecting the illusion of your beliefs. No harm no foul. There are more important things in life than to know. It’s been said; You can lead a Horse to water, however, you can’t make it drink. “Ignorance is bliss.” Thus it serves no purpose to offer an other a perspective of some thing different. Have a nice day!
“Everything is and isn’t, at the same time”, “all truths are but half−truths”, “every truth is half−false”
The Red Pill
Sow you have taken the Red Pill, Great choice! For taking of the Red Pill you have found your Wonderland. For in Wonderland there is only Wonder. Shall we go inside to see what’s there?
“While All is THE ALL, it is equally true that THE ALL is in All.
Scientists have found have many fossils of ancient hominids Monkey Man throughout time. They have discovered and named up to 18 types of hominids.
The earliest hominids had small teeth, flat faces, large brains and the ability to walk upright. All these characteristics resembled human like features. The oldest fossils of Monkey Man hominids were located in Africa that were 6-7 million years old, so scientist think the evolution of the human race started in Africa.
Which a number of ancient texts conquer. It is believed that E-den was located in Africa, near the ancient Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Where scientists have found the remains of Monkey Man listed below.
Monkey Man, Homo ergaster (meaning “working man”) or African Homo erectus is an extinct chronospecies of the genus Homo that lived in eastern and southern Africa during the early Pleistocene, that is, between 1.9 million and 1.4 million years ago. It is one of the earliest hominids, which are those hominids that comprise the original members and species of the human clade after splitting from the line of the chimpanzees. (Homo ergaster is variously thought to be ancestral to, or as sharing a common ancestor with, or as being the same species as, Homo erectus).
Interpreting Homo ergaster inevitably leads to Homo erectus, particularly regarding the taxonomy issues that persist within the scientific community of classifying the two species and separating their two lineages—if indeed they represent two separate lineages rather than one. Some palaeoanthropologists consider H. ergaster to be a variety of H. erectus, that is, the so-called African Homo erectus. Others call H. ergaster the direct ancestor of H. erectus, which then emigrated out of Africa into Eurasia and branched into a distinct species. Still others dispense with the specific epithet ergaster and make no such distinctions among fossils assigned to erectus.
The latest discoveries at Dmanisi, Georgia, suggest that all the contemporary groups of early Homo in Africa, including Homo ergaster, are of the same species and should be assigned to Homo erectus.
The binomial name was published in 1975 by Groves and Mazák. The specific epithet, “ergaster”, is derived from the Ancient Greek ἐργαστήρ “workman”, in reference to the advanced lithic technology developed by the species, thereby introducing the Acheulean industry.
Monkey Man, Homo erectus (meaning “upright man”, from the Latin ērigere, “to put up, set upright”) is an extinct species of hominid that lived throughout most of the Pleistocene geological epoch. Its earliest fossil evidence dates to 1.9 million years ago and the most recent to 70,000 years ago. It is generally thought that H. erectus originated in Africa and spread from there, migrating throughout Eurasia as far as Georgia, India, Sri Lanka, China and Indonesia. However other scientists postulate that the species rose first, or separately, in Asia. Debate also continues about the classification, ancestry, and progeny of Homo erectus, especially vis-à-vis Homo ergaster, with two major positions: 1) H. erectus is the same species as H. ergaster, and thereby H. erectus is a direct ancestor of the later hominins including Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens; or, 2) it is in fact an Asian species distinct from African H. ergaster.
There is also another view—an alternative to 1): some palaeo-anthropologists consider H. ergaster to be a variety, that is, the “African” variety, of H. erectus, and they offer the labels “Homo erectus sensu stricto” (strict sense) for the Asian species and “Homo erectus sensu lato” (broad sense) for the greater species comprising both Asian and African populations.
A new debate appeared in 2013, with the documentation of the Dmanisi skulls. Considering the large morphological variation among all Dmanisi skulls, researchers now suggest that several early human ancestors variously classified, for example, as Homo ergaster, or Homo rudolfensis, and perhaps even Homo habilis, should instead be designated as Homo erectus.
It appears that scientist can’t agree on anything, except to debate. Their points of view has been sow narrowed by formal education that they have failed to connect the dots that history and ancient texts provide. They have never stopped to consider that someone or something may have had a hand in the evolution of Monkey Man. However, language provides some clues. Speak out loud this word, “erectus”. One may get the idea.
homo- noun Word Origin
1. a combining form appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it meant “same” ( homology); on this model, used in the formation of compound words ( homomorphic). Also, especially before a vowel, hom-.
Origin of homo-Greek, combining form of homós one and the same; akin to Sanskrit sama-; Dictionary.com Unabridged.
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2016.
British Dictionary definitions for homo-
1. being the same or like: homologous, homosexual Compare hetero-
Word Origin via Vulgar Latin from Greek, from homos same
Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
Word Origin and History for homo-
Word-forming element meaning “same, the same, equal, like,” before vowels hom-, from Greek homos “one and the same,” also “belonging to two or more jointly,” from PIE *somos (cf. Sanskrit samah “even, the same,” Lithuanian similis “like,” Gothic sama “the same,” samana “together;” see same ).
word-forming element meaning “homosexual,” abstracted since early 20c. from homosexual, and ultimately identical to homo- (1).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
homo- in Medicine homo- or hom- pref. Same; like: homotype.
The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
homo- in Science
homo- A prefix meaning “same,” as in homogamous, having the same kind of flower. Before vowels hom-, word-forming element meaning “same, the same, equal, like” (opposed to hetero-), from Greek homos “one and the same,” also “belonging to two or more jointly,” from PIE *somo-, from root *sem- (1) “as one; together with” (see same).
Did you catch that? … Greek… A combining form, being the same as, belonging to two or more jointly. I ask you? Combining with what? Being the same as what? Belonging to which two or more jointly?
Could this be why the bible said… Let us create man?
We were told above to See “Same”! Lets SEE it shall we?
Same [seym] Synonyms, adjective
Note: The superfluous meanings of “same” are not listed to save space and reading. Going directly to the Synonym. One can always look up “same”.
1–3. corresponding, interchangeable, equal. Same, similar agree in indicating a correspondence between two or more things. Same means alike in kind, degree, quality; that is, identical (with): to eat the same food every day; at the same price. Similar means like, resembling, having certain qualities in common, somewhat the same as, of nearly the same kind as: similar in appearance; Don’t treat them as if they were the same when they are only similar.
hetero- Look up hetero- at Dictionary.com
Before vowels heter-, word-forming element meaning “other, different,” from Greek heteros “the other (of two), another, different; second; other than usual.” It is a compound; the first element means “one, at one, together,” from PIE *sem- (1) “one” (see same); the second is cognate with the second element in Latin al-ter, Gothic an-þar, Old English o-ðer “other.”
Compounds in classical Greek show the range of the word there: Heterokretes “true Cretan,” (that is, of the old stock); heteroglossos “of foreign language;” heterozelos “zealous for one side;” heterotropos “of a different sort or fashion,” literally “turning the other way;” heterophron “raving,” literally “of other mind.” “true Cretan”, from Greek ἐτεός, meaning “true” + Cretan) is the non-Greek language of a few alphabetic inscriptions of ancient Crete.
Somebody called us Homo, Hetero is equally valid. Who’s calling us names? Well let me ask you. Who’s doing the Homo stuff around here? Shall we dispense with the name calling?
Homo sapiens (n.) Look up Homo sapiens at Dictionary.com
The genus of human beings, 1802, in William Turton’s translation of Linnæus, coined in Modern Latin from Latin homo “man” (technically “male human,” but in logical and scholastic writing “human being;” see homunculus) + sapiens, present participle of sapere “be wise” (see sapient).
Homunculus (n.) Look up homunculus at Dictionary.com
“Tiny human being produced artificially,” 1650s, from Latin homunculus (plural homunculi), literally “little person,” with -culus, diminutive suffix, + homo (genitive hominis), which technically meant “male human,” but it also was used with a sense “the human race, mankind;” while in Vulgar Latin it could be used as “one, anyone, they, people” and in logical and scholastic writing as “a human being, person.” This is conjectured to be perhaps from PIE *(dh)ghomon-, literally “earthling,” from *dhghem- “earth” (see chthonic; also compare human). Other Latin diminutives from homo included homullus, homuncio.
Sapient (adj.) Look up sapient at Dictionary.com
“Wise,” late 15c. (early 15c. as a surname), from Old French sapient, from Latin sapientem (nominative sapiens), present participle of sapere “to taste, have taste, be wise,” from PIE root *sep- (1) “to taste, perceive” (cognates: Old Saxon an-sebban “to perceive, remark,” Old High German antseffen, Old English sefa “mind, understanding, insight”).
Many traits unique to humans were thought to have originated in the genus Homo between 2.4 and 1.8 million years ago in Africa. Although scientists have recognized these characteristics for decades, they are reconsidering the true evolutionary factors that drove them.
A large brain, long legs, the ability to craft tools and prolonged maturation periods were all thought to have evolved together at the start of the Homo lineage as African grasslands expanded and Earth’s climate became cooler and drier.
However, new climate and fossil evidence analyzed by a team of researchers, including Smithsonian paleoanthropologist Richard Potts, Susan Antón, professor of anthropology at New York University, and Leslie Aiello, president of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, suggests that these traits did not arise as a single package. Rather, several key ingredients once thought to define Homo evolved in earlier Australopithecus ancestors between 3 and 4 million years ago, while others emerged significantly later.
The team’s research takes an innovative approach to integrating paleoclimate data, new fossils and understandings of the genus Homo, archaeological remains and biological studies of a wide range of mammals (including humans). The synthesis of these data led the team to conclude that the ability of early humans to adjust to changing conditions ultimately enabled the earliest species of Homo to vary, survive and begin spreading from Africa to Eurasia 1.85 million years ago. Additional information about this study is available in the July 4 issue of Science.
Potts developed a new climate framework for East African human evolution that depicts most of the era from 2.5 million to 1.5 million years ago as a time of strong climate instability and shifting intensity of annual wet and dry seasons. This framework, which is based on Earth’s astronomical cycles, provides the basis for some of the paper’s key findings, and it suggests that multiple coexisting species of Homo that overlapped geographically emerged in highly changing environments.
Homo habilis, ( Latin: “able man” or “handy man”) Homo habilis Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. extinct species of human, the most ancient representative of the human genus, Homo. Homo habilis inhabited parts of sub-Saharan Africa from roughly 2.4 million years ago to 1.5 million years ago (mya). In 1959 and 1960 the first fossils were discovered at Olduvai Gorge in northern Tanzania. This discovery was a turning point in the science of paleoanthropology because the oldest previously known human fossils were Asian specimens of Homo erectus. Many features of H. habilis appear to be intermediate in terms of evolutionary development between the relatively primitive Australopithecus and the more-advanced Homo species.
Australopithecus africanus, is an extinct (fossil) species of the australopithecines, the first of an early ape-form species to be classified as hominin (in 1924). Recently it was dated as living between 3.8 to 2.0 million years ago, or in the late Pliocene and early Pleistocene times; it is debated as being a direct ancestor of modern humans. A. africanus was of slender, or gracile, build and has been found only in southern Africa at four sites: Taung (1924), Sterkfontein (1935), Makapansgat (1948) and Gladysvale (1992).
A. africanus was similar in many traits to A. afarensis, a bipedal hominin with arms slightly longer than the legs (a physical trait also found in chimpanzees). It has slightly human-like, advanced cranial features (seen in the crania of Mrs. Ples and STS 71), but also presents primitive features including ape-like curved fingers adapted to tree climbing.
Instead of it being a direct ancestor of later hominins and thereby of humans, some researchers believe that A. africanus evolved into Paranthropus, and specifically that P. robustus descended from A. africanus. Both P. robustus and A. africanus crania seem very alike despite the more heavily built (robust) features of P. robustus, which, like those of the modern gorilla, are adaptations for heavy chewing. A. africanus, on the other hand, had a cranium which quite closely resembled that of a modern chimpanzee; yet both brains measure about 400 cc to 500 cc and probably presented an ape-like intelligence.
Sow as one can SEE, now even the scientists are reconsidering their point of view.
One point that needs to be viewed, is that Monkey Man may have been manipulated not once, not twice, not three times, but is continually being manipulated through eons of time. Not sure if Man-iplated is the right word. However it is true that man is manipulating man as we speak. Evolved maybe a more appropriate term. However, this leads to the question evolved by whom?
Thus a new Monkey Man may just be over the horizon.
Origins of Mankind
Origins of Man research papers profile the beginning of mankind through DNA testing and other scientific methods.
Before we start, it is important to consider that there are 250 gene pairs of the 25,000 in the human genome that are not related to any other terrestrial beings tested thus far. Simply put, no evolutionary bases. Where did these genes come from? How did these genes get into the human genome?
What this means is that these 250 genes are NOT shared with any other terrestrial life form.
Not to mention, chromosome 22 appears to have been fused together. Several investigators in the early 1980s showed that the Philadelphia chromosome trans-location led to the formation of a new BCR/ABL1 fusion gene, composed of the 3’part of the ABL1 gene in the break-point on chromosome 9 and the 5′ part of a gene called BCR in the break-point in chromosome 22.
What did this? Nature, GOD, Extraterrestrials? It’s very interesting that no other evidence is found of chromosomes fussing in nature. Well, I couldn’t find any, maybe you can.
A new report in the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect. Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.
The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’
Specific examples of these differences include:
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.
While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’ In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.
Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular, which cause Down Syndrome. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’
These types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity. While previous studies have focused on base substitutions, they have missed perhaps the greatest contribution to the genetic differences between chimps and humans. Missing nucleotides from one or the other appear to account for more than twice the number of substituted nucleotides. Although the number of substitutions is about ten times higher than the number of indels, the number of nucleotides involved in indels is greater. These indels were reported to be equally represented in the chimp and human sequences. Therefore, the insertions or deletions were not occurring only in the chimp or only in the human and could also be interpreted as intrinsic differences.
Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not, remember the Blue Pill. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Just say no to drugs!
Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!
The above examples demonstrate that the conclusions of scientific investigations can be different depending on how the study is done. Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded. Modern humans can have a single recent ancestor <10,000 or 100,000–200,000 years ago depending on whether a relationship with chimpanzees is assumed and which types of mutations are considered.
The debate over the origins of man continues to rage on the scientific front. With new genetic tools and DNA mapping, much can be surmised from anthropological evidence on the history and origin of man. According to a recent article in Scientific American, The Modern Human Origins Morass, there are essentially two scientific theories for the origin of man): 1 the Neanderthal theory) and 2 the Out of Africa replacement theory.
What? You mean to tell me that science can only work with two theories at a time? Sounds like an either or scenario.
The Monkey Man Neanderthal theory asserts that modern man came from Africa about two million years ago and evolved to Homo sapiens along a single species. The Out of Africa theory asserts that Homo sapiens replaced the Neanderthals and other species approximately 15,000 to 200,000 years ago and formed a new species altogether. However, recent DNA information has brought to light new theories and cast shadows of doubt on the old theories.
The article in Scientific American reports that Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and his colleagues discovered that Neanderthal DNA did not show any relation to DNA from Monkey Man Europeans who supposedly modern man was supposed to have evolved from, according to the Neanderthal theory. In fact, the article reports that modern DNA was more than three times removed from DNA that is compared between two Modern day humans.
DNA testing has proven problematic, according to the Scientific American article. For example, the history of a single gene cannot reflect the entire genetic make-up in an individual; this would involve recovering nuclear DNA which is difficult with today’s technology.
What is clear through DNA testing is that ancient Monkey Man humans shared genes and behavior across the globe, Homo sapiens clearly do not come from one specific group. Essentially, humans have a history of interbreeding that has shaped our behavior and genetic make-up. Therefore, the debate over the origin of man will not end with the methods of DNA testing that modern day man has established, rather, the future will determine whether we solve the mystery the origins of the human race.
There are two main approaches scientists have taken on human biological variation in the past. The first is racial classification, and the second focuses on understanding specific differences. The study of racial classification has been rejected and scientists are currently approaching an explanation using the second method. Some biologists use race to refer to breeds, like in dogs and roses. The human population has not been isolated from each other enough, to develop races. Humans vary biologically in genetic attributes but there are no sharp breaks in humans that we associate with a subspecies.
Racial classification fell out of biological favor for many reasons. Though it is mainly because scientists have trouble grouping people into distinct racial units. A race is supposed to reflect shared genetic material. However, early scholars used phenotypical traits for racial classification. There are many problems to this approach.
The first being, which traits do we use for racial classification, height, weight, body shape, skull form, skin color? Genetic variations were not used in early racial classifications. There are many problems with the methods used to separate races. The biggest being, if we are going to determine race using phenotypical traits, why skin color? Why not other features easily separated within individuals? While we name races by skin color, we do not even name them well.
How many truly white, red, yellow or black people have you actually seen?
We have not always had race. The ancient world, for example, had no conception of it. The first systematic racial classification was that advanced by Johan Freidrich Bloomenbach in 1775. He argued that there were five basic racial divisions… Caucasian Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay.
Racism as we know it had its origins in early 17th and 18th century European thought. Race was a classification system invented by Europeans which served to press primarily political aims or claims of groups within European countries then to represent the relationships between these groups, rather, between these countries and finally to govern the relations outside Europe. Europe was composed of peoples who had come from different regions and frequently the lines of political tensions coincided to those origins so that evidence about different customs of the original groups could be used in political argument.
The term “race” is used to describe so much in terms of biology, behavior, culture, and social structure that it often seems useless in its ubiquity. Explaining what race is not before delving into a political definition of race reduces the confusion surrounding these multiple and conflicting usages. It also reveals how most usages tend to depoliticize our understanding of race. That is if used correctly, as we know there is good usage, bad usage, and usage.
“Breed” is not a term that is appropriate to the part of biology where they discuss Order, Genus, species, etc. “Breed” is relevant to biology, but only in the sense that humans have learned to selectively breed creatures to get the kind of characteristics that humans want. It does not belong in with the natural processes that produce genera, species, etc.
So in that sense, “breed” has no relevance to scientific classification. The most typical people in Malawi do not belong to a “breed,” nor do the Ainu people who live alongside the Japanese in Hokkaido, nor do the Swedes. Not only are individuals of those groups not members of different “breeds” (thank goodness humans have not even tried to sink to the level of breeding breeds of humans very often), they are not members of different subspecies.
What? “Very often”, What does that mean? However, this does not mean that someone or something else didn’t breed Humanity. Simply, let’s agree humanity is one race thus eliminating racism.
The genus designation is Homo, the species designation for every single human is sapiens, and the subspecies designation for all of us is sapiens, so the whole scientific classification is Homo sapiens sapiens. If Homo sapiens sapiens breaks down into smaller subdivisions, Asians, Africans, or whatever, those subdivisions would have to be called “sub-subspecies” or something like that.
No, No, No, because if we eliminate racism we can not separate one group of Humanity from another. Then what would the royals do? After all one breed of dog is not better than another breed of dog, now is it? Because Breed is a relevant scientific classification.
People who classify creatures like spiders, (creatures that unlike humans don’t go flying all over the world all the time and exchanging genetic material in almost that widespread a way), don’t even have patience with the subspecies designation, claiming that most of the time the individuals refuse to conform to the scheme of categorization and it is more trouble than it is worth to try to figure out what some spider might “really” be. Humans have even less consistency in genetic makeup, yet for some perverse reason we insist on trying to divide them into sub-subspecies groups, or different races.
Yep, we are all of one race. It’s called the Human Race for a reason. Monkey Man is simply the mold in which ones Spirit is encapsulated to experience material life.
Whether one is of the Monkey Man Race, Insect Man Race, Reptile Man Race, etc., becomes only an issue of which mold was used to create the material body.
To evolve the Spirit within is the path we walk. Really, is there a difference in Spirit? Since Spirit is the source from which we ALL come.
Therefore, is one mold better than another? For the answer just ask the Cookie Baker. In fact, one may experience ALL the races before one evolves.
“While All is THE ALL, it is equally true that THE ALL is in All.
Damn, that Red Pill has a kick, doesn’t it?