fakti se prej nga ishin nuk eshte hapur ende, por te dhenat e mbijetuara na tregojne se ne periudhen e Edenit, ekzistonte njelloj tjeter i qenieve te ngjashme me njerezit por jo edhe njerez me saktesi. Kjo gjini kishte kierarki sipas gjurmeve te mbetura ndersa gjinia njerezore ishte ende e shthurur dhe jetonte me rregullat e kopeve.
Aeneas Dardanus
Lavdi, pasthirrme fosilesh, germadhash e rrenojash vershelluese. -Eja pas meje!...
Tani e mora vesh se gjenekologu paska dore edhe per pikture....interesant cdo gje qe shkruhet......
Wild and crazy can't be lazy
Adam never met Eve
The most recent ancestor of all males living today was a man who lived in Africa around 59,000 years ago, according to an international team of researchers.
The scientists from eight countries have drawn up a genetic family tree of mankind by studying variations in the Y chromosome of more than a thousand men from different communities around the world. The Y chromosome is one of the two sex chromosomes (X and Y) which only men carry (women carry two X chromosomes).
The new research confirms the Out of Africa theory that modern humans originated in Africa before slowly spreading across the world.
But the finding raises new questions, not least because our most recent paternal ancestor would have been about 84,000 years younger than our maternal one. The team believes there is an explanation. They propose that the human genetic blueprint evolved as a mosaic, with different pieces of modern DNA emerging and spreading throughout the human population at different times.
Origins of man
Evidence from the fossil record suggests that modern man originated in Africa about 150,000 years ago, before moving steadily across the globe.
This Out of Africa hypothesis has been confirmed by studies of mitochondrial DNA, the segment of genetic material that is inherited exclusively from the mother.
Based on these studies, our most recent common ancestor is thought to be a woman who lived in Africa some 143,000 years ago, the so-called Mitochondrial Eve.
To find the common paternal ancestor, the team drew up a genetic family tree of mankind. They mapped small variations in the Y chromosomes of 1,062 men in 22 geographical areas, including Pakistan, India, Cambodia, Laos, Australia, New Guinea, America, Mali, Sudan, Ethiopia and Japan.
The new genetic family tree supports the Out of Africa scenario. But it suggests that our most recent paternal ancestor would have been about 84,000 years younger than our maternal one.
Regions of the genome
"You can ultimately trace every female lineage back to a single Mitochondrial Eve who lived in Africa about 150,000 years ago," said Dr Spencer Wells of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics in Oxford, UK, who was part of the team.
"The Y chromosome we trace again back to Africa but the date is about 80,000 years ago.
He told BBC News Online that the two studies could be reconciled. "There's a different evolutionary history for each region of the genome but they all are consistent in placing the ancestor of all modern humans alive today in Africa."
The research, published in the journal Nature Genetics, gives an intriguing insight into the journey of our ancestors across the planet, from eastern Africa into the Middle East, then to southeast and southern Asia, then New Guinea and Australia, and finally to Europe and Central Asia.
Some modern-day men living in what is now Sudan, Ethiopia and southern Africa are believed to be the closest living descendants of the first humans to set out on that great journey tens of thousands of years ago.
Where have all the good men gone
& where are all the gods?
Ky pra eshte problem interesant, sepse materiali gjenetik i mashkullit po na del pothuaj pergjysme me i ri se ai femeror.
Por kjo mund te arsyetohet pa asnje problem me faktin se mashkulli i njeriut te sotem ka qene tjeter gjini!
Fakti se Gilgameshi perbehet prej 2/3 hyjnore kurse vetem 1/3 njerezore tregon se ai ishte i perzier gjenetikisht. Pra se se paku i takonte frytit te gjenerates se trete te kyrqezimit, qe do te thote se gjyshi i tij nga nena kishte qene hyjnor dhe se nena e tij kishte lindur Gilgameshin ne kryqezim me nje hyjnor tjeter (te themi nga kjo raca e pavdekshme qe ata mendonin se ishin qiellore).
Prandaj Gilgameshi kishte rifituar edhe 1/4 qiellore mbrapa duke u lindur si pasardhes i cili mund te konsiderohej si 2/3 hyjnor. Sipas ketyre te dhenave del i arsyeshem fakti, -pse Gilgameshi refuzoi martesen me priftereshen e cila duhej te kishte vetem 1/2 Hyjnore.
Duket se ne kete periudhe "te gjenezes sone" qellimi i hyjnoreve ishte te rifitonin plleshmerine e humbur duke u perzier me nenat tokesore, por duke tentuar ta kthenin gjenin serish me ane kryqezimit te perseritur me pasardheset femra qe bartnin gjysmen e trashegimise gjenetike te tyre per ta forcuar serish gjenin e vet te niperit.
Por, per fat te keq, gjeni i tyre serish ngopej dhe perfundonte ne paplleshmeri.
Keshtu ata serish detyroheshin te benin femije me nenat tokesore dhe secilen here gjeni i tyre po ndotej edhe me shume me ate njerezor.
***
!?! Sipas te dhenave tjera, kemi informaten se ishin bere eksperimente edhe me kafshe me shprese:
se duke sakrifikimin e formes fizike (ne kryqezim me krijesa me te uleta se njeriu), kombinimi i suksesshem i gjenit do te prodhonte dicka si rezultat i kompromisit te dhembshem te sakrifikimit te formes per ta ruajtur esencen, qe fatkeqshisht poashtu nuk dha rezultate te qendrueshme...!?!
Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga Baptist : 19-01-2007 mė 13:22
Aeneas Dardanus
Lavdi, pasthirrme fosilesh, germadhash e rrenojash vershelluese. -Eja pas meje!...
dogmatic bullshit. sidomos duke arritur shkalle feje neper akademite e shba-se, ndryshe ngelesh pa pune.Postuar mė parė nga kiniku
duhet treguar kujdes per shendetin mendor kur lexohen hipotezat e lumtura te one-human-race, se gjitaret e tjere jane te gjithe te ndare ne nja 3 specie e lart... pervec njerezve... te cileve s'iu pranojne as ndarjen ne race atje ku dogmatizohet kjo "teoria" e ardhjes prej Afrike- meqe nuk e lejon dogma politiko-shoqerore qe e mban bashke ate shtet. esht tabś, non?
---
Bone fragments were examined for ancient DNA
Australian scientists say analysis of the oldest DNA ever taken from skeletal remains challenges the theory that all modern humans can trace their recent ancestry to Africa.
The study is based on the 60,000-year-old so-called Mungo Man skeleton, which was unearthed in New South Wales in 1974, and nine other anatomically modern Australian individuals who lived 8-15,000 years ago.
The Australian National University team looked at the DNA found in the mitochondria of these ancient people's cells. mtDNA, as it is known, is inherited only from females and also mutates - errors appear - at a steady rate, meaning it can be used as a "molecular clock" to investigate human history.
Recent lab studies of this type have suggested that our most recent common ancestor lived less than 200,000 years ago in Africa.
But the Australian researchers contend that the DNA sequences isolated from Mungo Man's bones show him to have a genetic lineage that is both older and distinct from this line.
Given the undoubted modern appearance of Mungo Man, they argue, major doubt must now be cast on the so-called "Out of Africa" hypothesis in which all living people are said to be descended from a group of modern humans who left their African homeland no earlier than about 120,000 years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1108413.stm
Ateist - besimtar pa zot?! Po ku beson ky besimtar, se "besimtar" eshte cilesor besimi, po "pa zot" nuk i cileson gje ketij "besimit"?! Te-ist dmth zot-ist, "besimtar-ne-zot"; detyrimisht a-te-ist dmth jo-zot-ist, "jo-besimtar-ne-zot". S'dmth. "besimtar-ne-jo-zot"... se eshte nonsens! Ateist eshte ai qe nuk beson ne ekzistencen e qenieve mbinatyrore, pasi mbinatyra eshte para te gjithash fjale pa kuptim.
Ateizmi s'eshte sistem vlerash, e as ateisti si ateist nuk dmth qe ndjek ndonje sistem te caktuar vlerash. Kush nuk beson ne zotat e teisteve quhet ateist. Nuk quhet ateist ai qe mbeshtet evolucionin, ai quhet evolucionist, as ai qe mbeshtet materien, ai quhet materialist, as ai qe beson te njeriu, ai quhet humanist, as ai qe beson ne krijues, ai quhet kreacionist.
Njė shėtitje e rastit nė pavijonin e tė ēmendurve tregon se besimi nuk provon kurrgjė Fridrih Niēe
[/FONT][/SIZE]po qfar e zgjat aq shume ore
Atesit eshte nje njeri qe nuk e njef trupin etij... pastaj nuk din se ku jeton .. nuk di se per qfar jeton... nuk di se qfar domethenja ka jeta ..nuk din se qfar domethenje ka vete egzistenca e nje njeriu .. dhe nuk enjef boten si duhet por i shikon gjerat me nje qelq te ngjyrosur me ndonje ngjyre qe ia deshifron gjerat.
E c'lidhje ka ateizmi me domethenien e jetes?! Ateizmi eshte thjesht te mosqenit teist. Ashtu si as teizmi s'ka fare lidhje me domethenien e jetes. Asnjeri prej ketyre s'jane sisteme vlerash, po merren vetem me nje ceshtje, me ceshtjen e besimit ne "zot" (cdmth?). Teizmi beson diku ne ekzistencen e dickaje qe s'e di c'eshte ("zot"), kurse ateizmi nuk beson aty.
Keshtu s'ke si t'i krahasosh ateizmin me islamizmin apo kristianizmin, etj. e te thuash se ateisti s'dika c'qenka, se eshte si te krahasosh avion reaktiv me trungje pemesh? S'kane lidhje direkte me njera-tjetren. Ateizmi krahasohet vetem me teizmin. Dhe as teizmi s'eshte sistem vlerash.
Keshtu o bashkebisedues, islamizmi si sistem vlerash, nuk ballafaqohet dot me ateizmin, e as nuk eshte teizem por perfshihet NEN teizem. Po njesoj dhe hinduzimi, po njesoj dhe kristianizmi, etj.
Cfare vlerash ka ateisti? - Pyete se me cilin sistem vlerash pajtohet. Nje nacionalist japonez eshte ateist, sic eshte dhe nje internacionalist amerikan, sic eshte dhe nje tradicionalist norvegjez. Keta te tre kane sisteme vlerash. Keta "e njofin trupin e tyre... pastaj e dijn se ku jetojn .. e dijn se per qfar jetojn... e dijn se qfar domethenja ka jeta per ta... e dijn se qfar domethenje ka vete egzistenca e nje njeriu... dhe e njofin boten si duhet e nuk i shikojn gjerat me nje qelq te ngjyrosur me ndonje ngjyre qe ia deshifron gjerat." Vetem se keto s'kane te bejne me ateizmin... ke ngaterruar adrese, se ateizmi eshte thjesht mosbesimi ne "zot". Dmth. kur ti si myslo do te gerricesh me ateistin si ateist nuk ke si gerricesh dot per pune vlerash. Mund te gerricesh vetem me karakteristiken e teistit si teist. Por si teist i llojit myslo do gerriceshe psh. me ateistin e llojit nacionalist japonez, apo ateistin e llojit tradicionalist norvegjez, apo ateistin e llojit demokrat francez, etj. etj. Gjegje?!
Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga Atheist : 20-01-2007 mė 11:56
Njė shėtitje e rastit nė pavijonin e tė ēmendurve tregon se besimi nuk provon kurrgjė Fridrih Niēe
Per ta bo me te qarte. Feja jote eshte ideologji. Feja jote perfshihet nen teizem. Po cik me lart ne hierarki as teizmi nuk eshte ideologji e as ateizmi.
Ideologji jane tradicionalizmi, integralizmi, demokracia, republikanizmi, nacionalizmi, humanizmi, komunizmi, myslimanizmi, kristianizmi, okbianzimi, etj etj. Vetem qe sic e shef, feja jote eshte thjesht nji ideologji mes shume te tillash qe jane nen teizem. Pranej dhe fete bien ndesh me sistemet politike qe burojne prej ca ideologjive me lart. Se jane ne nji kategori. Pranej dhe feja e ka te veshtire te ndahet nga shteti, se ajo do te jete shteti, ashtu si gjithe ideologjite e tjera.
po qfar e zgjat aq shume ore
Atesit eshte nje njeri qe nuk e njef trupin etij... pastaj nuk din se ku jeton .. nuk di se per qfar jeton... nuk di se qfar domethenja ka jeta ..nuk din se qfar domethenje ka vete egzistenca e nje njeriu .. dhe nuk enjef boten si duhet por i shikon gjerat me nje qelq te ngjyrosur me ndonje ngjyre qe ia deshifron gjerat.
Regullat e Postimit
Krijoni Kontakt