Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Ni Kweli Binadamu wa Kwanza alipatikana Olduvai Gorge?

Discussion in 'Jukwaa la Siasa' started by Wakunyuti, Jun 24, 2008.

  1. Wakunyuti

    Wakunyuti JF-Expert Member

    #1
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: Feb 11, 2008
    Messages: 380
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 0
    Kuna kitu mpaka sasaivi bado kinanichanganya na naomba wana JF mnisaidie kwa hili..

    Olduvai Gorge has been strongly associated with human origins according to the History, na kwamba inasemekana kuwa hapo ndipo mahali ambapo mifupa ya binadamu wa kwanza kabisa kuishi katika hii inaposadikika kuonekana/kupatikana.. Olduvai inapatikana Africa tena katika nchi yetu ya Tanzania..... Najiuliza maswali yafuatayo :


    1. je suala ilo ni la ukweli????

    2. Kama ndio je dunia inalitambua hili??

    3.Kama ndio iweje Serikali yetu hai take advantage na kwa ishu nyeti na nzito kama hii???

    Kwa mawazo yangu naona Tanzania ndio ingekua nchi famous na inayovutia watalii kuliko nchi nyingine yeyote katika dunia hii sababu historia yake moja kwa moja inahusiana na historia ya mwanadamu yeyote duniani.....

    kwanini olduvai Gorge isiwe famous duniani kote hata kuzidi serengeti na kutupatia pato kubwa sana katika sekta ya utalii kupitia hapo??? Je tumeshindwa kabisa kujitangaza??au bajeti ni ndogo??? au historia tuliyojifunza tukiwa shuleni ni ya uongo??

    Jamani naombeni mnisaidie kwa hayo wana JF
     
  2. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #2
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    Haijulikani binadamu wa kwanza aliishi wapi.Swala zima la binadamu wa kwanza liko controversial kwa sababu binaadamu ali evolve katika stages. Kinachofanyika sasa hivi ni kwamba anthropologists wana record mabaki ya binadamu wa kale kabisa, Olduvai Gorge ni moja ya sehemu palipopatikana mabaki kama hayo.

    By the way rekodi ya Olduvai Gorge imevunjwa na mabaki ya binadamu yaliyopatikana huko Chad.

    But I don't rtust anthropologists anyway.
     
  3. T

    Tuandamane JF-Expert Member

    #3
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: Feb 2, 2008
    Messages: 1,220
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 135
    kwani hili swala ni la kisiasa?
     
  4. hollo

    hollo JF-Expert Member

    #4
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: Apr 21, 2008
    Messages: 744
    Likes Received: 1
    Trophy Points: 35
    Si kweli kuwa binadamu wa kwanza alipatikana olduvai george hiyo east side story imeshavunjwa na mabaki ya yaliyopatikana chad"TOUMAÏ"any way olduvai ni famous maana mwanzo ilijulikana binadamu ndo ka originate huko lakini toka july 2002 east side story is ni longer applicable!
     
  5. J

    Jobo JF-Expert Member

    #5
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: May 15, 2008
    Messages: 588
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 35
    Why dont you trust anthropologists!! Au ni imani ya kidini uliyonaye (hope you are not an atheist coz most anthropologists do not believe in creation!)
     
  6. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #6
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    Anthropologist will excavate some 5% of remains of a human skull in Mesopotamia that lived some thirty thousands years ago and try to tell you what the poor fellow ate, how many kids did he have, whether their society was monogamous or polygamous, whether he was of nobility or not, how many litres of water he used per day and so on and so forth.

    All from a an incomplete set of bones nonetheless.

    I mean c'mon man, I bet you can't tell me the same thing with accuracy for the people who lived during The Iliad.

    Thats why I don't trust anthropologists.
     
  7. J

    Jobo JF-Expert Member

    #7
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: May 15, 2008
    Messages: 588
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 35
    Yes man! Sometimes I wonder how they are able to determine the exact age and the other statistics they provide. I know in 1959 when the Zinjathropus (whatever the name is) was discovered, computers were not in use, so how did they know of the age of that skull?? Hapa tunapigwa changa la macho by people who want to become professors on fictitious claims!
     
  8. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #8
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    They used the unreliable radiocarbon dating, to add insult to injury.
     
  9. J

    Jobo JF-Expert Member

    #9
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: May 15, 2008
    Messages: 588
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 35
    Science has alot of things that I do not agree with myself. This one and the evolution! That a giraffe got its long neck coz of the drought and eating on top of trees! Or the explanation about how we became black coz we live in the tropics!
     
  10. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #10
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    Evolution is the most sensible explanation we have of how we got here.
     
  11. J

    Jobo JF-Expert Member

    #11
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: May 15, 2008
    Messages: 588
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 35
    Nope! I better cling on my faith of creation! How do u expain the fact that changes in human beings and other homosapiens is no longer taking place! Why do we have black, yellow and white people? Why are the white people hairly, are they still in transition! just too many unanswered questions......... thatnk God I cannot claim to be a historian or scientist!
     
  12. Nemesis

    Nemesis JF-Expert Member

    #12
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: Feb 13, 2008
    Messages: 3,260
    Likes Received: 211
    Trophy Points: 160
    Binadamu wa kwanza anaitwa Adam na wapili anaitwa Hawa, hawa waliishi kwa mara ya kwanza katika bustani ya Edeni then maeneo fulani katika mashariki ya kati full stop.
    Source: Bible, the book of Genesis
     
  13. J

    Jobo JF-Expert Member

    #13
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: May 15, 2008
    Messages: 588
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 35
    This is more sensible than the evolution theory! Tell this to Pundit!
     
  14. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #14
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    Evolution takes places at a very slow pace, so it is not true that change in human beings (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is not taking place.

    A prime example of this is the slowly disappearing appendix

    So change is taking place, albeit slow.

    Because different people, inhabiting different places, under different conditions evolve differently.The black pigmentation (melonin) in Africans skin helps Africans and other people inhabiting equatorial regions of the earth to protect themselves against skin cancer, natural selection made sure only the ones who can survive under the harsh direct sunlight did so.The Northern Europeans do not need this and that is why they are not dark pigmented.

    White people are hairly to adapt to the European cold climes. The one who did not have enough hair died of cold, leaving only the ones with enough hair, who mated to produce hairy offspring.

    So does religion offer better answers?
     
  15. J

    Jobo JF-Expert Member

    #15
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: May 15, 2008
    Messages: 588
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 35
    There are various grounds on which to question aspects of the current evolutionary model, and a lively debate persists today. Evolution is in principle hard to model precisely, since the changes it describes usually takes place over time periods that are inaccessible to human beings. Consider the related situation in astronomy. Changes in the movement of the stars are slow, and until very recently were too slow to be detected within the lifetime of an individual. However, with the help of a continuous series of observations dating back to the fifth century BC, Copernicus was able to formulate a detailed model that fit two thousand years of data. Unfortunately, in the case of biology, two thousand years of continuous observation would in most cases reveal very little. We must thus rely in indirect evidence, such as fossil remains and systematic structural similarities and differences in living forms. This evidence leaves room for a variety of possible interpretations of past events, and thus of the mechanisms of change that underlie them. I can examine only a few focal points of contention.

    Gradualism. All the way back to Darwin, the notion that changes accrue gradually over long periods of time has been a central proposition of evolutionary theory. As Ernst Mayr put it in Animal Species and Evolution (1963), "all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes" (p. 586).

    In contrast, the fossil record suggests long periods of stasis followed by brief periods of rapid change - what Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould dubbed punctuated equilibrium. This data has sometimes been taken as evidence against the neo-Darwinian model by people who believe the order of nature is due to the intentional act or acts of a supernatural being. Within the scientific tradition, the relative lack of continuous change in the fossil record is interpreted as evidence that speciation events have typically taken place in small populations over relatively short periods of time.

    In addition, gradualism should not be discounted. For instance, in the period from 300,000 to 100,000 year ago, fossil remains of the genus Homo show a wide range of forms. It is not unlikely that we have inherited alleles from individual mutations that took place over a wide geographical area during this period. As the best mutations spread throughout the existing populations, the range of functionally meaningful variation drops towards zero. Archeologists of the future may well see only our remains, appearing as if by the hand of God, while the gradual accumulation of alleles that made us possible leaves little or no trace.
     
  16. J

    Jobo JF-Expert Member

    #16
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: May 15, 2008
    Messages: 588
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 35
    The above is copy and paste!
     
  17. Nyani Ngabu

    Nyani Ngabu Platinum Member

    #17
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: May 15, 2006
    Messages: 65,042
    Likes Received: 15,957
    Trophy Points: 280
    How do you know? Do you have any incontrovertible proof to support your claim?
     
  18. J

    Jobo JF-Expert Member

    #18
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: May 15, 2008
    Messages: 588
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 35
    White people are hairly to adapt to the European cold climes. The one who did not have enough hair died of cold, leaving only the ones with enough hair, who mated to produce hairy offspring.

    So does religion offer better answers?[/QUOTE]

    I think it does! The story about colour emanates from the Sons of Noah! This was just after the great floods that wiped the human race except for Noah and his family!
     
  19. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #19
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    The discernible departure from the usually slow process of evolution can be noted in the phenomena of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, this is evolution based on the mutative abilities of bacteria to adapt to their environment.
     
  20. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #20
    Jun 24, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    I think it does! The story about colour emanates from the Sons of Noah! This was just after the great floods that wiped the human race except for Noah and his family![/QUOTE]

    When? 6,000 years ago?
     
Loading...