Hey Mookie - What's the evidence of human-like behaviours in earlier homonids? I assume that the further back you go the less 'human' they were in terms of tool use etc.
Well Neanderthal for instance grew crops and cooked food on stone ovens and there is some instance of written language. If such human like behaviour came from such a primitive human ancestor that is a little strange. It would make more sense for them to be much more primitive than that, rather than being almost exactly the same as us.
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
Well Neanderthal for instance grew crops and cooked food on stone ovens and there is some instance of written language. If such human like behaviour came from such a primitive human ancestor that is a little strange. It would make more sense for them to be much more primitive than that, rather than being almost exactly the same as us.
Actually neanderthals weren't our ancestors at all. They were a different branch of the evolutionary tree that split from us around the 1 million years ago mark. We co-existed with them for many thousands of years. I believe that they were better adapted to the colder northern hemisphere climates that us during the last ice age. So they dominated those regions for some time, while we were hiding in warmer places like Africa, Indonesia and Australia. Don't quote me on the details though, I may have them completely screwed up. As I said, this isn't my field. I'm a molecular guy. Ask Mookie Baylock.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
The Neandertal debate is still up in the air, I believe. It's true they were an "earlier" form of human; what's being kicked around now in the scientific community is whether or not they bred with the Cro-Magnuns. It's not that we evolved from Neandertals - the question is, are there still Neandertal genes swimming around in our pool?
Personally, I believe we wiped them out. But that's just me.
I watched a lecture with an evolutionary biologist (2006). He said that in Darwin's time his theory did have many holes in it. However, those holes have since been filled.
You can actually order the DVD of the lecture for free from http://hhmi.org if you live in North America.
“I also have no objection to explanations, if they are good explanations. Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. . . ."
it wasn't Darwin's theory....he just took credit for it...
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
“I also have no objection to explanations, if they are good explanations. Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. . . ."
it wasn't Darwin's theory....he just took credit for it...
Alfred Russel Wallace?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i just know that he was a younger contemporary of Darwin.
the concept can be traced back to ancient Greece...there were also several 18th-century forerunners of Darwin who paved the way for wide acceptance of The Origin of Species.
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
i just know that he was a younger contemporary of Darwin.
the concept can be traced back to ancient Greece...there were also several 18th-century forerunners of Darwin who paved the way for wide acceptance of The Origin of Species.
Ok, but Darwin spent 40 years Quantifying Evolution.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i just know that he was a younger contemporary of Darwin.
the concept can be traced back to ancient Greece...there were also several 18th-century forerunners of Darwin who paved the way for wide acceptance of The Origin of Species.
The concept of evolution has been around for as long as people could see similarities between closely related species.
Darwin DID NOT come up with the theory of evolution. There were several theories that pre-dated Darwin, Lamarkian evolution being the most well respected (interestingly Soviet biologists were required to only work with Lamarkian theories until recently). What Darwin came up with was a theory that explained how evolution worked ie. natural selection.
Wallace came up with a similar (albeit less refined) theory at the same time, and as I believe I explained about 10 pages back the initial presentation of their ideas was done together, although Darwin came up with it much much earlier. He sat on his theories because it conflicted with his religious beliefs.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
Actually neanderthals weren't our ancestors at all. They were a different branch of the evolutionary tree that split from us around the 1 million years ago mark. We co-existed with them for many thousands of years. I believe that they were better adapted to the colder northern hemisphere climates that us during the last ice age. So they dominated those regions for some time, while we were hiding in warmer places like Africa, Indonesia and Australia. Don't quote me on the details though, I may have them completely screwed up. As I said, this isn't my field. I'm a molecular guy. Ask Mookie Baylock.
Agreed, neanderthals were not human anscestors. They were contemporaries of humans. Homo Erectus living in ice age Europe evolved into Neanderthals, while Erectus in Africa became humans. The humans then left Africa and met the Neanderthals in the Middle East Area where they co-existed for tens of thousands of years. What level of interaction there was we don't know. It is possible that they interbred, and there is debate over it. I don't buy it myself. Neanderthals were intelligent and strong, but they were not nearly as sophisticated as we were/are.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
Hey Mookie - What's the evidence of human-like behaviours in earlier homonids? I assume that the further back you go the less 'human' they were in terms of tool use etc.
Well as you trace the fossil record back in time, you see how our anscestors become more apelike and smaller brained. In terms of behaviour all we really have to go on are stone tools which, as expected become less and less complex as you go back in time. That being said, there are a few indications. For example the 4 million year old footprints, at Laitoli I believe, show what might be interpreted as a family unit.
Explaining any behaviour in an extinct species is difficult and is mainly based on interpretation. If you want to hear my personal theory...
I believe that "human" behavior began with the evolution of the menstral cycle (I could get into the origins of the menstaul cycle later if you like). Before this, pre-human society would have been similar to ape society. An alpha male having domination over the lesser males and first access to fertile females. With the adoption of the menstraul cycle, as opposed to the eustrus cycle, females were ,for all intents and purposes, fertile all the time meaning less compitition between males for fertile females and a more egalitarian society. Also, this might have led to advances in female behaviour and anatomy, as they had to escape the hoards of horny males, lol. This led to the disapearance of extreme sexual dimorphism, as the females had to protect themselves!
This is just my theory now, so don't go reading too much into it.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So, I've come to learn recently that as of 2006 half of Americans do not accept evolution. This is primarily based on the Intelligent Design movement.
Let me sort out some myths about evolution.
There are no missing links
There is no controversy in the scientific community
Charles Darwin himself didn't like his own theory but recognized it as the truth.
Proponents of ID argue it's a scientific theory because of the flagellum of bacteria. Flagella are whip-like extensions from organisms like bacteria that propel them. The flagella are fairly complex, for a tiny molecule like bacteria. You can see an animation here and a part description here. The claim is that since a tiny molecule has a complex limb such as the flagellum and since the part is "irreducable" meaning one missing piece renders the flagellum useless, that that is evidence of Intelligent Design.
Scientifically speaking, each individual part of the flagellum serves other purposes. So it is reducable, it just won't have propulsion if key components are missing. Even with 40 missing components the flagellum can still work. Secondly, this isn't a single-cell organism, this isn't the begining of life Darwin was refering to, this is a complex molecule.
Another arguement was the mathematical probability of chance. By reversing the product of chance everything seems impossible. For example, you get dealt a Royal Flush in a game of Five Card Stud. What are the chances? Well if you reverse it the chances are roughly 1 in 2.5 million, but it does happen. Just within our puny existance I'm sure this hand has come up a few times. So, our planet's age is about 4.6 billion years or so, our species age is about 7 million years old, but we've probably only been sentient for a few hundred thousand years. Anyway, the likely hood of us happening is 100% in reflection. The same chance of being dealt a Royal Flush, if you have a Royal Flush in your hand.
You can question the "theory" of evolution but you can't question the fact that we evolved from ape-like creatures. Which is the fundamental problem people have with evolution. Evolution is the basis for most of our scientific research into disease. Without the understanding of Evolution we would never cure cancer or AIDS.
When someone says "I have a dachsund-terrier mix" they are making reference to evolution. Their animal has some traits from the dachsund and some from the terrier, that is evolution and it's undenyable.
Anyway, sorry for rehashing this, it just blows me away that half of Americans buy into that ID crap and the propaganda that goes with it.
let's say a million years from now a scientist finds one set of bones from the 20th century. those of the elephant man. he will conclude that 20th century man looked like that; then come up with a theory of how 20th century man evolved from that state to present state. just something to think about.
let's say a million years from now a scientist finds one set of bones from the 20th century. those of the elephant man. he will conclude that 20th century man looked like that; then come up with a theory of how 20th century man evolved from that state to present state. just something to think about.
Are you implying that fossils are just deformed people? Fossilization is very rare, and then the likelyhood that a fossil surviving, then being found is very very rare, one in a million at least. The odds that a fossil being found is deformed is very unlikely. Because of the odds, most fossils are considered to be typical of their species.
Not only that but we find groups of similarily "deformed" humans at different time periods and in different locations. If every 4 million year old austrolpithicus is really a deformed human, why do we find so many similarly deformed people from the same period, and no modern people until 150000 years ago?
Do you really believe that fossil experts are so stupid that they can't recognize an abnormailty from an adaptation? For instance, skulls are symetrical, the elephant man was anything but.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
let's say a million years from now a scientist finds one set of bones from the 20th century. those of the elephant man. he will conclude that 20th century man looked like that; then come up with a theory of how 20th century man evolved from that state to present state. just something to think about.
Yea, I guess, but that's not going to happen. Besides we've found several fossils of the same species, granted there are some we've only found single samples. Take a trip to the La Brea tar pits. I've never been there, but I hear it's cool.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well Neanderthal for instance grew crops and cooked food on stone ovens and there is some instance of written language. If such human like behaviour came from such a primitive human ancestor that is a little strange. It would make more sense for them to be much more primitive than that, rather than being almost exactly the same as us.
One of the central aspects in which humans were special is that they buried their dead.
Neaderthals just let their dead sit out and rot. They had no custom of burial whatsoever.
To me, that seems to be a significant difference that is worthy of noting.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Yea, I guess, but that's not going to happen. Besides we've found several fossils of the same species, granted there are some we've only found single samples. Take a trip to the La Brea tar pits. I've never been there, but I hear it's cool.
i was watching a show on national geographic channel where a girl found an alien skull in a cave in mexico.
One of the central aspects in which humans were special is that they buried their dead.
Neaderthals just let their dead sit out and rot. They had no custom of burial whatsoever.
To me, that seems to be a significant difference that is worthy of noting.
Wrong. Actually there is lots of evidence of buried neanderthals. For example a skeleton known as "Shanidar 1" was buried with grave goods, surrounded by red ochre (a surprising common human custom). His skeleton also showed that he had been severely injured years before he had died, and would have been basically unable to contribute to every life. He lost an eye, and had severly damanged arms and legs. Yet he was cared for and lived for years after and was given an elaborate burial when he died. This is the first evidence for compassion in history.
Neanderthal life was not as variable and complex as ours, but they were had plenty of culture, including possible bone flutes, for instance.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
i was watching a show on national geographic channel where a girl found an alien skull in a cave in mexico.
Well yea, all Mexican's are aliens to the U.S. :P
What kind of Alien was it?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i was watching a show on national geographic channel where a girl found an alien skull in a cave in mexico.
Cultures in that area practiced cranial reformation on their infants when their skulls are still very soft and non-fused. The result is surprisingly strange looking skulls. I've seen some, they're fricking weird. It's similar to the North American natives who carried their babies on cradleboards worn like backpacks. The infants end up with heads that are very flat on the back from resting against the boards all the time.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
An overview of how this alleged ‘subhuman’ is being progressively rehabilitated, despite the evolutionary bias resisting the trend.
Michael J. Oard
17 February 2003
‘Neandertal man’ was the name given to bones found in 1856 in Germany’s Neander Valley (‘tal’, or ‘thal’ in old German spelling). The name Neander was a pseudonym of the 17th century minister Joachim Neumann, the Greek translation of his name (‘new man’). A recent major PBS-TV series on evolution1 depicted Neandertal Man as only half human and not very intelligent, one who lived a very inferior life compared to the alleged first humans, the Cro-Magnon people. Some scientists today believe he was ‘lacking the language skills, foresight, creativity, and other cognitive abilities of modern humans’.2 Neandertal Man is considered to be either a link leading to man or a dead end in human evolution from the supposed ape-like ancestor.
Biblical creationists, on the other hand, believe that there were no ‘subhumans’ at any time. Neandertal fossils are all post-Flood, so these bones are believed to represent just one more group of people which split off from other groups following the Babel dispersion.
The evolutionary assumptions about the Neandertal Man began early this century. The first Neandertal was reconstructed as a ‘missing link’ by famous paleontologist Marcellin Boule (1861–1942).3 He was called Homo neanderthalensis, implying a primitive evolutionary link to modern man, Homo sapiens. Forty-four years later, a reanalysis of Boule’s work showed his extreme evolutionary bias in the reconstruction of Neandertal Man. After the reanalysis, some scientists stated that if you dressed him up, gave him a shave and bath, and sent him into society, he would attract no more attention than some of the subway’s other denizens (see Recreating the faces of our Neandertal cousins, below). Neandertal Man was then reclassified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, just a particular type of modern man.
It is interesting that, just as with Piltdown Man, Neandertal’s uplifted status was hailed as a ‘great moment in science’ in which errors are eventually corrected. But the clues to Neandertal Man’s human affinity were obvious at the time of Boule’s reconstruction, just as it should have been obvious that Piltdown Man was a fraud.
The great pathologist Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902) claimed that the Neandertal specimen he examined had rickets and arthritis, which may have caused some of the unique Neandertal features, but his opinion was overlooked.4 It took 44 years for the highly misleading nature of the reconstructions to be revealed, indicative of the shared bias of the evolutionary community.
Even after the Neandertal reconstruction at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago was shown to be false and highly misleading, it took another 20 years for this renowned institution to correct its display!
Although the image of Neandertal Man improved by the 1950s and 1960s, there still is considerable controversy within evolutionary circles over his status,5 with many still preferring the ‘missing link’ concept. Although his brain size is a little larger than modern man’s, Neandertal’s brain is said to be of ‘lesser quality.’ Some believe he had incredible physical strength and would fight large animals at close quarters, while others claim he was a scavenger or even a vegetarian. Evolutionists do not know where Neandertal Man came from or where he went. One faction of evolutionists believes modern man, Cro-Magnons, killed the Neandertals, while others believe Neandertal interbred with Cro-Magnon Man, eventually becoming modern man. Neandertal Man disappeared about 30,000 years ago in the evolutionary timescale—a more or less ‘absolute’ date, despite evidence of younger Neandertals.6
Another difficulty for evolutionists is evidence that Neandertal Man lived at the same time as modern man and ‘archaic Homo sapiens’, sometimes in the same area. This creates big problems for those professing Christians who, like Hugh Ross, generally accept secular dating methods. Since they cannot date Adam back too far without stretching the genealogies beyond recognition, any human-type skeletons ‘dated’ earlier than a few tens of thousands of years ago have to be written off as pre-Adamic ‘soulless’ quasihumans. Biblical creationists believe Neandertal Man was just a unique variant of modern man who lived in Europe and adjacent Asia and North Africa after the Babel dispersion in the Ice Age (the aftermath of the Flood—ref. 24).
Despite the PBS series on evolution, the status of Neandertal Man has been improving among evolutionists during the past 10 years. The series’ failure to mention any of the recent discoveries appears to be typical of its whole propagandistic thrust. The discovery of a human hyoid bone (related to the larynx or voice box) prompted many evolutionists to state that Neandertal Man had speech and language ability equivalent to modern man.7
Trinkaus and Shipman8 say:
‘Although no one had explicitly predicted what a Neandertal hyoid would look like, few were really surprised when it turned out to be a slightly enlarged version of a human hyoid and nothing like an ape hyoid ... . Many anthropologists came to believe that Neandertals could have spoken any modern human language, whatever their accent may have been.’
Although the Neandertal hyoid bone was indistinguishable from those of modern humans, some still downplay its significance to speech ability. A later report based on further anatomical evidence concludes that language has been around for 400,000 years of evolutionary time, including the entire Neandertal period.9
The PBS series pointed out that Neandertal burials left little evidence of ritual as compared to those by later humans. Besides leaving me suspicious that their case was concocted, any difference may not mean much, since there are other ways to explain the scarcity of implements or other signs of ritual with Neandertal skeletons. Lately, more evidence of ritual has been showing up. A Neandertal baby was found buried in Israel with a red deer jawbone next to its hip indicating that Neandertal Man at least had the capability for symbolic behavior.10 A Neandertal toddler was unearthed in Syria at the bottom of a 1.5 m (5 ft) -deep pit, with a flint tool resting at about the spot where the infant’s heart had once beaten. This discovery is considered ‘the best evidence yet of Neandertal burial practices’.11 Furthermore, pierced animal teeth, probably worn as pendants, and ivory rings were discovered with a Neandertal fossil in a French cave in 1996.2,12 Moreover, it is now known that Neandertals made their own, relatively sophisticated ornaments and tools.2 This suggests ‘a high degree of acculturation’.12
At one time archaeologists did not believe Neandertals used spears, but this idea has been given the shaft by the finding of aerodynamic wooden spears used by the supposed ancestors of Neandertals.2 Furthermore, it has been discovered that Neandertals crafted a variety of stone tools and deadly, stone-tipped spears, showing an aptitude often attributed only to modern humans.2,13,14 Some scientists had claimed that Neandertal Man was only capable of scavenging carcasses, but a new analysis of break and cut marks on animal bones in caves indicates that he butchered the animals, which is consistent with hunting.2 John Shea, who featured in the PBS series, states that this new information contradicts the idea that Neandertals were markedly inferior.2
A very recent report now finds that Neandertals used stone implements in more flexible ways than previously thought, which gave them access to a more varied diet of meat and plants.15,16 Based on microscopic evidence of use-wear and residues left on the stone tools in the Crimea,16 the report suggests that those who used the tools, likely Neandertals, exploited a variety of woody and starchy plants and even hunted birds. Residues of bird feathers were found on some of the tools.
It has recently been concluded that Neandertals lived side-by-side with modern humans in the Middle East for 100,000 years of evolutionary time and made virtually identical stone tools.17 Hybrids of Neandertals and humans are known from a number of areas,8 including a recent find of a child in Portugal.18 It is not difficult to conclude that Neandertal Man was totally human, and that modern humans and Neandertals likely amalgamated in Europe.
One report claimed that Neandertal Man’s DNA was quite different from modern humans, supposedly justifying the classification of them into a different species than modern man. But its author, the famed Svente Pääbo, claims that his paper has been misinterpreted.19 And mitochondrial DNA retrieved from an Australian Homo sapiens, claimed to be 62,000 years old, also differs greatly from that of modern humans.20 The team that made the DNA discovery believes this new result will usher Neandertal Man back into the human fold. This result also suggests that DNA studies are not very good for determining supposed evolutionary closeness.
It has been suggested that Neandertal Man fashioned a bone flute, an obvious human accomplishment. This deduction is strongly disputed, claiming that the holes in a hollowed-out bear bone were punctured and gnawed by the teeth of an animal, possibly a wolf.21 However, the two complete and two partial holes in the picture shown are linear and very round, making the carnivore theory suspect. Besides, there are about 30 partial bone flutes that have been found in Europe late in the Neandertal period and younger.22
Those scientists that dispute Neandertal’s human affinity seem to forget that he lived during the Ice Age and was able to survive the cold and harsh weather.23 Neandertal Man had to have a human level of sophistication to survive.9 ,24)
A new article published in the journal Nature now claims that Neandertals, or possibly modern humans, lived in northern Russia during the Ice Age.25 It had been widely believed that no humans lived in this region until 14,000 years ago in evolutionary time. Based on a mammoth tusk bearing cut marks, likely made from stone tools, the earliest date of man living in this cold territory during the Ice Age was pushed back to 40,000 years. The significance of this is that ‘adaptation to northern climes requires high levels of technological and social organization’,26 strongly suggesting that Neandertal Man, if he was the tool user, was fully human.
Many of these reports of Neandertal’s total humanity are disputed by some scientists, seemingly motivated by a blind evolutionary bias. In one scene from the similarly biased PBS series, John Shea throws a Neandertal spear with a heavy head 23 or 24 m (80 ft), while he throws a later human spear 42 m (140 feet). This demonstration implied that Neandertals were inferior to modern people. But earlier in the Neandertal episode it was concluded that Neandertals were very strong: the body builders of the Paleolithic. It therefore stands to reason that Neandertal Man could throw his spear significantly farther than 24 m, and that the heavy, sharp stone tip would have been very effective in hunting. The spear that was thrown 42 m had a light antler head and was thrown with the aid of a spear thrower.
Despite all the prejudice towards including Neandertals into Homo sapiens, many evolutionists have become impressed with the evidence for Neandertal’s humanity, as research casts a ‘more complimentary light on the older cousins. This emerging view depicts Neandertals as having a capacity for creative, flexible behavior somewhat like that of modern people’.2 Thus, the evidence increasingly supports the Biblical position.
RECREATING THE FACES OF OUR NEANDERTAL COUSINS
From their skeletons, we know that the average Neandertal person had bony differences from the average person alive today, including a bigger braincase. So what did they look like?
Bones cannot tell you about things like hairiness, nor the shape of the fleshy parts, like nose or ears. But computerized forensic science has come a long way in making educated ‘guesses’ at a person’s appearance from the shape of a skull. As reported in January 1996 National Geographic, researchers at the University of Illinois used computer ‘morphing’ techniques to fit pictures of living people onto Neandertal’s skulls.
Unlike the artistic reconstructions of earlier times, this time nothing was imaginatively added based on evolutionary assumptions of ‘primitivity’. The results indicate that the bones of the skull would not preclude Neandertals from looking like people you would not greatly comment on (apart from hair and dress style) if they moved in next door to you today.
If you go to maps.google.ca or load up Google Earth, punch in "Area 51" then scroll the the left/west a bit, you see this. It's very peculiar.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Anyway, I feel I've educated you all enough for now, lol. I should be a professor or something. But for now I'm going to watch the hockey game. Go Leafs Go!
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
I was thinking about having an electrode mat implanted in my brain.
I got this idea from a really dedicated scientists that stared at the sun in order to burn a hole in his retina.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Anyway, I feel I've educated you all enough for now, lol. I should be a professor or something. But for now I'm going to watch the hockey game. Go Leafs Go!
I'm not educated enough yet! Tell me more.
Its my understanding that H. erectus originated in Africa and had spread throughout Europe and Asia as far as the southeastern parts of indonesia by the time modern humans first appeared. So the current thinking is that erectus in Europe gave rise to neanderthals, while those in Africa gave rise to modern humans, and other groups may have split off in other regions, like the recently discovered H. floresensis (hobbits) who lived on at least one island in indonesia. So at some point in history, there were modern humans, neanderthals, erectus and possibly others all existing at the same time. Is that right?
I've even heard somewhere that its thought that H. erectus may have made it as far as northern Australia, which seems perfectly reasonable to me, if they were already in Java and other nearby places. I'm just not sure what the evidence of this is. (I could search for it, but I should be working anyway)
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Its my understanding that H. erectus originated in Africa and had spread throughout Europe and Asia as far as the southeastern parts of indonesia by the time modern humans first appeared. So the current thinking is that erectus in Europe gave rise to neanderthals, while those in Africa gave rise to modern humans, and other groups may have split off in other regions, like the recently discovered H. floresensis (hobbits) who lived on at least one island in indonesia. So at some point in history, there were modern humans, neanderthals, erectus and possibly others all existing at the same time. Is that right?
I've even heard somewhere that its thought that H. erectus may have made it as far as northern Australia, which seems perfectly reasonable to me, if they were already in Java and other nearby places. I'm just not sure what the evidence of this is. (I could search for it, but I should be working anyway)
You are correct. 150 to 200000 years ago you would have had, homo sapiens, neanderthalus, erectus, floresensis, and probably other lesser known Erectus-like versions. Erectus made it into parts of Europe, must of Southern Asia and Indonesia. I don't know anything about Australia, but I suppose its possible. I don't think they were smart enough to manage long-distance sea travel, but who knows with ancient sea levels and what-not.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
You are correct. 150 to 200000 years ago you would have had, homo sapiens, neanderthalus, erectus, floresensis, and probably other lesser known Erectus-like versions. Erectus made it into parts of Europe, must of Southern Asia and Indonesia. I don't know anything about Australia, but I suppose its possible. I don't think they were smart enough to manage long-distance sea travel, but who knows with ancient sea levels and what-not.
So at what stage did H. sapiens start spreading from Africa? I'm just curious about the timeframe, because depending on who you listen to, humans first arrived in Australia somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 years ago. I wonder who they might have met along the way.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Comments
Well Neanderthal for instance grew crops and cooked food on stone ovens and there is some instance of written language. If such human like behaviour came from such a primitive human ancestor that is a little strange. It would make more sense for them to be much more primitive than that, rather than being almost exactly the same as us.
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
Actually neanderthals weren't our ancestors at all. They were a different branch of the evolutionary tree that split from us around the 1 million years ago mark. We co-existed with them for many thousands of years. I believe that they were better adapted to the colder northern hemisphere climates that us during the last ice age. So they dominated those regions for some time, while we were hiding in warmer places like Africa, Indonesia and Australia. Don't quote me on the details though, I may have them completely screwed up. As I said, this isn't my field. I'm a molecular guy. Ask Mookie Baylock.
-C Addison
Personally, I believe we wiped them out. But that's just me.
“I also have no objection to explanations, if they are good explanations. Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. . . ."
it wasn't Darwin's theory....he just took credit for it...
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
Alfred Russel Wallace?
i just know that he was a younger contemporary of Darwin.
the concept can be traced back to ancient Greece...there were also several 18th-century forerunners of Darwin who paved the way for wide acceptance of The Origin of Species.
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
Ok, but Darwin spent 40 years Quantifying Evolution.
The concept of evolution has been around for as long as people could see similarities between closely related species.
Darwin DID NOT come up with the theory of evolution. There were several theories that pre-dated Darwin, Lamarkian evolution being the most well respected (interestingly Soviet biologists were required to only work with Lamarkian theories until recently). What Darwin came up with was a theory that explained how evolution worked ie. natural selection.
Wallace came up with a similar (albeit less refined) theory at the same time, and as I believe I explained about 10 pages back the initial presentation of their ideas was done together, although Darwin came up with it much much earlier. He sat on his theories because it conflicted with his religious beliefs.
-Ashley Montagu
Agreed, neanderthals were not human anscestors. They were contemporaries of humans. Homo Erectus living in ice age Europe evolved into Neanderthals, while Erectus in Africa became humans. The humans then left Africa and met the Neanderthals in the Middle East Area where they co-existed for tens of thousands of years. What level of interaction there was we don't know. It is possible that they interbred, and there is debate over it. I don't buy it myself. Neanderthals were intelligent and strong, but they were not nearly as sophisticated as we were/are.
-Ashley Montagu
Well as you trace the fossil record back in time, you see how our anscestors become more apelike and smaller brained. In terms of behaviour all we really have to go on are stone tools which, as expected become less and less complex as you go back in time. That being said, there are a few indications. For example the 4 million year old footprints, at Laitoli I believe, show what might be interpreted as a family unit.
Explaining any behaviour in an extinct species is difficult and is mainly based on interpretation. If you want to hear my personal theory...
I believe that "human" behavior began with the evolution of the menstral cycle (I could get into the origins of the menstaul cycle later if you like). Before this, pre-human society would have been similar to ape society. An alpha male having domination over the lesser males and first access to fertile females. With the adoption of the menstraul cycle, as opposed to the eustrus cycle, females were ,for all intents and purposes, fertile all the time meaning less compitition between males for fertile females and a more egalitarian society. Also, this might have led to advances in female behaviour and anatomy, as they had to escape the hoards of horny males, lol. This led to the disapearance of extreme sexual dimorphism, as the females had to protect themselves!
This is just my theory now, so don't go reading too much into it.
-Ashley Montagu
J/k different context
let's say a million years from now a scientist finds one set of bones from the 20th century. those of the elephant man. he will conclude that 20th century man looked like that; then come up with a theory of how 20th century man evolved from that state to present state. just something to think about.
Are you implying that fossils are just deformed people? Fossilization is very rare, and then the likelyhood that a fossil surviving, then being found is very very rare, one in a million at least. The odds that a fossil being found is deformed is very unlikely. Because of the odds, most fossils are considered to be typical of their species.
Not only that but we find groups of similarily "deformed" humans at different time periods and in different locations. If every 4 million year old austrolpithicus is really a deformed human, why do we find so many similarly deformed people from the same period, and no modern people until 150000 years ago?
Do you really believe that fossil experts are so stupid that they can't recognize an abnormailty from an adaptation? For instance, skulls are symetrical, the elephant man was anything but.
-Ashley Montagu
Yea, I guess, but that's not going to happen. Besides we've found several fossils of the same species, granted there are some we've only found single samples. Take a trip to the La Brea tar pits. I've never been there, but I hear it's cool.
One of the central aspects in which humans were special is that they buried their dead.
Neaderthals just let their dead sit out and rot. They had no custom of burial whatsoever.
To me, that seems to be a significant difference that is worthy of noting.
-Enoch Powell
i was watching a show on national geographic channel where a girl found an alien skull in a cave in mexico.
Wrong. Actually there is lots of evidence of buried neanderthals. For example a skeleton known as "Shanidar 1" was buried with grave goods, surrounded by red ochre (a surprising common human custom). His skeleton also showed that he had been severely injured years before he had died, and would have been basically unable to contribute to every life. He lost an eye, and had severly damanged arms and legs. Yet he was cared for and lived for years after and was given an elaborate burial when he died. This is the first evidence for compassion in history.
Neanderthal life was not as variable and complex as ours, but they were had plenty of culture, including possible bone flutes, for instance.
-Ashley Montagu
Well yea, all Mexican's are aliens to the U.S. :P
What kind of Alien was it?
Cultures in that area practiced cranial reformation on their infants when their skulls are still very soft and non-fused. The result is surprisingly strange looking skulls. I've seen some, they're fricking weird. It's similar to the North American natives who carried their babies on cradleboards worn like backpacks. The infants end up with heads that are very flat on the back from resting against the boards all the time.
-Ashley Montagu
Actually, Neanderthals did bury their dead, and this is one of the reasons their study has been so intense.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/museum/VirtualTour/Tour/First/Human/human3.html
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
An overview of how this alleged ‘subhuman’ is being progressively rehabilitated, despite the evolutionary bias resisting the trend.
Michael J. Oard
17 February 2003
‘Neandertal man’ was the name given to bones found in 1856 in Germany’s Neander Valley (‘tal’, or ‘thal’ in old German spelling). The name Neander was a pseudonym of the 17th century minister Joachim Neumann, the Greek translation of his name (‘new man’). A recent major PBS-TV series on evolution1 depicted Neandertal Man as only half human and not very intelligent, one who lived a very inferior life compared to the alleged first humans, the Cro-Magnon people. Some scientists today believe he was ‘lacking the language skills, foresight, creativity, and other cognitive abilities of modern humans’.2 Neandertal Man is considered to be either a link leading to man or a dead end in human evolution from the supposed ape-like ancestor.
Biblical creationists, on the other hand, believe that there were no ‘subhumans’ at any time. Neandertal fossils are all post-Flood, so these bones are believed to represent just one more group of people which split off from other groups following the Babel dispersion.
The evolutionary assumptions about the Neandertal Man began early this century. The first Neandertal was reconstructed as a ‘missing link’ by famous paleontologist Marcellin Boule (1861–1942).3 He was called Homo neanderthalensis, implying a primitive evolutionary link to modern man, Homo sapiens. Forty-four years later, a reanalysis of Boule’s work showed his extreme evolutionary bias in the reconstruction of Neandertal Man. After the reanalysis, some scientists stated that if you dressed him up, gave him a shave and bath, and sent him into society, he would attract no more attention than some of the subway’s other denizens (see Recreating the faces of our Neandertal cousins, below). Neandertal Man was then reclassified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, just a particular type of modern man.
It is interesting that, just as with Piltdown Man, Neandertal’s uplifted status was hailed as a ‘great moment in science’ in which errors are eventually corrected. But the clues to Neandertal Man’s human affinity were obvious at the time of Boule’s reconstruction, just as it should have been obvious that Piltdown Man was a fraud.
The great pathologist Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902) claimed that the Neandertal specimen he examined had rickets and arthritis, which may have caused some of the unique Neandertal features, but his opinion was overlooked.4 It took 44 years for the highly misleading nature of the reconstructions to be revealed, indicative of the shared bias of the evolutionary community.
Even after the Neandertal reconstruction at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago was shown to be false and highly misleading, it took another 20 years for this renowned institution to correct its display!
Although the image of Neandertal Man improved by the 1950s and 1960s, there still is considerable controversy within evolutionary circles over his status,5 with many still preferring the ‘missing link’ concept. Although his brain size is a little larger than modern man’s, Neandertal’s brain is said to be of ‘lesser quality.’ Some believe he had incredible physical strength and would fight large animals at close quarters, while others claim he was a scavenger or even a vegetarian. Evolutionists do not know where Neandertal Man came from or where he went. One faction of evolutionists believes modern man, Cro-Magnons, killed the Neandertals, while others believe Neandertal interbred with Cro-Magnon Man, eventually becoming modern man. Neandertal Man disappeared about 30,000 years ago in the evolutionary timescale—a more or less ‘absolute’ date, despite evidence of younger Neandertals.6
Another difficulty for evolutionists is evidence that Neandertal Man lived at the same time as modern man and ‘archaic Homo sapiens’, sometimes in the same area. This creates big problems for those professing Christians who, like Hugh Ross, generally accept secular dating methods. Since they cannot date Adam back too far without stretching the genealogies beyond recognition, any human-type skeletons ‘dated’ earlier than a few tens of thousands of years ago have to be written off as pre-Adamic ‘soulless’ quasihumans. Biblical creationists believe Neandertal Man was just a unique variant of modern man who lived in Europe and adjacent Asia and North Africa after the Babel dispersion in the Ice Age (the aftermath of the Flood—ref. 24).
Despite the PBS series on evolution, the status of Neandertal Man has been improving among evolutionists during the past 10 years. The series’ failure to mention any of the recent discoveries appears to be typical of its whole propagandistic thrust. The discovery of a human hyoid bone (related to the larynx or voice box) prompted many evolutionists to state that Neandertal Man had speech and language ability equivalent to modern man.7
Trinkaus and Shipman8 say:
‘Although no one had explicitly predicted what a Neandertal hyoid would look like, few were really surprised when it turned out to be a slightly enlarged version of a human hyoid and nothing like an ape hyoid ... . Many anthropologists came to believe that Neandertals could have spoken any modern human language, whatever their accent may have been.’
Although the Neandertal hyoid bone was indistinguishable from those of modern humans, some still downplay its significance to speech ability. A later report based on further anatomical evidence concludes that language has been around for 400,000 years of evolutionary time, including the entire Neandertal period.9
The PBS series pointed out that Neandertal burials left little evidence of ritual as compared to those by later humans. Besides leaving me suspicious that their case was concocted, any difference may not mean much, since there are other ways to explain the scarcity of implements or other signs of ritual with Neandertal skeletons. Lately, more evidence of ritual has been showing up. A Neandertal baby was found buried in Israel with a red deer jawbone next to its hip indicating that Neandertal Man at least had the capability for symbolic behavior.10 A Neandertal toddler was unearthed in Syria at the bottom of a 1.5 m (5 ft) -deep pit, with a flint tool resting at about the spot where the infant’s heart had once beaten. This discovery is considered ‘the best evidence yet of Neandertal burial practices’.11 Furthermore, pierced animal teeth, probably worn as pendants, and ivory rings were discovered with a Neandertal fossil in a French cave in 1996.2,12 Moreover, it is now known that Neandertals made their own, relatively sophisticated ornaments and tools.2 This suggests ‘a high degree of acculturation’.12
At one time archaeologists did not believe Neandertals used spears, but this idea has been given the shaft by the finding of aerodynamic wooden spears used by the supposed ancestors of Neandertals.2 Furthermore, it has been discovered that Neandertals crafted a variety of stone tools and deadly, stone-tipped spears, showing an aptitude often attributed only to modern humans.2,13,14 Some scientists had claimed that Neandertal Man was only capable of scavenging carcasses, but a new analysis of break and cut marks on animal bones in caves indicates that he butchered the animals, which is consistent with hunting.2 John Shea, who featured in the PBS series, states that this new information contradicts the idea that Neandertals were markedly inferior.2
A very recent report now finds that Neandertals used stone implements in more flexible ways than previously thought, which gave them access to a more varied diet of meat and plants.15,16 Based on microscopic evidence of use-wear and residues left on the stone tools in the Crimea,16 the report suggests that those who used the tools, likely Neandertals, exploited a variety of woody and starchy plants and even hunted birds. Residues of bird feathers were found on some of the tools.
It has recently been concluded that Neandertals lived side-by-side with modern humans in the Middle East for 100,000 years of evolutionary time and made virtually identical stone tools.17 Hybrids of Neandertals and humans are known from a number of areas,8 including a recent find of a child in Portugal.18 It is not difficult to conclude that Neandertal Man was totally human, and that modern humans and Neandertals likely amalgamated in Europe.
One report claimed that Neandertal Man’s DNA was quite different from modern humans, supposedly justifying the classification of them into a different species than modern man. But its author, the famed Svente Pääbo, claims that his paper has been misinterpreted.19 And mitochondrial DNA retrieved from an Australian Homo sapiens, claimed to be 62,000 years old, also differs greatly from that of modern humans.20 The team that made the DNA discovery believes this new result will usher Neandertal Man back into the human fold. This result also suggests that DNA studies are not very good for determining supposed evolutionary closeness.
It has been suggested that Neandertal Man fashioned a bone flute, an obvious human accomplishment. This deduction is strongly disputed, claiming that the holes in a hollowed-out bear bone were punctured and gnawed by the teeth of an animal, possibly a wolf.21 However, the two complete and two partial holes in the picture shown are linear and very round, making the carnivore theory suspect. Besides, there are about 30 partial bone flutes that have been found in Europe late in the Neandertal period and younger.22
Those scientists that dispute Neandertal’s human affinity seem to forget that he lived during the Ice Age and was able to survive the cold and harsh weather.23 Neandertal Man had to have a human level of sophistication to survive.9 ,24)
A new article published in the journal Nature now claims that Neandertals, or possibly modern humans, lived in northern Russia during the Ice Age.25 It had been widely believed that no humans lived in this region until 14,000 years ago in evolutionary time. Based on a mammoth tusk bearing cut marks, likely made from stone tools, the earliest date of man living in this cold territory during the Ice Age was pushed back to 40,000 years. The significance of this is that ‘adaptation to northern climes requires high levels of technological and social organization’,26 strongly suggesting that Neandertal Man, if he was the tool user, was fully human.
Many of these reports of Neandertal’s total humanity are disputed by some scientists, seemingly motivated by a blind evolutionary bias. In one scene from the similarly biased PBS series, John Shea throws a Neandertal spear with a heavy head 23 or 24 m (80 ft), while he throws a later human spear 42 m (140 feet). This demonstration implied that Neandertals were inferior to modern people. But earlier in the Neandertal episode it was concluded that Neandertals were very strong: the body builders of the Paleolithic. It therefore stands to reason that Neandertal Man could throw his spear significantly farther than 24 m, and that the heavy, sharp stone tip would have been very effective in hunting. The spear that was thrown 42 m had a light antler head and was thrown with the aid of a spear thrower.
Despite all the prejudice towards including Neandertals into Homo sapiens, many evolutionists have become impressed with the evidence for Neandertal’s humanity, as research casts a ‘more complimentary light on the older cousins. This emerging view depicts Neandertals as having a capacity for creative, flexible behavior somewhat like that of modern people’.2 Thus, the evidence increasingly supports the Biblical position.
RECREATING THE FACES OF OUR NEANDERTAL COUSINS
From their skeletons, we know that the average Neandertal person had bony differences from the average person alive today, including a bigger braincase. So what did they look like?
Bones cannot tell you about things like hairiness, nor the shape of the fleshy parts, like nose or ears. But computerized forensic science has come a long way in making educated ‘guesses’ at a person’s appearance from the shape of a skull. As reported in January 1996 National Geographic, researchers at the University of Illinois used computer ‘morphing’ techniques to fit pictures of living people onto Neandertal’s skulls.
Unlike the artistic reconstructions of earlier times, this time nothing was imaginatively added based on evolutionary assumptions of ‘primitivity’. The results indicate that the bones of the skull would not preclude Neandertals from looking like people you would not greatly comment on (apart from hair and dress style) if they moved in next door to you today.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0217neandertal.asp
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
looked like a roswell alien.
Check out this link
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=area+51&ie=UTF8&z=12&ll=37.084215,-116.026268&spn=0.126809,0.344009&t=k&om=1
If you go to maps.google.ca or load up Google Earth, punch in "Area 51" then scroll the the left/west a bit, you see this. It's very peculiar.
As I said before, the people there practiced cranial modification. Here is an article about it, I'm trying to find an image
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:40VyW68OKvQJ:www.mesoweb.com/features/tiesler/media/headshaping.pdf+human+%22skull+modification%22+archaeology&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=2
-Ashley Montagu
Bingo!
http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/peru/human/00000001.htm
Anyway, I feel I've educated you all enough for now, lol. I should be a professor or something. But for now I'm going to watch the hockey game. Go Leafs Go!
-Ashley Montagu
I was thinking about having an electrode mat implanted in my brain.
I got this idea from a really dedicated scientists that stared at the sun in order to burn a hole in his retina.
I'm not educated enough yet! Tell me more.
Its my understanding that H. erectus originated in Africa and had spread throughout Europe and Asia as far as the southeastern parts of indonesia by the time modern humans first appeared. So the current thinking is that erectus in Europe gave rise to neanderthals, while those in Africa gave rise to modern humans, and other groups may have split off in other regions, like the recently discovered H. floresensis (hobbits) who lived on at least one island in indonesia. So at some point in history, there were modern humans, neanderthals, erectus and possibly others all existing at the same time. Is that right?
I've even heard somewhere that its thought that H. erectus may have made it as far as northern Australia, which seems perfectly reasonable to me, if they were already in Java and other nearby places. I'm just not sure what the evidence of this is. (I could search for it, but I should be working anyway)
-C Addison
You are correct. 150 to 200000 years ago you would have had, homo sapiens, neanderthalus, erectus, floresensis, and probably other lesser known Erectus-like versions. Erectus made it into parts of Europe, must of Southern Asia and Indonesia. I don't know anything about Australia, but I suppose its possible. I don't think they were smart enough to manage long-distance sea travel, but who knows with ancient sea levels and what-not.
-Ashley Montagu
~Ron Burgundy
So at what stage did H. sapiens start spreading from Africa? I'm just curious about the timeframe, because depending on who you listen to, humans first arrived in Australia somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 years ago. I wonder who they might have met along the way.
-C Addison