Neandertal trait in early human skull suggests that modern humans...

Neandertal trait in early human skull suggests that modern humans emerged from complex labyrinth of biology and peoples

Re-examination of a circa 100,000-year-old archaic early human skull found 35 years ago in Northern China has revealed the surprising presence of an inner-ear formation long thought to occur only in Neandertals.

"The discovery places into question a whole suite of scenarios of later Pleistocene human population dispersals and interconnections based on tracing isolated anatomical or genetic features in fragmentary fossils," said study co-author Erik Trinkaus, PhD, a physical anthropology professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

"It suggests, instead, that the later phases of human evolution were more of a labyrinth of biology and peoples than simple lines on maps would suggest."

The study, forthcoming in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is based on recent micro-CT scans revealing the interior configuration of a temporal bone in a fossilized human skull found during 1970s excavations at the Xujiayao site in China's Nihewan Basin.

Trinkaus, the Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor in Arts & Sciences, is a leading authority on early human evolution and among the first to offer compelling evidence for interbreeding and gene transfer between Neandertals and modern human ancestors.

His co-authors on this study are Xiu-Jie Wu, Wu Liu and Song Xing of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, and Isabelle Crevecoeur of PACEA, Université de Bordeaux.

"We were completely surprised," Trinkaus said. "We fully expected the scan to reveal a temporal labyrinth that looked much like a modern human one, but what we saw was clearly typical of a Neandertal. This discovery places into question whether this arrangement of the semicircular canals is truly unique to the Neandertals."

Often well-preserved in mammal skull fossils, the semicircular canals are remnants of a fluid-filled sensing system that helps humans maintain balance when they change their spatial orientations, such as when running, bending over or turning the head from side-to-side.

An interesting find. The more we study our history, the more we will learn.

We can't ignore fossil evidence just because it conflicts with our own beliefs, it means we adapt.

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
― Isaac Asimov

“They won't listen. Do you know why? Because they have certain fixed notions about the past. Any change would be blasphemy in their eyes, even if it were the truth. They don't want the truth; they want their traditions.”
― Isaac Asimov,

The incessant revisionism practiced by mainstream anthropologists and evolutionary biologists makes me less inclined to believe a single word they say.

What's the point of the OP, anyway? Are you simply using this story as a platform from which to launch an assault on Christians?

I don't understand why some people are more concerned with the "other side" being wrong than they are with their own side being right.

a reply to: NthOther

Howdy,

The incessant revisions are what make me more likely to believe those biologists and anthropologists, because it shows they're actually learning. I'd be much less inclined to believe someone who said they knew everything and couldn't possibly be wrong.

The point seems to be that this find further supports a hypothesis that modern humans reproduced with neanderthals, which was not always thought to be the case. In recent years, this has been suggested to be partially responsible for the seemingly sudden disappearance of neanderthals.

Also, although I agree that Christianity uses the bible, and that Asimov quote is provocative, please remember Christianity is not the only religion to use the bible.

Now, I will say I agree with you. This kind of thing shouldn't be about who's wrong or right. It should be about what we can learn from observation.

Cheers

originally posted by: NthOther
The incessant revisionism practiced by mainstream anthropologists and evolutionary biologists makes me less inclined to believe a single word they say.

What's the point of the OP, anyway? Are you simply using this story as a platform from which to launch an assault on Christians?
I don't understand why some people are more concerned with the "other side" being wrong than they are with their own side being right.

I started it because it's an interesting article. Some evolutionist's have thought that the evolution of man was a simple evolutionary line but this shows it was more complex than we thought.

I believe a higher power created everything & evolution is the natural process that has taken place since then.

There are Christians that believe in evolution.

"It suggests, instead, that the later phases of human evolution were more of a labyrinth of biology and peoples than simple lines on maps would suggest."

What a nice main-stream scientist way of saying: "we still have NOT found the missing link that explains modern human conscientiousness"...

The missing link lives on...

a reply to: coastlinekid

Hello,

I'm a bit confused... This paper makes no claims towards supposedly missing links or the personality trait of conscientiousness. It merely states that humans likely interbred with neanderthals.

I apologize if I misunderstood, but could you explain what those have to do with this paper? (I'm thick sometimes, please forgive me.)

Cheers

originally posted by: knoledgeispower

I started it because it's an interesting article. Some evolutionist's have thought that the evolution of man was a simple evolutionary line but this shows it was more complex than we thought.

I believe a higher power created everything & evolution is the natural process that has taken place since then.

There are Christians that believe in evolution.

Fair enough. My apologies. The quotes you threw in there had me thinking you were steering the discussion in another direction.

originally posted by: coastlinekid

"It suggests, instead, that the later phases of human evolution were more of a labyrinth of biology and peoples than simple lines on maps would suggest."

What a nice main-stream scientist way of saying: "we still have NOT found the missing link that explains modern human conscientiousness"...

The missing link lives on...

Yup, zero in the missing link column, nothing changed.

Entropy is in big denial for evolutionists even though that is the observable state of everything. All those species ticking away to oblivion on a daily basis never to live again, just think if the extinctions were going in reverse how easy it would be to fool everyone with evolution.

a reply to: coastlinekid

No such thing as the missing link.

I think it is wonderful that we the only people left have evolved into what we are. Just a pity the other homids died off I bet they would have loved beer.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

It appears that the 400,000 year old Denisovans find (they also mated with Neandertals) in Spain shows humans have been walking the planet for a long time. www.nytimes.com...

But I don't see that as contradicting religion, it only contradicts the fanatics that believe they can read something from religion that isn't there. Much in bible is metaphoric, taken literally, it looses all meaning.

I like Isaac Asimov as a Sci-Fi writer, but wouldn't consider him the greatest philosopher that has walked the earth.

a reply to: hydeman11

I don't mean to derail your thread...

I don't consider "conscientiousness " a personality trait...

I was addressing the overall goal of Paleontology to trace the roots of modern man,... and, since the biggest difference between modern man and "pre-homo sapien sapiens" is a super advanced form of sentience, I was "cutting to the chase" as it where... sorry...

a reply to: knoledgeispower

You can take this finding and extrapolate to other disciplines as well.

Everyone knows about evolution, wait, what?
Everyone knows about creation, wait, what?
Everyone knows about global warming, wait, what?


Everyone knows. . . .

Until they don't.

Bravo for science, bravo for discovery, bravo for knowledge.

Speaking as a Christian, of course.

I remember reading somewhere that knowledge relies on fact, but truth relies on faith.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: knoledgeispower

I started it because it's an interesting article. Some evolutionist's have thought that the evolution of man was a simple evolutionary line but this shows it was more complex than we thought.

I believe a higher power created everything & evolution is the natural process that has taken place since then.

There are Christians that believe in evolution.

Fair enough. My apologies. The quotes you threw in there had me thinking you were steering the discussion in another direction.

I can see how that would be perceived that way but I really like Isaac Asimov & those are some good quotes. Especially the last one about how some religions make it seem like blasphemy to adapt to the evidence put forth even if it goes against your beliefs.

I used to be a Presbyterian, I chose to be baptized into that faith. As I got older I started to have my doubts about somethings that the faith believes in. I ended up having to branch out and become spiritual because I couldn't ignore the evidence but that didn't mean that there wasn't a higher being. There are other things that I have since had pointed out to me that has me realize that religion has been twisted & corrupted.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

These aren't new findings. The fossil were found in the seventies. And this specific part of human anatomy is an area of great disagreement.

I don't think there's any archeologist or evolution biologist who thinks human evolution is a straight line. Or anything close to it as the article seems to suggest.

This is more evidence suggesting there was some interbreeding between anatomically modern humans and neanderthals. There have been some genetic tests that suggest this as well. But there have also been some that suggest the opposite.

This of interest. But I don't think it's hugely significant. It doesn't change the fact that last neanderthal took his final breath some 30,000 years ago. Yes, maybe we slept with a few and carry a tiny bit of their genetic material. But it's not significant amount. And it doesn't change the fact that they died out. And we survived.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: knoledgeispower

It appears that the 400,000 year old Denisovans find (they also mated with Neandertals) in Spain shows humans have been walking the planet for a long time. www.nytimes.com...

But I don't see that as contradicting religion, it only contradicts the fanatics that believe they can read something from religion that isn't there. Much in bible is metaphoric, taken literally, it looses all meaning.

I like Isaac Asimov as a Sci-Fi writer, but wouldn't consider him the greatest philosopher that has walked the earth.

The bible is a fictional storybook full of morals & even if someone could convince me it wasn't, with how many times it's been translated & rewritten, I still would not believe in the bible.

What makes you think that I think of Isaac Asimov as the greatest philosopher that has ever walked the Earth. I barely know anything of him but I'm enjoying reading the first book in The Foundation series & I've checked out some of his quotes & liked them. That doesn't mean that I think he is the bees knees, I respect him as an author.

I think of the current Dali Lama as a great philosopher but I still wouldn't go so far as to say, "that has ever walked the Earth". It would be dumb of me as I barely know any philosophers.

Please don't make assumptions about me because you are reading between the lines something that isn't there.

a reply to: coastlinekid

Howdy,

Oh, no, not my thread. Sorry, didn't mean to give that impression. I was just asking out of curiosity, I truly am thick and miss things quite often. >_<

But thanks for the reply, I see the issue. You used conscientiousness instead of consciousness, I think. That makes a lot more sense. (I should have realized that sooner. Forgive me, it's late.) That's a perfectly legitimate question to be asking, but I wouldn't expect an answer... If you accept science, you accept materialistic worldviews, and thus the mind is a product of the brain. Brains don't preserve well in the fossil record, though. (The internal portions of skulls are perhaps the closest one might get...) Maybe one day man will have an answer for that, but I doubt it.

Do, however, let me say one thing... Paleontology isn't about tracing man's roots, it's about tracing the roots of all life. More specifically, studying ancient life. The study of humans is anthropology. I understand what you meant though.

Cheers

a reply to: boymonkey74

I think you need to review the timeline:

It took MILLIONS of years for hominids to figure out a rock can be used as a tool...
It took MILLIONS more years for them to figure out that chipping it into a sharp tool was more effective...

As an author I like once said: "The mills of evolution grind very slow"...

All of a sudden,.. during the last ice age... a time when most creatures hunker down and just try to survive, MODERN HUMANS showed up, BAM!!
(at least that is what the main-stream scientists say)

We shouldn't be here for many millions of years from now based on the fossil records...
No I am NOT a creationist in the biblical sense... I just acknowledge that something just does not make sense when one looks at the overall fossil evidence.

That is why it is called: the MISSING LINK...

originally posted by: Moresby
a reply to: knoledgeispower

These aren't new findings. The fossil were found in the seventies. And this specific part of human anatomy is an area of great disagreement.

The article doesn't say it's a new finding because of the discovery of a fossil, it says it's a new finding because it is a re-examination of fossils found in the 70's.

I don't think there's any archeologist or evolution biologist who thinks human evolution is a straight line. Or anything close to it as the article seems to suggest.

That's not what the article is saying. The title of the article "...suggests that modern humans emerged from complex labyrinth of biology and peoples" and again in the article "It suggests, instead, that the later phases of human evolution were more of a labyrinth of biology and peoples than simple lines on maps would suggest."

Maybe you should reread the article as you seem to be getting some things wrong about what the article said.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: knoledgeispower

You can take this finding and extrapolate to other disciplines as well.

Everyone knows about evolution, wait, what?
Everyone knows about creation, wait, what?
Everyone knows about global warming, wait, what?


Everyone knows. . . .

Until they don't.

Bravo for science, bravo for discovery, bravo for knowledge.

Speaking as a Christian, of course.

I remember reading somewhere that knowledge relies on fact, but truth relies on faith.

wait...what?? You've lost me completely.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Howdy,

I am intrigued by your assertion that "entropy is in big denial for evolutionists." For many reasons, to be honest, but intrigued nonetheless. I am, however, also confused. Can you explain to me what you think it means for a universe to tend towards entropy? Also, can you explain why you think extinction events are somehow counterproductive towards evolution? Also also, can you explain how this relates to the article? I am a generally curious person, and I wish to learn clearly what thoughts others have to offer.

Cheers