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

a reply to: coastlinekid

Look it up there is no such thing as the missing link.
It is a creationist falicy just like transitional fossils.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Knowledge is useless without truth.

You can have faith in science.
Faith in religion.
Faith in a flying spaghetti monster.

Truth is subjective, but it uses science to bolster its standings.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I just think some folk are so arrogant that they think humans are the most evolved being on the planet.
Everything has evolved in the same time period and are as evolved as dach other.
I also think even if jesus chuffon chtist csme back showing the evidence people would still deny it.
I have seen it many times on ats...ddssone will never accept fact and embrace ignorance.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Please don't make assumptions...You are right, forgive me. Yes I have a lot of respect for Dali Lama as well.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Sorry for spelling on me phone and o have fat fingers

a reply to: hydeman11

Thank you for correcting me on the definition of paleontology.

My main point is to say that modern humans are way too advanced based on the fossil evidence.

The reason the term "missing link" is used is because there is a big gap in the fossil record that connects modern man with his last known relative...

Neanderthals as far as we know did not cave paint and make small statues of a mother goddess like we "cromagnons" did...

When I watch a show on TV about the origins of man, they always conveniently skip over the part that would show the transition from homo erectus...(way not like modern humans) to homo sapien (still not us) yet they just move along and show us in animal hides taking down mastodons or whatever...

My point is that modern science, if forced into a corner, would admit that, yes, we still have NOT found the missing link that links modern humans to our previous version...

a reply to: coastlinekid

Howdy,

Oh, no worries. There are so many -ologies... I can't remember whether etymology or entomology is the study of insects half the time... The term used to describe a science is superfluous to all but those who want to invoke or mention said science.

As a senior in a geology program (who has taken electives in marine invertebrate paleobiology and courses in Earth history) and an avid fossil collector, I well understand the limitations of the fossil record. Land animals, animals without hard parts (like bones/shells/chitinous exoskeletons), and small organisms tend to not be preserved commonly in the fossil record for various reasons... Most notably for land animals, most landscapes (except floodplains) are erosional surfaces, and fossils need to have rapid sediment deposition to preserve them. That's one of the reasons why marine invertebrate paleobiology is better than vertebrate paleo. (More economical uses.)

Missing link... It is an old concept, yes. To be quite honest, there are several "missing links" if you want to discuss what the fossil record actually represents. As I said, fossilization is a rare and unlikely process, so direct ancestors are not preserved often. Instead, very closely related groups might be preserved, by which you can see what features might have evolved changed since the last related organism you found. These similarities in morphology are the basis for cladistics, the science that has pretty much replaced paleontological taxonomy. Cladistics allows a researcher to create a cladogram, which shows how closely related two fossilized organism would likely have been based (usually) on morphological features, although DNA can be used when present. (DNA doesn't have a long lifespan in the fossil record though. ;D)

Here's a more official source with an interesting graphical representation of the hominids and their timespans in the geologic record.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

None of this answers where consciousness came from, but I hope it clarifies some things for you. (No need to back anyone in a corner. )

originally posted by: coastlinekid
a reply to: hydeman11

Thank you for correcting me on the definition of paleontology.

My main point is to say that modern humans are way too advanced based on the fossil evidence.

The reason the term "missing link" is used is because there is a big gap in the fossil record that connects modern man with his last known relative...

Absolutely incorrect. Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, Denisovans and H. Floresiensis all lived at the same period of time briefly with overlaps of Homo Erectus at earlier points in Neanderthal and Denisovan history( with a couple of very debatable sites indicating H. Erectus may have survived to even more recent times in the vicinity of Java and Sumatra).

So not only is there no gap at all with our recent ancestors there were periods of overlap and intermingling of genetics.

Neanderthals as far as we know did not cave paint and make small statues of a mother goddess like we "cromagnons" did...

Neanderthals did make art both sculptures and cage drawings and paintings. Sometimes in the same caves as H. Sapiens. Also, we aren't Cromagnon. What we are is Homo sapiens sapiens.

When I watch a show on TV about the origins of man, they always conveniently skip over the part that would show the transition from homo erectus...(way not like modern humans) to homo sapien (still not us) yet they just move along and show us in animal hides taking down mastodons or whatever...

You should read a book or a journal article. The transition is well documented at this point and there is plenty of evidence that Erectus used tools made fire built shelter and wore clothes and hunted big game with their weapons

My point is that modern science, if forced into a corner, would admit that, yes, we still have NOT found the missing link that links modern humans to our previous version...

That might be the point you're trying to make but the point you made is that you need to do a little
More research that doesn't consist of a tv show attempting to condense 3 million years of history in 42 min after commercials.

Thank you for your well thought response, I understand what you are saying.

None of this answers where consciousness came from

That is pretty much my point...

I am a layman in this field so I defer to the officially educated in this subject, however...
My limited and what I consider to be my open minded research tells me that there is a big part of the human story that we are either being deliberately kept in the dark, or we are not looking in the right place for the answers...lol

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.

Darwinists have proven themselves to be famously gullible.

I'm always reminded of cults when I think about it because Darwinists always appear as though they are incapable of seeing what is plainly an incredible deliberate ruse.

People are kidding themselves if they think science has been exempt from the great web of lies.

The very SAME Luciferians who have twisted religion have also done the same thing to Science.

The stark reality is that modern 'science' has been glued together with bull#, fabrications, and falsehoods.

There are so many holes in the idea of evolution it becomes obvious that the real blind "faith" is evolution...

The whole concept of Neanderthal is just one of MANY fabrications...

Professor Reiner Protsch was invited to date the famous skull, which he later pronounced to be the vital missing link between Neanderthals and modern humans. He dated the skull at 36,000 years old, allowing it to fall neatly into the evolutionists’ timeline between Neanderthals and modern man. For evolutionists, it was too good to be true. And indeed, it was.

On February 18, 2005, Protsch was forced to retire in disgrace after a Frankfurt University panel ruled he had “fabricated data and plagiarized the work of his colleagues” Once believed to be a world-renowned expert on carbon dating, Protsch’s entire professional career is now being questioned. The university noted: “The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years”. Neanderthal (another deliberate fraud)

"About every few years they come out with the new missing link, only to find out the link is either another species or a fraud. And this happens over, and over, and over, and almost no one ever questions this, and joe public just believes what ever the news media tells them." What part of Evolution is a lie?

"Primitive Man never existed, and there never was a Stone Age. They are nothing more than deceptive interpretations of (Neanderthal Findings) by Evolutionist." THE NEPHILIM WERE MORE "INTELLIGENT" THAN HUMANS. So the Word "Primitive" is an Understatement. The Size of their Brains Reveal they were Super-Intelligent The Stone Age Deception

By the way, Neanderthals were not emerging primitives. That’s fiction. They had a skull capacity larger than that of modern man. Classic descriptions of so-called Neanderthal man were based in large part on the skeletal remains of a man suffering from severe osteoarthritis. He had degenerated. In fact, there are folk who would pass for Neanderthals, alive today. Aliens The Deadly Secret (Page 347)

Dr. Jack Cuozzo shows how many Neanderthal fossils have been tampered with to support the theory of evolution. One of the many fraudulent things that people have done to the Neanderthal skulls is to reconstruct the lower jaw in a forward protruding position. This is based on the preconceived notion, that Neanderthal was dimwitted, and ape-ish. The jaw is purposely manipulated to look this way in reconstruction’s, because that is how some ape jaws are aligned.

Of the thousands of people who have seen Neanderthal skulls in a museum, I wonder how many of them knew the jaw had been altered? Dr. Cuozzo adds: "The exact same thing happened with the famous La Chapelle-aux-Saints skull and jaws" The La Quina V skull has also been altered. Now look to see what somebody did to the chin. They cut it off to make it look more like an apes chin. They then smoothed it all out with a plastic material.

Neanderthals: Caveman or Human?
Neanderthal fraud discovered by Dr. Jack Cuozzo

Neanderthal man cannot possibly be a missing link."These Neanderthals are just perfectly normal humans that are living to a really great age." See, before the Flood came, the people lived to be 900. But after the Flood, life spans dropped off to 400, and then 200, and then 100; but that's still a long time to live. And it's a simple fact the bones of your eyebrow ridge never stop growing. Jack Cuozzo

a reply to: peter vlar

Hey thanks smart ass...

BTW I DID refer to us as homo sapiens sapien...

a reply to: coastlinekid

then give yourself a pat on the back, you got one right!

originally posted by: hydeman11
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

The transition from knuckle dragging hairy ape to modern man is a fairytale story of lower order to higher order.

Entropy is the measure of disorder. If you would agree a fully functioning species is an example of order then the demise of species is the direction of a degree of order to a lesser degree of order. Extinctions rates far outpace the zero rate of new species magically evolving from others that has been going on in all of earth history, there are no missing links for any species. And no, finches making other finches with different beaks are not new species, they are just different finches.

An expanding accelerating universe means all galaxies will cease to exist over time and a universe so cold electrons will cease to orbit the elements. Disorder is the end of all order according to science.

a reply to: coastlinekid

Thank you for taking the time to read my posts, I know I can be a bit long winded. I just really enjoy geology and paleontology. >.>

To be clear, I am not an expert either. I'm not even officially educated in it. I have to defer to the experts as well, but what my education has given me is a wonderful understanding of how science actually works and a healthy sense of skepticism.

But to address your point, fossil evidence will likely never tell you anything about consciousness. Here, I'd defer to evolutionary psychologists. I do believe that the mind is a product of the brain (consciousness is a result of the physical brain). What makes humans seemingly more sentient than other species? That's a good question. Human brains have more crenulations than other animals' brains, so that's a physical change that might have impacted it... But honestly, I don't know. Consciousness is a poorly defined, hard to test concept.

On a completely different note, I ask that we all be civil here. Peter vlar's information was good, but I fear (as far as I can determine, and I am sorry if I am wrong, peter, this is just what I've seen) that he/she has become frustrated by constantly repeating the same things. (Facts that seem obvious to him/her.) It happens to me, too. Sometimes things seem obvious, very blatantly obvious, and I forget that others might have no knowledge of rocks. I'm sure if I talked to a mechanic (my understanding of cars is VERY limited) they might feel the same way. We all have something to learn.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: hydeman11
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

The transition from knuckle dragging hairy ape to modern man is a fairytale story of lower order to higher order.

Entropy is the measure of disorder. If you would agree a fully functioning species is an example of order then the demise of species is the direction of a degree of order to a lesser degree of order. Extinctions rates far outpace the zero rate of new species magically evolving from others that has been going on in all of earth history, there are no missing links for any species. And no, finches making other finches with different beaks are not new species, they are just different finches.

An expanding accelerating universe means all galaxies will cease to exist over time and a universe so cold electrons will cease to orbit the elements. Disorder is the end of all order according to science.

Howdy,
I like your general definition of entropy, so that's good. Common ground here. However, you did fail to mention why the Earth has to tend toward entropy. While it is true that isolated systems tend toward entropy (and the entropy never decreases in an isolated system), the Earth is not an isolated system. It is an open one, open to matter from space and energy from the sun.
So, fully formed organisms are actually less entropic than the materials that they are made of, meaning they are more ordered, with that I agree. But this is meaningless for an open system.
As for extinctions, well, I fail to see how they are related, honestly. Extinctions of species occurred rather commonly, with mass extinctions (extinctions of a large majority of all extant species at the time) happening throughout the geological timescale, at seemingly random times. Sometimes, these extinctions marked the end of higher level of taxa, such as the extinction of all trilobites in the Late Permian mass extinction. That's a class level in taxonomy. What is often seen at the end of these extinctions is the end of a lot of species and then the progressive speciation of the survivors.
I do believe I've addressed Darwin's finches before, but I don't mind doing it in this thread. In biology, a species is roughly defined as the highest taxonomic group that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Quite well defined. Darwin's finches, you will agree, were closely related. You think they're all the same species, and yet, would you be shocked to discover that they don't all belong to even the same genus? I was. Darwin was shocked, too, when he found out from experts in bird anatomy. Here's a link.
en.wikipedia.org...

Absolutely right about the universe. The universe is traditionally thought of as an "isolated system." Nothing gets in or out. (Maybe not true?) So, yes. The universe will one day, according to best models, be a homogeneous thing in the lowest energy state possible. This is generally referred to as the Heat Death of the Universe, as heat is really a transfer of energy... Link below. (I'm not a theoretical physicist, so I will defer to experts here.)
en.wikipedia.org...

Cheers.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

It took them over 30 years to make these discoveries. These are very subtle and easily confused areas of the skull. There's a damn good chance they're just wrong. If you went on paleontology forums I bet you'd find that's what most people are saying. Either the formation isn't really there. Or the bones, thought to be "archaic humans", are in fact neanderthal bones.

But, even if true, it doesn't tell us much. Archaic humans aren't an especially well-defined type of late hominid. This suggests maybe there was some interbreeding with neanderthals. Interesting. Not especially significant.

Anatomically modern humans had already appeared by this point. So there's no profound impact on human evolution.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Wonderful contribution to the OP.

I agree fully with your conclusions at present.

God Bless,

a reply to: hydeman11

You concede the universe as a closed system, meaning it is finite. Anything inside of that closed system is part of the same closed system.

Science cannot have it both ways, saying the universe is steadily heading towards further entropy, and at the same time pretend there are open systems inside a closed system to prop up evolution to say speciation is going the opposite direction of the universe.

a reply to: hydeman11

Although... that Asimov quote is provocative, please remember Christianity is not the only religion to use the bible.

Yes indeed, Judaism is another of them. Isaac, though a proud atheist himself, was of Jewish ethnicity.

*

a reply to: Moresby

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.

I think its biggest significance will probably be that it throws into question the identification of other early skull fragments as either early H. sapiens or Neanderthal based on ear canal shapes. Potential for vast controversy there, perhaps, though all rather dry and academic really.

*

And now, just for fun, a look at the web sites where Murgatroid gleans his irrefutable wisdom:

Unified Serenity is the blog of a young (I think) lady (I am sure) named Christina. Here are her qualifications for having an opinion about Neanderthals:

I have enjoyed many forums online and various blogs. I was encouraged to start a blog here as it would give me the freedom to post my thoughts on the various topics I enjoy researching and discussing. I tend to be fairly opinionated and write about topics which may or may not line up with the general populations typically accepted norms. By that I mean, some of my views might line up with more conservative viewpoints while others line up with more liberal mindsets, and then of course there are just some topics that delve into the truly unusual and esoteric.

I think she's rather sweet, really.

Which part of evolution is a lie? is from a discussion thread at Hip Forums. The source is just a random poster in the thread. His or her credentials for judging palaeontological evidence, or for understanding evolution, are not given. By the way, isn't it against the rules to post material from other forums on ATS?

'Primitive Man never existed' is from a blog called VIP Pass to the Spirit World. Mysteriously, the blog post Murgatroid is quoting appears to have been taken down. Doubtless the Luciferians have been at work.

Aliens — The Deadly Secret links to a book by somebody called Jonathan Gray, who believes that super-intelligent aliens coupled with primitive protohumans to give rise to modern man. He calls himself an archaeologist and writes books so he must be an expert, I guess. Doesn't seem to have published any archaeological research papers, though, so it's hard to tell how much of an expert is. This is his web site, on which the most commonly appearing text is 'Order now and receive FREE bonus!'

The next link is to a web page on a site apparently dedicated to selling fake fossils made of fibreglass.

The final link is to the transcript of a lecture by someone named Kent Hovind, who may be familiar to American members, on a web site called creationism.org.

These, then, are the people who Know the Truth and have Seen through the Delusion, while the rest of us sheeple happily worship the Golden Calves of science and materialism. Have a cheeseburger, Murgatroid.

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.

Unfortunately, there is so little information that they have to work with. They might find a frozen corpse in Mongolia from ten thousand years ago, or a skeleton from several hundred thousand years ago. Just the appearance of a single ancient tool like a stone spear, metal axe, bow or cave drawing changes the whole history of human evolution in that area.

Then they have to figure out if those items were found, bought, traded or made by the same person.