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

originally posted by: coastlinekid
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...

No, there isn't! There is hardly a gap at all!

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

Yes, they did. This image you have of Neanderthals being some primitive brutes is so outdated I have to wonder if you're getting all your information from a 1970's text book?

originally posted by: coastlinekid
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...

Sounds like you watch stuff which sikply covers the basics in a half hour segment, what do you expect? Do your own research for crying out loud.

Here, read this Wiki page and go from there, it has all the names, links and what have you to get you started.

a reply to: Moresby

Or the fossil record is incomplete and the conditions in which they might be found vary, ie Earth's surface isn't uniform and there could be much more revealing data elsewhere that is inaccessible or that hasn't been fossilised.

Additionally finding proto hominids in Africa, or elsewhere is neither proof of ancestry nor of origin.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: knoledgeispower

Why does it have to be that if you believe in God you can't believe in evolution and vise versa. That just doesn't make any sense.

Because an unnatural power doesn't require natural processes. Why walk if I have a Porsche 911 at my disposal? Why write a letter if I can dictate to my phone? Why bother with a process involving billions of years of trial and error if the universe instantly obeys my every command?

But this thread isn't about creationism...or is it?

Why not? God doesn't suddenly created mutated cells in a person in order for them to get cancer. It's just a natural process. God doesn't need to go and feed every single tree because trees use the natural process of photosynthesis to grow.

Would you drive your Porsche 911 a block away or would you walk? Personally, if I had a car, I'd still walk to some places to save on gas. I write letters because I love the process of writing by hand & that why I don't have to worry about auto-correct issues.

No this thread isn't about creationism, even though other people bring it up because that is their belief.
You may think I'm tooting the creationism horn but I'm not as I am not a creationist theorist.

originally posted by: knoledgeispower

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: knoledgeispower

Why does it have to be that if you believe in God you can't believe in evolution and vise versa. That just doesn't make any sense.

Because an unnatural power doesn't require natural processes. Why walk if I have a Porsche 911 at my disposal? Why write a letter if I can dictate to my phone? Why bother with a process involving billions of years of trial and error if the universe instantly obeys my every command?

But this thread isn't about creationism...or is it?

Why not? God doesn't suddenly created mutated cells in a person in order for them to get cancer. It's just a natural process. God doesn't need to go and feed every single tree because trees use the natural process of photosynthesis to grow.

Would you drive your Porsche 911 a block away or would you walk? Personally, if I had a car, I'd still walk to some places to save on gas. I write letters because I love the process of writing by hand & that why I don't have to worry about auto-correct issues.

No this thread isn't about creationism, even though other people bring it up because that is their belief.
You may think I'm tooting the creationism horn but I'm not as I am not a creationist theorist.

But see, those processes follow a natural order. Adjust the atomic model and all hell will break loose. That's the thing - he colored inside the lines. There's a steady theme that respects the laws binding the universe. Why so careful if the universe does your bidding? Go wild. Prove yourself. I don't get why the universe doesn't look like a cross between Dr. Seuss and Escher. Or why we don't look like furry eggplants with natural clown-face patterns.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

But see, those processes follow a natural order. Adjust the atomic model and all hell will break loose. That's the thing - he colored inside the lines. There's a steady theme that respects the laws binding the universe. Why so careful if the universe does your bidding? Go wild. Prove yourself. I don't get why the universe doesn't look like a cross between Dr. Seuss and Escher. Or why we don't look like furry eggplants with natural clown-face patterns.

Maybe if ever single thing in existence looked the same I could see the use of "why we don't look like furry eggplants with natural clown-face patterns" That's not the case though. Just because we look the way we do on Earth doesn't guarantee that other life will look exactly as we do. Also, the way we look doesn't prove or disprove the point you are trying to make.

I don't understand why you think the universe needs to look like a cross between Dr. Seuss & Escher in order to prove or disprove the point you are trying to make.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Maybe I'm a little off my rocker but, the impression I got was that the point was that the universe, at least based on everything science currently knows, appears to be a very orderly place with pretty well defined parameters. This degree of order seems to be in direct contravention to the power mad, violent and egocentric deity presented in the Abrahamic religions and many aspects of every pantheistic faith I can think if as well. Intend to agree with that particular assessment.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: knoledgeispower

Maybe I'm a little off my rocker but, the impression I got was that the point was that the universe, at least based on everything science currently knows, appears to be a very orderly place with pretty well defined parameters. This degree of order seems to be in direct contravention to the power mad, violent and egocentric deity presented in the Abrahamic religions and many aspects of every pantheistic faith I can think if as well. Intend to agree with that particular assessment.

I don't believe in a power mad, violent and egocentric deity like the one that is presented in the Abrahamic relgions or pantheistic religions so no I don't think that the appearance of everything being all orderly in pretty defined parameters is odd. Even if I did believe that, I still don't think it would be odd for there to be order in some aspects of life and chaos in others.

I also think it is extremely presumptuous to say that everything appears to be a very orderly place with pretty well defined parameters. We think so but we don't know for sure and I highly doubt we ever will.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Howdy,
This is getting a shade off-topic from the cool discovery with the ear bones, but I think a better... I don't want to say argument, but a better reasoning for no higher power would be something like... "I see that all things could have naturalistic origins. A higher power is not congruent with naturalism (as higher powers are supernatural). Therefore, adding a higher power is an unwarranted addition given the evidence." (Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for either side... Just trying to perhaps clarify the logic...)
I honestly don't know how this got to be the topic being discussed though. : / I thought the potential repositioning of neanderthal in our clade would be exciting enough to discuss...

originally posted by: knoledgeispower
I don't believe in a power mad, violent and egocentric deity like the one that is presented in the Abrahamic relgions or pantheistic religions so no I don't think that the appearance of everything being all orderly in pretty defined parameters is odd. Even if I did believe that, I still don't think it would be odd for there to be order in some aspects of life and chaos in others.

I get that you have your own, nonspecific spirituality and that's all fine and good. Personally, while it's not for me, i still respect it a little more than I do the traditional rabid follower of traditional iron age memes. I was just trying to apply some context not get into a battle of whos got the more appropriate philosophical backing for their world view.

I also think it is extremely presumptuous to say that everything appears to be a very orderly place with pretty well defined parameters. We think so but we don't know for sure and I highly doubt we ever will.

If I were that belligerent with my statement I would be inclined to agree. That is why I include qualifiers such as "what we currently know" etc...

Personally, not having all the answers is part of the fun of studying anthropology for me. it doesn't even bug me that I spent a crap load of money on an education steeped in information that's essentially outdated 20 years later because for me, the search for answers is far more rewarding than sitting behind a keyboard reiterating the "party line" as most who disagree with evolution seem to think of it.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Moresby

Or the fossil record is incomplete and the conditions in which they might be found vary, ie Earth's surface isn't uniform and there could be much more revealing data elsewhere that is inaccessible or that hasn't been fossilised.

Additionally finding proto hominids in Africa, or elsewhere is neither proof of ancestry nor of origin.

I just find it hard to believe that no hominids evolved in Africa. And those that ended up there never left.

a reply to: Moresby

The bottom line is that science details what it can determine with a high degree of veracity based on the best data it currently has available. What that data indicates is that hominids arose in East Africa. It's fine for others to question that data, in fact its critical that all the data is questioned and peer reviewed and not blindly accepted. As theabsolutetruth points out, there is a degree of likelihood that there are fossil sites currently unknown that could completely alter the paradigm of human history. In fact genetic data indicates an additional and currently unknown human ancestor with a commonality shared with Neanderthal and Denisovan. There is however, nothing as yet to indicate that humanity had its origins outside of Africa. If that information were to show up though, it wouldn't really be a huge mind f^(k for anthropology or evolutionary biology. As things sit right now though, it looks very much like humans and their ancestors have been leaving Africa for the past few million years. At least since H. Erectus and they managed to populate most of the Earth, use boats, build shelters and use tools before evolving into Neanderthal, Denisovan and possibly Floresiensis. And they were just the first wave.

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: knoledgeispower

Howdy,
This is getting a shade off-topic from the cool discovery with the ear bones, but I think a better... I don't want to say argument, but a better reasoning for no higher power would be something like... "I see that all things could have naturalistic origins. A higher power is not congruent with naturalism (as higher powers are supernatural). Therefore, adding a higher power is an unwarranted addition given the evidence." (Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for either side... Just trying to perhaps clarify the logic...)
I honestly don't know how this got to be the topic being discussed though. : / I thought the potential repositioning of neanderthal in our clade would be exciting enough to discuss...

I thought it was going to be enough of it's own too. I wasn't intending for it to go this way but if that's what people want to talk about then I'll talk about it for a bit. Eventually I'll grow tired of the topic & if people want to continue on they can.

Sometimes I can make really good points like the one you used but when I have a migraine, concentration & coming up with really good points can be hard.

a reply to: Moresby

I neither said nor implied that, however it is a huge leap to suggest that just because 'some hominids possibly evolved in Africa and some possibly migrated' to presumptions of 'where it all began', as that information based on the fossil record and the current 'formula' for determining that excludes all other fossils, whether found or unfound and there is statistically more chance of significant fossils being unfound yet that found.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Maybe if ever single thing in existence looked the same I could see the use of "why we don't look like furry eggplants with natural clown-face patterns" That's not the case though. Just because we look the way we do on Earth doesn't guarantee that other life will look exactly as we do. Also, the way we look doesn't prove or disprove the point you are trying to make.

I don't understand why you think the universe needs to look like a cross between Dr. Seuss & Escher in order to prove or disprove the point you are trying to make.

It's off topic anyway.

Join members Signalfire, Jacygirl, Comfortablynumb, and Druid42 this Monday @ 10pm EST as they discuss this thread.

Visit the ATS Live Forum for more information.

a reply to: Druid42

OMG that excites me (as I created this thread)
I can't wait to hear the show

originally posted by: coastlinekid
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...

Hi,

Roughly 7 million years ago we diverged from chimps.

About 4.5 million years ago we started to walk around (lucy)

About 2.5 million years ago we started using tools and eating more meat

About 1.7 million years ago we started developing basics cooperation skills became adventurous enough to leave africa for the first time.

Im a little more unsure about what we are told happened next. I know anatomically correct man is about 200,000 years old, and we are told we left africa about 50,000 years ago (using the 'out of africa model'). What are some times lines that include possible alien genetic manipulation and giants, of which i am quite positive roamed the earth.

I read somewhere that Middle Eastern people who look like Russell Brand with the dark caveman look are descendants of Middle Eastern peoples (mostly Afghanistanians) and Neanderthals mixed. What was explained was that when Scandinavian tribes came down from out of the glaciated far north into the German lands they pushed out the Neanderthals who fled to the middle east and bred with the indigenous peoples there. Perhaps that trait in the Chinese fossil is from a far flung Neanderthal and Chinese mix mating.

a reply to: Asynchrony

I would be really skeptical of anything in print that claims that HSN, who went extinct approx 30-35,000 BPE were able to be driven out if Europe by Scandinavians since nobody lived in the region prior to the arrival of Ahrensburg culture around 11,000 BPE. And even at that "late" date they were barely in Scandanavia hunting at the edge of the ice. It was another 4000 years or so before the ice had retreated enough for forests to take over and allow for proper migration inland.

Furthermore, the genetics and haplogroups simply don't support the notion of such. It's extremely unlikely that Neanderthal would have been moving further south into the Middle East during the time frame you ascribe to this transition because the climate was not conducive to their body type.

There were some migrations into the Levant and Iraq between 50&100,000 BPE but that coincided with a decrease in temperature in Europe and the ME making the areas the moved into hospitable to them. They never moved farther south that we know of yet nor did they move west into Egypt and Africa as the climate was still too warm for them.

didn't they find human dna in neanderthal bones?
then he is human (homosapien) who branched from Adam 50 thousand years ago.

problem solved.
Neanderthal is the ancestor of europpeans red hair red skin blue eyes, high eye arch, a pure caucasian guy was the neanderthal. he never died he is the russians!

the study about the ear trait in neanderthal has taken it from humans not because of interbreading but because neaderthals descend from humans homosapients