It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

55 thousand year old modern human from Manot cave in Israel

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: mindseye1609

journals.plos.org.../journal.pgen.1003316

dienekes.blogspot.com...




Genome-Wide Diversity in the Levant Reveals Recent Structuring by Culture

Marc Haber et al.

The Levant is a region in the Near East with an impressive record of continuous human existence and major cultural developments since the Paleolithic period. Genetic and archeological studies present solid evidence placing the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula as the first stepping-stone outside Africa. There is, however, little understanding of demographic changes in the Middle East, particularly the Levant, after the first Out-of-Africa expansion and how the Levantine peoples relate genetically to each other and to their neighbors. In this study we analyze more than 500,000 genome-wide SNPs in 1,341 new samples from the Levant and compare them to samples from 48 populations worldwide. Our results show recent genetic stratifications in the Levant are driven by the religious affiliations of the populations within the region. Cultural changes within the last two millennia appear to have facilitated/maintained admixture between culturally similar populations from the Levant, Arabian Peninsula, and Africa. The same cultural changes seem to have resulted in genetic isolation of other groups by limiting admixture with culturally different neighboring populations. Consequently, Levant populations today fall into two main groups: one sharing more genetic characteristics with modern-day Europeans and Central Asians, and the other with closer genetic affinities to other Middle Easterners and Africans. Finally, we identify a putative Levantine ancestral component that diverged from other Middle Easterners ~23,700–15,500 years ago during the last glacial period, and diverged from Europeans ~15,900–9,100 years ago between the last glacial warming and the start of the Neolithic.


Landmark study proves 90% of Jews are genetically linked to the Levant
Jews in communities around the globe show more genetic similarities with each other than they do with their non-Jewish neighbors, except in India and Ethiopia.

www.haaretz.com...




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: DerekJR321


Man is fallible and often has his own agenda.




You know what? You're absolutely correct.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DerekJR321

Thank you, you have a very humble heart. It will take you far, perhaps further than I, but all in good time.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
When did the Sahara dry up? From what I’ve read it was pretty green 10-12’000 years ago. Which would of made it happening long after this person was dead.
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The migration was eastward from East Africa, not northward through the Sahara.

I can quite believe there was a migration from Africa; some peoples in South Asia bear a definite resemblance to modern Africans.

But 100 intrepid Africans colonising the entire planet - even sailing thousands of miles to Australia - is just a stretch for me.

Add to that the complete lack of resemblance of modern Europeans to modern Africans.

Plus the uncomfortable feeling that OOA sounds just a little bit too convenient for the Neo-Marxist globalists who are trying to run the planet for my liking.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: punkinworks10

So, 55k years old??? I doubt that. Maybe more like 5.5k years. If the skeleton is antediluvian, then it can be up to 6,123 years old at the most. If it is post-diluvian, then its can be no older than 4,467 years old. Earth maybe much older than 6,123 years, but human civilization is not. If we are talking modern human, then I would go with something within the 4k year figure. Neanderthals seem to be more associated with the antediluvian age (since so many caves are so "flooded" with neanderthal-like bones). The more domesticated features that modern humans have today seems to be a result of sudden environmental change.

This article opperates of two axiomatic biases: the Darwinistic theory (not fact) of evolution, and the idea that radio-active dating is reliable. There are too many unknown factors to rely on radio-active decay, and macro-evolution has yet to be proven.

This link shows a few of the shortfalls of radio-active dating:

www.pathlights.com...


Your right. Lets just believe the bible and stop science all together because the gospels are so much more accurate.

Humans no older than 6,000 years? You have to be religious to believe something that ignorant.


Or realize that after thousands of years of translations, and different writers.

Someone screwed up the zero's, and comma's.

Ya know typo's happen.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

this post being a poignant exemplar of that mindset.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dr1Akula

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth

newsfeed.time.com...

“It is accepted at the moment that the earliest Homo sapiens that we know is in east Africa and is 200,000 years old, or a little less. We don’t know of anywhere else where anyone claims to have an earlier Homo sapiens,” he said.


How about the Petralona cave in Greece?


The cave was accidentally discovered in 1959 by Fillipos Chatzaridis, a local shepherd looking for a spring. The Petralona skull, estimated at about 700,000 years old by A. Poulanis [1] and confirmed by geological analysis [2] [Other estimates vary widely. www.nature.com... for example says 200,000.], was found there in 1960[3] by Chistos Sarrigiannidis, another local. Further research in the cave has yielded 4 isolated teeth,[4] then two pre-human skeletons dated about 800,000 years,[5] a great number of fossils of various species and what is considered as the oldest traces of fire known to this day.[6] The fossils have been at the Geology School of the Thessaloniki Aristotle University since 1960.[7]


en.wikipedia.org...


Finding a skull in Europe and dating it to 700KYA is one thing, identifying it as H. Sapiens is an entirely different matter altogether though.

www.academia.edu...


The Petralona skull from Greece has been generally accepted as an Upper Pleistocene variant of Neanderthal Man. It was included in a series of multivariate analyses performed by the author on cranial measurements of Pleistocene hominids. The results of the analyses suggest that Petralona is cranially similar to the Neanderthals, but facially is distinct. Overall it resembles the Broken Hill and Djebel Ighoud skulls most closely but there are features of resemblance to Homo erectus material. The results of these analyses support recent suggestions that the Petralona material is of greater antiquity than the Upper Pleistocence.


Even given the dating discrepencies( another methodology came back with a considerably younger date of 200 KYA) it is still an impressive exemplar of a pre-UP Hominid that isn't, at least morphologically, a direct line from H Heidelbergensis to Neanderthal as it bears some cranio-facial features consistent with H. Erectus. Either way, one thing it is NOT is an exemplar of H. Sapiens out of Africa prior to 200 KYA



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: punkinworks10
So, 55k years old??? I doubt that. Maybe more like 5.5k years.


and what precisely would your evidence be for redating to 1/10 the determined age of the cranium aside from your bias against dating techniques as evidenced by your horridly biased link at the end of your post?


If the skeleton is antediluvian, then it can be up to 6,123 years old at the most. If it is post-diluvian, then its can be no older than 4,467 years old.


Again, nothing more than your own biases at work here. Particularly so as there is absolutely no evidence at all in the geological record of one simultaneous world wide inundation/flood event that you are attempting to allude to. Show some sort of evidence in favor of your magical deluge before you toss away multidisciplinary analysis.


Earth maybe much older than 6,123 years, but human civilization is not. If we are talking modern human, then I would go with something within the 4k year figure.


Then why are there so many sites older than 6 KYA? Well developed sites in both hemispheres significantly older than the age you believe the entire planet is.


Neanderthals seem to be more associated with the antediluvian age (since so many caves are so "flooded" with neanderthal-like bones). The more domesticated features that modern humans have today seems to be a result of sudden environmental change.
\

You're focused and invested so heavily in your own confirmation bias that your limited scope of focus is in itself very telling. You discount the multitude of hominids that are well documented since the emergence of Homo Erectus 2 MYA
Please provide an actual explanation of WHY you think that the "more domesticated features of modern humans" (what the H does that mean anyway?) are the result of a sudden cataclysm? And [recisely WHAT cataclysmic event you are specifically referring to. If you're attempting to base all of this on one specific theological interpretation, one which isn't even close to being the oldest one out there, just admit it instead of dancing.



This article opperates of two axiomatic biases: the Darwinistic theory (not fact) of evolution, and the idea that radio-active dating is reliable. There are too many unknown factors to rely on radio-active decay, and macro-evolution has yet to be proven.


Perhaps it wouldn't be a terrible idea to actually understand the science you are attempting to debunk as "Darwinism" is a nearly 80 year old anachronism. While Darwin and his initial theory certainly form the back bone of the various aspects of evolutionary theory, it is in and of itself only one aspect of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. The way you put it, one would think that evolutionary studies have been at a standstill for the last 155 years since Darwin published the first edition of "On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection"

The bottom line is that evolution is indeed a fact. While every mechanism is not known as yet, the science is not at a stand still and everything we learn each year does nothing at all to show evidence contrary to this fact and instead continues to bolster it. As for the reality of your also incorrect and simply parroted view on dating methods, please see below.


This link shows a few of the shortfalls of radio-active dating:

www.pathlights.com...


No, this link shows a dearth of ignorant view points with no basis in reality and attempts to pawn it off as science.

Since the advent of Radiometric dating, do you really believe that no due diligence was done in order to ascertain the efficacy of the procedures utilized? That nobody actually attempted to force a false reading by forcing altered decay rates? What was found that extreme pressure can affect decay rates SLIGHTLY, as in less than .2%. This is why there are always margins of error included in dates. If you ever read a date without thr +/- associated with it it is simply because the dating being given is the mean of the margin of error. all one needs to do is look to see what methods were used to ascertain the date, look up the MOE for that methodology and account for the actual MOE.

Or is it that you don't feel we can use the Oklo site as a barometer of decay rates as it was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1.8 MYA?

The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).


Then there is this-

Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Why do you have trouble with going back 55K years when some of the rock art of the San people is 55 - 60 K years old.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:51 AM
link   
I was watching a video about some of our ancient and often sunken ports and the one out from Alexandria was said to be busier before the sea claimed it than New york today, taking more ships per day. When you just think about what that actually means and the strategy to cope, without today's transport and cranes alone, you suddenly get the idea that man has been around for a very long time and with a considerable amount of knowledge and experience. He even poured concrete that set under water to make the port in Israel - Unless he had one of the most rapid learning curves or instructors we have yet to positively identify, we don't know anything near as much as we should about our fabulous ancestors who certainly, judging from the amount of ships visiting Alexandria, would amaze ourselves as to where they all came from and returned to. Trade gets humans moving and they were sophisticated traders to generate that amount of shipping.

It also must have taken thousands of years for the ancient people go tather the amount of knowledge about our cosmos and the timetable our planet lives through. To double check a grand year of nearly 25000 years at least once would entail 50000 years. They had knowledge that can only have been gained over a long time spell.

Most of our learning about history is about battles, kings, treaties - all supposedly important but - blah blah - I wish we were taught more from the archaeological record and about everyday living, it would have made history for me when young so much more interesting.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
I was watching a video about some of our ancient and often sunken ports and the one out from Alexandria was said to be busier before the sea claimed it than New york today, taking more ships per day. When you just think about what that actually means and the strategy to cope, without today's transport and cranes alone, you suddenly get the idea that man has been around for a very long time and with a considerable amount of knowledge and experience. He even poured concrete that set under water to make the port in Israel - Unless he had one of the most rapid learning curves or instructors we have yet to positively identify, we don't know anything near as much as we should about our fabulous ancestors who certainly, judging from the amount of ships visiting Alexandria, would amaze ourselves as to where they all came from and returned to. Trade gets humans moving and they were sophisticated traders to generate that amount of shipping.


Absolutely. And Alexandria was a fairly recent addition to the hierarchy of sea trade. Just look at what the Phoenicians had been doing as far back as the 3rd millennium. Trade between what is considered Phoenicia historically (even though it was more like ancient Greece and comprised of independent city states) and Egypt with Lebanese Cyprus for lumber and then later on their complete monopoly on the trade of the purple dye of the Murex snail coveted by royalty and anyone in power or with the wealth to obtain it, they invented the bireme, an 80 ft long warship that had superior speed and maneuverability compared to anything else on the seas at that time. They were for a rather long period of time THE sea power in the Mediterranean with production outposts for purple dye across North Africa to Carthage and as far as Morocco. They were unparalleled in sea trade from the 3rd millennium BCE until 539 when Cyrus the Great conquered them and incorporated them into the Persian Empire. After that unfortunately, it was just a succession of foreign power running the show from Persia, to Alexander the Great, The Selucids etc... until Pompey Magnus took the area as part of the Roman province of Syria.


It also must have taken thousands of years for the ancient people go tather the amount of knowledge about our cosmos and the timetable our planet lives through. To double check a grand year of nearly 25000 years at least once would entail 50000 years. They had knowledge that can only have been gained over a long time spell.


It's pretty mind-blowing when you really sit back and digest just how long people had to have made astronomical observations and kept some sort of records even before the written word came into existence and the precision in which they did so.


Most of our learning about history is about battles, kings, treaties - all supposedly important but - blah blah - I wish we were taught more from the archaeological record and about everyday living, it would have made history for me when young so much more interesting.


I couldn't agree more. It would have been much more interesting in high school had I been learning about things like Hero of Alexandria and his automatons, coin operated offerings at temples and all the other insanely complex machinery he was able to produce compared to what we were led to think of those times. I.E. primitive and with no technology.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
You are on fire with these posts Pumkinworks



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879
thank you spider
and thanks to every body for the replies,
and thankd to you peterV for absolving me of haveing to dance with trolls.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

Because radioactive dating cannot prove dates, there are too many unknown factors. The bible teaches that human civilization is no older that 6123 years, and that the flood occured in the year 1656.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Perhaps they are my biases, but I base them on very old documents and calendars. Some of the calendars I use come from civilizations that discovered the very laws of science that we consider to be axiomatic today. Darwinist Evolution and radioactive dating is equally bias as you are operating on a foundation of assumptions.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

When they date bones/fossils based on isotopes, they can se as far back as 100000 year if not more... It all depends on the how the bones have been stored... So what do you mean by human civilization can't be more than 4000 years old? How about for example Naia? (13000 years old) I think there are doubts about the evolution of apes too humans, because there are many factors we can't prove and interconnect, and there are to many assumptions involved... But to say that humans only are 4000 years old, when we have evidence of the contrary is for me a big question...



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Shiloh7

Because radioactive dating cannot prove dates, there are too many unknown factors. The bible teaches that human civilization is no older that 6123 years, and that the flood occured in the year 1656.


Where exactly does it say that in the bible? And why is YOUR scripture so unerringly accurate yet older texts that disagree with yours have no bearing on the discussion? that strikes me as willful ignorance.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: peter vlar
Perhaps they are my biases, but I base them on very old documents and calendars. Some of the calendars I use come from civilizations that discovered the very laws of science that we consider to be axiomatic today.


So instead of discussing the actual science you simply dismiss it because it disagrees with your preconceived notions... doesn't seem to be a terribly rational or logical way to approach the topic. What specific documents and calendars are you using as the basis for your absolute dismissal of multidisciplinary results? What specifically do they say that leads you to this conclusion?


Darwinist Evolution and radioactive dating is equally bias as you are operating on a foundation of assumptions.


There is no such thing as "Darwinist Evolution". I explained that rather concisely in my initial reply to you. Your using an anachronism that hasn't been in play for over 3/4 of a century. And how exactly am I the one operating under assumptions that makes my explanation biased? I'm not just trotting around with a notebook of stock answers just waiting to rebut you, I'm citing legitimate sources which you haven't addressed at all. You're acting like a Jedi...waving your hands in the air stating "there's nothing to see here" as if these simply are not the droids I'm looking for. It's just silly. Address whats wrong with the science.

The difference between you and I is that I'm actually open to the possibility of being wrong. I don't just blindly follow along and parrot the words of others. I engage in my due diligence and look for flaws. Are you willing to do so with your documents and maps? Show me the money and I will admit my errors. However, you need to actually back up your claims because Obi Wan you are not.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Never a problem. You know me... I can never turn down a dance!



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join