Our Human Origins May Have Been Pushed Back 400,000 Years

a reply to: Schmidt1989

I completely agree with you regarding the terminology being demonstrated. In all fairness to the OP though, the thread title is based on the article from which the thread is based. With that said, it is extremely misleading by saying "Humans might be a half million years older than previously thought" when the more apropos terminology would be that a new find pushes the advent of our genus Homo back several hundred thousand years as most people are thinking of H. Sapiens or H. Sapiens Sapiens when someone says "Human" and there is nothing to indicate, as yet, that Sapiens have been around much more than 200KY or archaic Humans( Heidelbergensis/Rhodesiensis et al) have been around more than a half million +/-

originally posted by: Schmidt1989

originally posted by: oldworldbeliever

Don't these books get update periodically based on new information?

Of course, just like any field of science. But the author of this thread is using information that states we have an evolutionary gap. Unless that article is 100 years old, it's incorrect and irrelevant.

This is the beauty of science, as science is self correcting. One does not simply assume that a proposal in science is true. Scientific theories are built from multiple sources of independent evidence, each one capable of proving the whole wrong.
In the case of human linage we see the evidence building between ancient apes and humans. If anything, there is an embarrassment of riches. So many specimens have been found in the past decades that the only challenge is clearly establishing their positions in the family tree.

a reply to: flyingfish

Which is precisely why all of my professors in college and graduate school referred to mapping human evolution as an art rater than a science.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have made a thread about Hominids
I will add more to our family tree tmr .

a reply to: boymonkey74

Denisovans and the Flores 'hobbits' (which may or may not be degenerate H. Sap. shared the same time window. Others probably did, too.

What if we're all the result of everything that exists in the universe? What if our chemical binding is just a chance of luck, that got mixed up in early age, dividing, And splitting until the meteor that Killed the dinosaurs, gave our species the last piece of the puzle that gave us, US?
Or mabe our atoms arrived with this meteor, AS a bakteria or virus, eating both plant And meat, growing in the heat, And when the world started to cool off, our species could continue to develop, til the day today?

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Why not ?

scientifically it's correct this doesn't even need an explanation
this says more about your perceptions than it does about the first man!

a reply to: sapien82

Who really wants to be called a HOMO, if they aren't one?

Didn't you get the joke?

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Oh.

It's a joke?

Maybe you don't know that 'homo', as in Homo Sapiens, is pronounced 'hommo'.

I suppose it's a good thing nobody ever told you about Homo erectus.

a reply to: oldworldbeliever

the atlanteans!!

a reply to: Astyanax

I was attempting to educate my Mother today on the fact we once walked around with many hominids and I mentioned Erectus and my Mother couldn't stop laughing.
Blooming 58 going on 11 my Mum.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We are the perfect animal we share traits with every animal inn earth why is that I'm starting to see genetic manipulation as the only way

a reply to: christophoros

Far far from perfect.
If perfect why would so many of us choke each year due to the fact that we can not eat and breath at the same time.
Chimps can do it so they are more perfect then us in that aspect.

Far far far far far from perfect.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Lol lots of other examples of our imperfections but how did we inherit all these similarities with other animals we even have holes in our heads like dolphins in the womv

a reply to: christophoros

Because we all share a common ancestor...a very long way back but we did.
I have been reading about it recently it is called.

Homologous Structures


examples.yourdictionary.com...

www.biology-online.org...

originally posted by: boymonkey74
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have made a thread about Hominids

I will add more to our family tree tmr

.

Is this against T&C rules, promoting a thread on mine?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Schmidt1989

I completely agree with you regarding the terminology being demonstrated. In all fairness to the OP though, the thread title is based on the article from which the thread is based. With that said, it is extremely misleading by saying "Humans might be a half million years older than previously thought" when the more apropos terminology would be that a new find pushes the advent of our genus Homo back several hundred thousand years as most people are thinking of H. Sapiens or H. Sapiens Sapiens when someone says "Human" and there is nothing to indicate, as yet, that Sapiens have been around much more than 200KY or archaic Humans( Heidelbergensis/Rhodesiensis et al) have been around more than a half million +/-

The terminology is purely my error. Hominid should have been used. But in my defense, I merely transposed what I had read without thinking .

a reply to: Astyanax

I suppose it's a good thing nobody ever told you about Homo erectus.

Sorry.. You left that one wide open!

Carry on..

I don't see anywhere that they have done any actual DNA testing to clarify that it is a 'homo', it could be one of the many prehistoric subspecies of the homo sapien or perhaps something much less significant, like the mishapen jaw bone of an ape or other non 'homo' animal that we don't know about, bottom line is that there hasn't been any genetic testing done to classify what it is and that tiny jaw bone is not enough to go off of- saying that it's homo genus.

There are so many gaps in mainstream science's 'theory' of human origins that it's not really phasing to see this. For example, the numerous accounts of remains that have been found, which aren't highly publicized or well known. Such as the remains of a hominid over 200,000 years old that were discovered in Great Britain and thought to be on average over or around 6 feet (that sort of muzzles up the out of africa theory's time line), or the 250,000 year old hominid's remains that were discovered in France, it goes on and on.

a reply to: oldworldbeliever

It's a pretty minor thing in the grand scheme of things. It's fairly commonplace to utilize an articles title for the title of a thread when basing the thread on said article. The original articles author(s) should have known better and even if they didn't for some odd reason, their editors definitely should have. After clicking the link, I didn't think twice about it or contemplate some sort of negative Nancy connotation towards you. I reserved my ire for the supposed authors of a science article who neglected their due diligence and the compounding effects of the equally lazy editorial staff. All in all, not really a big deal and a much better thread than the article. Plus you have the common decency to issue an apologetic retraction. You're light years ahead of most in that regard.


and just for clarity's sake...Boymonkey's shameless self promotion of his own thread is well within T&C as he isn't promoting something off site. Besides...you should be stoked that your thread and conversations it led to inspired him. It's nearly as sincere a form of flattery as imitation to be certain!