Red Deer Cave people' bone points to mysterious species of pre-modern human

originally posted by: peter vlar
I would totally go back 75 or 80 KA andpull a Margaret Mead and follow some HN around the Levant to see what kind of reaction they had when HS first left Africa and the two met for the first time.

I would go back 100,000 years to Lascaux and spray paint "Erich Von Daniken is a fraud" on the cave wall

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: peter vlar
I would totally go back 75 or 80 KA andpull a Margaret Mead and follow some HN around the Levant to see what kind of reaction they had when HS first left Africa and the two met for the first time.

I would go back 100,000 years to Lascaux and spray paint "Erich Von Daniken is a fraud" on the cave wall

Mother F..... why the hell didn't I think of that first? On the way back one of us needs to stop in Sumer during the later Uruk period and ask them to include some cuneiform about Sitchin then for good measure!

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: punkinworks10

Sounds like the Red Deer "Annual Hide and Seek" champion of 11,985 BC...

All jokes aside, they say these bones are from a smaller type of human, but how do they know the bones don't belong to a 10 or 11 year old child of that time?

The (technical) answer is that the ephyphyses of the bones are fused. They don't fuse until after maturity: en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: Byrd

Do you never wish you could go back for a day, maybe 30,000 years ago or so, just to fly over and observe for a while? Did they meet each other, what history did they tell each other, how did they function as collectives?
It would probably be too hard to leave after a day, I'm too nosey.

It'd take more than a day, I assure you... even if I could speak the language. Most of the time, the stuff would probably be typical human gossip and nagging.

a reply to: punkinworks10

There were many hybrid species created when fallen angels did their dirty work, creating human/animal hybrids. These aren't prehumans. There's no such thing. Evolution "theory" has more cracks than Humpty Dumpty.

Found in a cave huh? Quite typical of preflood life trying to escape, oh I don't know, a massive flood. This type of thing Is found often under such conditions. All these abomination creatures were hiding from something.

The age of these bones listed in the article is bull honkey by the way....

originally posted by: kef33890
a reply to: punkinworks10

There were many hybrid species created when fallen angels did their dirty work, creating human/animal hybrids.

Oh? Which human/animal hybrids were created and what scientific evidence do you have to support your hyperbole?

These aren't prehumans. There's no such thing.

Pre humans would be prior to humanity existing. As these remains are from after the LGM, there really isn't a question as to whether or not they are in the same Genus as us unless DNA results end up being something unexpected.

Evolution "theory" has more cracks than Humpty Dumpty.

And here we go yet again, blanket statements with nothing to support them. What are these alleged cracks in Modern Evolutionary Synthesis? Can you articulate what is wrong with the science and support your position?

For the record, there isn't a single theory in the history of scientific inquiry that has the amount of supporting data that evolution does. Evolution is a fact. The "theory" as you so eloquently put it, isn't to prove evolution is real, it serves to explain HOW evolution works.

You can throw away the entire fossil record and geologic column and genetics alone still proves descent from a common ancestor. It doesn't provide any thing supporting human/animal hybrids let alone fallen angels as their ring leader.

If you want to live incredulous to a fact, a fact supported by over 98% of Earth Scientists( this doesn't mean they're from earth and believe but that the scientists from the Pleiades don't believe FYI, it means geologists, biologists, anthropologists, paleontologists etc...those who study natural phenomena related to the Earth) who are members of the National Academy of the Sciences, that's absolutely your right to do so. But the onus is on you to support your position. Otherwise it comes off as either bring a troll or being willfully ignorant. Please feel free to demonstrate what you believe the cracks in MES are and I'm more than happy to address them.

Found in a cave huh? Quite typical of preflood life trying to escape, oh I don't know, a massive flood. This type of thing Is found often under such conditions. All these abomination creatures were hiding from something.

Its more typical of people seeking shelter from more benign events like predators or weather... Weather that actually existed. Because if you're implying that a Noachian flood engulfing the entire planet is a true story then sorry, there's absolutely not a single shred of evidence to support it and reams of evidence that proves the event is entirely impossible.

The age of these bones listed in the article is bull honkey by the way....

Why? Because it doesn't coincide with a biblical timeline and age of the Earth that didn't exist 200 years ago and is entirely made up in the 19th century? Or can you demonstrate an actual flaw in the dating methods used or articulate WHY the age of the remains is bull honkey? I'm betting no to that last query.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: Byrd

Do you never wish you could go back for a day, maybe 30,000 years ago or so, just to fly over and observe for a while? Did they meet each other, what history did they tell each other, how did they function as collectives?
It would probably be too hard to leave after a day, I'm too nosey.

I would totally go back 75 or 80 KA andpull a Margaret Mead and follow some HN around the Levant to see what kind of reaction they had when HS first left Africa and the two met for the first time.

That would be amazing. That would be worth a trip for the geography alone, and also because I'm curious as to what the flora was like then. Would it be unethical to take cuttings back?

Also I'd stop by the Qumran Caves on my way back and drop in a 'gospel of beansidhe', because I'm evil.

a reply to: peter vlar

1. Im referrng to theses almost human but not so human like bones that are found. All the giant skeletons that the Vatican and Smithsonian shove into storage facilities, never to see daylight again... Anything that goes against evolution. Dinosaurs and human remains... Etc.

2a. Show me proof today of evolution happening. Where are all these evolved traits that change in the species... Where are all these gaps in between these humongous jumps. Where are all the skeletons of our monkey human ancestors?

2b. Better yet where is that fish that walked out of water but still retained his fish features. What? Where is that fish with legs? And where are his descendants? If evolution happens so slowly as you say it does....

3. If the cave dwellers were looking for shelter, why didn't they build a shelter like a normal upright walking "creature" would. That's what I would do instead of living in a cave.

I will add more but I have to get out of work

a reply to: kef33890

This was not directed at me but Iam here.

Show me proof today of evolution happening.

The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce.

They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.

Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop.
www.sciencedaily.com...

2b. Better yet where is that fish that walked out of water but still retained his fish features. What? Where is that fish with legs? And where are his descendants? If evolution happens so slowly as you say it does

Mudskippers are fish of the subfamily Oxudercinae (tribe Periophthalmini),[1] within the family Gobiidae (gobies). The subfamily includes about 41 species. They are completely amphibious fish that can use their pectoral fins to walk on land.[2][3] Being amphibious, they are uniquely adapted to intertidal habitats, unlike most fish in such habitats which survive the retreat of the tide by hiding under wet seaweed or in tidal pools.[4]

Mudskippers are quite active when out of water, feeding and interacting with one another, for example, to defend their territories. They are found in tropical, subtropical, and temperate regions, including the Indo-Pacific and the Atlantic coast of Africa.
en.wikipedia.org...

Now what!!

a reply to: Spider879

Well that made me stop and think for a moment... It does appear that little critter has legs at first glance, but then I realized those were just fins and then upon reading I confirmed my suspicion. I respect your debate with me, but I do not believe that is an example of evolution so much as it is an adaptation. I do believe mutations as such can occur in a species, but none of those mutations can change an organism so substantially, even over massive time, to where they are an unrecognizable descendant of its ancient ancestor. My belief is that each branch of species is independent and completely unconnected to their so called evolutionary steps. Now there are unlimited numbers of mutations that can occur, but a cat is still a cat and ALWAYS will remain a cat.

Otherwise, please show me all the skeletal remains or fossils of these intermediary stages between milestone developments? And let's not forget their descendants, because there should be tons and tons of them in the fossil record or burried with the earth. And please don't tell me that remains rot away completely, especially to the point that no intermediary links between milestone developments have ever been discovered given the countless numbers of remains there should be.

I will back up my original post. I'm just saying these human hybrids aren't what you think they are, and something doesn't add up. No sirry bob....

Next I will explain why those remains aren't that old.

Regards

originally posted by: kef33890

1. Im referrng to theses almost human but not so human like bones that are found. All the giant skeletons that the Vatican and Smithsonian shove into storage facilities, never to see daylight again... Anything that goes against evolution. Dinosaurs and human remains... Etc.

This again,
Facts
1. the word giant didn't mean massive humanoid until the 15th Century, before then it meant powerful, derived from the Greek Gigantes, who weren't massive either
2. The word giant doesn't appear in the original Jewish text, its just the Septuagint and later...
3. The Smithsonian conspiracy was invented by David Hatcher Childress in the late 70s to explain why he had no evidence for his claims of giants

originally posted by: kef33890, but a cat is still a cat and ALWAYS will remain a cat.

So a dog is still a wolf ?


I'm guessing you didn't bother to research this because you already think you know what's what
You don't

originally posted by: kef33890
a reply to: peter vlar

1. Im referrng to theses almost human but not so human like bones that are found.

Perhaps you could actually be more specific. I can't do much with blanket statements and generalities.

All the giant skeletons that the Vatican and Smithsonian shove into storage facilities, never to see daylight again...

Right... there's a major world wide conspiracy consisting of every practitioner of science, on every continent, in every nation on earth where Anthropologists, Paleontologists, Evolutionary Biologists, Geologists, Chemists and Physicists where they purposely sabotage advancing their careers with extraordinary finds that would put them in the highest echelon of their chosen field. Is that what you're trying to tell me?

Anything that goes against evolution. Dinosaurs and human remains... Etc.

Again, you're being somewhat ambiguous. Are you implying that human remains and dinosaur remains have been found in situ in the same strata and dated to the same age? If so, please provide citations so I can address a specific claim.

2a. Show me proof today of evolution happening. Where are all these evolved traits that change in the species... Where are all these gaps in between these humongous jumps. Where are all the skeletons of our monkey human ancestors?

One example of evolution occurring right now would be African Elephants evolving to lose their tusks. Elephants with no tusks are useless to poachers therefore they survive longer and are more easily able to pass their genetics on. Genetics that include smaller or no tusks.

Another one would be the Tomcod, a fish native to the Hudson River. In the late 1920's the Hudson began to be flooded with industrial waste and PCB's. This decimated nearly the entire ecosystem. Except for the Tomcod. They developed an immunity to the toxins by developing a special set of genes that make a key poison-shielding protein and they were the only critters to survive the toxic onslaught. They, in turn, passed their protective genes onto their offspring. You know... Natural Selection?

How about the skinks? They're losing their limbs AND some are having live births instead of egg broods.
Skink with nubs-

Should we move on to humans? Blue eyes didn't exist until 6-10 KA. And thanks to recent advances in genetics, we know not only when and where this mutation first occurred but also that this mutation can be traced back to one individual.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Light skin in H. Sapiens likewise is also a new feature in the human portfolio.
www.livescience.com...

The mutation for Lactase Persistence is also fairly new in our repertoire. All mammals can drink milk until shortly after toddlerhood, in humans this means until about the age of 6 or so. Those with the gene for lactase persistence are able to digest lactose into adulthood.
www.nature.com...

As for your last question above... there are no skeletons of monkey ancestors. We did not evolve from monkeys and we don't share direct common ancestry with monkeys. we share common ancestry with the other Great Apes, of which we are an ape taxonomically. This group includes, Humans, Gorillas, Chimpanzee, Bonobo and Orangutan.

Some of our earliest ancestors include Sahelanthropus Tchadensis who lived between 6 and 7 MA
humanorigins.si.edu...

After Sahelanthropus we get to Orrorin Tugenesis who lived around 6 MA
humanorigins.si.edu...

Then we move on to the Ardipithecus Genus.
humanorigins.si.edu...
humanorigins.si.edu...

move on to the Australopithecines. There were at least 10 species of this genus and they were around from ~ 4 MA and some were contemporaneous with the earliest members of our own Genus less than 2 MA

2b. Better yet where is that fish that walked out of water but still retained his fish features. What? Where is that legs? And where are his descendants? If evolution happens so slowly as you say it does....

Spider covered this already but if his reply doesn't satisfy you please voice your issues and I will address them when I get home later.

3. If the cave dwellers were looking for shelter, why didn't they build a shelter like a normal upright walking "creature" would. That's what I would do instead of living in a cave.

A normal upright walking creature? So let me get this right... hunter gatherers who had no permanent address or real estate to call home should stop when a snow storm hits and build a shelter as opposed to locating a convenient shelter to make use of? you're right... it makes way more sense to build a haphazard shelter instead of utilizing something that is already weather proofed. That might be what you would have chosen to do, but you wouldn't survive the season. Utilization of caves and outcroppings as shelter has been done for hundreds of thousands of years. It wasn't until the advent of agrarian culture that permanent settlements began to appear.

a reply to: kef33890

Hello kef,

Sometimes it's easier to understand the process with plants. You can see here the evolution of plants, as they began to adapt to the world around them millions of years ago:



We started with algaes and mosses, before ferns (seed bearing) evolved and from them came our trees. Flowering plants are very 'new' and by sequencing their genomes, the ancestor of all the flowering plants can be found.

It seems that on the level of the organ, the leaf may be the ancestor of the flower, or at least some floral organs. When some crucial genes involved in flower development are mutated, clusters of leaf-like structures arise in place of flowers. Thus, sometime in history, the developmental program leading to formation of a leaf must have been altered to generate a flower. There probably also exists an overall robust framework within which the floral diversity has been generated.
An example of that is a gene called LEAFY (LFY), which is involved in flower development in Arabidopsis thaliana. The homologs of this gene are found in angiosperms as diverse as tomato, snapdragon, pea, maize and even gymnosperms. Expression of Arabidopsis thaliana LFY in distant plants like poplar and citrus also results in flower-production in these plants. The LFY gene regulates the expression of some genes belonging to the MADS-box family. These genes, in turn, act as direct controllers of flower development.

wiki - evolution of plants

For the gene to be present in such a diverse range of plants, there must be a common ancestor.

a reply to: kef33890

When ever you go swimming you close your fingers and effectively turned them into fins,why?? because hands eveolved out of fins, you find the same with aquatic birds such as ducks vs land birds their feet are webbed as an adaptation to water but chickens are not.

Did anyone else read this article about the find? Oh no!

One of the most exciting pieces of evidence in the story is a hominin femur found in Muladong cave in south-west China, alongside other human and animal bones. It shows evidence of having been burned in a fire that was used for cooking other meat, and has marks consistent with it being butchered for consumption.
It has also been broken in a way that is often used to access the bone marrow.

Unusually, it had been painted with a red clay called ochre, something often associated with burial rituals. While many other bones were eaten in the cave, only the ones from human species were painted.

It’s hard to know if the bone was actually cannibalised by the H. sapiens whose remains have also been found in the area, Curnoe says, but all the evidence points towards that conclusion. “We don’t know it was cannibalism,” he says. “We’ve got cut marks that would be consistent with butchering.”

New Scientist

Please don't tell me we ate all the other species out of existence.

a reply to: beansidhe

Beansidhe,
You get a A grade for doing your home work.
I purposefully didn't mention the cannibal aspect of the find, to see if anyone picked up up on it.

The real question now, is who did the cannibalizing, us? Or was it yet another archaic?

a reply to: punkinworks10

The red ochre covering suggests ritual of some sort, but whether it was forced (a situation where they were starving to death) or ritual (killing an enemy) or customary (as some tribes eat the brains of the deceased) is unknown without other finds.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Whoever it was, seemed to know how to cook..."It shows evidence of having been burned in a fire that was used for cooking other meat, and paint.
Uuurgh.

I wonder if they'll find other parts of the skeleton, or if the leg was taken away to eat and make marrow soup from?

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: punkinworks10

The red ochre covering suggests ritual of some sort, but whether it was forced (a situation where they were starving to death) or ritual (killing an enemy) or customary (as some tribes eat the brains of the deceased) is unknown without other finds.

Would the difference between "butchery" marks and defleshing marks associated with excarnation and other burial practices be obvious?

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: punkinworks10

The red ochre covering suggests ritual of some sort, but whether it was forced (a situation where they were starving to death) or ritual (killing an enemy) or customary (as some tribes eat the brains of the deceased) is unknown without other finds.

Would the difference between "butchery" marks and defleshing marks associated with excarnation and other burial practices be obvious?

Yes. In defleshing, they would gently slice at the tendons (along the top and bottom) - it's a surgical sort of removal of the muscles. Butchery is violent and does not remove the muscles (meat) in muscle groups but rather chops through the muscles and into the bones. Defleshing should have some characteristic scrape marks along the bone.

Interesting article here: journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0121208