Oldest Americans 1.3 millon years???

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


just to catch you up the argument is about a polyphylogenetic evolution model... basically did we have co evolution occurring in both old and new worlds at the same time??? in truth we don't know... thanks to a very incomplete fossil record... but that's nature for ya....

Being that this is ATS then I could go way out on a limb and suggest, yes their is a possible common descendant of the owner of those early footprints... Around these message board we refer to him as big foot... there's your primate or similar whatever... but are they connected??? damned if I know!

[edit on 29-5-2009 by DaddyBare]




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd Not all primates are in the human lineage. There are many which aren't. The New World Teilhardina are more closely related to marmosets: en.wikipedia.org...


Hence my remark..."Ain't science fun" Thank you once again, Byrd, for applying cutting edge Anthro to a subject so filled with vagaries and idle conjecture.

65K? Once the 12.5k floodgates opened, so much became possible! If only you were a pro on Lake Ontario Iroquois as well...sigh.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,


Byrd: Ah... wait. Are you suggesting that hominids evolved in the Americas separately from the ones that evolved in Africa?


SC: There are a number of scenarios I envision. If an intelligent hominid species did evolve independently in the Americas then clearly such a species has become extinct along with many of the other hominid and animal species the world over. Wiped out perhaps with the arrival of "more advanced" homo sapiens sapiens or perhaps as a result of some other natural event.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,


Not all primates are in the human lineage.


SC: But the question does not actually relate to human lineage but to some other intelligent hominid species that evolved independently and which, subsequently, became extinct along with all other hominid species.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
]Hello Scott,
The limit of your argument rests only on your Pre-Cambrian theory that is supported only by you and apparently created by you. You have painted yourself into a corner by ignoring the evidence


You are asking for an opinion on several hundred years of evolution as a means of evading the evidence. There is (how many times?) no evidence supporting a 'parallel evolution' of a bipedal hominid in the Americas. You insist on staying in the land of possibilities. Why not provide an academic source that refers to parallel evolution among hominids dating to 600 million years ago? Surprise yourself. Maybe you can find evidence to support your theory that parallel evolution in hominids occurred 300 million ya?

I asked if YOU believe the footprints are 1.3 million ya. Well, you don't 'believe' or 'think' anything. You say it's the science you base your ideas (that you claim not to have) on. Ridiculous. The science shows that the footprints are around 40ka. The links support the science. The science defines the footprints as being 40ka.

You refuse to address the science and stay in 'possibility land.' Honestly, Scott have you got anything at all to say that isn't empty BS and circular, self-serving rhetoric? You aren't interested in the age of the footprints.

Why not share your dogmatism with Hall of Maat or Bad Astronomy forums? Why hide your light under ATS' bushel? If you can support your parallel evolution theory with 'evidence'
you'll gain some respect. Again, with a sense of purpose as profound as this...



it is safer to cower in the trenches of stagnant orthodoxy...battle across the minefields...one's own truth...I do not do so in search of medals, or honours or money or baubels -only in the hope that I will find a better truth of our history and origins at the end of my journey than the one that spouts forth from the fetid mound of perceived wisdom that you so readily accept as gospel


...you may be the John Bunyan of the academic fringes...or would be if you ever brought more than possibilities. Come back with more than possibilities...until then you're an empty vessel making a lot of noise.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,

I regard your last post as nothing more than an ad hoministic rant bordering on hysteria and, as such, I shall largely ignore it.

Evidence:

250,000 year old artefacts found in Mexico. FACT. (Yes, the date is disputed but VSM stands by her original dates).

Parallel Evolution within phylo is FACT ergo there is every reason to suppose that such parallel evolution could have occurred at a much earlier stage (i.e. Precambrian). This then opens the door to possible independent evolution of hominid species at multi-locations which may then explain the "anomalous artefacts" in the Americas. And - as I have said to you already - the 40K footprint date does not tell us when this hominid species arrived on the continent. It could have been hundreds of thousands of years previous.

The current model of evolutionary theory CANNOT explain these anomalous artefacts. I have proposed Parallel Evolution as perhaps being a solution to this apparent paradox of evolutionary theory. I am here trying to HELP evolutionary theory so I have absolutely no idea why you are so vehemently hostile to this idea?

If you do not want to be part of the solution then you will become part of the problem.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 29/5/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
Hello Scott,



250,000 year old artefacts found in Mexico. FACT. (Yes, the date is disputed but VSM stands by her original dates).


As repeatedly pointed out, the 'site' has been dated. A recent paper by Sam VanLandingham continues to support a date of between 80ka and 25 000ka. The layers that the tools were found in have that date and it appears to be supported by the science. The next task is to confirm that the tools are from that date too. It's a very interesting puzzle. In previous posts it's been suggested you look at this discussion about the issues. These are professional anthropologists and archaeologists more than happy to accept the 250000ka date. They would just like the 'possibility' to be validated by further study. Given the right data a lot of guys are happy to extend the human presence in the Americas. I'm happy too and I've been clear about that before hence my offering you the link more than once.




Parallel Evolution within phylo is FACT ergo there is every reason to suppose that such parallel evolution could have occurred at a much earlier stage (i.e. Precambrian). This then opens the door to possible independent evolution of hominid species which may then explain the "anomalous artefacts" in the Americas.


Yes. It is a fact. However you are extending the concept to allow for the separate evolution of a bipedal hominid in the Americas. Your words are leading. That parallel evolution 'could have' occurred is still unsupported by fossil record or other evidence.

Our old friend the 'anomalous object' returns once more. I was aware from your first post that much of your contention will be used to support the 'oopart.' It was inevitable. This is why I'm so keen to know your overarching concept of our past. You clearly possess one and it would be enlightening to all if you shared it. At the very least, it would shed light on the significance you attribute to them.

I am not 'vehemently hostile' to your ideas. I'm simply aware that you require 'anomalous objects' to exist. This infers that you also have an idea of who or what created them or why they are allegedly scattered through our fossil record. The repeated question as to what exactly do you believe was asked in the vain hope of cutting to the chase.

Through many of your posts I detect an underlying current. I am curious to know what that theme is as it pertains to your interpretation of possibilities versus evidence. I suspect you believe there is a lost advanced race of humans. This would extend to a variety of sites across the world. I also suspect you believe in Intelligent Design and possible alien intervention to that end. I don't have a problem with that belief, although I don't share it.

If, however, this is a fair summary of your beliefs it will inform your stance as to the dishonesty of science for not providing supportive evidence to those beliefs. We are all biased in some shape or form and it's often helpful to understand where that bias may lie. If any of these points are close to being accurate it suggests you are somewhat disingenuous when making your points.

Please note the mildness of the tone of this post. No attack, just a patient teasing out of your 'politics' so to speak



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,


SC: 250,000 year old artefacts found in Mexico. FACT. (Yes, the date is disputed but VSM stands by her original dates).

Kandinsky: As repeatedly pointed out, the 'site' has been dated. A recent paper by Sam VanLandingham continues to support a date of between 80ka and 25 000ka.


SC: This is the MINIMUM date band quoted for the age of the Hueyatlaco artefacts.


VanLandingham, S.L., 2009, Use of diatom biostratigraphy in determining a minimum (Sangamonian = 80,000--ca.220,000 yr. BP) and a maximum (Illinoian = 220,000--430,00 yr. BP) age for the Hueyatlaco artifacts, Puebla, Mexico. Nova Hedwigia (February, 2009), Beiheft 135, p. 15-36.


Date range: 80,000BP - 430,00BP. VSM still maintains (through 4 different testing methods) a date of 250,000BP. Fact is, conventional evolutionary chronology cannot place intelligent hominid species in the Americas at any of these dates.


Kandnisky: These are professional anthropologists and archaeologists more than happy to accept the 250000ka date. They would just like the 'possibility' to be validated by further study. Given the right data a lot of guys are happy to extend the human presence in the Americas. I'm happy too and I've been clear about that before hence my offering you the link more than once.


SC: If a date of 250,000BP is accepted then the chronology of evolution is wrong or there has to be another explanation e.g. Parallel Evolution.


DNA and fossil evidence indicates that modern humans [Homo Sapiens Sapiens] originated in east Africa about 200,000 years ago.


Source: en.wikipedia.org...


SC: Parallel Evolution within phylo is FACT ergo there is every reason to suppose that such parallel evolution could have occurred at a much earlier stage (i.e. Precambrian). This then opens the door to possible independent evolution of hominid species which may then explain the "anomalous artefacts" in the Americas.

Kandinsky: Yes. It is a fact.


SC: At last!


Kandinsky: However you are extending the concept to allow for the separate evolution of a bipedal hominid in the Americas.


SC: Evolution is evolution, Kandinsky. It cares nothing for my use of words. If you accept that parallel evolution is fact then there is no reason why it hasn't always been so. You can't just accept the fact from when it suits you.


Kandinsky: That parallel evolution 'could have' occurred is still unsupported by fossil record or other evidence.


SC: The fossil record shows numerous species from differing branches with similar evolutionary traits. We see such even today as Byrd ppointed out. Parallel evolution is very much supported by the evidence.


Kandinsky: This is why I'm so keen to know your overarching concept of our past...The repeated question as to what exactly do you believe was asked in the vain hope of cutting to the chase.


SC: I have told you - I accept that evolution has been sufficiently proven. However, the current model of evolution has some shortcomings that make it problematic for me which is why I am seeking ways to resolve those issues. The concept of parallel evolution helps me in this regard. My purpose is to seek out the truth in all scientific/historical research. Nothing more, nothing less.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 29/5/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Ok,

im going to throw a wrench in the works,

I found a fascinating discussion on "the out of africa" theory vs. a multi regional hypothosis of modern human development as it pertains to the population of australia.

The Out of Africa Theory, that is well supported by science.


The 'Out-of-Africa' theory proposes that 1.4 million years ago Homo erectus left Africa and spread throughout Europe and Asia. In Europe, Homo erectus evolved into the Neanderthals. In Asia, most Homo erectus stopped evolving - with the exception of a small group in the Indonesian archipelago that branched off to become Homo floresiensis (aka the Hobbit). Unlike most of the Homo erectus in Asia, which stagnated, the Homo erectus that stayed in Africa continued to evolve and eventually became Homo sapiens.

About 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens left Africa. They spread throughout the globe and conquered or out-competed Neanderthals and Homo erectus. The last Neanderthal died out around 30,000 years ago. The last Homo erectus died out somewhere between 200,000 and 30,000 years ago. The last Hobbit is believed to have died out in a volcanic eruption around 10,000 years ago. After conquering Homo erectus in Indonesia, Homo sapiens moved to Australia. If Homo erectus had made it to Australia first, then they too would have been conquered.

In a nutshell, 200,000 years ago an African tribe, either through superior food gathering ability or open war, started the extinction of all hominid species living throughout Eurasia.

Supporting the Out-of-Africa theory is work by Allan Wilson who provided evidence in 1987 that all modern humans share a single female ancestor who lived in Africa approximately 200,000 years ago

And the multi regional hypothosis


Mungo Man is a huge spanner in the works for the Out-of-Africa theory because it can't explain how Mungo Man looked liked modern humans, yet was not related to any human that had left Africa in the last 200,000 years. A 'Multiple-Regions' theory is held up as the answer. If Out-of-Africa is a theory of war, then Multiple Regions is a theory of sex. The theory proposes that Homo erectus was not conquered. Rather, once Homo erectus left Africa 1.4 million years ago, it kept evolving on migration lines between Asia and Africa (and possibly Australia). Interbreeding among nomadic tribes kept most of the different groups on a relatively constant evolutionary track and ensured they remained the same species.

Most proponents of the Multiple-Regions theory argue that the Neanderthals in Eurasia and the Hobbit in Indonesia were not unique species of hominid and therefore must have contributed DNA to modern Homo sapiens. However, testing of modern Europeans has found no evidence of Neandathal DNA. Hobbit DNA is yet to be tested. Although Homo sapiens and Neanderthals could have had sex, they might not have been able to produce offspring or their offspring may have been sterile.

Even if Neanderthals and the Hobbit were unique species, that does not mean that Multi-Regions theory is disproved. Perhaps the two species evolved independently because they were not on the Homo erectus migration routes. The Neanderthals evolved independently because they were an ice age people living in caves. Ice age Eurasia was just too inhospitable for nomadic Homo erectus. Likewise, in the Indonesian archipelago, the ancestor of the Hobbit may have been cut off from migration routes due to changes in sea levels or volcanic activity. Consequently, they also become a unique species of hominid.

Aside from the Neanderthals and the Hobbits, all other Homo erectus keep migrating, keep breeding and kept evolving on a constant track. Eventually they evolved into Homo sapiens.

At some stage in the last 850,000 years (or longer), either Homo erectus or Homo sapiens made the crossing from Java to Australia. These hominids were the ancestors of Mungo Man. It would not have been a difficult crossing to make. Rats are believed to have made the crossing 2 million years ago.

200,000 years ago, females from an African tribe started spreading their genes through the entire arc between Australia and Africa. This spreading of female genes could have occurred as a result of a nomadic African tribe emerging from Africa and breeding throughout Asia. It could also have occurred as a result of an Asian tribe going to Africa, and forcibly taking women back to Asia. (*Although evidence indicates that all humans might have had a female African ancestor 200,000 years ago, there is no evidence to show a male ancestor.)

Huh, we have no common male ancestor,

interesting.
It doesnt necesarily address human occupation of North America, but it discusses some very interesting aspects of early humanity and how they spread through south east asia and australasia, which preceeded any movement into north america by modern humans.
source\

continued



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks09

(*Although evidence indicates that all humans might have had a female African ancestor 200,000 years ago, there is no evidence to show a male ancestor.)

Huh, we have no common male ancestor,
interesting.


That statement is based on the fact that Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) is charted through the female lineage. Not to worry...men still matter.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
from before.
First off is the enigmatic Mungo Man from australia,
A very old well preserved skeleton of a man who was buried in a ritualistic fashion some 62k years ago.

In 1974, the discovery of Mungo Man turned the conventional theory of human evolution upside-down. Mungo Man was a human-like primate who is estimated to have died 62,000 years ago, and was ritually buried with his hands covering his penis. Anatomically, Mungo Man's bones were distinct from other human skeletons being unearthed in Australia. Unlike the younger skeletons that had big-brows and thick-skulls, Mungo Man's skeleton was finer, and more like modern humans.


And his mtDNA is unique


In a study conducted by Australian National University graduate student Greg Adcock and others in 1995[1], mitochondrial DNA was collected from bone fragments from Mungo Man's skeleton and analysed. The mtDNA was compared with samples taken from several other ancient Australian human skeletons, a Neanderthal mtDNA sequence, modern day living Australian Aborigines, and other living humans. The results showed that despite being anatomically within the range of fully-modern humans, Mungo Man was descended from a different direct maternal ancestor than the most recent common ancestor in the female line of all living humans, the so-called "Mitochondrial Eve". His mtDNA is not entirely extinct, however, as a segment of it is found inserted in nuclear chromosome 11 of many people today.

there is a counter argument

The results can be reconciled with the Out of Africa model, however, if the Mitochondrial Eve mtDNA type, and the Mungo Man mtDNA type were both spread from Africa, with one maternal line going extinct and one surviving to today. The time of the split between Mitochondrial Eve and Mungo Man's maternal ancestor must have been earlier than the date when the main wave of fully modern humans left Africa, about 50,000 - 60,000 years ago.

Since remains of a robust form of modern humans have been found in Ethiopia dating to about 160 ka, and similar remains have been dated at Jebel Qafzeh in Israel at about 100 ka, it is conceivable that Mungo Man's maternal ancestor left Africa in an early wave. Indeed, Schillaci has recently found morphological similarities among the crania of early humans of the Levant and those of Australasia [1].

The study by Adcock has been criticized by a study conducted by Chris Stringer. Adcock claimed to have found an exceptionally large amount of ancient DNA from the Mungo remains. This finding is inconsistent with other researchers who were searching for Neanderthal DNA. The study indicates that Ancient DNA is most likely preserved in cold environments such as those found in Europe. But even in the case of Neanderthal remains, the probability of extracting DNA is still low. The study further indicates that the likelihood of any DNA being preserved over the 40,000 - 60,000 years since the Mungo burial is very low. [2]

Both are valid arguments that will be reconciled at some point.

Evidently there is a distinct difference in skeletal morphology of early austrailians. Mungo man was of a much slighter build than the 15k year old people found at a place called kow swamp.


"The Kow Swamp people have thick brow ridges, very large faces and the biggest teeth that have ever existed in modern humans. And that creates a problem. They look ancient but at 10,000 years of age they’re much younger than the lightly built Mungo people."


You know there is a tribe that is all but extinct in the highlands of papua/new guinea that fits that description.

A little about the kow swamp people.
www.canovan.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.canovan.com...

who were these people and what do they say about our history in pleistocene.

From a fascinating paper on the Kow swamp people


Kow Swamp is the site of the largest known single population of late Pleistocene humans in the world (Flood, 1999). The site is a palaeolake on
the margin of the floodplain of the Murray River in northern Victoria (Fig. 1). In 1925, a human cranium was unearthed from levee deposits close
to the northwestern shore of the palaeolake
(Macintosh, 1953; Macumber & Thorne, 1975).
It displayed robust physical characteristics that at first suggested links to early hominid finds in Java (Macintosh, 1952).
This discovery was followed by the 1968–1972 excavation of some forty individuals on the eastern shore of Kow Swamp with similar ‘archaic’ traits (Thorne & Macumber,1972).

14C dating of bone apatite, shell and charcoal fragments suggested that the Kow Swamp people lived 15–9 ka ago.
(Thorne & Macumber,1972; Thorne, 1975; Wright, 1975; Macumber, 1977)
Various theories have been promoted to explain the robusticity of the Kow Swamp people and in particular their relationship to the more gracile, yet older, late Pleistocene people recorded at Lake Mungo. (Bowler et al., 1972; Bowler & Thorne, 1976)
One is that robust forms were descended from earlier Indonesian forms and interbred with the gracile type to produce modern Aboriginal
people (Thorne, 1971).
Others include sexual dimorphism (Pardoe, 1991), environmental stress
(Wright, 1976) and cranial deformation (Brown, 1981; Anto´n & Weinstein, 1999).
Mitochondrial DNA sequences now show that most robust and gracile individuals are within a clade that includes living Aborigines (Adcock et al., 2001; cf. Cooper et al., 2001).
The mtDNA of the Kow Swamp people is conserved in modern lineages but their distinct robust morphology is not.

This is real science, the source.

Well isnt that interesting, a pretty good argument for at least two distinct types of modern humans, and if both of these people are sundadonts then its three distinct types of humans.
How does all of this down under stuff relate? youll might ask.
It says a lot about who was wandering around the planet at the time frame we are discussing in NA.
It also adress an important issue to the population of NA, there is that certyainty that humans used boats to get to autrailia as far back as 17k to 50k years ago and homo erectus some sort of water contrivance to cross stretches of open shark infested waters to reach indonesia.
more to be continued



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Im aware that mtDNA is only passed down maternaly, but his cellular dna has doesnt appear in any male population from what I understand.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyBare

just to catch you up the argument is about a polyphylogenetic evolution model... basically did we have co evolution occurring in both old and new worlds at the same time??? in truth we don't know... thanks to a very incomplete fossil record... but that's nature for ya....


Just to catch you up on the situation .... (she says with an Evyl Gryn (tm)) I work in a museum paleontology lab.

So... I know a bit about fossils and evolution and environments. I sit around and yack about it with the scientists and the curators and the other preparators, and they give me copies of papers (some of it is almost unreadable because it's so heavily technical.)

The huge sauropod I'm working on is a contested evolutionary creature. I see a lot of fossils, and since we're a research facility, I see a lot of unusual things and a number of transitional forms.

Convergent evolution is something that is well known and demonstrated en.wikipedia.org...

Polyphylogenic evolution would create a creature that is so different from the other similar one (in terms of many million years, we're talking about a different genus and species and possibly even a different family) that they could not interbreed. An example is the Indian and African elephant.

In addition, the lemurs are not really direct hominid ancestors; they branch off our lineage very far in the past.

So how do we know when we've got a case of this?

First, you see the fossil ancestor surviving and spawning new species (that's an immediate "fail" for the lemur in the Americas -- unlike Procounsol and others in the human lineage).

Second, you see the species of that type becoming a dominant force on the landscape (hadrosaurs and small pachyrhynosaurus in Alaska, for instance (this is new research material I'm mentioning)).

Third, you see encephalization in these new species; bigger brain size, and if you want a humanoid, changes to the hands and spine and position of the skull. Advanced technology is only possible with opposing thumbs; in humans, our thumbs are much higher along the hand than other primates.

Fourth, you see environmental impact. Successful species take over their niche and change things in the landscape (forget the "nature in perfect harmony" idea; that's a Romantic Era (France, 1700) concept.) They "out compete" less successful species.

We don't see this.

The migration of the small primates cited took place when the Earth had a very different shape and placement of the continents. In the New World, primates don't actually become well established until the Oligocene (34 million years ago)... BEFORE the huge evolutionary jumps in primate development that take place (24 million years ago) in Africa.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks09
Ok,

im going to throw a wrench in the works,

I found a fascinating discussion on "the out of africa" theory vs. a multi regional hypothosis of modern human development as it pertains to the population of australia.


Actually, "out of Africa" occurs with homo erectus and gives rise to homo habilis, homo neanderthalis, homo heidelbergensis and several other cousins of homo sapiens as well as the hobbit. Australians belong to the homo sapiens species.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Byrd Not all primates are in the human lineage. There are many which aren't. The New World Teilhardina are more closely related to marmosets: en.wikipedia.org...


Hence my remark..."Ain't science fun" Thank you once again, Byrd, for applying cutting edge Anthro to a subject so filled with vagaries and idle conjecture.

65K? Once the 12.5k floodgates opened, so much became possible! If only you were a pro on Lake Ontario Iroquois as well...sigh.


Well, I *COULD* be if they'd ask me and give me permission! I adore studying things like that.

There's a couple of time periods when we get huge evolutionary diversification and ..."progress". Some occur in the wake of the Great Extinctions, but there's a jump in the hominid timeline about 24 million years ago. I haven't looked into it closely to see what was going on in the environment and who was going extinct then, but one of the things that was going on was the separation of the South American continent with Africa.

We were talking about this in the lab today, but Dr. Ron The Paleontologist was busy with his skull and I wanted to finish up the section I was working on, and we didn't go hunt books to look it up.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
This will be of interest to you Bryd, and any insight you might be able to share would be much appreciated.

More on early australians.
The bradshaws paintings are evidence that there was well developed culture in northern australia.
The paintings depict people with hair styles and clothing amongst other things in a style very different from that of the later aboriginals.

"The Bradshaw Paintings are incredibly sophisticated, yet they are not recent creations but originate from an unknown past period which some suggest could have been 50,000 years ago." Peter Robinson, Project Controller of the Bradshaw Foundation.

In northern Australia, a mysterious form of rock art could legitimately be referred to as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Known as the Bradshaws, the art is dispersed in around 100 000 sites spread over 50 000 sq. km of nothern Australia. Although the art's pigment can't be dated, a fossilised wasp nest covering one of the paintings has been dated at 17,000 + years old. This makes the art at least four times older than the pyramids of Egypt. It also makes the art a comparable age to the Grotte Chauvet paintings in France, which have been dated at 30,000-years-old. Although radio carbon dating was used to date the Grotte Chauvet pigments, the Bradshaw art can't be dated in the same way. Because the are so old, they have become part of the rock itself.

Aside from being extremely old, the Bradshaws are very significant to world history because instead of depicting animals, they depict highly decorated humans and relatively advanced technology. They show people with tassels, hair adornments, and possibly clothing. Such body adornments are usually only found in agricultural societies that have developed hierarchical systems of status. Another painting depicts a boat with 29 people on board. Another depicts a boat with four people on board, and a rudder.

The art is very different from that created by the hunter gatherers living in the area at the time of European colonisation. The hunter gatherer paintings are known as Wandjinas. Although the Wandjinas are like the Bradshaws in that they depict the human form, they are very different as the Wandijina's forms are simply replicated over and over, they lack fine detail in line construction, and they lack the use of hieroglyphic-style symbols.


Holy Moley, a painting of a boat with 29 people on board and it HAS A RUDDER, that is at least 17k years old.

A bradshaw rock painting



and a much later aboriginal wandjina painting



Where the people who painted the bradshaws the same people as the Kow swamp people.
Or were they later people who are thought to be the ancestors of modern aboriginals?
Either way it attests to a highly developed culture that had the ability for oceanic travel at least 17k years ago and possibly as long as 50k, my god they had rudders.
They would have been sundadonts as are all aboriginal austrailians, might they be the people to account for thsoe rare instances of sundadonty and australaisian charcteristics that have popped up in the new world.

Also could the

getting tired

It all relates to the question at hand, how long has man been in the new world?, and who exactly are we really descended from as a whole.

Mungo man is a link to the very earliest modern humans, and his physical description and characteristics make him very much like the san people of africa(bushmen), who are accepted to represent the earliest typical modern human that left africa and thier genetics back it up.
But then 45k years AFTER mungo come the very robust Kow swamp people, who are so robust in thier features they appear to be Homo E, but they are clearly not, are they a subspecies?
And seeing as how kow swamp DNA can be found in the modern aboriginal population they didnt dissapear, but the modern aboriginal didnt inheret their body type.
But mungo mans dna is no where to be found unless you look back 200k years, the same time the first modern humans show up in africa.
I remember reading that something that caucasians split from the earliest modern humans at least 100k years ago, and that asians split off from them somehwere between 40k and as late as just 7000 years ago.


Peter Brown (1999) evaluates three sites with early East Asian modern human skeletal remains (Liujiang, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China; Zhoukoudian's Upper Cave; and Minatogawa in Okinawa) dated to between 10,175 to 33,200 years ago, and finds lack of support for the conventional designation of skeletons from this period as "Proto-Mongoloid"; this would make Neolithic sites 5500 to 7000 years ago (e.g. Banpo) the oldest known Mongoloid remains in East Asia, younger than some in the Americas. He concludes that the origin of the Mongoloid phenotype remains unknown, and could even lie in the New World.[20]

WHOA HOLD ON THERE the possibility that modern asians are an of shoot of native americans. Could we be looking at the DNA trail the wrong way.

The article goes on to say abproto mongoloids.,

Dr. T. Tirado claims that "many experts" consider American Indians and East Asians to be descended from a "Proto-Mongoloid" population which existed as late as 12,000 years ago.
and


The physical features of the "Proto-Mongoloid" were characterized as, "a straight-haired type, medium in complexion, jaw protrusion, nose-breadth, and inclining probably to round-headedness".[34] Kanzō Umehara considers the Ainu and Ryukyuans to have "preserved their proto-Mongoloid traits".


The ainu and rykuyuans are descended from the proto mongoloid people of asia more than 12k years ago. And that those people have a relation ship with the jomon and the jomon with australians. There is even speculation that it was the jomon settled NA.
continued



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd


Actually, "out of Africa" occurs with homo erectus and gives rise to homo habilis, homo neanderthalis, homo heidelbergensis and several other cousins of homo sapiens as well as the hobbit. Australians belong to the homo sapiens species.

Not exactly so,
The Out of Africa theory im talkin about states that all modern humans can trace their ancestry to an african female around 200k years ago. Which genetic studies bare out.
Not to be confused with the out of africa theory that states all homonids can trace their lineage to africa.
And of course I aware that modern australians are Hs. come on give me some credit. When you get the time read the really good paper on
Kow swamp and its people, and how they are very different from the earlier mungo man and the latter early australasians.
These same australasian whom might have given rise to the peoples of the americas and asia.




[edit on 30-5-2009 by punkinworks09]

[edit on 30-5-2009 by punkinworks09]

[edit on 30-5-2009 by punkinworks09]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,


Not all primates are in the human lineage.


SC: But the question does not actually relate to human lineage but to some other intelligent hominid species that evolved independently and which, subsequently, became extinct along with all other hominid species.

Regards,

Scott Creighton


Uhm... are you using some definition of "hominid" that is outside the standard definitions?


A primate of the family Hominidae, of which Homo sapiens is the only extant species.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

The oldest member of the family is 7 million years old (way younger than the fossils you point to), and after the great evolutionary divergence in the primate line. en.wikipedia.org...

Homonoidia (the superfamily) is a bit older (about 15 million years old); the Pongidae (gorillas and chimps) diverge from the line at different points. True Hominids arise around 7 million years ago.

Other primates are not hominids and do not converge or develop traits common to the hominids.

So no. If it's a hominid, then it came from a lineage that is 7 million years old. Everything else is a pre-hominid or not-a-hominid. The things you're pointing at are not-a-hominid and won't-ever-become-hominids-even-by-parallel-evolution.



I would be glad to belabor the point with a lot more detailed information (if you reeeeeeallllly need to understand the difference between a hominid and a primate -- but I suspect you've got the point now.) Anyway, it's late and I don't feel like going into a huge science lecture on fossils and taxa. I think everyone will forgive me if I quit being science-y and go off to dreamland!



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks09
The Out of Africa theory im talkin about states that all modern humans can trace their ancestry to an african female around 200k years ago. Which genetic studies bare out.


Yes, we're talking about the same theory.


When you get the time read the really good paper on
Kow swamp and its people, and how they are very different from the earlier mungo man and the latter early australasians.
These same australasian whom might have given rise to the peoples of the americas and asia.


I've read a couple of papers on them. (For those of you not familiar with them, they're homo sapiens from Australia who did practice cranial deformation. They were part of a huge argument with Creationists... ehh... I won't go into the whole thing here, but there's a nice Q&A where the points are addressed on talkorigins. I'm sure Punkin knows this one, but for everyone else here's a link: www.talkorigins.org... )



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,


Byrd: So no. If it's a hominid, then it came from a lineage that is 7 million years old.


SC: Yes, I know this but it is not actually the argument I am making.

So, back to basics. We are told this is the "picture" of evolution (monophylogenetic):



Can you explain why this "picture" (below) of evolution (polyphylogenetic) isn't possible:



(MODS Please Note: Images from my own web site.)

Much obliged, Byrd.

Regards,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 30/5/2009 by Scott Creighton]

[edit on 30/5/2009 by Scott Creighton]





new topics
 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join