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.

 

Neither Neanderthal nor sapiens: new human relative discovered

page: 1
14

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Neither Neanderthal nor sapiens: new human relative discovered


arstechnica.com

At a press conference yesterday, researchers announced the completely unexpected: a Siberian cave has yielded evidence of an entirely unknown human relative that appears to have shared Asia with both modern humans and Neanderthals less than 50,000 years ago. The find comes courtesy of a single bone from individual's hand.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.nature.com




posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

The authors also briefly touched on a separate issue: this ability will be unevenly distributed in space and time. DNA simply lasts longer in cool climates, as evidenced by the recent announcement that DNA had been obtained from a polar bear sample that was over 100,000 years old. So, any species that was stuck near the equator—like the hobbits—are unlikely to be in on the DNA revolution. This is especially unfortunate given the fact that, as noted above, a lot of the most interesting action in hominin origins seem to have been taking place in Africa.


Very, very interesting revolution in identifying bones based on actual DNA evidence. It's a pity that it's of no use near the equator, but still amazing.

One can only imagine how interesting it would be to apply this technique to some of the stranger remains found in China and much of northern Asia!

arstechnica.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Awesome find
So now we are up to four different species of hominin existing. AND two of them are recent discoveries? I bet that bone fragment will be disputed. Its unfortunate that they only found a bone fragment. Id like to know more then just this tease of evidence.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Great find! Thank you. S&F.

...I can hardly wait to see what else is in our family tree.

Ain't evolution wonderful?!?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
The modern theory is build on false findings, and rejection of information that might conflict with the story they have "founded" god forbid anyone "one up them" as seen here The-Origins-of-Man--Problems-with-the-Evidence

and continued here The-Origins-of-Man--Problems-with-the-Evidence pt2

another good video is this one here


Very very interesting videos, the second one not so much on the history of humans, but just to show that information is not taken lightly that interferes with the common paradigms, they go into Civilizations that existed 10,000 years ago when science today tells us that civilization never existed then.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
read this attentively
www.scribd.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
right now the bone is from whats known as the Denisova Lineage

modern Humans & Neanderthals were closer to one another, than this Denisova branch was to either...

would this be the root of the ancient alien/demon myths?

Or was it just a primal creature which lived in caves, or was it buried, or dragged in as a meal by a predator?

Web bot didn't signal this find, nor did any psychics



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I always knew Putin wasn't human
All jokes aside this is pretty damn cool
I wonder how prolific this variation was? S+F OP
I can't add anything on an intellectual level as this isn't my area of expertisehowever, I always love reading about finds like this...who knows maybe bigfoot is next



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I've always thought that as soon as Homo sapiens started conquering the planet we started killing every other type of Homo species. They walked around like us, but were not as smart as us verbally and technologically. We invaded their land and killed them because they were different.

The only close relatives we have left are chimpanzees, gorillas, and other types of monkeys. Chimps and monkeys live high in the trees of the jungle and don't walk on two legs like us, so we didn't eradicate them because they were hard to get. Gorillas live deep in the jungle, so they would be hard to kill because of their cover from the plants and their size could withstand our primitive weapons.

Anyway, interesting find!



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tooo many pills
I've always thought that as soon as Homo sapiens started conquering the planet we started killing every other type of Homo species. They walked around like us, but were not as smart as us verbally and technologically. We invaded their land and killed them because they were different.

...



Hmm. I always thought we were some kind of un-cooperative mutant doomed to extinction. Meaning successful species live harmoniously and cooperatively with other species and the earth - just not homo sapiens sapiens.




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by D.E.M.
 



Dr. TATTERSALL: Yeah, Ardipithecus, of course, is the subject of great debate, and whatever it is, it seems to be really sort of an outlier in human evolution. And of course, it's four million years old and represents a very early stage in the history of the human family. This specimen, being only about 40,000 years old, plus or minus, represents a much more recent relative of ours, and it's very it's very tantalizing because it's distinct from Homo sapiens, and yet, clearly, it's not in the region today. The same thing happened in Europe where the Neanderthals, Homo sapiens comes in right around that time, 40,000 years ago, and pretty soon, the Neanderthals are gone. And the same thing happening also in Eastern Asia with Homo erectus that had been there for a long, long time - last date is around 40,000 years ago -and after that, only Homo sapiens. So there's a sort of a pattern developing here.



The pattern appears to show the "sapiens" are killers.

Maybe (rendering benefit of the doubt) "sapiens" were new or foreign creatures and brought virus's to the existing indigenous species?

I can't imagine all these precursors to humans would die off so abruptly without some kind of help. Perhaps an adversity which the "sapiens" brought? Some external or environmental factor that the sapiens alone could endure or adapt to while the same factor extinguished the other primates?

With our biology so similar - what could account for this?
Not weather. You would migrate. If ducks are smart enough to escape the cold I imagine our ancestors were too.

However, given the barbarous nature of man (think senseless violence, guns, meat, dog fights, bullfighting, ultimate fighting, the crusades, the coliseums)
I am far more inclined to think sapiens killed everyone else off, in their quest for domination.

Maybe only remote tribes remain in the Congo (getting systematically brutally ferreted out today) www.abovetopsecret.com... remain alive to tell us our origins on the "homo" side of the family.

There are many locations discovered where groups of human skulls are uncovered. This is supporting that sacrifice or slaughter appeared to be a habit of the surviving, (and eventually reining) primate.








[edit on 28-3-2010 by rusethorcain]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Why did the other species vanish when the "sapiens" appeared on the scene?
I need a credible answer that doesn't include bad weather....anyone?



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by hangedman13
 


No there are far more than 4.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
This is premature.

Again, they are making sweeping statements based on mtDNA.

Do they KNOW that none of the human mtDNA lines died out?

No, they do not.

Assuming that ALL mtDNA lines have modern children is logically unsound.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


We killed them.

^^



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


Exactly! That is what I thought.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


Yea, and what I said before you.


Not that it matters you brought up some good points and information.




posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain
Why did the other species vanish when the "sapiens" appeared on the scene?
I need a credible answer that doesn't include bad weather....anyone?


Maybe an early Adolf that had enough of uglies using his resources



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
[edit on 30-3-2010 by GW8UK]



new topics

top topics



 
14

log in

join