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.
Originally posted by Byrd
I think evidence suggests that popular culture is at fault for portraying them as "brutish" and that scientists are not at all in agreement with popular culture's concept of them as stupid apes.
A geneticist from the University of Chicago examined Oliver's chromosomes in 1996 and revealed that Oliver had forty-eight, not forty-seven, chromosomes, thus disproving the earlier claim that he did not have a normal chromosome count for a chimpanzee. Oliver's cranial morphology, ear shape, freckles and baldness fall within the range of variability exhibited by the Common Chimpanzee. Scientists performed further studies with Oliver, the results of which were published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
Originally posted by ArchaeologyUnderground
reply to post by Wolfenz
Well, Oliver is simply an unusual (but genetically regular) chimpanzee.
From the Wikipedia page you linked to:
A geneticist from the University of Chicago examined Oliver's chromosomes in 1996 and revealed that Oliver had forty-eight, not forty-seven, chromosomes, thus disproving the earlier claim that he did not have a normal chromosome count for a chimpanzee. Oliver's cranial morphology, ear shape, freckles and baldness fall within the range of variability exhibited by the Common Chimpanzee. Scientists performed further studies with Oliver, the results of which were published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
As for Julia Pastrana, I honestly don't know. I actually wasn't overly familiar with her case and I'd have to look into it further. The facial prognathism is definitely the interesting aspect, IMO. She does have some unusual physiology that appears somewhat similar to earlier human ancestral species, but I'd have to see her skull to say for sure. I suspect that she simply has hypertrichosis and happens to fall within the extreme end of the scale for AMH (anatomically modern human) prognathism, although I do admit that I'm intrigued and will look into this further.
Originally posted by tim3lord
reply to post by SLAYER69
i have seen a few documentaries about human skeletal remains dating back through the ages starting from the earliest form of upright walking hominids to Homo sapiens sapiens and the speaker giving the lecture i cant remember the doco or the speakers name was trying to demonstrate the glaring differences between modern man and all other archeological skeletal findings.
basically when compared side by side even there is no was given the time frame that the Homo sapiens sapiens skeletal structure could have changed as much as it did in the time frame they say it did. basically the documentary was alluding that neanderthal man is the natural decedent of the first upright hominids and that the so called missing link cannot exist because from all other skeletal evidence that people have uncovered the steady progression of evolution is slow and predictable. EXCEPT when it comes to modern man.
to draw comparisons our skeletal structure is smaller and weaker. and even our rib cages are rounder where as all neanderthal rib cages are more "A" shaped exactly like that of a chimp.
now since modern man or at least homo sapiens lived and competed with neanderthal man it certainly begs the question who or what are we descended from if not from homo erectus???
It appears that the overgrowth of her gum and alveolar process was responsible for her prognathism and what is despribed as simian appearance.
Originally posted by WolfenzThe protrusion of her Forehead Jaw and Maxilla The Wide Nose, Wide Nostrils Large Ears Eye's (LID) the Resembles a Chimpanzee /Bonaboo from what i have seen of Authentic Pictures
of her (not the Paintings ) and The Teeth, Large Teeth! all Signs of a Hominid or Neanderthal
Originally posted by Tephra
There is no such thing as progressive evolution, it makes no sense whatsoever. Interbreeding is one factor in diversity of species, however evolution as Darwin portrayed it, was a complete farce.
Originally posted by Tephra
reply to post by ArchaeologyUnderground
I already did, however someone posted a big picture of a cute asian girl right after, so naturally no one ever read the post.
Evolution doesn't have anything to do with everyday survival, species don't evolve over time.
Darwin's theories weren't bad, but unfortunately he was seriously mistaken. Have you ever heard the expression, What good is half a leg, half a fin, half a wing, etc?
The idea that a species living in the ocean slowly developed the capacities to walk on land over a million years is actually in total contradiction of survival of the fittest.
The reality of evolution is that it's murderous, it's extinction, it's brutal mutation.
The reason there isn't any transitional animals in the fossil record, is because there aren't any.
Evolution is driven by solar radiation bombardment. It's the brutal reality of the extinction, evolution cycle.