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.
Not true. There is an obvious and very gradual progression in skeletal morphology even within the skeletons of H. sapiens
itself, without even
considering older archaic species (but, yes, the progression can be continued back to much earlier ancestral species). I have seen (some of) these
documentaries as well and in my opinion they are often largely thinly-veiled anti-evolutionist material. The evidence is there for anyone to see (if
you care to see I can make a larger post with photos and whatnot).
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.
Evolution is not slow and predictable in many cases. Due to environmental factors, it often progresses in what is known as
. AMHs appear to have evolved 'quickly' because of a couple of
major genetic bottlenecks in the more recent (geologically-speaking) past, which caused speciation to accelerate (see the
in which modern humans were reduced to as few as 10,000
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.
Also not true. Modern Homo sapiens
robust than almost all of the archaic species, with the exception of Neanderthals.
Physiologically, we are much more prepared for a changing and diverse environment than most of the ancestral species. Also, the Neanderthal ribcage
is not like that of a chimp. See here:
This image shows a Neanderthal skeleton (left) and Homo sapiens
(right) side-by-side for comparison. You can see that the Neanderthal rib cage
is more flared, implying a more 'barrel-chested' appearance, however this is found amongst living humans as well, especially those who live in very
cold environments. The stocky body type of the Neanderthal matches very well with the bodies of cold-adapted humans, such as the Inuit, and it is
clear that their (Neanderthals') environment was exceptionally cold, so the adaptations make sense.
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???
We are not descended from Neanderthals. That is widely accepted. They are an evolutionary 'cousin', and both they and we are descended from H.
, probably by way of one or more intermediary species such as Homo heidelbergensis
. Up until very recently (2010), it was believed
that Neaderthals were a completely distinct species and that cross-breeding would have been impossible. New molecular evidence suggests that at least
some interbreeding with AMHs did in fact occur and there is a small percentage of the Neanderthal genome surviving in living humans today. But they
are not ancestral to us. They most likely came from a population of H. heidelbergensis
that was cut off from Asia Minor and 'trapped' in
Europe by advancing glaciers and evolved along its own line while AMHs were evolving in Africa/Asia Minor at the same time.
edit on 27-2-2011
by ArchaeologyUnderground because: Trying to get picture to insert