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 Ghostinshell
Good job, This meshes with what I have read and researched on my own. I would add, that environmental effects
where more than likely pretty huge back then. simple things, like lack of rain, or anything would cause the "tribes" to move until the found more fertile grounds. .
I would also hazard a guess that they followed "game" trails, and other things. during the ICE age, this was probley
really important, and the "mixing" of the "races" where probably at the high point....
Originally posted by tim3lord
reply to post by SLAYER69
first off a quality OP from you as always. i'll save on too much praise and just say i wish every post on here mine included were as well presented and unbiased as yours. now to the topic at hand.
i know people are going to roll their eyes in regards to what im about to say but i only ask that the information is allowed to be digested before it is rejected.
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???
Originally posted by SLAYER69
I wonder if some have thought of looking along other ancient "River locations" which are now dead dry river valleys or river valleys that are now submerged.
Originally posted by Logestar
reply to post by SLAYER69
Great thread. Only glaring mistake I noticed, and it's not just you slayer, is you use of the word "hominid." H
The correct term for anatomically moden humans and our ancestors would be hominin. Hominid are apes, monkeys and prosimians. This is a recent change in terminology. Yes I am an anthropologist.
Originally posted by FIFIGI
Humans were androgynous in between 70-120 thousand years ago - there was just one gender. Right?
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
While their descendants certainly became close intimates, Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve are separated by tens of thousands of years.
How does that fit into your picture?
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Could ancient man have felt the same way?
I have a hard time with the idea of Ancient man "Breeding human stock"
Originally posted by MITSwagger
reply to post by SLAYER69
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Could ancient man have felt the same way?
I have a hard time with the idea of Ancient man "Breeding human stock"
Female chimpanzees will often, when two seperate family groups pass close by one another, slip off and engage a willing male from the other group in 'illicit sex'.
Originally posted by Versa
plenty of evidence for humans doing this too, monogamy seems to present some difficulties for humans.
Sex at Dawn shows how far from human nature sexual monogamy really is and unapologetically upends unwarranted assumptions and unfounded conclusions while offering a revolutionary understanding of why we live and love as we do.
Originally posted by Wolfenz
For all you Professionals in Biology (Genetics) & Anthropology in a University Level
So is there any Thoughts Opinions Theories About Julia Pastrana and Oliver The Chimp
The 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
in the case for Oliver His Chromosome Mapping is Slightly Different then a Regular Chimp
as some Scientist believe that Oliver might be a new Breed
if that is the case will soon see walking upright Apes in the Jungle