Becoming Human

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
We,as humans,may have had an earlier history than previously thought.
We may have left our birth place of Africa much,much earlier.
So,what does that say about our species and what we could achieve?
I think alot,that we may have achieved more,earlier than previously thought.


In "Birth of Humanity," the second part of the three-part series "Becoming Human," NOVA investigates the first skeleton that really looks like us–"Turkana Boy"–an astonishingly complete specimen of Homo erectus found by the famous Leakey team in Kenya. These early humans are thought to have developed key innovations that helped them thrive, including hunting large prey, the use of fire, and extensive social bonds. The program examines an intriguing theory that long-distance running–our ability to jog–was crucial for the survival of these early hominids. Not only did running help them escape from vicious predators roaming the grasslands, but it also gave them a unique hunting strategy: chasing down prey animals such as deer and antelope to the point of exhaustion. "Birth of Humanity" also probes how, why, and when humans' uniquely long period of childhood and parenting began.



www.pbs.org...


Turkana Boy, also occasionally, Nariokotome Boy is the common name of fossil KNM-WT 15000,[1] a nearly complete skeleton of a hominid who died in the early Pleistocene. This specimen is the most complete early human skeleton ever found. It is 1.5 million years old.[2] Turkana Boy is classified as either Homo erectus or Homo ergaster. His age has been estimated from as old as 15 years to as young as 7 years six months. The most recent scientific review suggests 8 years of age.[3] It was initially suggested that he would have grown into 1.85 m tall adult but the most recent analysis argues for the much shorter stature of 1.63 m.[3] The reason for this shift has been research showing that his growth maturation differed from that of modern humans in that he would have had a shorter and smaller adolescent growth spurt.[3] The skeleton was discovered in 1984 by Kamoya Kimeu, a member of a team led by Richard Leakey, at Nariokotome near Lake Turkana in Kenya.[4


en.wikipedia.org...

And we were making tools earlier than thought.
Evidence of tool making 1.8 million years ago.

A new study suggests that Homo erectus, a precursor to modern humans, was using advanced toolmaking methods in East Africa 1.8 million years ago, at least 300,000 years earlier than previously thought. The study, published this week in Nature, raises new questions about where these tall and slender early humans originated and how they developed sophisticated tool-making technology


www.physorg.com...

We have been around longer and were more advanced than previously thought.
So what civilizations ,if any civilizations were built before recorded history that we don't know about.

If homo erectus was possibly using rafts,what were the possibilities of homo sapiens of the past?


Homo ergaster used more diverse and sophisticated stone tools than its predecessors: H. erectus, however, used comparatively primitive tools. This is possibly because H. ergaster first used tools of Oldowan technology and later progressed to the Acheulean:[23] while the use of Acheulean tools began ca. 1.6 million years ago, the line of H. erectus diverged some 200,000 years before the general innovation of Acheulean technology. Thus the Asian migratory descendants of H. ergaster made no use of any Acheulean technology. In addition, it has been suggested that H. erectus may have been the first hominid to use rafts to travel over oceans.[24]


en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Another study done,was that we became hairless much earlier than believed.
It has to do with hair lice and pubic lice.
Two different species of lice and the split was about 3 million years ago.


There are two species of lice that infest humans: pubic lice, Pthirus pubis, and human head and body lice, Pediculus humanus. A new article suggests one explanation for the separation of the two species. See Also: Plants & Animals Apes Evolutionary Biology Nature Fossils & Ruins Early Humans Cultures Human Evolution Reference Louse Crab Hominidae Homo (genus) In the article, Robert Weiss from University College London describes how he was struck by inspiration while pondering the question of why lice would separate into two groups when our ancestors are quite uniformly hairy, "I was having difficulty envisioning a clear separation of habitats between the groin and other parts of our ancient common ancestor. My 'eureka moment' came, appropriately enough, in the shower: although naked apes have pubic hair, surely our hairy cousins don't?" Pthirus pubis, popularly known as crabs, evolved from the structurally similar gorilla louse, Pthirus gorillae. Interestingly however, while genetic analysis carried out by David Reed at the University of Florida indicates that this split occurred around 3.3 million years ago, humans are believed to have diverged from gorillas much earlier - at least 7 million years ago - suggesting that early humans somehow caught pubic lice from their gorilla cousins. Happily, this may not be as sordid as it sounds. According to Weiss, "Before one conjures up a King Kong scenario, it should be noted that predators can pick up parasites from their prey. The close contact involved in human ancestors butchering gorillas could have enabled Pthirus to jump hosts, rather as bushmeat slaughter practices allowed HIV to invade humans from chimpanzees in modern times

www.sciencedaily.com...

And so maybe we got the crabs from gorillas.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Great thread, it's always nice to learn more about our history and roots. What I don't understand though is if humans were chasing animals until they were exhausted, how would we track them when they are much faster at running than we are?



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigBruddah
Great thread, it's always nice to learn more about our history and roots. What I don't understand though is if humans were chasing animals until they were exhausted, how would we track them when they are much faster at running than we are?

There was an example shown on the show with bushmen on how they still do it.
They know how to track.They would follow the prey,and when the prey would stop,they would chase it a little,and kept it up for 4 hours,til the prey was basically in heat exhaustion,and with the prey,like an antelope,just standing there without being able to move,they would just throw some spears at it till it fell.
Pretty simple and effective.
Humans could outlast the prey because we handled the heat more efficiently by sweating.
We were designed for endurance,they were designed for a quick get away.
edit on 31-8-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
what is a human being look up blacks law book 1933 edition .shows what tptb think of us BEASTS THAT AINT FIT TO OWN PROPERTY .god save the queen shes not a human being sex pistols . getting of track there a french outfit found MACHINE MARKS on the great pyramid drill holes etc its noy discussed much if ever history is a lie as we know it mushrooms are not the only thing kept in the dark & fed on #



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


The domestication of Wolves to Dogs has also been found to be earlier.

Archaeological evidence goes back about 14 000 years.

But DNA evidence goes back 60 - 100 000 years.

UCLA Link



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BritofTexas
reply to post by kdog1982
 


The domestication of Wolves to Dogs has also been found to be earlier.

Archaeological evidence goes back about 14 000 years.

But DNA evidence goes back 60 - 100 000 years.

UCLA Link


Thanks for that BritofTexas.
It seems more and more evidence is turning up to support they theory that the human race is much older and more advanced to previously thought.
I'm post a quote vfrom that article.


Dogs have ancient origins, dating back perhaps 100,000 years or more -- much older than scientists had thought, UCLA scientists and colleagues found. While many scientists believed, based on archaeological records, that domestic dogs dated back only 14,000 years, molecular genetic techniques reported in the June 13 issue of the journal Science show that man's best friend is much older. The new research also confirms that dogs evolved from wolves. "Our data show that the origin of dogs seems to be much more ancient than indicated in the archaeological record," said Robert K. Wayne, UCLA associate professor of biology. "The origin of dogs dates well before the development of agricultural population centers that occurred approximately 10,000-14,000 years ago, and goes back to hunter-gatherer societies. While many people think a high level of sophistication was required to domesticate wild mammals, our data imply that very primitive societies may have had domestic animals." Scientists believe from archaeological records that many domestic animals, including cats and cattle, originated within the last 14,000 years. Cats may have been domesticated as recently as 7,000 years ago, Wayne said. Wayne noted that his techniques do not enable exact dates to be determined for dogs. "Because of the extrapolation involved in the calculations, it's possible that the first dog dates back 60,000 years, or perhaps more than 100,000 years," he said.


newsroom.ucla.edu...



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Here's another link to the University of Florida on clothes lice.

It suggests we started wearing clothes about 170 000 years ago.

University of Florida News

I was toying with the idea of starting a thread on it but never did.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by BritofTexas
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Here's another link to the University of Florida on clothes lice.

It suggests we started wearing clothes about 170 000 years ago.

University of Florida News

I was toying with the idea of starting a thread on it but never did.


Thanks for that info!
I'm thinking maybe they, humanoids, started wearing clothes earlier as they had lost their body hair and started moving north to colder climates.

Stone tools played an important role in human evolution and one of the most significant stone technologies was the Acheulean, distinguished by the tools' characteristic tear drop and oval shaped handaxes. This technology, named for the place in France where some of the first examples were found in the 19th century, was thought to have originated around 1.4 million years ago (ma).


1.4 million years ago in France!

www.becominghuman.org...
edit on 1-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Some other things to ponder on,did homo erectus adapt to the cold or did they learn to protect themselves from the cold?

"There is evidence that Homo erectus had physically adapted to the cold, but they probably also had to be doing something in terms of behavior to handle the cold of a glacial period in northern China," she said. "There isn't good evidence of fire or any kind of skins or clothing, but evidence of such things doesn't last long and wouldn't be recorded particularly well in the archeological record. It doesn't mean they didn't have them, but we don't have a definitive answer.


And ,at that time what kind of alteration,or mutation could have occurred that that produced homo sapiens?

How old are the homo sapiens?

A dating method developed by a Purdue University researcher allowed a more accurate determination of the age of the Zhoukoudian, China, site of remains of Homo erectus, commonly known as "Peking Man." The site was found to be 680,000-780,000 years old. Earlier estimates put the age at 230,000-500,000 years old.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I'm really beginning to think the homo sapiens were a horny lot.


TextIt is now widely accepted that the species Homo sapiens originated in Africa and eventually spread throughout the world. But did those early humans interbreed with more ancestral forms of the genus Homo, for example Homo erectus, the "upright walking man," Homo habilis, – the "tool-using man" or Homo neanderthalensis, the first artists of cave-painting fame?


www.physorg.com...

I mean.we got the"crabs" from gorillas.
edit on 5-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kdog1982
We,as humans,may have had an earlier history than previously thought.


Scientists have known this for quite some time, but you wouldn't know it if you don't study paleontology and archaeology and anthropology. History books start about 6,000 years ago but humans have been around for almost a million years and "other species of humans" (homo erectus, australopithecus, etc) have been here for 2-3 million years. Erectus had "factories" where they manufactured stone tool cores (a site where everyone went and hammered off less desirable pieces of rock and took the cores back home to make tools as needed.

So we know they understood about the properties of stone and so forth.

Evidence is hard to come by and very scarce, but there's a lot we know about them. You just don't hear about it unless you hang out with certain groups.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by kdog1982
We,as humans,may have had an earlier history than previously thought.


Scientists have known this for quite some time, but you wouldn't know it if you don't study paleontology and archaeology and anthropology. History books start about 6,000 years ago but humans have been around for almost a million years and "other species of humans" (homo erectus, australopithecus, etc) have been here for 2-3 million years. Erectus had "factories" where they manufactured stone tool cores (a site where everyone went and hammered off less desirable pieces of rock and took the cores back home to make tools as needed.

So we know they understood about the properties of stone and so forth.

Evidence is hard to come by and very scarce, but there's a lot we know about them. You just don't hear about it unless you hang out with certain groups.


Very interesting that homo erectus had "factories" for producing stone tool cores.
There is alot that us common folk don't have privy to such info,and my question is,why?
Because we don't care to know how far back our ancestors go.
What is here and now is good enough.
Until something happens and we have to start all over again.
I really feel there has been so much info lost,with the gains in our technology today.
I really hunger for this info,not for it really sparking my interests,but for the future of us all as humanity.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by kdog1982There is alot that us common folk don't have privy to such info,and my question is,why?

Many scorn -- or don't trust -- colleges (which is where you get this information) and many don't care to read books by scientists. The research is out there, and it's fascinating.

Although I can toss these tidbits off the top of my head, the truth is that it took a lot of years of learning some mental processes (like how to tell good research and how to "vet" statements.) In addition, you have to learn a lot of background information (pottery, some basic human physiology, a tiny bit of forensics, a bit of geology, etc) to get to the point where you can answer these questions. You have to learn how to look for "first sources" and how to verify that they may be genuine.

It also takes reading -- not listening or watching.

It's much easier to skip the reading, assume you have good knowledge, and then theorize.


I really hunger for this info,not for it really sparking my interests,but for the future of us all as humanity.

Honest answer: I don't think that looking in the past will help us in the future. Society is in a constant state of change (mathematically, it's a "chaotic system"... not meaning that everything is running rampant, but rather that we can't predict anything with 100% accuracy based on the facts we have. The weather is another chaotic system.) We have gone from a society where there were no complicated problems and everything had a "tame" answer (like: we need food for next week. We go hunt and gather roots and vegetables.) to a complex society with issues that simple societies couldn't deal with and with issues that change throughout time (like: what part should women play in the political process -- that went from tribal customs to "none at all" to "use them in marriage to buy votes and gain land" to "you might listen to a few of them but they're really outrageous and shouldn't be let loose on society" to "maybe give husbands advice" to "vote, but nothing else" to "run for political office" to "join senates and cabinets" to "govern nations.")

There is nothing that a tribal society (or even the Egyptians or Sumerians, with their highly ritualized and highly structured and rigid societies) could possibly tell us about how to handle issues such as racism, alcoholism, trade negotiations, technological theft, and the Internet society. Nor would we want their very restrictive society thrust on us with laws and customs that we no longer espouse (cutting off the hands of an accused thief -- and judgment without impartial juries and they only accepted testimony obtained by torturing (torturing the innocent as well as the accused.))

...but you'd only know that after you read quite a bit on them and learned about their laws and social structures.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
An addition,


In this case study in human origins, we explore how scientific evidence is being used to shape our current understanding of ourselves: What makes us human—and how did we get this way?


www.exploratorium.edu...#/tester/



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Howdy Kdog

You'll notice that we can detect individuals from hunting groups, we can find their tools, we can find their bones and sometimes what animals they slaughtered.

As Byrd noted this information is readily available - if you look for it. Until recently it was in academic books with some of it making its way into popular books and documentaries. You'll note that you mentioned Turkana boy, that was found nearly 30 years ago.

I'll disagree with Byrd somewhat, studying where we came from helps us in understanding who we are today. But I do agree that the ancient civilizations have only a limited amount of knowledge that would help us with todays problems.

If you'd like to keep up to date on the latest in the search for our history. I can recommend The Institute of Human Origins which emails a full-color newsletter twice per year with all the latest research and news on Hominins.

Send your email address to iho@asu.edu.





top topics
 
4

log in

join