New Human Species Found

page: 2
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Or bred in.


..that's all.




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

The research adds to a growing body of evidence that runs counter to the popular perception that there was a linear evolution from early primates to modern humans.

Seems an odd statement. It just indicates another branch of the tree. A branch that fell off.
edit on 8/9/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

They are not implying it "fell off", they are obviously hinting at inter-breeding. Hence, more than one path. Non-linear.

Perhaps evidence of the "missing link"?
edit on 9-8-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   


The research adds to a growing body of evidence that runs counter to the popular perception that there was a linear evolution from early primates to modern humans.


No it doesn't. Of course the evolution from our early primate ancestor to homo sapiens is linear. The BBC's science articles are about as professional as its Olympic coverage apparently.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Hmmm...

I've always wondered about these 'new species' of human. If you look at any other group of animals the term 'species' is defined as

'a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring'.

Yet when it comes to humans anything skull with slightly different morphological variations within the jawbone, or a skeleton with some elongated shinbone or whatever is suddenly termed as a 'new species'. Neandertals were not killed out they were bred out as evidenced by the fact that all non African humans have Neandertal DNA peresent in their genome.

I would hazard a guess that if H. rudolfensis and a H. heidelbergensis were to get a little frisky one Saturday night their offspring would well and truly be viable.

All these new species seem merely just attempts by anthropologists to big note themselves and become the next Louis Leakey...



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
AHA....
So Obama really IS from Kenya!!!!

sorry just had to


Star n Flag
Excellent news, thanks for sharing


News for Atheists too, too many don't realize how often science changes
They call too many things fact when it's just a theory, that bugs me

And i'm not religious, i'm an Agnostic



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



News for Atheists too, too many don't realize how often science changes


It's funny that you mentioned this, because as soon as I read the OP, I commented to a friend of mine, "A new human species that lived 2 million years ago? How can that be? The Earth is only 6,000 years old, depending on who you ask!"

edit on 9-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
when the galactica crew landed in africa they had the remnants of the final five do genetic manipulation on the existing humanoids here to make them more compatible to mate with. baltar and six are the watchers to make sure the children succeed.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Thanks, OP. Nice thread.

Setting aside the heavy cultural/religious considerations, whenever I run across information on the topic of early man and his breeding habits, I cannot avoid imagining once again that memorable scene from "Quest for Fire".

Sorry Rae Dawn, but that image is permanently seared into my memory!

(Or does that qualify me as a "dirty old man"?)

LOL



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by zyrktec
 


...uh, what?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AsherahoftheSea
 


Do you know what the Catholic church's problem with 'Evolution' is?.... Nothing.... They don't consider 'evolution' and an (original) 'Creator' as conflicting ideas. To them 'God' planted the seed and let it grow.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by zyrktec
when the galactica crew landed in africa they had the remnants of the final five do genetic manipulation on the existing humanoids here to make them more compatible to mate with. baltar and six are the watchers to make sure the children succeed.

Lol at people still thinking Baltar had 6 watchers, he only had 4, but 2 of the 4 were schizophrenic and had 2 personalities so some people count 6 because of 6 names, but it was only 4 individuals/humanoids.
edit on 9-8-2012 by ModernAcademia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
the fact that all non African humans have Neandertal DNA peresent in their genome.



Taken straight out of Black Liberation Theology. All whites are Neanderthals heh? HAhahahaha

Keep your hate injections to yourself.
edit on 9-8-2012 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Non-Africans Are Part Neanderthal, Genetic Research Shows

Do your research before you make such outlandish comments.



"The proportion of Neanderthal-inherited genetic material is about 1 to 4 percent. It is a small but very real proportion of ancestry in non-Africans today," Dr. David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, who worked on the study."


Source



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


dosen't what we know of animal breeding kind of screw with this theory, if two diffrent animal species mate then the offspring is usually (except for very rare occasions) sterile. So it would almost be impossible for two diffrent species of "early human" to reproduce multiple young and have them all be fertile. Unless they originated from the same primate and just evolved diffrently along the way and then remet back up to do the deed.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by IEtherianSoul9
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Non-Africans Are Part Neanderthal, Genetic Research Shows

Do your research before you make such outlandish comments.



"The proportion of Neanderthal-inherited genetic material is about 1 to 4 percent. It is a small but very real proportion of ancestry in non-Africans today," Dr. David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, who worked on the study."


Source


A simple search of wiki will inform anyone there are great criticisms of any of the studies of so called Neanderthal DNA.
This garbage got published anyway. It is all hogwash driven by ulterior motives.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


How do they know it existed 2 million years ago?? Is that a ball park or an actual figure or because they fitted in to go with the other species and their dates?? how were the other species dated??

Every time something is discovered they throw out how long ago it existed without really explaining how they came up with that.

Also have they proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is a new species of humans... because everyone on here seems to be taking it like absolute truth.. science can be wrong



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Seems an odd statement. It just indicates another branch of the tree. A branch that fell off.


More proof to darwynism, than anything else ... survival of the fittest, and there are many branches in the evolution ...

We weren't made "this way" by god, we evolved through a hard process of nature.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


How do they know it existed 2 million years ago?? Is that a ball park or an actual figure or because they fitted in to go with the other species and their dates?? how were the other species dated??

Every time something is discovered they throw out how long ago it existed without really explaining how they came up with that.

Also have they proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is a new species of humans... because everyone on here seems to be taking it like absolute truth.. science can be wrong


I think they may have found the skeletons and did carbon-dating on them to get this estimate.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Really? Garbage?

At least in science it is easy, you have to prove your theory, and Dr. Svante Paabo has done that, proving that large part of humans have about 2.5% of Neanderthals genes. Early on this topic I posted link for his Ted Talk from year ago, and as far as I know, it is not proven wrong. If you have something in particualr, please post it and we can talk about it. Calling someones life work garbage just lowers quality of discussion on ATS.



Originally posted by votan
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


How do they know it existed 2 million years ago?? Is that a ball park or an actual figure or because they fitted in to go with the other species and their dates?? how were the other species dated??


Just do quick Google research on how scientists determine age of fossils and you will find many links with detailed explanation of the methods, like this one.



Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by Phage
Seems an odd statement. It just indicates another branch of the tree. A branch that fell off.


More proof to darwynism, than anything else ... survival of the fittest, and there are many branches in the evolution ...

We weren't made "this way" by god, we evolved through a hard process of nature.

There used to be joke in my origin country:

Ants work whole their life and they are still ants, monkey was jerking around and has become a man.


On serious note, yes, this proves what we already know, evolution is not linear process.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Ahhh...Humans are just mutts. Our Ancestors humped anything with two feet.....sometimes even four


We have only scratched the surface. Theories are prematurely made and then adopted as real. How many times has this happened throughout history? Now if science went back to saying "We think" or "It appears" than there would be less argument. Somehow Science has changed and is trying to say things are definite which causes arguments. No one can argue with "It appears". Science should step back out of the limelite and continue their research. I liked science better when it was full of non definitive statements, I don't know why they changed it. People are guilty of misusing science to prove a point also. They misapply the evidence. Research is full of exclusions and people just read a small part of the research or read just one article without researching the parameters and assume the evidence fits their beliefs........I bet some of the researchers are pulling their hair out as they see their information misapplied constantly.
edit on 9-8-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join