Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Human Species Found

page: 3
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigcountry08
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.


I believe that I read that not all hybrids are sterile. I remember having fun trying to produce canary and goldfinch hybrids, but I can't remember was anyone successful to interbreed hybrids. Those birds were the best singing birds.



Originally posted by rickymouse
Ahhh...Humans are just mutts. Our Ancestors humped anything with two feet.....sometimes even four



I don't see anyone pulling hair regarding this research. They provided us proof that we have 2.5% of Neanderthal's genes, and came to conclusion that our species interbreed. Similarly part of Asia, Indonesia and Australians share part of Denisovans genes.

And we would be lucky if our ancestors were jumping only things on 2 feet...
edit on 9-8-2012 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperFrog
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.


They never proved anything, the criticisms by peers are still there but it was published anyway. This is exactly parallel to the German so called "science" that was published to prove to the sheep that the Aryan race was superior.
edit on 9-8-2012 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

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)


Lol you are the one who is making judgements based on superficial reasons. You assume I am black just because of my avatar...? And then you further make the ridiculous leap and believe I am somehow dissing whites in the process. That is just too funny.

You've basically just shown yourself up to be a racist while accusing me of the very same.

At any rate Neandertals have also been shown to have displayed all the hallmarks of culture and why am I even bothering to explain myself to someone who clearly has a little more than their fair share of Neandertal DNA anyway...

Cheers IEtherianSoul9 for the link

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9








edit on 9/8/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:06 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.


Because the explanation would bore you to tears. Archaeological excavation and dating techniques are extremely BORING.

Did you go to the discovery article where they gave the incredibly boring details? Not only is it boring, but it would only confuse a lay person.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigcountry08
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.


This is my very point in my post on page 2. At very best they are simply a sub-species, at worst merely a separate 'breed' or race. All this 'New Species of Humans' found is usually just some attempt by anthropologists to make a big name for themselves.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by yadda333

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.


Because the explanation would bore you to tears. Archaeological excavation and dating techniques are extremely BORING.

Did you go to the discovery article where they gave the incredibly boring details? Not only is it boring, but it would only confuse a lay person.


Well said yadda. I'm fairly sure votan really wouldn't be interested in the intricacies of isotope dating....



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

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)


Lol you are the one who is making judgements based on superficial reasons. You assume I am black just because of my avatar...? And then you further make the ridiculous leap and believe I am somehow dissing whites in the process. That is just too funny.

You've basically just shown yourself up to be a racist while accusing me of the very same.

At any rate Neandertals have also been shown to have displayed all the hallmarks of culture and why am I even bothering to explain myself to someone who clearly has a little more than their fair share of Neandertal DNA anyway...

Cheers IEtherianSoul9 for the link

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9








edit on 9/8/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



Lol, so now you are calling me a Neanderthal and a racist.
You spew hate with ease, and proved my point tenfold.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Calling someone out on the ease to which they jump to making superficial judgements and their clear lack of knowledge regarding the subject at hand is a far far leap to 'spewing hate'...

It is also only slight less hilarious than your accusations that I am a black supremacist.


edit on 9/8/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Calling someone out on the ease to which they jump to making superficial judgements and their clear lack of knowledge regarding the subject at hand is a far far leap to'spewing hate'...


1littlewolf,
Please don't waste your energies on this argument any longer.
"Just because you are invited to an argument does not mean you should join it."

TinfoilTP,
The same goes for you plus getting angry only wastes more energy that could have
been used for something to help others learn something new.

These kinds of squabbles derail threads. If you really need to bicker please make it private.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by azureskys
 


You're absolutely right and good advice azureskys


My apologies to the OP...
edit on 9/8/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by riddle6
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


Your avatar always cracks me up


Two years ago I was in a geology class at school, and my teacher was talking about how in his day, the human evolutionary tree was pretty much a straight line. Now, in his own words, its a crazy bush. He said he used to give out a sheet with the names of all of the different species in their respective order and whatnot, but things changed too quickly, so he just showed it in on the projector. I can't help but think of him now. He'll have to go and update his list again.

Cool find.


I wish I hadn't sold my old textbooks. In one of my Anthropology classes back in the day (Human Biological and Cultural Evolution), the textbook had tons of diagrams representing various theories of how it all worked out. The thing to remember- it's never been set in stone and (though some may like to think otherwise) the openness to new ideas and theories is there if there is enough evidence/findings/discoveries to support such a thing.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I posted this.
You should use the search button



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

New Human Species Found


www.bbc.co.uk

Fossils from Northern Kenya show that a new species of human lived two million years ago, researchers say.

The discoveries suggests that at least three distinct species of humans co-existed in Africa.

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)



I'm going to CHALLENGE these PHd's on the 2million year THEORY because ITS BOGUS time keeping. They don't have a clue and are just pulling at straws. Carbon 14 dating has been proven to be a farce and unpredictable.

So really, where do they get this 2 million year bull puckie from ? I'de have better luck winning the Texas Lottery than listening to their non-sense.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
And let me guess: Obama is somehow related to them



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by yadda333
Archaeological excavation and dating techniques are extremely BORING.

I disagree...try it some time.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ZerkerVirus
 


As quoted............I did.

On another note: Thanks everybody for your comments. I have been looking for more info on this but I have had "computer issues", I'm back now.........so let the search begin!


Cheers all



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Labrynth2012
I'm going to CHALLENGE these PHd's on the 2million year THEORY because ITS BOGUS time keeping. They don't have a clue and are just pulling at straws. Carbon 14 dating has been proven to be a farce and unpredictable.
You'd lose. Calibrated radiocarbon dating is quite accurate within its limits (160-60,000 kya). Take a crash course :archaeology.about.com...
edit on 9-8-2012 by JohnnyCanuck because: spelling, eh?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


What? Only a side shot of the skull? Looks like a typical ape skull to me.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by yadda333
Archaeological excavation and dating techniques are extremely BORING.

I disagree...try it some time.


Have--opinion unchanged.

Nice assumption though
edit on 8/9/2012 by yadda333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
This should make science teachers scratch their head lol






top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join