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.
coredrill
Slayer,
Question - Does the presence of a Third Metacarpal bone with styloid Process in one single fossil be the evidence that the Homo erectus did use and handle tools?
Couldn't this have been a bone deformation?
Have they found other skeletal remains from the same period or closer periods in our around the same location?
Do those skeletal finds have the styloid process on their third metacarpal bone?
Just a single bone doesn't make a statement
They are speculating only and they can never make a statement that homo erectus did make and handle tools.
Just because the bone was found in a location where ancient tools have been found doesn't make it a fact that the hand the bone belonged to did make tools and handle them. If we found tools from the same era from the same location/surroundings , it could be closer to a fact or a statement.
edit on 18/12/13 by coredrill because: too add some more stuff. any issues???
Aleister
reply to post by Asktheanimals
Yes, but by that time humans had the brains to start making things, imnho.
And did I tell you about the time I learned we don't need our thumbs to do things? www.abovetopsecret.com... I still don't use them when I type (whoops, correction, I do use one when I grab the mouse to click)edit on 17-12-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
Brotherman
reply to post by BASSPLYR
There is no evidence that one species will turn into another species a raccoon will always be a raccoon. Even simple creatures that have been experimented on for the better portions of a hundred years like say the fruit fly has been manipulated to try and force some kind of genetic trait and out of the probably millions of generations of experimentation not one instance of the fruit fly changing into another species much less expand its life cycle.
Brotherman
reply to post by sirhumperdink
Oh dear, this is non sense I will make it simple There is zero evidence of one species turning into another the theory of evolution is anecdotal at best providing no conclusive results that one species evolved from another.There is no transitional missing link and if there was where is the transitional link of all other species? Why is it that species go extinct and no new species fills its roles?
Plesiadapids: Gingerich (summarized in 1976, 1977) found smooth transitions in plesiadapid primates linking four genera together: Pronothodectes, Nannodectes, two lineages of Plesiadapis, and Platychoerops. In summary: Pronothodectes matthewi changed to become Pro. jepi, which split into Nannodectes intermedius and Plesiadapis praecursor. N. intermedius was the first member of a gradually changing lineage that passed through three different species stages (N. gazini, N. simpsoni, and N. gidleyi). Ples. praecursor was the first member of a separate, larger lineage that slowly grew larger (passing through three more species stages), with every studied character showing continuous gradual change. Gingerich (1976) noted "Loss of a tooth, a discrete jump from one state to another, in several instances proceeded continuously by continuous changes in the frequencies of dimorphism -- the percentage of specimens retaining the tooth gradually being reduced until it was lost entirely from the population." The Plesiadapis lineage then split into two more lineages, each with several species. One of these lineages shows a gradual transition from Plesiadapis to Platychoerops,"where the incisors were considerably reorganized morphologically and functionally in the space of only 2-3 million years." Early lemur-like primates: Gingerich (summarized in 1977) traced two distinct species of lemur-like primates, Pelycodus frugivorus and P. jarrovii, back in time, and found that they converged on the earlier Pelycodus abditus "in size, mesostyle development, and every other character available for study, and there can be little doubt that each was derived from that species." Further work (Gingerich, 1980) in the same rich Wyoming fossil sites found species-to-species transitions for every step in the following lineage: Pelycodus ralstoni (54 Ma) to P. mckennai to P. trigonodus to P. abditus, which then forked into three branches. One became a new genus, Copelemur feretutus, and further changed into C. consortutus. The second branch became P. frugivorus. The third led to P. jarrovi, which changed into another new genus, Notharctus robinsoni, which itself split into at least two branches, N. tenebrosus, and N. pugnax (which then changed to N. robustior, 48 Ma), and possibly a third, Smilodectes mcgrewi (which then changed to S. gracilis). Note that this sequence covers at least three and possibly four genera, with a timespan of 6 million years. Early monkey-like primates: Gingerich (1982, also discussed in Gingerich, 1983) also describes gradual species-species transitions in a lineage of early Eocene primate: Cantius ralstoni to C. mckennai to C. trigonodus.
I am not saying creationist but I am certainly saying evolution as it is, is absurdly wrong. And this micro evolution can be summed up in terms of dominant and recessive genes a mutation or interbreeding between to compatible species is not grounds for this evolutionary transition a dog will not breed with a pony a human cannot impregnate an elephant but if it did that would be a new hybrid and still wouldn't constitute evolution under the context of the junk you are trying to feed me.
The Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were substantially different from modern human mtDNA (Krings et al. 1997, 1999). Researchers compared the Neanderthal to modern human and chimpanzee sequences. Most human sequences differ from each other by on average 8.0 substitutions, while the human and chimpanzee sequences differ by about 55.0 substitutions. The Neanderthal and modern human sequences differed by approximately 27.2 substitutions. Using this mtDNA information, the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans dates to approximately 550,000 to 690,000 years ago, which is about four times older than the modern human mtDNA pool. This is consistent with the idea that Neanderthals did not contribute substantially to modern human genome.
An early inference that can be drawn from the new findings, which were announced Thursday in Leipzig, Germany, is that there is no significant trace of Neanderthal genes in modern humans. This confounds the speculation that modern humans could have interbred with Neanderthals, thus benefiting from the genes that adapted the Neanderthals to the cold climate that prevailed in Europe in last ice age, which ended 10,000 years ago. Researchers have not ascertained if human genes entered the Neanderthal population.
LEIPZIG, GERMANY—Scientists have extracted and analyzed DNA from the 50,000-year-old toe bone of a Neanderthal woman found in Siberia's Denisova Cave in 2010 and put together a high-quality draft of the genome of modern human's closest extinct relative. The sequence allows for comparison between modern humans and other hominins, like Denisovans, another extinct hominin. For example, about two percent of the DNA of modern humans living in outside of Africa is from Neanderthals. The research also showed that Neanderthals and Denisovans interbred but not to the extent that there was a lot of genetic crossover—the Denisovan genome gets less than one percent of its genes from Neanderthals. Further, an unidentified human ancestor may have contributed up to six percent of the genes in the Denisovan genome. “This ancient population of hominins lived prior to the separation of Neanderthals, Denisovans and modern humans,” says Kay Prüfer, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig. “It is possible that this unknown hominin was what is known from the fossil record as Homo erectus.”,
The genes of organisms that look very different are surprisingly similar. For example, human DNA sequences are over 95% identical to chimpanzee sequences and around 50% identical to banana sequences.
Brotherman
reply to post by peter vlar
I still don't buy it
The Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were substantially different from modern human mtDNA (Krings et al. 1997, 1999). Researchers compared the Neanderthal to modern human and chimpanzee sequences. Most human sequences differ from each other by on average 8.0 substitutions, while the human and chimpanzee sequences differ by about 55.0 substitutions. The Neanderthal and modern human sequences differed by approximately 27.2 substitutions. Using this mtDNA information, the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans dates to approximately 550,000 to 690,000 years ago, which is about four times older than the modern human mtDNA pool. This is consistent with the idea that Neanderthals did not contribute substantially to modern human genome.
www.hypothesisjournal.com... Evidence from studies of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal fossils and humans points to fascinating hypotheses concerning the types of interbreeding that occurred between these two species. Humans and Neanderthals share a small percentage of nuclear DNA. However, humans and Neanderthals do not possess the same mitochondrial DNA. In mammals, mitochondrial DNA is exclusively maternally inherited. Taking into account an understanding of interspecific hybridity, the available data leads to the hypothesis that only male Neanderthals were able to mate with female humans. If Haldane’s Law applied to the progeny of Neanderthals and humans, then female hybrids would survive, but male hybrids would be absent, rare, or sterile. Interbreeding between male Neanderthals and female humans, as the only possible scenario, accounts for the presence of Neanderthal nuclear DNA, the scarcity of Neanderthal Y-linked genes, and the lack of mitochondrial DNA in modern human populations.
The Lapedo child is a complete prehistorical skeleton found in Portugal. In 1998, this discovery of an early Upper Paleolithic human burial at Abrigo do Lagar Velho, by the team led by pre-history archeologist João Zilhão, provided evidence of early modern humans from the west of the Iberian Peninsula. The remains, the largely complete skeleton of an approximately 4-year-old child, buried with pierced shell and red ochre, is dated to ca. 24,500 years BP.[1] The cranium, mandible, dentition, and postcrania present a mosaic of European early modern human and Neanderthal features.[1]
This (morphological) mosaic indicates admixture between late archaic and early modern humans in Iberia, refuting hypotheses of complete replacement of the Neanderthals by early modern humans and underlining the complexities of the cultural and biological processes and events that were involved in modern human emergence
.
An early inference that can be drawn from the new findings, which were announced Thursday in Leipzig, Germany, is that there is no significant trace of Neanderthal genes in modern humans. This confounds the speculation that modern humans could have interbred with Neanderthals, thus benefiting from the genes that adapted the Neanderthals to the cold climate that prevailed in Europe in last ice age, which ended 10,000 years ago. Researchers have not ascertained if human genes entered the Neanderthal population.
It is just my humble opinion that the theory is wrong.
and you are more than entitled to it. Just don't be angry that my humble opinion is that you are wrong on this particular matter.
gort51
As has been shown, many anthropologists often disagree with established "Theories" and come up with "New" discoveries regularly.
There was another "Skull" found recently in Africa, that is of Course, another version of a Homo etc etc.
They Never find another skull, and say, well this may be another form of early primate that turned into a Gorilla...for example.
It almost always has to be a new version of man from Africa.
The world's oldest gorilla fossil has been found in Ethiopia, defying earlier assumptions about ape and human evolution, scientists at the National Museum of Ethiopia announced Wednesday.
Scientists believe the nine teeth unearthed during an excavation near Addis Ababa belong to a newly discovered type of 10-million-year-old gorilla. If their data is correct, the fossil could reveal several new truths on ape and human evolution.
gort51 Quite frankly, in logical terms, it is ridiculous and quite fanciful, that Every skull they find in Africa, that looks at all primate, is automatically deemed a Human ancestor, not a failed "Monkey" ancestor, always a Human one.
gort51 None of their theories are set in concrete
gort51
As has been shown, many anthropologists often disagree with established "Theories" and come up with "New" discoveries regularly.
There was another "Skull" found recently in Africa, that is of Course, another version of a Homo etc etc.
They Never find another skull, and say, well this may be another form of early primate that turned into a Gorilla...for example.
It almost always has to be a new version of man from Africa.
Quite frankly, in logical terms, it is ridiculous and quite fanciful, that Every skull they find in Africa, that looks at all primate, is automatically deemed a Human ancestor, not a failed "Monkey" ancestor, always a Human one.
I can, right this minute, find 5 human skulls of modern humans, and present them to these experts, and quite sure that some of these experts will bet their degrees, that one or two are ancient human skulls, that died out 1 million years ago etc etc.
The skulls would be....1 Australian Aboriginal, 1 East Asian early Han relative, 1 white Western European, 1 African Bantu person, 1 East European (Caucus) person.
All of these people have entirely individual skulls, BUT with similarities that can describe them as Homo.
They really do not know, None of their theories are set in concrete....it is all guess work and speculation, regardless of DNA....yes, apparently even germs have DNA....it is the building blocks of every life. It has even been proposed that it is from beyond the Earth, and even the Solar System.