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.

 

New Evidence of Early Man? The Trilemma...

page: 5
82
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   

peter vlar
Tough I'm baffled why you think finding two new species oh hominid is not a huge deal. Confirmation of Floresiensis was a pretty big deal in itself but the findings in Denisova cave literally were earth shattering in their implications of how the hominid family tree looks now compared to just 20 years ago. It's one of the most profound finds ever let alone recently in my humble opinion ands that's coming from a guy who thinks Neanderthals are the end all be all of hominids.


I never said it is not a huge deal. I never said it is not earth shattering. I said it wasn't controversial. It doesn't invalidate previous notions, especially since interbreeding and DNA heritage (as with the Neanderthals) was already a certainty by this point. It is big, but it is not threatening. There would be no reason to suppress this.




posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Cathcart

peter vlar
Tough I'm baffled why you think finding two new species oh hominid is not a huge deal. Confirmation of Floresiensis was a pretty big deal in itself but the findings in Denisova cave literally were earth shattering in their implications of how the hominid family tree looks now compared to just 20 years ago. It's one of the most profound finds ever let alone recently in my humble opinion ands that's coming from a guy who thinks Neanderthals are the end all be all of hominids.


I never said it is not a huge deal. I never said it is not earth shattering. I said it wasn't controversial.

Really?

So, you don't recall the major fights that broke out over the claim that Floresiensis was a new species and not some deformed child?

I certainly do. It was itself quite childish.


Cathcart
It doesn't invalidate previous notions, especially since interbreeding and DNA heritage (as with the Neanderthals) was already a certainty by this point. It is big, but it is not threatening. There would be no reason to suppress this.

And what, exactly, would be the reason to "suppress" the Hueyatlaco findings?

Were they "suppressed?"

Cynthia Irwin-Williams caught no flak when she published her report of the project, even though she published that the tools were 250,000 years old.

Do you suppose that Steen-MacIntyre (what's with all these hyphenated women?) was simply disliked while Irwin-Williams was respected, or what?

No, Steen-MacIntyre, a grad styuident at the time, jumped the gun in her report - publishing dates that the boss, Irwin-Williamns, likely wanted to check on (understandably.) It's important to note that, at that time, there was no "Pre-Clovis" theory going around, yet Irwin-Williams told her crew to publish (in the preliminary report) that the tools were at least 20,000 years old - twice as old as Clovis.

This was what drove Steen-MacIntyre off the reservation - she rashly (and incorrectly) assumed that Irwin-Williams would discount the dates she had come up with so she published a finding - on a major dig, and as a student - on a project that she was hardly even associated with.

This is what happened. No one "suppressed" anything.

Harte



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Harte
"Evolution?"

Moving the goalposts are we?

We were talking about history.


There's another meaning to the term "human evolution". Look it up.


Harte
You asked a question. Apparently, you're not interested enough to find out for yourself, then?


My point was that the historical consensus hasn't really been smashed in the last 50 years. You said this was an "untruth". I asked for an explanation. And now you say it my question? I've got to prove myself wrong?


Harte
This discovery of new members of Homo smashes previous paradigms of the past. Flores island, for example, has not been connected to the mainland since before the Hobbit got there. Other remains of early humans have also been found.

One of the paradigms was that these people couldn't travel over large expanses of water.

I wonder whose career was "ruined" by that find?


Nobody's career was ruined, since it it not a major contradiction. H. erectus was already known to have fabricated and used complex tools. Water transport is not such a huge leap. Still, it is a deviation from the paradigm, so you've got a good point there...



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Cathcart

peter vlar
Tough I'm baffled why you think finding two new species oh hominid is not a huge deal. Confirmation of Floresiensis was a pretty big deal in itself but the findings in Denisova cave literally were earth shattering in their implications of how the hominid family tree looks now compared to just 20 years ago. It's one of the most profound finds ever let alone recently in my humble opinion ands that's coming from a guy who thinks Neanderthals are the end all be all of hominids.


I never said it is not a huge deal. I never said it is not earth shattering. I said it wasn't controversial. It doesn't invalidate previous notions, especially since interbreeding and DNA heritage (as with the Neanderthals) was already a certainty by this point. It is big, but it is not threatening. There would be no reason to suppress this.


As Harte pointed out, confirmation of Floresiensis was like an elementary school playground fight. I also added a second reply that referenced Olduvai Gorge and the Leakey's. Beginning in 1959 and all the way through the 70's nearly every single find was a matter of hotly debated contention and some lay persons still argue the validity of the Leakey's work in East Africa. As for your last sentence, there's no reason to suppress anything. The only time I've seen any instance that could be viewed as suppression was in cases where people have made extraordinary claims without data to support their supposition.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Harte
Really?

So, you don't recall the major fights that broke out over the claim that Floresiensis was a new species and not some deformed child?

I certainly do. It was itself quite childish.


Hum...you're right. But in this case, evidence was never on the "cretinism" side. Quite pointless, I agree.


Harte
Were they "suppressed?"

Cynthia Irwin-Williams caught no flak when she published her report of the project, even though she published that the tools were 250,000 years old.

Do you suppose that Steen-MacIntyre (what's with all these hyphenated women?) was simply disliked while Irwin-Williams was respected, or what?


No, I'm supposing that without Steen-MacIntyre's intervention, these findings would merely have been ignored. Another way of suppressing info. Steen-MacIntyre caught flak because she was vocal, more or less.


Harte
No, Steen-MacIntyre, a grad styuident at the time, jumped the gun in her report - publishing dates that the boss, Irwin-Williamns, likely wanted to check on (understandably.) It's important to note that, at that time, there was no "Pre-Clovis" theory going around, yet Irwin-Williams told her crew to publish (in the preliminary report) that the tools were at least 20,000 years old - twice as old as Clovis.

This was what drove Steen-MacIntyre off the reservation - she rashly (and incorrectly) assumed that Irwin-Williams would discount the dates she had come up with so she published a finding - on a major dig, and as a student - on a project that she was hardly even associated with.


True, but in the end, what does it matter? This is not a court trial. We are discussing their findings. Didn't subsequent analyses confirm their findings, beyond doubt? Why is this not making waves? Why does anyone hardly ever discuss this?
edit on 11-1-2014 by Cathcart because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Very interesting discussion.




Just want to thank everybody for contributing.

Stay tuned



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Just wanted to add a more recent bit of information that gives a younger by still quite old date to this site.
This is a link to an abstract of the 2004 paperlinking the deposits to the Sangamonian Stage.


]http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1661/0026-2803



The dating is based on identification of the diatoms found in the deposits and this species only came to be at the beginning of the Sangamonian and had gone extinct by the end. It's binds it firmly within a very specific time frame, which in 2004 was thought to be from 220,000 to 80,000 BPE. Newer data narrows that window to 125,000 to 75,000 BPE. Considerably younger but still an impressive age. I still doesn't make up for the lack of other sites of that age and lack of human remains but it still is an interesting piece of the puzzle.



gsa.confex.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Harte

kyviecaldges
However, if I had to pick between Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnon, I am Cro-Mag all the way.

That is certainly true. You are Cro-Magnon, as are we all, since they were Homo Sapiens.

Harte


That is debatable.

Cro-magnon existed from 200,000 years ago to 30,000 years ago, but there are differences in the skulls and they had a larger cranial capacity.

They are considered early modern humans, but homo sapiens and cro-magnon are not the same.

They had square eye sockets, a slightly raised brow ridge and an elongated nose bone.
They were built much more robust than we are today, and as I said they had an average cranial capacity of 1600 cc.
They averaged between 5' 7" to 6'5" in height and they were this height at a time when they did not have access to the nutrition and medicine that we have today.

They were early modern humans.
Not modern.

To simply dismiss their capabilities and what they added to the development of homo sapiens is disingenuous.

I could go on, but I don't want to take away from the current discussion.

edit on 12/1/2014 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   

kyviecaldges

Harte

kyviecaldges
However, if I had to pick between Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnon, I am Cro-Mag all the way.

That is certainly true. You are Cro-Magnon, as are we all, since they were Homo Sapiens.

Harte


That is debatable.

Cro-magnon existed from 200,000 years ago to 30,000 years ago, but there are differences in the skulls and they had a larger cranial capacity.

They are considered early modern humans, but homo sapiens and cro-magnon are not the same.

Natural variation.

HSS is HSS.

Harte



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

peter vlar
Just wanted to add a more recent bit of information that gives a younger by still quite old date to this site.
This is a link to an abstract of the 2004 paperlinking the deposits to the Sangamonian Stage.


]http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1661/0026-2803



The dating is based on identification of the diatoms found in the deposits and this species only came to be at the beginning of the Sangamonian and had gone extinct by the end. It's binds it firmly within a very specific time frame, which in 2004 was thought to be from 220,000 to 80,000 BPE. Newer data narrows that window to 125,000 to 75,000 BPE. Considerably younger but still an impressive age. I still doesn't make up for the lack of other sites of that age and lack of human remains but it still is an interesting piece of the puzzle.



gsa.confex.com...


Diatoms are in the video. Maybe you should watch it?

And if you watch the last half hour, and still think nothing is being supressed you are like the archeologists who just dont want to believe it no matter what evidence there is.
edit on 12-1-2014 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Early modern humans (EMH) and Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) are the same thing. Cro-magnon is not any variety of taxonomic nomenclature, it's regionally derived and pretty much defunct as a term in modern archaeological and anthropological circles. They are now, and have been for quite some time, considered as Homo sapiens sapiens. This is true even from a genetics standpoint.

Europe's Ancestors: Cro-Magnon 28,000 Years Old Had DNA Like Modern Humans

cormac



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
UFO TV? Before I spend time watching the video , it's not going to end up saying that it was inhabited by aliens is it? I don't need to waste my time if that's the case. If it's truly scientific and just a debate about dates I'll give it a go.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   

AutumnWitch657
UFO TV? Before I spend time watching the video , it's not going to end up saying that it was inhabited by aliens is it? I don't need to waste my time if that's the case. If it's truly scientific and just a debate about dates I'll give it a go.

I am pretty sure there are no references to aliens or ufos despite the fact it is ufo tv.
They are debating the age of artifacts found in Mexico.
I found it to be interesting and educational.
Quad



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Huh? I learned that we are cro-magnon. More recently renamed homo sapien sapien. Man twice wise. Did I miss something? Like I am extinct? Or did cro-magnon get reclassified as an earlier species of man?



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Cathcart
True, but in the end, what does it matter? This is not a court trial. We are discussing their findings. Didn't subsequent analyses confirm their findings, beyond doubt?

Certainly not. The possibility that the site was disturbed by flooding. etc. (it was a dry creekbed and had been a lake bottom for a long time - subject to shallow water fauna) or by other means cannot be ruled out

No, the only way to "confirm beyond doubt" is the repeatability I mentioned earlier.

This has been true for every anthropological finding - note that the discovery of additional Floresiensis remains was what settled that particular matter.

Do not mistake me. I'd be very happy if these findings were confirmed. For myself, the major problem is the seeming sophistication of some of the stone tools that were found.

I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me that no tools as sophisticated have ever been found associated with a site with an age of 250,000 YBP.


CathcartWhy is this not making waves? Why does anyone hardly ever discuss this?

They do. You just aren't a subscriber to the right periodicals. I'd venture to say that no one on this site is.

1981

1981

2000

2006

That was from the first page of returns on Google Scholar for "steen-mcintyre quaternary." I used the term "quaternary" because I remembered it from the name of one of the publications - "Quaternary Research."

In addition, Steen-MacIntyre has made several presentations to scientific groups concerning the finds at the site. Links to these used to be on her webpage, if you can find it.

The problem you mention - that nobody is discussing this - is twofold. First, the general public doesn't care, know or bother with things like this so you won't find it mentioned often in sources that rely on sales such as newspapers, magazines and television. Second, science tends to report on new findings or perspectives, not endlessly repeat old findings. There's been no new findings or perspectives in a few years.

Harte



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Huh? I learned that we are cro-magnon. More recently renamed homo sapien sapien. Man twice wise. Did I miss something? Like I am extinct? Or did cro-magnon get reclassified as an earlier species of man?


DNA is a very tricky thing to use in proving anything because all DNA shows you is a set of possibilities.

Cro-Magnon is an early modern human.

It seems as though you are trying to formulate an absolute in an area where some scholars of the subject refuse speculate beyond the data.
While some archeologists might state that Cro-Magnon are so similar to modern humans as to not require a distinct species, not all are ready to make that jump.

This conversation is really NO different than what we see in this video posted by Slayer.

You willingly believe mainstream views and I do not so willingly believe anything that relies solely on speculation.
I can make an educated guess on lots of things, but I will say it is an educated guess...


The physical characteristics of Early Modern Human are quite similar to modern humans, although perhaps a bit more robust, particularly seen in femora--the leg bones. The differences, which are slight, have been attributed to the shift away from long distance hunting strategies to sedentism and agriculture.

A recent study by Trent Holliday comparing early and late Upper Paleolithic skeletal materials provided an average male height of 170 centimeters (early) and 168 centimeters (late), and average female height of 157.6 cm (early) and 158.4 (late).

However, Formicola and Giannecchini's data revealed that "EUP males are much taller (176.2 cm) and LUP shorter (165.6 cm), with an average difference of 10.6 cm. Similarly EUP females (162.9 cm) largely exceed LUP females (153.5 cm)."

I think the jury is still out.

link to source


That is what they are... Early Modern Humans.
And if you read my reply to Peter Vlar then you will notice that I specifically discuss the magdalenian culture.
These individuals showed an innovation and craftsmanship that apparently became lost.
The bifacial spear points spoken of in the video and microlithic techniques used by the cro-mags became lost in time.

Why is that... diet?
Did diet just cause a loss of knowledge?
Strange... because if so, I am going to start eating my wheaties.

The knowledge used by both the solutreans and the clovis in the new world SEEMED to have been passed onto the magdalenian.
And then vastly improved.

The closest modern day relatives of modern human to the cro-mags are the basques.
The basques also have the highest prevalence of negative rhesus blood factor.

If you look at the bone and stone working techniques of the cro-mags, then it is obvious that they had a talent and knowledge that was lost until the arrival of the Greeks.

My entire point in posting was to draw a line to the megalith builders.

The one aspect of cro-magnon that separates them from modern humans is the raised brow ridge similar to neanderthals.
But then again, WE all carry neanderthal DNA.

The soup of genetics is far too tricky to actually PROVE anything.
It can give you ideas, but prove it does not.
edit on 12/1/2014 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Wow that video had everything !
Drama , political corruption , possible murder , conspiracies , and very interesting science .
I never really thought of archeology as that exciting but as the one guy called " dark archeology " does seem to exist.
Thanks for sharing I'm bed ridden right now so that was much appreciated.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

kyviecaldges


The physical characteristics of Early Modern Human are quite similar to modern humans, although perhaps a bit more robust, particularly seen in femora--the leg bones. The differences, which are slight, have been attributed to the shift away from long distance hunting strategies to sedentism and agriculture.

A recent study by Trent Holliday comparing early and late Upper Paleolithic skeletal materials provided an average male height of 170 centimeters (early) and 168 centimeters (late), and average female height of 157.6 cm (early) and 158.4 (late).

However, Formicola and Giannecchini's data revealed that "EUP males are much taller (176.2 cm) and LUP shorter (165.6 cm), with an average difference of 10.6 cm. Similarly EUP females (162.9 cm) largely exceed LUP females (153.5 cm)."

I think the jury is still out.

link to source


Note:

According to a study by Economist John Komlos and Francesco Cinnirella, in the first half of 18th century, the average height of English male was 165 cm (5 ft 5 in), the average height of Irish male was 168 cm (5 ft 6 in). The estimated mean height of English, German, and Scottish soldiers are 163.6 cm – 165.9 cm (5 ft 4.4 in – 5 ft 5.3 in) for the period as a whole, while that of Irish was 167.9 cm (5 ft 6.1 in). The average height of male slaves and convicts in North America was 171 cm (5 ft 7 in).[

Source

So , buy your logic, early 18th century man should be classified as "Middle-Modern Human" while today we (in the U.S. where the average height is around 175 cm) are "Late Modern human" eh?

Sure, they were more robust. They led a MUCH more robust lifestyle too.

Harte
edit on 1/12/2014 by Harte because: added link to source



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



So , buy your logic, early 18th century man should be classified as "Middle-Modern Human" while today we (in the U.S. where the average height is around 175 cm) are "Late Modern human" eh?


No....


But good try on reframing my argument into something that you can debate.

So little is known about the the early paleolithic culture, but dismissing them as homo sapiens minimizes what could be found if one is to study them more in depth.
The same manner in which the neanderthal has been studied.

They are so culturally different and much more highly evolved socially and in their skill set than later paleolithic homo sapiens that it screams for further review.

It would only make sense that their DNA is similar to ours.
The same can be said for nearly all hominids.
Like I said, the DNA is a set of possibilities.
That is all it shows you. What should be noticed are the actual manifestations of that DNA.

The build is much more robust.
It could be diet... but how did they acquire this food?
They were obviously quick and very crafty.
Their skills far exceed later paleolithic cultures. FAR exceed.

Focus on the cranium.

The larger brain case. The square eye sockets. The brow ridge. The elongate nose bone.

All unique to the Cro-Magnon.

This is why you will find very reputable scientists who are not so willing to make the jump of classification to homo sapiens.

edit on 12/1/2014 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Related ....

www.dailymail.co.uk...




top topics



 
82
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join