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: 6
82
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


The DNA results are not a set of possibilities. They're rather specific to the individuals/species/haplogroups involved. And the DNA of Cro-magnon is not similar to ours, it's the same as ours. By attempting to present DNA results as something less specific than it is you've shown that you don't remotely understand genetics or genetic studies and what they can and can't tell us. Behavioral modernity is not the same thing as anatomical/genetic modernity and shouldn't be confused with nor presented as such. Attempting to present Cro-magnon as a different species than us is about as willfully ignorant as if one attempted to present any person of a particular racial or ethnic group as being a different species of human than someone from a different group. In short, ignorance at its finest.

cormac




posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

cormac mac airt
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


The DNA results are not a set of possibilities. They're rather specific to the individuals/species/haplogroups involved. And the DNA of Cro-magnon is not similar to ours, it's the same as ours. By attempting to present DNA results as something less specific than it is you've shown that you don't remotely understand genetics or genetic studies and what they can and can't tell us. Behavioral modernity is not the same thing as anatomical/genetic modernity and shouldn't be confused with nor presented as such. Attempting to present Cro-magnon as a different species than us is about as willfully ignorant as if one attempted to present any person of a particular racial or ethnic group as being a different species of human than someone from a different group. In short, ignorance at its finest.

cormac


Where did I present them as a different species?

I simply do not think that enough evidence exists that they and homo sapiens are one in the same.
BIG TIME DIFFERENCE.

I am asking valid questions about physical features that are common with Cro-Magnon, but are NOT seen today.

Neanderthal had DNA that is 99.9% a perfect match to ours, but because they manifest different traits, they are a different classification.

You seem to want to attack me personally rather than stick to the facts.

This tells me that I must have hit a nerve.

Any time I post and people come out of the woodwork to disprove me, then I know that I am absolutely looking at something worthwhile.
This is not the first time it has happened.

So.... if you don't mind... keep the personal attacks to a minimum.

Or you can insinuate that I am a racist or that I am willfully ignorant.
Whatever suits you.
But personal attacks reek of desperation.

Chees.

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



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   

kyviecaldges
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.


Likewise, ascribing special status to them as a seperate variant of genus Homo could lead a researcher astray. I'm not sure what the frame of reference is when you say " the same manner in which Neanderthal was studied, could you elaborate please? Just to note, this doesn't mean I don't think more research isn't necessary.


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.


That in and of itself isn't indicative of what you seem to be implying. I can demonstrate several examples of 50,000 year old Neanderthal sites that show a lower level of sophistication than nearly all 100,000 year old sites. These same Neanderthals didn't progress technologically until they began sharing their sites with AMH. Likewise, different groups of AMH would also not be technologically uniform. That's not to say that this period of time wasn't full of innovation for humans, obviously it was the case. I could speculate for pages here on what allowed them to develop in this fashion such as increased organization leading to more recreational time which allowed them to create more art etc... But I won't derail this any more than I have.


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.


How did Neanderthal acquire food? H. Erectus? Both were even more robust than what used to be referred to as Cro Magnon. One distinction that I should add is that CroMagnon is essentially a point of reference for AMH who lived contemporaneously with Neanderthal. As for skill sets, see above. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in the fossil record for AMH, H Erectus and Neanderthal.


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.


I can see how it would look like that when just looking at a pretty narrow window of humanity. However when you zoom the camera out and take a more broad picture you will see a couple of patterns emerge.
One is that the increased cranial capacity is a direct correlation with robustness. This trait is also exhibited in Neanderthal an H Erectus. The more robust the specimens the larger the cranial capacity. The eye sockets and brow ridge are less pronounced than Neanderthal or Erectus yet more pronounced than H. Sapiens Spaiens. I fact if you trace modern humans chronologically back in time, the farther back you go the more robust the specimen on average. Would you agree that 10,000 years ago is close enough time wise to consider them H. Sapiens Sapiens? Because even 10,000 BPE humans were approx 10% more robust than we are and 30,000 BPE you're looking at about 20-30% more robust than modern Europeans or Asians. Ironically, aboriginal Australians have some morphological features such as dentition that are more in common with Archaic Homo Sapiens from 100,000 BPE



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.


I'm going to get a little cocky and bet you I can find 3 that will include them as Homo Sapiens to every 1 you find that wont!



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   


Where did I present them as a different species?

I simply do not think that enough evidence exists that they and homo sapiens are one in the same.
BIG TIME DIFFERENCE.

I am asking valid questions about physical features that are common with Cro-Magnon, but are NOT seen today.

Neanderthal had DNA that is 99.9% a perfect match to ours, but because they manifest different traits, they are a different classification.


Modern humans: Homo - Genus, Sapiens - Species, Sapiens (2) - Subspecies
Cro-Magnon: Homo - Genus, Sapiens - Species, Sapiens (2) - Subspecies

There is a difference. It's not a matter of what you think in this instance, as the evidence shows they are one and the same. Which leaves you with just one of many variations of the same species.

Physical features/behavioral evidence on their own do not determine their similarities/differences, particularly now when DNA studies can show those on a genetic level. Neanderthals don't just manifest different physical traits but also genetic differences from HSS, as do Denisovans. Cro-magnon doesn't. Which leaves you with a non-argument on the relationship between Cro-magnon, which again is pretty much a defunct term, and HSS.

cormac



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsup86
 


I did watch it, did you bother reading what I wrote?. The evidence presented in the video attributes a date of 220,000-250,000 BPE based on the diatoms.the diatoms in question are only found in the Sangamonion which has more recently been updated to be from 125,000-75,000 BPE therefore the diatoms could not be more than 125,000 years old. It's pretty basic math.
edit on 12-1-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 



I'm going to get a little cocky and bet you I can find 3 that will include them as Homo Sapiens to every 1 you find that wont!


The earth is the center of the universe.

The sun revolves around the earth.... etc...


Argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

link to source.

I was actually digging your argument until this last portion peter vlar, but then again, this is not the first time you and I have clashed.
I feel sure that you want to try to rub my nose in "I beat you", but you were doing much better until you got cocky.

Unfortunately, I have to go to work, but I will be back on to reply to the rest of your comment.

Cheers mate.

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



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Relax, it was merely an attempt at tongue in cheek humor, apparently I failed lol. I was actually enjoying the civil dialogue between us for once myself.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   

kyviecaldges
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.

Many more Neanderthal specimens have been found, however, which means broad statements about their morphology (averages, IOW,) can be considerably more accurate.
I'm aware that average cranial capacity for Cro-mags was slightly larger than that of average humans today, but there is a problem comparing the two. There are millions more measurements available for today's humans, and cro magnon specimens, by the nature of the (former) classification, represent just one group, whereas today's measurements run the gamut of the entire diversity of today's humans.

That being said, the "average" (of, what, a hundred or less individuals?) for Cro Magnon is around 1600 cc. The average for humans today is around 1350 cc. But today, humans range anywhere from 900 to 1800 cc, depending on the culture, mainly.

IOW, not much can be definitively stated regarding this particular difference.

Harte



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


This reminds of a time in recent history when the Catholic Church did all that it could to silence new theories - theories that brought their well-established beliefs into question. Is this simply history repeating, or could it beg questions pertaining to deeper truths that certain groups wish to keep in the dark?



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 



Even if we accept this new dating, that still shows a 115,000 BPE earlier date for modern man than the previously thought of date of around 10,000 BPE!



edit on 13-1-2014 by smartie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by smartie
 


I agree and stated as much earlier. Though 10,000 BPE isn't a date that's been used since the 50's. there are several sites that are clearly pre Clovis at around 18-20,000 BPE nut either way 75,000-125,000 is an impressive date if it holds true.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Slayer thank you for an enjoyable thread ,and the two /three peps who agreed to disagree ,they added just the right amount of *seasoning*to a great thread
Slayer I doff my hat to you sir
Beecher



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Adramelech
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


This reminds of a time in recent history when the Catholic Church did all that it could to silence new theories - theories that brought their well-established beliefs into question.


Really? Got an example?

Harte



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Slayer69 – again, thanks for an entertaining thread.
(BTW – I have loved all the scholarly chest thumping
)

So – in the Trilemma, it appears that the only substantial challenge had/has to do with the “inclusion” or “unconformity” found in (at least) one of the sample “slices” from Bed I.

Dr. Waters concluded without further ado that said conformity threw any reason for additional consideration out with the bathwater.
When pressed for further explanation, he added that an ancient river must, at one time, have coursed through this particular locale, carving away one stratum after another…until intersecting Bed I (at least), leaving some of the Bed I-aged artifacts and materials intermixed with artifacts and materials of younger ages/strata.

According to the MIT geologist and the Diatomic expert (lost my notes), diatomic evidence on both sides of the subject “inclusion” were comprised of Bed I-aged diatoms, and did not support Dr. Waters’ stance, by virtue of a lack of more recent appearing diatoms.
‘Waters could not comment on this, admitting that he had not looked at the diatomic data thoroughly enough.

One other piece I thought relevant to this part of the discussion was the chronological record through the strata. They said that they tested it from top to bottom, and found no inconsistencies.

So – while it is possible that Dr. Waters is correct – it seems that the evidentiary-odds are in favor of the proponents of the “more ancient age” view.

If anyone wants to chime in on inclusions, unconformities, diatoms, “high energy” river flow, “low energy” lake bed, “land of the giants”, or other such aspects in this story, I am all eyes & ears.

Thanks again for the education!

(sorry – took ill at/around the time I first commented in this thread…and am starting to revive)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Yes. Here:

law2.umkc.edu...



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Adramelech
 


480 years is recent?



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 



Compared to the 200,000 years being discussed in this forum? Yes, I will define 480 years as so recent that it was just the other day.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Adramelech
 


But 200,000 years wasn't your point of reference. It was recent history and the Catholic Church, which has only existed a little under 1700 years. Not to harp on semantics but the frame of reference is important dont you think? More so,the oldest possible date for Hueyatlaca is 125,000 years and as young as 75000 years. Both of which are still amazing dates if it can be cerified with additional digs or a new site but still less than half of the more contentious dating proposed in the 60's and 70's. the imitations are the
different dates are actually quite important as it helps determine which humans were here. 200-250,000 yrs comets rules out AMH or HSS leaving H. Erectus the most likely candidate with Denisova or Neanderthal to a lesser extent. Back to your original point,
Church suppression certainly happened
Under a couple if specific pontiffs but more recently that has changed. The current pontiff supports evolution. Even Pious XII begrudgingly admitted that evolution was a valid hypothesis. The Vatican Observatory agrees with the Big Bang. Times are a changin'



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
"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". Harte

In the above statement you say "likely", meaning you do not know.
Maybe she published because her boss would not publish the real dates.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by nfflhome
 


It doesn't matter why Cynthia Irwin-Williams had not yet published data, Steen-McIntyre was not in charge of the dig and hadn't even been on site for the first 5 years. She published because she was angry that the delays had forced her to switch dissertation topics as she had hoped to publish the data as part of her doctoral dissertation originally. It was this act alone that led to Steen-McIntyre's faltering career whereas when Irwin-Williams published her own work later it had no affect on her career at all. It's a simple case of don't bite the and that feeds you.



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join