Neandertal trait in early human skull suggests that modern humans...

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Inner ear formation is pretty much a long lasting evolutionary characteristic that lasts a few hundred thousand years. If not more.
We won't get the full picture until we obtain more intact DNA from well preserved specimens.

Best regards,

Kratos

The Bible says God created mankind in "our" image, then he took a break, then created Adam and Eve, so it's possible that God created both the Neanderthals, the Cro-Magnons and other hominids, and THEN modern man(Adam). My question is what did God mean when he said "our", and is there clear evidence that we are descendants of the Cro-Magnons?

Another thing is that according to the out-of-Africa theory, Europeans and Asians are less diverse genetically than Blacks, this makes no sense because if we evolved from Blacks, you would think we would be more diverse genetically. In fact, an amoeba's DNA is 90 more times complex than ours(although most of them are junk, it is as though, in an evolutionist's words, they didn't know how to clean-up or "de-fragmented" their data. You would think that it would start out as simple like A, G, T, C and become more complex over time, but nope, quite the opposite. At this point, you might as well just say that we are products of an Amateur Programmer, who basically learned how to be more efficient over time, i.e he just crammed a lot of data and memory into the amoeba initially.

It should be noted that our DNA is 60% similar to a banana, so basically, we are almost as similar to a banana as we are to a chimp, and then you have to answer questions like how did all the plants, animals evolve on their respective continents, out of random mutations(plants can't move and most animals don't leave their habitats, of course, this is assuming that the Pangea theory is true). If we assume that they all evolved independently, then where were all the amoebas? Were they everywhere on the Earth? Why are ants everywhere on the planet?

For now, I think we can safely conclude that if evolution is a fact, then it cannot be through random mutations, something is guiding them either externally or internally that "makes it look like" that the DNA of all living things looks similar, and evolved from one another.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Did the chimps do that naturally or did they learn it from watching humans?

a reply to: flyingfish

DNA evidence shows that every race and nationality originated from Iraq, possibly corresponding to all the tribes of Noah(if you trace the Chinese back to the state of Chu, now take away all the territories that Chu annexed, their true kingdom is probably as small as Germany, France or the UK. Basically, you can see that every tribe seems to be very equal in size initially). Now look at the map of the Dian Tribe, NanYue Kingdom, Minyue Tribe, Thai Tribe(and if you do the same for India, it's probably the same), and you can see it is remarkable that all of these tribes seem to have different languages, and all similar in sizes(if you see the name Empire or a large kingdom, then it's a collection of tribes formed by force).

The answer is clear, they could not have been one or a few large groups, but rather several small, but different groups that all must have started at one point in time, breeded very equally, and spreaded out very equally.

See this map? Notice the point F and K. I'm not sure what K is(is there a mass exodus in the Bible at the location of K?), but F is the location of the Towel of Babel. Now if you notice, there is a cut-off point from CR to A, this shows that we did not evolve from Blacks. In addition, it shows that the Chinese did not evolve independently, otherwise, you would see cutoff points and isolations like in Africa. You can see that Southern China came from K(keep in mind that they weren't Chinese originally, just got conquered), Northern China came from CR.

Just ignore all the dates because they found a few fossils, date them(probably not accurate, and even if they are, it would contradict with other theories) and just assume that modern people were descendants from those.

originally posted by: np6888
DNA evidence shows that every race and nationality originated from Iraq, possibly corresponding to all the tribes of Noah

Every race and nationality? I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's pretty well understood that homo sapiens and their ancestors started in Africa and spread out. Then more spread out thousands of years later. They bred together down the road. Then more migrated out, etc etc etc. Races didn't originate in Iraq, it was just the first known civilization. Races originated by leaving the African climate and settling other lands with varying environments over hundreds of thousands of years. Even in your picture, the oldest letter comes from southern Africa. Yes, the original homo sapien was black, I'm sorry if this bothers you, but it's a fact. The melonin in the skin helped prevent skin cancer in the harsh African climate along with a myriad of other factors that lead to slight evolutionary changes in homo sapiens all over the word. The ice ages and interbreeding also played a role.

Just ignore all the dates because they found a few fossils, date them

LOL. So it that evidence or not? You can't cherry pick it! Yeah, let's just conveniently ignore the part of the chart that goes against your biblical exodus and tower of babel idea, because we totally KNOW those events really happened. You do realize that the lines on the chart are completely based on fossils rather than genetics right? You can't trace a geographic location through genetics aside from looking for traits that are common with the fossils found in the area and even that isn't guaranteed as people migrate.

Did the chimps do that naturally or did they learn it from watching humans?

I dunno. Did humans who first hunted do that naturally or did they learn it from watching chimps? Humans duplicate nature all of the time. The point was that they are smart, and chimps are smart too.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: knoledgeispower

Did the chimps do that naturally or did they learn it from watching humans?

I don't know for sure. Senegal is a country located in West Africa so I'm not sure if humans are around the chimps much and if they are, if they are using spears to hunt.

I learned about these chimps from the mini series documentary BBC Planet Earth: Jungles. In the documentary it shows how a heard goes on a raid, they're referred to as a Chimp Militia, in hopes of getting more territory & fig trees. The chimps sneak up on another group and when they are ready they come running in, some picking up branches to use as spears. In the end, anyone not lucky enough to escape is eaten by the victorious chimps.

It's a great mini series, I haven't see the extended one yet.

originally posted by: np6888

See this map? Notice the point F and K. I'm not sure what K is(is there a mass exodus in the Bible at the location of K?), but F is the location of the Towel of Babel. Now if you notice, there is a cut-off point from CR to A, this shows that we did not evolve from Blacks. In addition, it shows that the Chinese did not evolve independently, otherwise, you would see cutoff points and isolations like in Africa. You can see that Southern China came from K(keep in mind that they weren't Chinese originally, just got conquered), Northern China came from CR.

Just ignore all the dates because they found a few fossils, date them(probably not accurate, and even if they are, it would contradict with other theories) and just assume that modern people were descendants from those.

Care to include the legend that goes with this so the rest of us can understand what is being shown on the map.

Humans originated in Africa and because of how much sun Africa gets, the people there are black in color.

Humans originated in Africa 150,000 years ago, moved out of Africa 70,000 years ago, and then had spread across Australia, Asia and Europe by 40,000 years BCE.

ancestors of the Austronesian peoples spread from the South Chinese mainland to Taiwan at some time around 8,000 years ago. Evidence from historical linguistics suggests that it is from this island that seafaring peoples migrated, perhaps in distinct waves separated by millennia, to the entire region encompassed by the Austronesian languages. It is believed that this migration began around 6,000 years ago.[6] Indo-Aryan migration from the Indus Valley to the plain of the River Ganges in Northern India is presumed to have taken place in the Middle to Late Bronze Age, contemporary to the Late Harappan phase in India (ca. 1700 to 1300 BC). From 180 BC, a series of invasions from Central Asia followed, including those led by the Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Indo-Parthians and Kushans in the northwestern Indian subcontinent

Pre-modern migrations

“They won't listen. Do you know why? Because they have certain fixed notions about the past. Any change would be blasphemy in their eyes, even if it were the truth. They don't want the truth; they want their traditions.”
― Isaac Asimov

a reply to: np6888
Hello,
I hope you don't mind me stepping in, I'll be honest and say I haven't read most of the thread since my previous posts, but I saw you had some questions and thought I might be able to help answer.
Some parts of the bible refer to God in plural. Some people have provided support for the hypothesis that this in fact shows that the bible was written using older mythology, that incorporated multiple deities. The religious often state that it refers to the trinity. I have not the experience or education to speak further on this topic, but I've seen those two thrown out there...
Now why would splinter groups be less diverse then the larger group they might diverge from? That should be self-evident, because smaller groups by definition are smaller and thus contain less genetic potential. Unless the splinter groups were larger than the original population, it makes sense that the more diverse population would be the original... But I don't even know if the African peoples are more genetically diverse or not, as I have no evidence on the matter.
As for the amoeba, please do not equate complexity with genetic diversity. The class of organisms from which modern Amoebas belong is one which is much older, and longer lived than humans. But don't get me wrong, humans stem back to the same origin of life, probably. So, why are Amoebas more complex genetically? Good question. Don't personally know. Could be that they are relatively easily to genetically influence via virus, or their anatomical simplicity makes it so viral genetic code is more easily incorporated into the population... Could be their methods of reproduction... I don't know, either, but if their is a cellular biologist around, I'd love a response.
As for bananas, well, we do have common ancestry with bananas. I will remind you that the genetic similarity can be used to show how closely related two groups are, and using this, 60% in no way is close to 98% similarity. Yes, we have a lot in common, as is expected. But we have MUCH more in common physiologically and genetically with chimpanzees than bananas. We have more in common with apes than bananas. We have more in common with squirrels than bananas... common ancestry is represented in genetic similarity in most cases.
Here's a nice paper from 1999, so it is dated, but hey... free source. It shows some evidence for the divergence times of certain groups.
www.kumarlab.net...
As for Pangaea, I don't know how you can deny plate tectonics. The multitude of ways this can be demonstrated as academic truth... The continents have changed several times throughout Earth's history, from the bumper car plate tectonics of the Archean (demonstrated by greenstone belts) to the fossil/rock similarity of modern New York and Morroco... (Look at phacopid trilobites found on each continent, the similarities of Eldgredgeops rana in Ohio to Phacops rana in Morocco... Then the divergence into unique species not found in the other in later geologic strata...) The shape of South America fits relatively well with the continental mass of Africa, and the rock types present in both are shown commonly in rift zones (ie, the mineral species are the same...) with ore deposits indicative of the same conditions (gold/precious metals)... Ophiolite sections/earthquakes show that rocks, commonly oceanic crusts, are subducted underneath other, lighter/less dense crusts... and then metamorphosed into blueschists... There is an abundance of observable evidence for plate tectonics/super-continents. And because the continents were shaped differently, with certain areas closer to others (New York + Morocco) we can the predict the divergence of plant species from plate tectonics and use plate tectonics to predict the divergence of those plant species, depending on what variables and other independent data you are using. Ants are arthropods, and arthropods date back at least as far as the Cambrian. Arthropoda predates land animals, predates land plants. Insects, for whatever reason, have dominated the continents. I can't find a specific free source on the matter, but yes. Insects are quite adaptive and have come to dominate the entirety of the Earth. (I apologize for not being able to find a more detailed source with academic credentials. : / Scientific magazines need to make money, too, I guess.)
Now, I'm a geology student, not a biology student, so take the geology as more accurate. I don't know everything there is to know about geology, but I have been educated to understand the basics, the way geologists speak, and how to find resources on geological matters and interpret them.
I make no claims as to the supernatural here, but if you want to claim intelligently guided evolution, I have no issues. But looking at the facts, the facts don't change.
cheers.

The theory of evolution is an ever evolving theory.

The 'out of Africa' theory has flaws and there is an 'out of the Middle East' theory that suggest an older lineage and is perhaps more viable.

Neanderthal genes are now believed to be partly responsible for white skin colouring and Neanderthal DNA isn't found in Sub Saharan African populations. There are reports that suggest early humans were pale then adapted to climate becoming darker skinned and those migrating into cooler climates becoming pale skinned again.

The Minoans once though as migrants from Africa are now known to be Caucasian and part of the ancestry of modern Europe.

There is also a proper scientific report, which seems to be hiding from search engines, that suggests all human were originally white, other research confirms this.

Despite another poster suggesting anything other than the 'out of Africa' theory as 'racist', it isn't, human evolution and migration is probably far more complex than simple theories and science is continually building the picture of the truth.

They probably shouldn't have put the 'OOA' theory out there in such a way, so far, finds contrary to that in the have obviously been upsetting to some and have mostly been denied.

Just like our history books being taught in schools partly works of fiction, we owe it to ourselves to know the truth instead of some game plan version of history.

www.newscientist.com...

In one new study of 1000 human genomes, Sriram Sankararaman and David Reich of Harvard Medical School and colleagues found that Neanderthal DNA is most common in regions of the genome with the greatest genetic variability, making them a prime target for natural selection. While Neanderthal DNA may make up only 1.6 to 1.8 per cent of the Eurasian genome, it punches above its weight in terms of biological impact, says Reich (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature12961).

Joshua Akey and Ben Vernot of the University of Washington in Seattle have analysed the Neanderthal DNA in a further 665 humans (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1245938). Both their study and the Harvard one found a hotspot of Neanderthal ancestry in genes relating to keratin, a fibrous protein found in our hair, skin and nails.

One of the genes, BNC2, is involved in skin pigmentation. That implies that Eurasians owe their paler skins partly to Neanderthals. Light skin is an advantage at higher latitudes because it is more efficient at generating vitamin D from sunlight, so Neanderthal DNA may have helped modern humans to adapt to life outside Africa.

If so, the adaptation took thousands of years to become universal. A third study published this week describes a DNA analysis of one person who lived in Stone Age Europe about 7000 years ago – 40,000 years after any Neanderthal interbreeding. His genes suggest his skin was dark (Nature, doi.org/q74). It may be that the Neanderthal keratin affected early Eurasians' hair instead, perhaps straightening it.

Scientists could be forced to re-write the history of the evolution of modern man after the discovery of 400,000-year-old human remains.

Until now, researchers believed that homo sapiens, the direct descendants of modern man, evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago and gradually migrated north, through the Middle East, to Europe and Asia.

Recently, discoveries of early human remains in China and Spain have cast doubt on the 'Out of Africa' theory, but no-one was certain.

The findings of Professor Avi Gopher and Dr Ran Barkai of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University, published last week in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, suggest that modern man did not originate in Africa as previously believed, but in the Middle East.

Archeologists from Tel Aviv University say eight human-like teeth found in the Qesem cave near Rosh Ha’Ayin - 10 miles from Israel’s international airport - are 400,000 years old, from the Middle Pleistocene Age, making them the earliest remains of homo sapiens yet discovered anywhere in the world.
The size and shape of the teeth are very similar to those of modern man. Until now, the earliest examples found were in Africa, dating back only 200,000 years.
Other scientists have argued that human beings originated in Africa before moving to other regions 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Cel

DNA analysis has debunked the longstanding theory that the Minoans, who some 5,000 years ago established Europe's first advanced Bronze Age culture, were from Africa.
The Minoan civilisation arose on the Mediterranean island of Crete in approximately the 27th century BC and flourished for 12 centuries until the 15th century BC.
But the culture was lost until British archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans unearthed its remains on Crete in 1900, where he found vestiges of a civilisation he believed was formed by refugees from northern Egypt.
Modern archaeologists have cast doubt on that version of events, and now DNA tests of Minoan remains suggests they were descended from ancient farmers who settled the islands thousands of years earlier.
These people, it is believed, are from the same stock that came from the East to populate the rest of Europe.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... 377MAwKGh

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Greaves, who studies the role that disease plays in human evolution, believes his study adds credence to the idea that when earlier hominids shed their shaggy hair about two million years ago, exposing their naked, pale skin to the sun on the sun-drenched savanna of Africa, natural selection favored those who had the darkest variations in skin color to protect against the ultraviolet radiation (UVR) that can cause skin cancer.

Much later, about 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, those who migrated to cold northern climates no longer needed that protection, and evolved back to pale skin. National Geographic talked with Greaves about his research.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
The theory of evolution is an ever evolving theory.

The 'out of Africa' theory has flaws and there is an 'out of the Middle East' theory that suggest an older lineage and is perhaps more viable.

The current theory is there are two "out of Africa" events. The first had hominids leaving Africa about 400,000 years ago. These hominids evolved into neanderthals.

Meanwhile, those that remained in Africa evolved into anatomically modern humans. These individuals may have left Africa as recently as 60,000 years ago. This theory is called the "recent Africa origin" model. And it's the one most widely held by current scientist.

Most agree the closest common ancestor of homo sapiens and neanderthals was Homo heidelbergensis.

This theory further emphasizes that if interbreeding occurred it was after anatomically modern humans had already evolved. Thus, its significance is limited.

And I think it's safe to continue to view claims of any understanding of the neanderthal genome with a grain of salt. It's still just a "first draft" and may go through many changes before we can look at it with real confidence. The difference between it and the draft version of the denisova genome may be less indicative of true genetic diversity, but rather a suggestion of errors in both.

double post

a reply to: Moresby

The point is, Homo Heidelbergensis was believed to have left Africa 400,000 years ago, yet the DNA found in Israel is 400, 000 years old and Homo Sapiens.

All of these hypotheses and it should be noted that these are all such, rather than factual, are based on the ages of archaeological finds and mathematics tells us that the stats will show that there are probably older finds as yet to be found.

There has been DNA found suggesting a common ancestor of Neanderthal and Denisovan more than 500,000 years ago.

genographic.nationalgeographic.com...

On one level, it’s not surprising that modern humans were able to interbreed with their close cousins. According to one theory, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans are all descended from the ancient human Homo heidelbergensis. Between 300,000 to 400,000 years ago, an ancestral group of H. heidelbergensis left Africa and then split shortly after. One branch ventured northwestward into West Asia and Europe and became the Neanderthals. The other branch moved east, becoming Denisovans. By 130,000 years ago H. heidelbergensis in Africa had become Homo sapiens. Our modern human ancestors did not begin their own exodus from Africa until about 60,000 years ago, when they expanded into Eurasia and encountered their ancient cousins.

They found evidence of Neanderthal and Denisovan viruses in the modern DNA, suggesting that they originated in a common ancestor more than half a million years ago.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

www.boston.com...

JERUSALEM—Israeli archaeologists said Monday they may have found the earliest evidence yet for the existence of modern man, and if so, it could upset theories of the origin of humans.

A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.

a reply to: np6888

Wait, Whut???


Where did you get this stuff? You have so many facts and dates wrong, are you making all this up yourself, is there some crap website full of it out there somewhere? Or are you simply letting religious myths overcome both common sense and firmly established knowledge to the point of complete abandonment?

Care to provide evidence for these claims? And remember before you post..Evidence Rules!

originally posted by: np6888
F is the location of the Towel of Babel.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Moresby

The point is, Homo Heidelbergensis was believed to have left Africa 400,000 years ago, yet the DNA found in Israel is 400, 000 years old and Homo Sapiens.

All these dates are give or take tens of thousands of years. Or more. So the finding above may not be as strange as it initially appears.

And DNA evidence is fascinating but it's not infallible.

a reply to: Moresby

It proves that the theory is an evolving theory though and throwing out supposedly 'complete theory' statements based on limited finds, is rather presumptuous and probably not the best way.

Yet, given the track record of ''this is how it is'' followed by ''erm actually this is how it is'' followed by ''actually make that this is how it is'' has been the way of mankind since forever it appears and each generation looks at the previous generations theories as ridiculous whilst having the audacity in presuming their own theories as infallible.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Moresby

It proves that the theory is an evolving theory though and throwing out supposedly 'complete theory' statements based on limited finds, is rather presumptuous and probably not the best way.

Yet, given the track record of ''this is how it is'' followed by ''erm actually this is how it is'' followed by ''actually make that this is how it is'' has been the way of mankind since forever it appears and each generation looks at the previous generations theories as ridiculous whilst having the audacity in presuming their own theories as infallible.

Of course. But there are areas of basic agreement which increase over time. And then they're arguing over smaller and smaller issues. And, yet people being people, such arguments are often the most vehement.

a reply to: Moresby

People have accepted all sorts of bizarre theories throughout history, though now humanity is evolved enough and there is sufficient information available to research theories.

Hence, the OOA theory IMO and in the opinion of many respected scientists is dubious and highly questionable. I prefer the truth in my science theories and facts so I refute OOA as a theory.

As has been shown, based on the OOA equation, OOME would now be the new OOA, and if another older h. Sapiens find with corresponding DNA then that would be the new OOA, so effectively OOA should be renamed OOME or OOTBC.

The truth is that humans are a very curious species and want the answers to everything. Many species of hominid have come and gone to Africa. Homo Erectus was one of the first species to leave Africa and become near global around a million years ago. They migrated all across Europe and Asia. Neanderthals, Denisovans, and plenty of others have done the same. I think the reason why we have so many combos of DNA and features is due to this constant cycle of migration and interbreeding. If you trace it all back it does eventually lead to a common ancestor. It's hard to say with absolute certainty where the very first "people" were, but based on where the fossils were found and the dating, the oldest fossils are from Africa. We may not have the full picture, but I see it as constant migration, almost like waves of people coming out of Africa and settling in Europe. I do not honestly believe that it was one or 2 big migrations. It was a constant thing. I'm sure people migrated TO Africa as well, I could see this during some of the recent glacial periods. Many folks are bothered by OOA, but I don't get that. I'd rather keep learning as new fossils and species are found. There's 20+ hominids and counting. I find that fascinating.