19
   

New species of hominid discovered

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2015 10:54 am
I read the NG piece, very interesting. I think the most amazing thing is the luck that had this find reported to someone who knew that the bones were worth looking at. They had been discovered before and left without a report. There are what, maybe a few hundred people on this planet who would know what they were looking at?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2015 09:21 pm
@farmerman,
That was 3 things, Farmer.
Very Happy
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2015 10:36 pm
This year's new, impoved homo (Naledi)...

How many times does an intelligent person need to see something before he figures it out.....

Quote:
"This years BIGGER, BOLDER hominid find is going to revolutionize everything we thought we knew about human evolution and ancestry!!!!!!!!!!! Whopee!!, rah rah science!!!!"


All such claims are BS. Humans are related to hominids only via similar design. Humans are not descended from hominids and never interbred with hominids.

Beyond some point in time at least, hominids were land predators. At least any of the hominids who anybody might claim humans were descended from; nobody has ever claimed that humans are descended from any of the little monkey-like hominids like "Lucy", that is, if "Lucy" actually ever was anything other than a monkey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cENm2rSBleI

In fact Neanderthal DNA turning out to be roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee has eliminated the Neanderthal as a plausible human ancestor altogether:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/…/…/neanderthal-mitochondrial-dna

and there are other reasons for rejecting the Neanderthal as a human ancestor as well:

http://www.cbsnews.com/ne…/neanderthals-not-human-ancestors/

Now, the normal way in which scientists, who ought to know better, try to deal with this is to claim that humans and the Neanderthal must be "cousins" with a "common ancestor" somewhere back around 500,000 years ago and that common ancestor is normally taken to be Heidelbergensis, a type of Homo Erectus. Apparently advanced degrees in paleontology don't require courses in basic logic these days; the problem is that "too genetically remote to be ancestral to" is a transitive relationship. Heidelbergensis was substantially more remote from us THAN the Neanderthal and would probably frighten a Neanderthal about as badly as a Neanderthal would frighten one of us.

Danny Vendramini's Neanderthal Reconstruction:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/…/aZKwgK1Q…/s1600/neanderthal-2.jpg

Homo Heidelbergensis:

http://australianmuseum.net.au/…/Imag…/9375/DSC_0009_big.jpg

That leaves exactly one hominid on the planet which anybody might want to try to claim humans evolved from, which would be the more gracile Skhul/Qafzeh (S/Q) hominids which figure in Danny Vendramini's theory ("Them and Us"). Vendramini claims that predation BY Neanderthals drove those more gracile hominids into a very fast Gould/Eldredge type of process of evolution into Cro Magnon man.

There is sufficient evidence to reject that claim even without going into questions of human aquatic adaptations; the claim does not explain the total lack of evidence for any sort of a run-up to Cro Magnon culture. James Shreve, in his big article "The Neanderthal Peace" in Discover Magazine 1996, notes:

http://discovermagazine.com/1995/sep/theneanderthalpe558

Quote:
"In Europe a new, efficient way of producing blades from a flint core appeared as part of the cultural explosion that coincided with the appearance of the Cro- Magnon people. Here in the Levant, however, the arrival of anatomically modern humans [Shreve's term for S/Q hominids] was marked by no fancy new tools, not to mention no painted caves, beaded necklaces, or other evidence of exploding Cro-Magnon couture. In this part of the world, how modern a hominid looked in its body said nothing about how modernly it behaved. "


The problem in the lack of a run-up to Cro-Magnon culture is that Cro Magnon man appeared on Earth like BANG, right now, with everything we know about his artwork, fancy tools and weaponry and what not intact from day one.

Danny Vendramini ("Them and Us") notes :

Quote:
“The speed of the Upper Palaeolithic revolution in the Levant was also breathtaking. Anthropologists Ofer Bar-Yosef and Bernard Vandermeersch:

“Between 40,000 and 45,000 years ago the material culture of western Eurasia changed more than it had during the previous million years. This efflorescence of technological and artistic creativity signifies the emergence of the first culture that observers today would recognize as distinctly human, marked as it was by unceasing invention and variety. During that brief period of 5,000 or so years, the stone tool kit, unchanged in its essential form for ages, suddenly began to differentiate wildly from century to century and from region to region. Why it happened and why it happened when it did constitute two of the greatest outstanding problems in paleoanthropology.”


Likewise Dwardu Cardona ("Flare Star"):

Quote:
"Where and how the Cro-Magnons first arose remains unknown. Their appearance, however, coincided with the most bitter phase of the ice age. There is, however, no doubt that they were more advanced, more sophisticated, than the Neanderthals with whom they shared the land. Living in larger and more organized groups than had earlier humans, Cro Magnon peoples spread out until they populated most of the world. Their tools, made of bone, stone, and even wood, were carved into harpoons, awls, and fish hooks. They were presumably able hunters although, as with the Neanderthals, they would also have foraged to gather edible plants, roots, and wild vegetables.

"The only problem here is that, as far as can be told, the Cro Magnons seem to have arrived on the scene without leaving a single trace of their evolutionary ancestors. (emphasis ours) 'When the first Cro Magnons arrived in Europe some 40,000 years ago', Ian Tattersall observed,

Quote:
'they evidently brought with them more or less the entire panoply of behaviors that distinguishes modern humans from every other species that has ever existed.'
"


The Cro Magnon artwork which we observe in caves including Chauvet and Lascaux in particular is exquisite and would require some very long period of development. A group of hominids supposedly morphing into some sort of a creature more capable of resisting attack from Neanderthals would not develop artwork like that in any sort of a hurry:

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/chauvet/1999/jrhorses.jpg

And then you get into questions of aquatic adaptation...

Hominids, or at least the more recent and interesting ones, were land predators, with everything a land predator needs: fur, dense bones and musculature, weaponry in the form of stout thrusting spears with napped points made of hard stone, excellent night vision (the huge hominid eye sockets), and an excellent sense of smell.

Humans show most if not all of the features you associate with aquatic mammals: legs being the major limbs (an adaptation for swimming and wading), voluntary control of breathing (an adaptation for swimming which monkeys and apes don't have), lack of a decent sense of smell which aquatic mammals don't really need, use of fat for insulation, aquatic mammal behavior patterns including face-to-face sex, and a number of other things.

For any hominid to have ever evolved into a human, that hominid would have to have lost everything he needed to live. He'd have to have lost:
1. his fur, while ice ages were going on
2. his night vision while trying to make it on land with 500+ lb predators walking around all over the place, which COULD see in the dark very nicely
3. his sense of smell

And that third/final item would have been instantly fatal.

The massive/overwhelming new NASA evidence pouring in of past habitation of Mars would alone stand as an overwhelming argument against human evolution from hominids on Earth. Any sort of a FaceBook search on 'mars images' will turn up more of that sort of thing than you could peruse in a year. There appear to have been more than one body outside our own planet which was inhabited by humans in prehistoric times and it's highly likely that one such place would have been more suitable to humans as a home world than Earth was.

An original human home world would have had to be bright (the relatively tiny human eyes), wet (the aquatic adaptations), and safe both from sea monsters and from cosmic radiation. The Neanderthal and other hominids were well adapted to this planet as it stood some 50,000 years ago; humans would not have been.

What we know about Cro magnon man is totally compatible with his having somehow or other arrived here from some other body. It is totally incompatib le with his having evolved from hominids.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2015 10:59 pm
@gungasnake,
Ill bet that " filling in" all the fossils that make up the story of human evolution scares the piss out of you doesnt it gunga?

How do your snake oil salesmen spin this one??

PS your links are either broken, dont exist, or dont even support what you are poorly trying to convey. Did you even look at the Smithsonian site?? It sure doesnt say what you want it to.

0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2015 11:05 pm
What do your Jesus Savers have to say about your ideas of human origins from Mars?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 01:11 am
@gungasnake,
Just when you thought Gunga Dim couldn't get any goofier . . .
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 05:53 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:

The massive/overwhelming new NASA evidence pouring in of past habitation of Mars


That someone may actually believe his host of bullshit is what bothers me. He is counting on people being stupid and gullible and thus they will buy any crap as long as he presents it on a web site.





FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 06:08 am
@farmerman,
I suspect that a certain set of people have received faulty dictionaries, wherein the definition of evidence is "whatever I can imagine."
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 06:42 am
with links fixed.....


This year's new, impoved homo (Naledi)...

How many times does an intelligent person need to see something before he figures it out.....

"This years BIGGER, BOLDER hominid find is going to revolutionize everything we thought we knew about human evolution and ancestry!!!!!!!!!!!"

All such claims are BS. Humans are related to hominids only via similar design. Humans are not descended from hominids and never interbred with hominids.

Beyond some point in time at least, hominids were land predators. At least any of the hominids who anybody might claim humans were descended from; nobody has ever claimed that humans are descended from any of the little monkey-like hominids like "Lucy", that is, if "Lucy" actually ever was anything other than a monkey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cENm2rSBleI

In fact Neanderthal DNA turning out to be roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee has eliminated the Neanderthal as a plausible human ancestor altogether:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/neanderthal-mitochondrial-dna

and there are other reasons for rejecting the Neanderthal as a human ancestor as well:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/neanderthals-not-human-ancestors/

Now, the normal way in which scientists, who ought to know better, try to deal with this is to claim that humans and the Neanderthal must be "cousins" with a "common ancestor" somewhere back around 500,000 years ago and that common ancestor is normally taken to be Heidelbergensis, a type of Homo Erectus. Apparently advanced degrees in paleontology don't require courses in basic logic these days; the problem is that "too genetically remote to be ancestral to" is a transitive relationship. Heidelbergensis was substantially more remote from us THAN the Neanderthal and would probably frighten a Neanderthal about as badly as a Neanderthal would frighten one of us.

Danny Vendramini's Neanderthal Reconstruction:

http://m5.paperblog.com/i/53/538522/danny-vendramini-neanderthal-profile-of-a-sup-L-TDjR4y.jpeg
Homo Heidelbergensis:

http://australianmuseum.net.au/uploads/images/9375/dsc_0009_big.jpg

That leaves exactly one hominid on the planet which anybody might want to try to claim humans evolved from, which would be the more gracile Skhul/Qafzeh (S/Q) hominids which figure in Danny Vendramini's theory ("Them and Us"). Vendramini claims that predation BY Neanderthals drove those more gracile hominids into a very fast Gould/Eldredge type of process of evolution into Cro Magnon man.

There is sufficient evidence to reject that claim even without going into questions of human aquatic adaptations; the claim does not explain the total lack of evidence for any sort of a run-up to Cro Magnon culture. James Shreve, in his big article "The Neanderthal Peace" in Discover Magazine 1996, notes:

http://discovermagazine.com/1995/sep/theneanderthalpe558

"In Europe a new, efficient way of producing blades from a flint core appeared as part of the cultural explosion that coincided with the appearance of the Cro- Magnon people. Here in the Levant, however, the arrival of anatomically modern humans [Shreve's term for S/Q hominids] was marked by no fancy new tools, not to mention no painted caves, beaded necklaces, or other evidence of exploding Cro-Magnon couture. In this part of the world, how modern a hominid looked in its body said nothing about how modernly it behaved. "

The problem in the lack of a run-up to Cro-Magnon culture is that Cro Magnon man appeared on Earth like BANG, right now, with everything we know about his artwork, fancy tools and weaponry and what not intact from day one.

One thing scholars all agree on is that whatever caused Cro Magnon people to appear on this planet when they did was not gradual. Vendramini ("Them and Us") notes :

Quote:
“The speed of the Upper Palaeolithic revolution in the Levant was also breathtaking. Anthropologists Ofer Bar-Yosef and Bernard Vandermeersch:

“Between 40,000 and 45,000 years ago the material culture of western Eurasia changed more than it had during the previous million years. This efflorescence of technological and artistic creativity signifies the emergence of the first culture that observers today would recognize as distinctly human, marked as it was by unceasing invention and variety. During that brief period of 5,000 or so years, the stone tool kit, unchanged in its essential form for ages, suddenly began to differentiate wildly from century to century and from region to region. Why it happened and why it happened when it did constitute two of the greatest outstanding problems in paleoanthropology.”


Likewise Dwardu Cardona ("Flare Star"):

Quote:
"Where and how the Cro-Magnons first arose remains unknown. Their appearance, however, coincided with the most bitter phase of the ice age. There is, however, no doubt that they were more advanced, more sophisticated, than the Neanderthals with whom they shared the land. Living in larger and more organized groups than had earlier humans, Cro Magnon peoples spread out until they populated most of the world. Their tools, made of bone, stone, and even wood, were carved into harpoons, awls, and fish hooks. They were presumably able hunters although, as with the Neanderthals, they would also have foraged to gather edible plants, roots, and wild vegetables.

"The only problem here is that, as far as can be told, the Cro Magnons seem to have arrived on the scene without leaving a single trace of their evolutionary ancestors. (emphasis ours) 'When the first Cro Magnons arrived in Europe some 40,000 years ago', Ian Tattersall observed,
Quote:
'they evidently brought with them more or less the entire panoply of behaviors that distinguishes modern humans from every other species that has ever existed.'"


The Cro Magnon artwork which we observe in caves including Chauvet and Lascaux in particular is exquisite and would require some very long period of development. A group of hominids supposedly morphing into some sort of a creature more capable of resisting attack from Neanderthals would not develop artwork like that in any sort of a hurry:

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/chauvet/1999/jrhorses.jpg

And then you get into questions of aquatic adaptation.

Hominids, or at least the more recent and interesting ones, were land predators, with everything a land predator needs: fur, dense bones and musculature, weaponry in the form of stout thrusting spears with napped points made of hard stone, excellent night vision (the huge hominid eye sockets), and an excellent sense of smell.

Humans show most if not all of the features you associate with aquatic mammals: legs being the major limbs (an adaptation for swimming and wading), voluntary control of breathing (an adaptation for swimming which monkeys and apes don't have), lack of a decent sense of smell which aquatic mammals don't really need, use of fat for insulation, aquatic mammal behavior patterns including face-to-face sex, and a number of other things.

For any hominid to have ever evolved into a human, that hominid would have to have lost everything he needed to live. He'd have to have lost:

  • his fur, while ice ages were going on
  • his night vision while trying to make it on land with 500+ lb predators walking around all over the place, which COULD see in the dark very nicely
  • his sense of smell


And that third/final item would have been instantly fatal.

The massive/overwhelming new NASA evidence pouring in of past habitation of Mars would alone stand as an overwhelming argument against human evolution from hominids on Earth. Any sort of a FaceBook search on 'mars images' will turn up more of that sort of thing than you could peruse in a year. There appear to have been more than one body outside our own planet which was inhabited by humans in prehistoric times and it's highly likely that one such place would have been more suitable to humans as a home world than Earth was.

An original human home world would have had to be bright (the relatively tiny human eyes), wet (the aquatic adaptations), and safe both from sea monsters and from cosmic radiation. The Neanderthal and other hominids were well adapted to this planet as it stood some 50,000 years ago; humans would not have been.

What we know about Cro magnon man is totally compatible with his having somehow or other arrived here from some other body in our own system. It is totally incompatible with his having evolved from hominids.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2015 06:30 am
@farmerman,
Yes, I agree. Being that someone is totally bereft of the benefit of any logic amazes me. How does a person survive without it?

Absence of any scientific evidence or proof, is just that - an absence. Nothing useful may be deduced. Sticking a (bad) guess in place of evidence serves no one or has any useful purpose.

Furthermore, the Missing Link (if there IS one) is just that... missing. If theoretically there is no missing link, and any explanation of the derivation of various species or possibly distant relatives is also missing...then it's MISSING. Until more is known, no conclusion can be put forth.
Briancrc
 
  4  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2015 04:09 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
" this is our theory today, it stands until we give you our next theory".


You have somewhat stated an assumption of science. Philosophic doubt is the attitude that any theory or finding is subject to change when new EVIDENCE conflicts with a previous understanding. The ideas change because what is important to the scientist is the truth.

PS. Scientists are people. They are fallible. We have peer review in science to help with evaluation of the information before it gets disseminated. If the information comes by way of a source that isn't peer-reviewed, then an important check and balance was skipped.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2015 05:11 am
@Briancrc,
I, for one, look forward to monumental changes in science. They're exciting and tend to bring good things. The germ theory of disease, for example, and the advent of antibiotics. Relativity theory was exciting enough, but imagine how those in the know felt when quantum mechanics was confirmed. I'd love for something of that magnitude to happen in my adult lifetime.

The discovery of new hominids like H. floresiensis and now H. naledi come as a very pleasant surprise to me. I look forward to more of it, regardless of how it impacts prevailing theories.
0 Replies
 
AugustineBrother
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 02:27 pm
@FBM,
That is a hominin in correct terminology. But I don't see how you go from the physical to the mental : He could talk, he had human family relationships, could think....It's all so rabidly conjectural.
You've seen the opposite occur in recent years, the Neanderthals are now thought of in ways that were vehemently denied not long ago.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 07:55 pm
@Ragman,
It seems many survive without any foundation in logic. Humans are easily influenced as children, and they perpetuate that ignorance when they become parents.

I found this on naledi: http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/150910-homo-naledi-discovery-vin
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2016 11:24 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
I suspect that when they finally sequence Homo erectus, they are going to find that they've already done so, and that Denisovan DNA is actually Homo erectus DNA.

Probably not. Homo Erectus travelled out of Africa well before a million years ago. Genetic evidence shows that Denisovans split off from the Neanderthal line. Since the Neanderthal line only diverged from the Homo Sapien line about 700 years ago, it would seem Erectus is not Denisovan.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2016 03:09 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Genetic evidence shows that Denisovans split off from the Neanderthal line.

What genetic evidence is this?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2016 04:23 am
@oralloy,
Im sure Blickers meant 700 000 or 700 K years (most sy 800K). Thats consistent with most genetic data but the way its derived is kinda skanky. It involves knowing the time of last common ancestry betwee chimps and neanders (or humans) . These departures ARE CALCULATED INDIVIDUALLY so there could be lots of "math errors" (just like the avtual DNA in old bones is usully less than 3% subject DNA and 97% of just post burial crap. I was seeing some actual DNA sequencing in action and was so damned amazed t how much actual error can be introduced by post burial events (like sequential loss of amine groups of specific nucleotides [G and C specifically] so those things MUST be accounted for.

Ed Green at Santa Cruz (U Cal) has several symposia that may be on line (I try
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2016 04:32 am
@farmerman,
specific to the question about when did they split off, I hadda find a quote from Susn Sawyer at Max Planck Institute. (Shes been doing much of the sequencing of these hominins.

Quote:
They (DENISOVANS) are thought to have been a sister species of the Neanderthals, who lived in western Asia and Europe at around the same time.
The two species appear to have separated from a common ancestor around 200,000 years ago, while they split from the modern human Homo sapien lineage around 600,000 years ago.



0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2016 04:50 am
Homonyms . . . i thought those were words that sound the same.
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2016 07:29 am
@farmerman,
Thanks, I did mean 700K years ago, not 700. That is the normal time given for the splitoff, but I have seen a million years and 400,000 years. I did not know why, until your post, the process of dating them had such a large margin of error.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/05/2020 at 03:56:42