"Walking with Cavemen"

[UnrepentantSinner]

There was an article about five years back about a find in England with bodies of more ancient people. I remember it because the dude was called CheddarMan and me and my daughter would play knock knock jokes- Who's there? Chedderman! Ok we are weird. Anyhow, they did a DNA test and it seems that a local school teacher was related to him. Hundreds of years later the descendants were only a couple of miles from where he was buried. That was the cool thing that stuck in my mind.

The Cheddar Man DNA connection to his great great etc. grandson was indeed fascinating. I have, somewhere, the Dallas Morning News article discussing it. As I recollect, Chedder Man was dated to about 9000 years. Interesting that little movement of his gene pool occured in all that time as it's occured so much and so far with so many other genetic lines.

And that's before British Airways...

 

[CurtC]

KOA, in case you're really asking questions hoping to learn, here is a page at the Smithsonian site which outlines our current understanding of the tree. You seem to be implying that we came directly from Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy) directly, without descending from any of the hominid fossils we've found. I've never heard that before - where'd you come up with it? We came from Homo Ergaster, which came from either Homo Habilis or Homo Rudolfensis (we're not sure yet).

They're still working out the details, but the Smithsonian page seems to agree completely with what I recall from the Walking show.

 

[King of the Americas]

c0rbin:

Who begat who:

Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens

I couldn't quite tell givent he diagram provided.

*Taken from the site you provided:

"Neanderthals arrived in the region after modern Homo sapiens. This would indicate that the population of modern humans in this area was not descended form Neanderthals, and that there was some period of coexistence, or an alternating series of migrations into this region by the two species."

So where or better yet whom did these Homo Sapians come from?

I am NOT saying that 'we' came directly from "Lucy", but maybe her 'great to the 20 power' grandchildren.

My point is that we didn't come from Neaderthals, as your site suggests. ANY species before that would create quite a large 'gap' in the transitional fossils.

What caused the hyper evolution of Homo Sapian?

Can you clarify the position of which line beget which line in the site you provided, please?

*Edited to ADD*

Also from your site:

"The origin of modern Homo sapiens is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed. According to the first, the distribution of anatomical traits in modern human populations in different regions was inherited from local populations of Homo erectus and intermediate "archaic" forms. This "Multiregional Hypothesis" states that all modern humans evolved in parallel from earlier populations in Africa, Europe and Asia, with some genetic intermixing among these regions. Support for this comes from the similarity of certain minor anatomical structures in modern human populations and preceding populations of Homo erectus in the same regions.

A different model proposes that a small, relatively isolated population of early humans evolved into modern Homo sapiens, and that this population succeeded in spreading across Africa, Europe, and Asia -- displacing and eventually replacing all other early human populations as they spread. In this scenario the variation among modern populations is a recent phenomenon. Part of the evidence to support this theory comes from molecular biology, especially studies of the diversity and mutation rate of nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA in living human cells.From these studies an approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations can be calculated. This research has typically yielded dates around 200,000 years ago, too young for the "Multiregional Hypothesis." Molecular methods have also tended to point to an African origin for all modern humans, implying that the ancestral population of all living people migrated from Africa to other parts of the world -- thus the name of this interpretation: the "Out of Africa Hypothesis."

Whichever model (if either) is correct, the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago. "

 

[jj]

KOA, your repetition of your incorrect assertions about the fossil record, after you have been corrected over and over, becomes less discussion and more a lie.

If you want to behave like that, expect scorn. Btw, the earth is not flat, it is not the center of the universe, and the Church was wrong to imprison Galileo, too.

 

[King of the Americas]

Pardon ME, jj:

But, this was taken from the evolution site provided:

"The origin of modern Homo sapiens is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed..."

THE SCIENTISTS don't know where or whom we came from!

BOTH of the 'scenerios' are S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-V-E, and ignore completely history record.

Please, tell me from which of these species we evloved 'directly' from:

Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis

You don't get to just line them all up in order and say we came from Neaderthals, because they look the most like us, and they came the latest. BECAUSE 'we' didn't come from them!!!'

So whom DID we come from?

 

[jj]

Re: Pardon ME, jj:

But, this was taken from the evolution site provided:

"The origin of modern Homo sapiens is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed..."

Quoting information out of context gets old the first time you do it.

Now, unless you have some EVIDENCE to overwhelm the obvious, plain-to-the-casual-investigator evidence that can be found in any decent book, at any decent natural history museum, or even laying on the ground in some places, evidence that shows pretty much incontrovertably that mankind did arise from a more primitive hominid, the existance of which is not really in doubt, and which also was the genetic precursor of other primate species presently in existance, admit your inability argue.

Of course, you're ignoring the basic idea of how it happened, as well, in order to provide some piddling-weak foundation for your mountain of ignorance, too, but you knew that already.

Can you do it? Can you admit that you're completely, totally, and fundamentally wrong?

 

[CurtC]

KOA wrote:
My point is that we didn't come from Neaderthals, as your site suggests.

The site I cited certainly does *not* suggest that we came from Neanderthals. I challenge you to find any modern reference which makes this assertion.

As I said in my previous post, "We came from Homo Ergaster, which came from either Homo Habilis or Homo Rudolfensis (we're not sure yet)."

You say "THE SCIENTISTS don't know where or whom we came from!" But what the SciAm text is talking about is that there are certain details that are still being debated. The big picture was resolved long ago. And in the particular question about the "Multiregional" vs. the "Out of Africa" hypotheses, Out of Africa has been winning recently, with a recently published find from the Afar region possibly even settling the issue.

It seems you're being intentionally obtuse - are you serious that you couldn't read the simple diagram at the SciAm web site?

 

[Martin]

It seems you're being intentionally obtuse

What a surprise

 

[King of the Americas]

CurtC:

"We came from Homo Ergaster, which came from either Homo Habilis or Homo Rudolfensis (we're not sure yet)."

Okay, but didn't a same seperate line of his ancestor grow into Neaderthal...?

AND didn't it take a bit of 'transition' to get there?

Homo Sapian is FAR more 'evolved' than Neaderthal was, and yet there are NO transitional fossils between us and this common ancestor, thus the 'gap' I am pointing to.

---

I believe there is ample evidence to believe that we are being observed, studied, and even manupilated by a group of super scientists. Moreover, that our giant leap forward in stature and ability is a direct result of this interaction with terresterial primative people and a heavenly visitor.

This is what our written historical record suggest, and what the evidence supports.

'Some' men were set apart from the natural world, and made 'better'.

I am not denying that evolution played a part in our creation, but at some point, 'we' shot up the ladder, while our cousins lagged behind.

---

To jj:

Yes, I CAN admit I am wrong, and I am not beyond doing so right now. But I won't do so because of a fancy speculative theory without complete evidence.

Are YOU willing to accept historical texts as containing ANY accurate data?

 

[CurtC]

KOA wrote:
Okay, but didn't a same seperate line of his ancestor grow into Neaderthal...?
AND didn't it take a bit of 'transition' to get there?

Yes and yes. Your point being? The fossil record indicates that Homo Ergaster was separated by an ice age, the ones stuck in cold Europe evolved into Neanderthals, the ones in Africa became Sapiens. Sure there would be intermediate forms - we just haven't found the fossils (yet). And when we find those intermediates, there will be gaps between them and the ones we had found previously, but the gaps keep getting shorter. If you want to define your god by these gaps, then be prepared for it to be more and more marginalized in the future.

Are YOU willing to accept historical texts as containing ANY accurate data?

Sure, I'll consider contemporaneous writings as evidence. You show me writings from 100,000 years ago and I'll look at them. On the other hand, I don't consider 4,000 year old writings as any kind of evidence for things that happened 100,000 years ago. Would you? If so, why?

 

[Gutierrezs Ghost]

A different model proposes that a small, relatively isolated population of early humans evolved into modern Homo sapiens, and that this population succeeded in spreading across Africa, Europe, and Asia -- displacing and eventually replacing all other early human populations as they spread. In this scenario the variation among modern populations is a recent phenomenon. Part of the evidence to support this theory comes from molecular biology, especially studies of the diversity and mutation rate of nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA in living human cells.From these studies an approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations can be calculated. This research has typically yielded dates around 200,000 years ago, too young for the "Multiregional Hypothesis." Molecular methods have also tended to point to an African origin for all modern humans, implying that the ancestral population of all living people migrated from Africa to other parts of the world -- thus the name of this interpretation: the "Out of Africa Hypothesis."

For a god explaination of this theory, and the story of Cheddarman, read The Seven Daughters of Eve , it's written by the guy who did the Mitochodrial DNA analysis of the teacher.

Interesting note, the teacher had one mutation on the mDNA region, but there were two school kids that were exact matches. He didn't want to use them in his paper because of the media frenzy.

 

[King of the Americas]

To CurtC:

Okay, so a Homo 'something' evolved and populated much of Africa, Europe, Asia, then was 'seperated' by the Ice Age.

One became Neaderthal with several transitional forms which we have several examples of. The OTHER stays in Africa, and...

...surpassed the Neaderthal's status by drastic measures, and yet we have NO transitional fossils what so ever...?

Look I can easily see how Habalis and Erectus are rather closely related, but when I compare Neaderthals to Homo Sapians...there is a big difference there... Now given that we didn't even come from these entites, and that we came from something no less than 2 stages before this incarnation. So, the 'gap' isn't a small one at all. AND this is the only one even remotely this size. All of the rest of the evolutionary path, as far as the Homo species DOES have transitional fossils, and it is easy to see one, evolve into the other.

However, when you look at Homo Sapian...he seemingly comes from 'out of the sky'.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Re: To CurtC:

Okay, so a Homo 'something' evolved and populated much of Africa, Europe, Asia, then was 'seperated' by the Ice Age.

One became Neaderthal with several transitional forms which we have several examples of. The OTHER stays in Africa, and...

...surpassed the Neaderthal's status by drastic measures, and yet we have NO transitional fossils what so ever...?

Look I can easily see how Habalis and Erectus are rather closely related, but when I compare Neaderthals to Homo Sapians...there is a big difference there... Now given that we didn't even come from these entites, and that we came from something no less than 2 stages before this incarnation. So, the 'gap' isn't a small one at all. AND this is the only one even remotely this size. All of the rest of the evolutionary path, as far as the Homo species DOES have transitional fossils, and it is easy to see one, evolve into the other.

However, when you look at Homo Sapian...he seemingly comes from 'out of the sky'.

SO, let me get this right:

You accept that Homo Neandertalis evolved from an African hominid during a given time span, because a couple of transitional fossils have been found.

But you reject that Homo Sapiens evolved from an African hominid during a slightly longer time span, because we have not happened to find a couple of transitional fossils?

THAT makes sense!

Well, I have some news for you: They recently discovered a couple of pre- Sapiens fossils in Africa.

And your assertion that Homo Sapiens and Homo Neandertalis are very different is wrong. Until the advent of DNA analysis, it was widely believed that the two simply merged, but now we are inclined to beleive that they could not interbreed. However, if you washed and shaved a Neandertal, put him in modern clothes, and taught him a few modern social manners, you would't look at him twice.

And intelligent they were too, their average brain size slightly larger than ours. One can only wonder why they didn't make it...

Hans

 

[c0rbin]

King of Americas, you said:

It took Neaderthal to previous incarnations before becomign LESS evolved than Homo Sapian.

What on earth do you mean by "LESS evolved"?

 

[hgc]

Re: To CurtC:

Look I can easily see how Habalis and Erectus are rather closely related, but when I compare Neaderthals to Homo Sapians...there is a big difference there... Now given that we didn't even come from these entites, and that we came from something no less than 2 stages before this incarnation. So, the 'gap' isn't a small one at all. AND this is the only one even remotely this size. All of the rest of the evolutionary path, as far as the Homo species DOES have transitional fossils, and it is easy to see one, evolve into the other.

However, when you look at Homo Sapian...he seemingly comes from 'out of the sky'.

KOA,

I would like to add that one of your mistakes is the use of language that quantifies these concepts without providing any justification.

For instance...

"... Habalis and Erectus are closely related ..."
"... Neanterthals and Homo Sapiens ... big difference ..."
"... no less than 2 stages ..." (based on 2 transitional fossils)
"... 'gap' isn't a small one ..."

The use of such terms should be justified by actual measurements of something or other, in some consistent context. Otherwise they don't make any sense, and are useless in bolstering your argument.

The "... no less than 2 stages ..." is particularly silly. There are as many stages in this evolution as there are generations in the family tree. Defining a number of stages based on the number of discovered fossils is very misdirected.

Nothing about the evidence indicates that Homo Sapiens "comes from 'out of the sky.'" But Genesis indicates this. Isn't that the actual source of your information?

 

[King of the Americas]

Pardon me, but...

...you are thinking of a movie. Brendan Fraisur (sp) was NOT a real Neaderthal.

You MIGHT be able to dress him in modern clothes and give him a big hat, so that he wouldn't stick out horribly in a crowd, but NO WAY someone wouldn't 'look twice' at a shaved Neanderthal in a cheap Stafford suit. His nose was like 3 times as big as the largest among us. And he had a brow ridge that could hold snow!

I say you are wrong in the ascertion that we aren't that 'far' from Neaderthals.

They may have had cranial capacity, but they still lacked the ability to get over the hill of technology, and truly begin to manupilate his environment.

Moreover, you are still not addressing the 'gap' I propose.

We came from a common ancestor OF the Neanderthal, NOT the Neaderthals themselves. And yet, our co-existance resulted in their quick extinction.

Where are all of these 'transitional species' that WE came from!?

We HAVE LOTS of examples of the Neaderthals linage, but a 'gap' of size, ability, intelligence, and technology that coincides with some of our ancient writings...

 

[hgc]

Re: Pardon me, but...

...you are thinking of a movie. Brendan Fraisur (sp) was NOT a real Neaderthal.

You MIGHT be able to dress him in modern clothes and give him a big hat, so that he wouldn't stick out horribly in a crowd, but NO WAY someone wouldn't 'look twice' at a shaved Neanderthal in a cheap Stafford suit. His nose was like 3 times as big as the largest among us. And he had a brow ridge that could hold snow!

I say you are wrong in the ascertion that we aren't that 'far' from Neaderthals.

They may have had cranial capacity, but they still lacked the ability to get over the hill of technology, and truly begin to manupilate his environment.

Moreover, you are still not addressing the 'gap' I propose.

We came from a common ancestor OF the Neanderthal, NOT the Neaderthals themselves. And yet, our co-existance resulted in their quick extinction.

Where are all of these 'transitional species' that WE came from!?

We HAVE LOTS of examples of the Neaderthals linage, but a 'gap' of size, ability, intelligence, and technology that coincides with some of our ancient writings...

The morphospace of relatedness of various species can be measured by a lot more than what you can see with your eyes. Things that make you look twice do not constitute a useful measure.

We don't know that they lacked the ability to get over the hill of technology. For all we know, changes in the environment made life untenable for Neanderthals for reasons other than their lack of technology.

But, I am especially intrigued by what our ancient writings have to say on the subject of Neanderthals. Please elaborate. With references.

 

[King of the Americas]

Looks aren't everything...

...indeed.

But Neaderthal operated more on 'neccessity', whereas Cro-magnon WAS intrigued by adornment, and pleasure painting the body and everything else that would hold color.

Neaderthal was not yet, what I'd refer to as human. There is no evidence of wonder or attempting to 'control' his environment. He lives where he can easily aquire food and shelter, occupying 'caves', with little or no attempting to even build shelter.

No, these were not modern men, nor did they LOOK like modern men, and it wouldn't be difficult to seperate one fromthe other if you shave, showered, and dressed two men in the exact same suite, one being a Homo Sapian and the other being a Neanderthal.

AGAIN, you aren't addressing the gap I am point to.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

AGAIN, you aren't addressing the gap I am point to.

AGAIN, a gap in the fossil record is a gap in the fossil record, not in the actual line of descent. The fossil record was not something created for the convenience of paleontologists. It is not clear whether an apparent gap indicates a scarcity of intermediates or a lack of successful archeological finds -- we're still digging. Even if modern man was the result of a period of exceptionally rapid development, there are much better explanations than intervention by extraterrestrials -- it is exactly what is proposed by the punctuated equilibria model (which says nothing about ET).

As has been pointed out, even the discovery of intermediates would not eliminate 'gaps', because the argument could continue based on a lack of intermediates between the intermediates.

 

[c0rbin]

AGAIN, you aren't addressing the gap I am point to.

KOA, you aren't addressing the point hgc has made. Nor mine.

Why is that?