EvanF

Yes I can point them out if you want me to. Literally every feature in the first three is different from Cro magnon. The brow ridge on the first three is almost identical, not changing much over the course of 3 million years. The first three have similar projecting mouths, Australopithecus being the most extreme due to being the most closely related to apes. The first three have an almost identical receding chin (the chin angles backwards.) The first three have similar jaw bones, the 'ramus' of the jaw being a bit more robust than in modern human jaws. The first three have very large teeth (while modern humans have finer teeth.) The first three all have very large/long faces, while Cro magnon has a short face. The organization of the brain on the first three is different than on Cro magnon...Cro magnon's frontal lobes are located on top of his face and don't recede like in Homo Erectus or Neanderthal. The first three have very forward facing eyes, as their eye sockets do not spread across the face, while Cro magnon has very broad eyes that spread to the side of his face, which would have given him better peripheral vision than other primates. Australopithecus is similar looking to Homo erectus, in fact Australopithecus to Homo Erectus is one of the best examples of hominid evolution. And comparing just the two skulls of Homo Erectus and the Neanderthal, they are very similar looking. They almost look like the same species.

I think you're misunderstanding. The skulls in the picture simply demonstrate the similar archaic features that early hominids had for over 4 million years that rapidly disappeared with the emergence of early modern humans. It is a visual representation of the rapid genetic change that is evident when studying human DNA, (as I posted about above.) The picture is obviously not demonstrating every literal step in theoretical evolution, however it is a macro timeline... Starting with Australopithecus 4 million years ago to Homo erectus around 2 million years ago, then neanderthals (and archaic homo sapiens) around 500,000-150,000 years ago. Then in the course of what seems to be almost instantly in terms of evolution time, you have the appearance of anatomically modern humans (Cro magnons) around 50,000 years ago. It's not a matter of coming to a conclusion, it's simply a matter of observation. It's quite easy to see the similarities in the first 3, then the deviation of features in Cro magnon. I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that I was "ignoring reality" by simply posting archeological evidence of hominid skulls...

Here's a quick picture to demonstrate what I'm talking about (some of my pictures have not been working, but hopefully this one doesn't get erased)...From left to right it is, Australopithecus. Homo Erectus. Neanderthal. Cro Magnon The first 3 have striking similarities in their features...but if you notice, the Cro magnon/modern human represents an anatomical deviation that is quite significant.

I don't think the dispute is necessarily about what constitutes an 'archaic feature'...The dispute among scientists is more along the lines of, at what point can a homo sapien with archaic features basically be considered a "modern human." From what I understand, I don't think that the original anthropologists who discovered Idaltu actually considered it to be a true anatomically modern human, that's why they dubbed it a sub species instead of 'Homo sapiens sapiens.' I think rather it is theorized to be a close ancestor of modern humans. 'Archaic feature' is simply a term used by anthropologists and scientists to describe features that very old hominids (like homo erectus, neanderthals, etc,) had that are essentially gone in anatomically modern humans. It wasn't until Modern Humans came along that there was, for what ever reason, a certain 'deviation' in evolution and we lost these 'chimp-like' features, and that's what makes us distinct from other primates. Theoretically speaking, there was no real evolutionary reason for us to become less 'primate-like.' We should have never really evolved anatomically past archaic homo sapiens .... But then you have the rapid emergence of modern humans (Cro magnons) that was manifested through the disappearance of archaic features + a boost in brain capacity and cognitive ability...(Archaic homo sapien cranial capacity at around 1200cc compared to 1600cc+ for Cro magnon...) Something interesting to consider is that over the course of the last 2 million years, there was only a small amount of anatomic change between Homo erectus and archaic homo sapiens, IE the skulls are quite similar looking and they had a similar cranial capacity, (homo Erectus had around 1000-1100cc capacity and archaic homo sapiens usually around 1200cc.)

Which early humans have archaic features is not some wild speculation based on a single scientist's opinion... it's simply basic hominid study and classification. I gave you the most relevant scientist's assessment of Idaltu, literally the very person who discovered the skull. I could go around and get opinions from every scientist who didn't even discover it and would only be repeating information, but that would be irrelevant and unnecessary...it's like getting multiple opinions on whether the earth is round. I may not have presented all of this information initially in a manner that you deem 'acceptable' but I've already linked to and referred to most of this information.

What features are "archaic" have nothing to do with MY definition, but the definition of scientists who openly say Homo Sapiens Idaltu has archaic features. http://eol.org/pages/8824323/details "These fossils differ from those of chronologically later forms of early H. sapiens such as Cro-Magnon found in Europe and other parts of the world in that their morphology has many archaic features not typical of H. sapiens" 'An exact description was made, by its discoverers, of Homo sapiens idaltu:' "On the limited available evidence, (it is) a subspecies of Homo sapiens distinguished from Holocene anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) by greater craniofacial robusticity, greater anterior–posterior cranial length, and large glenoid-to-occlusal plane distance." These features aren't subjective...Otherwise we would consider neanderthals or other archaic humans to be Homo sapiens sapiens. I respect your opinion that it's all subjective, but you are going against mainstream science and scientific classification to a greater extent than I am with that opinion. There is little to no evidence that contradicts my assertion...at least, I have not been provided with any. Modern cognitive ability is also referred to as Behavioral modernity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity "Most scholars agree that modern human behavior can be characterized by abstract thinking, planning depth, symbolic behavior (e.g. art, ornamentation, music), exploitation of large game, and blade technology, among others." There are two theories on modern cognitive ability, one is that it arose gradually, the other is that it arose abruptly. The latter theory has much more evidence to support it. The archaeological evidence shows modern human cognitive ability arose around 50,000 years ago being expressed roughly through the Aurignacian culture of the Upper Paleolithic (advanced tools, artwork, evidence of religion/complex thinking etc.) Apart from the archeological evidence, my theory that modern humans appeared very rapidly around 50,000 years ago is also based on DNA evidence. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution_2.html http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753 (http://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/are-humans-evolving-faster/) From Henry Harpending, a geneticist and anthropologist from the University of Utah. "“We used a new genomic technology to show that humans are evolving rapidly, and that the pace of change has accelerated a lot in the last 40,000 years. 'Harpending and colleagues used a computer to scan the data for chromosome segments that had identical SNP patterns and thus had not broken and recombined, meaning they evolved recently. They also calculated how recently the genes evolved.' A key finding: 7 percent of human genes are undergoing rapid, recent evolution. The researchers built a case that human evolution has accelerated by comparing genetic data with what the data should look like if human evolution had been constant: The study found much more genetic diversity in the SNPs than would be expected if human evolution had remained constant. If the rate at which new genes evolve in Africans was extrapolated back to 6 million years ago when humans and chimpanzees diverged, the genetic difference between modern chimps and humans would be 160 times greater than it really is. So the evolution rate of Africans represents a recent speedup in evolution. If evolution had been fast and constant for a long time, there should be many recently evolved genes that have spread to everyone. Yet, the study revealed many genes still becoming more frequent in the population, indicating a recent evolutionary speedup.

Just to clarify...What points of evidence are any of you looking for that I haven't already addressed? -I have discussed and shown the specific features differing between archaic humans and anatomically modern humans. -I have given evidence of modern human cognitive ability coinciding solely with Cro magnons around 50,000 years ago. -I have addressed the lack of evidence suggesting archaic humans (like neanderthals) had modern human cognitive abilities.

Fungal infection was the first thing that I was thinking...However it's somewhat unlikely that a fungal infection would pit out a skull in such a symmetrical manner. Cro magnons were the first humans in the archeological record to reach 'behavioral modernity', which means they had cognitive abilities and complex culture of a modern human. It certainly could be some kind of death ritual, as it's theorized by archeological evidence that Cro magnons had a type of 'religion.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion

I realize I came off a little bit over confident with my claim, and I purposefully wanted to be somewhat edgy with my initial post to get more views But I still think my theory/this thread isn't to the point of being pure speculation.

That's exactly what I mean though...it looks like it was done by some kind of device like that, which of course seems very unlikely they had some kind of metal drilling device 30,000+ years ago... It doesn't seem like it would be possible to do that with stone tools, but I could be wrong.

Well, I appreciate the discussion. But I mistook this forum for a place where I could openly discuss and ask new scientific questions without people becoming emotional and moving my entire thread to the trash section no less. Does anyone know where I can talk to a scientist about this? I have real questions I need to ask, but I understand that not everyone studies hominids and that not everyone is super knowledgeable specifically on Cro magnons and Homo sapiens Idaltu.

I've figured out that these are all Cro magnon 1 copy skulls. We have only found 1 well preserved Cro magnon skull...(that is something I simply did not expect.) However that leaves the question what exactly caused this circular indention on the skull? It is very likely not an injury, as even if someone took a perfectly round stone against someone's skull it would leave cracks, not a smooth symmetrical indention... Anyways, my more interesting thread about Cro magnons being the first true modern humans with 1,000+views in a few days, was moved to the "speculations" thread.

There is a person that has been around for a while known as the 'The Dutch Ice man'. Here is a documentary on him, (there are several.) His name is Wim Hoff, and he is known for being able to submerge himself in dangerously super cold temperatures for a long time, and through breathing exercises/meditation he has scientifically proven in lab experiments that he is able to resist infections/sickness and boost his adrenaline to very high levels AT WILL. He's not the only one that can do it though because he did the same experiments with his students. Of course the traditional understanding of the autonomic nervous system is that it is an unconscious system, but apparently that's not entirely true... This is an interesting documentary that is worth watching. This seems to me to have a lot of scientific implications and could change the way we understand human physiology.

There was no reason to move this thread. This had over a thousand views with an on going discussion... I have been giving support for my argument. There are many more threads on the Biology section that are much more "speculative" than this one. At least move it to the 'evolution' section of the Biology forum. *I mean seriously, you move a thread discussing evolution and the origins of modern humans to the "speculations" section, but you keep a thread in the biology section for years titled "Do animals have wet dreams?"...

I understand everything about what Pavel is saying. I'm simply saying that the classification of pluto is not exactly the best comparison to the evolutionary stages of a complex life form such as a human being. I respect your opinion that there is no scientific insight to be gained by studying when exactly anatomically modern humans/modern cognitive ability started to appear on the planet, or that we shouldn't even bother grouping modern humans apart from archaic humans... But I'd have to disagree. It's not necessarily about how we group them, that's simply secondary. It's about figuring out exactly how and when modern human cognitive ability first appeared. Modern human intelligence has given us the ability to pioneer advanced technology which is the very reason we are typing on a complex computer as we speak. If the answer to this isn't significant to you, then nothing in evolution theory should be significant to you. As I'm sure you know, evolution is (basically) caused by the need to adapt to change, this is what creates genetic mutation that ultimately changes us... The question/ mystery is what exactly was this change that so rapidly turned us into modern humans? Why did we become more intelligent? What was the purpose in the metamorphosis into modern humans? Why don't we still look like archaic humans? The typical understanding of evolution is that humans evolved gradually at a steady pace starting from homo erectus... But if you remember earlier I was explaining how human DNA and archeological evidence seems to suggest some kind of rapid genetic change started to happen within humans around 50,000 years ago...studying and understanding this more could give us better insight into how evolution works.

Aw come on, you know you enjoyed it a little.

I'm not exactly sure why you think the classification of inanimate planets is a good comparison to the classification and evolution of complex life forms. Discovering and isolating the genetic distinctions between species and sub species has all kinds of scientific value. Especially since it's our own species we are talking about here. For example, by isolating Neanderthal DNA that is found in some humans, we have discovered that neanderthal DNA in some people can lead to serious diseases...this could possibly be cured in the future once we learn more about the differences between our species and how to perhaps 'fix' those genetic problems. If classification has little scientific value then why are you even defending the position that Idaltu is really an AMH? It shouldn't even matter to you. I mean, by your logic we shouldn't even bother classifying homo erectus or chimps as different species apart from modern humans. But scientists are interested in classifications for a reason. Isolating different species and their phenotypes is important when trying to find out how evolution and other factors cause genetic variation between different groups over time. "The evolution of humans" is quite a broad thing...The theoretical emergence of archaic homo sapiens from homo erectus happened around 500,000 years ago. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I would want all archeology in Africa to be "canned"... I simply would like for more archeology and digging to be done searching for more remains of the true first modern humans (cro magnons.) I don't see how that would make me "delusional"... And indeed, that is all you can do is make far fetched guesses on the cognitive abilities of a species you know little about and can provide few examples of evidence as your link explains in the first sentence about having limited insight based on the archeological record. The theory you are subscribing to is based on limited insight and limited evidence. The theory I subscribe to is based on practically limitless amounts of evidence that modern cognitive ability emerged around 50,000 years ago, in an explosion of complex culture.

Hm...I didn't think you would get to the point of saying our whole scientific system of classifications is artificial and a "waste of time"....that's an interesting opinion... And yes, H.S. Idaltu is considered an AMH because it is roughly similar to modern humans, even though it has obvious archaic features, like a very thick skull and huge a supraorbital ridge. So if you are looking at this honestly, you should be just as skeptical as I am. They really just base it on the fact that Idaltu had the same general 'globular' brain shape as modern humans and around the same brain size...that's basically it, it was an incomplete skeleton and a classification based on limited evidence, so we can't study just how anatomically different Idaltu was from us by studying it's whole skeleton. 'An exact description was made, by its discoverers, of Homo sapiens idaltu:' "On the limited available evidence, (it is) a subspecies of Homo sapiens distinguished from Holocene anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) by greater craniofacial robusticity, greater anterior–posterior cranial length, and large glenoid-to-occlusal plane distance."... http://eol.org/pages/8824323/details And yes, theoretically evolution is a bunch of tiny steps, but we have to base things on evidence not assumptions. We don't necessarily understand everything about how human evolution works or specifically how fast it occurred. The evolution of human intelligence from early hominids to high IQ modern humans was very fast in terms of macro evolution...In fact, scientists say even modern day humans are evolving as we speak at a fast rate. https://www.wired.com/2007/12/humans-evolving/ The evidence appears to suggest that anatomically modern humans with modern human cognitive ability came upon the scene not in necessarily tiny steps but in very rapid and explosive genetic change/'evolution' that was marked by the first appearance of Cro magnons roughly 50,000 years ago. In fact, the evolution to anatomically modern humans essentially had to have occurred very rapidly in a sudden burst...Scientists suggest that if we evolved at a steady rate starting at homo erectus/archaic humans, then the genetic differences between modern humans and chimpanzees would be 160 times greater than they are. It seems AMH/ Modern human behavior arose through cognitive, genetic changes abruptly around 40,000 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity Taken from Richard Klein's 'Anatomy, behavior, and modern human origins'. Journal of World Prehistory. 9: "it was only around 50,000-40,000 years ago that a major behavioral difference developed. Archaeological indications of this difference include the oldest indisputable ornaments (or art broadly understood); the oldest evidence for routine use of bone, ivory, and shell to produce formal (standardized) artifacts; greatly accelerated variation in stone artifact assemblages through time and space; and hunting-gathering innovations that promoted significantly larger populations. As a complex, the novel traits imply fully modern cognitive and communicative abilities, or more succinctly, the fully modern capacity for Culture. The competitive advantage of this capacity is obvious. Arguably, the development of modern behavior depended on a neural change."

Any claim about the first modern human requires 'evidence' including the claim about H.S. Idaltu. Initially and ultimately I was never offered evidence to support this claim. Of course it's not even a matter of evidence, because the basic evidence was already there in the form of the fossils that I conveniently provided pictures of in my first post. If I was debating a scientist on this who was defending the claim that Idaltu was the first AMH, the evidence that he could provide me would be taking the Idaltu skull out and showing me how it is roughly similar to a modern day human in cranial features (though I would simply point out it's archaic features.) More detailed evidence suggesting Idaltu's complex cognitive abilities that would make Idaltu cognitively a true modern human would be hard for him to provide, as opposed to Cro magnon's Behavioral Modernity/cognitive ability being based in endless evidence. To me it seems quite significant for science, evolution theory, archeology, and history in general, to pinpoint the accurate time when true modern humans came onto the scene. It would be even more significant to spend more time studying and discovering new artifacts from the first true modern humans(we have only discovered ONE well preserved Cro magnon skull, that is ridiculous)...I think the study of our species' origin and archaic history is quite interesting and significant... But maybe that's just me.

Most of page 2 on this thread is me demonstrating the differences between neanderthal's cognitive ability and culture compared to Cro magnons. I can't prove that Idaltu didn't have a well developed culture, just like I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. I can't prove that Idaltu didn't have an IQ of 180 and knew how to wear pants. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence It's not my job to provide evidence for the mainstream position you support that I disagree with and am debating against. There is evidence of basic tools and simple culture dating back around 200,000-300,000 years, but what makes us modern humans different from archaic humans is that we have a whole different level of cognitive function that is manifested in everything from detailed artwork to designing rockets to fly to outer space. My position is based on evidence. Evidence not only of Cro magnon 1's well preserved anatomically modern skull, but of their cognitive ability that can be seen from their complex culture (arriving at around 40,000-50,000 years ago) that sets them closest to modern human behavior out of any known previous human groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity I have already given all kinds of examples of Cro magnon cultures, tools, art, religion, etc. You don't remember that? (go to pg.2)

I am fully aware it says that. If you notice that is what this whole thread is about is debating the accuracy of science pages calling H.S Idaltu an AMH. But you should read through the rest of the article. It talks about art, culture, behavior, and the higher thinking processes of true Modern humans that is evident starting around 40,000 years ago (IE coinciding with Cro magnons.) Complex cognitive abilities are one of the qualitative things that separate us from archaic humans, like neanderthals. I've already demonstrated some of these distinctions in culture and behavior between neanderthals and Cro magnons, which would theoretically be similarly distinct between Cro magnons and H.S Idaltu. This is apart from the already obvious quantitative physical differences between modern day humans and archaic humans/Idaltu. And of course another problem with Idaltu is that since it's an incomplete skeleton, we don't know if it had even more anatomical distinctions from Modern Humans, similar to how Neanderthals didn't even have the same kind of arm/limb functions as AMH. It's not a matter of my theory needing to be substantiated by evidence, it's simply a matter of classification of humans skulls that have already been found. You do need to prove the position you are defending. A debate is not a one way street. It may seem to you like you're already defending some kind of concrete position but that's not the case...this very topic is debated among scientists. You should already realize this, seeing that you linked me a paper about the difficulties in classifiying what is truly an AMH. You are defending the mainstream idea that Idaltu was basically the oldest modern human. You see in essence your position is no different than mine. These roles could be easily reversed. If Cro magnon was considered by the mainstream science community as the oldest Modern human, then you would have to present evidence as to why the Homo sapiens Idaltu skull was actually the oldest modern human. If the roles were reversed you would have no leg to stand on simply because there is no evidence of Homo Sapien Idaltu having behavioral modernity (similar cognitive skills to modern humans) and Idaltu is very archaic looking compared to Cro magnon 1. You're simply projecting at this point.

Yes, and Homo Sapiens Idaltu does not really have an appearance consistent with the range of phenotypes in modern humans. The Wikipedia page on AMH you're talking about says literally in the next sentence,"The emergence of anatomically modern human marks the dawn of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens,[4] i.e. the subspecies of Homo sapiens to which all humans alive today belong." (You should read through this page a bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human ) The sub species homo sapiens sapiens is the scientific classification term for anatomically modern humans. (thought we already went over this?) H.S. Idaltu is more properly considered an archaic human or archaic homo sapien. It is already put into a sub species apart from Homo sapiens sapiens, so basically it's already not scientifically classified as an AMH...( though people still call it an AMH) There is a reason the term 'archaic' is used in scientific classification, it's not an arbitrary word. If it has archaic features then it's not anatomically modern. The fact that some researchers consider 'Homo sapiens Idaltu' to be an anatomically modern human is their opinion based on their assessment of basic skull features, just like I have an opinion based on an assessment of basic skull features. They are looking at the basic brain shape/ brain capacity and essentially saying "Eh, good enough it's basically a modern human" (despite it's archaic features.) But as I've already pointed out, same general brain size does not equal the same cognitive function (in terms of archaic humans having the same behavior and cognitive abilities as modern humans.) It's not simply an opinion, it is based on evidence and well known scientific classification. Using your same logic I could say the whole theory of evolution is just an "opinion." My theory that Cro magnons were the true first modern humans doesn't even come close to being "childish" or "crackpot." What's childish is giving me negative Reputation ratings for simply trying to argue my point. You are going off the assumption that H.S. Idaltu is definitively a "modern human," but rather it is debatable. Come back to me when you can provide an argument that Idaltu was essentially a match with modern humans despite it's archaic characteristics. You need post evidence of modern-day human skulls from around the world that are almost identical to a Homo sapiens Idaltu skull, if you can do that then could maybe come close to building up your case against mine.

Cro magnons were the first modern humans. Homo sapiens Idaltu could be considered 'human', just not a true anatomically modern human. I think my opinion is at least somewhat logical, though apparently no one agrees with me. And yes, like I said earlier, I knew this thread would rustle some jimmies, but that's what I like to do. I want to create a debate that challenges people's beliefs. I want to question what I am told if my own common sense tells me it's wrong. It doesn't matter if it's from 'The Smithsonian' or not, even though it's simply a writer for The Smithsonian repeating what other researchers repeated before them. It all almost amounts to a kind of appeal to authority, because 'X scientist' claims Y is 'Z', therefor it must be unequivocally true. It's necessary to understand, the idea that Homo Sapiens Idaltu should be called the first 'modern human' is not such a definitive thing, it's really an opinion not much different than my own, based on the fact that Idaltu was roughly similar to modern humans, (and it's barely even that. )

And what have you demonstrated? I have provided all kinds of data in this thread, as opposed to you who has provided nothing. My post about Cro magnon 1 having a perfectly circular indention in it's forehead is still a perfectly valid question, as I've never seen that type of 'injury' or deformity on a fossil before. I just didn't know that archeologists had only discovered ONE well preserved cro magnon skull, and didn't realize all the skulls I was looking at were reproductions. But that is irrelevant to what we are talking about on this thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring What data are you looking for that I haven't already provided? Scientists have not only labeled Homo Sapien Idaltu as a sub speices, but all essentially know and agree that it has archaic features. Most science/expert pages explain how the Idaltu skull has 'primitive' features. http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/origins/homo_sapiens_idaltu.php http://eol.org/pages/8824323/details "These fossils differ from those of chronologically later forms of early H. sapiens such as Cro-Magnon found in Europe and other parts of the world in that their morphology has many archaic features not typical of H. sapiens"...Despite the archaic features, these specimens were argued to represent the direct ancestors of modern Homo sapiens sapiens." 'An exact description was made, by its discoverers, of Homo sapiens idaltu:' "On the limited available evidence, a subspecies of Homo sapiens distinguished from Holocene anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) by greater craniofacial robusticity, greater anterior–posterior cranial length, and large glenoid-to-occlusal plane distance."... Notice how it says they are argued to be an ancestor of modern humans. It's not 100% decided to be an anatomically modern human by all experts [because it's not] so there for, back to my original point, it shouldn't be so boldly declared as the first modern human. I didn't know you were the sole and only Moderator...hopefully you aren't offended by what I thought was some kind of moderation to my post. It just didn't make any sense to me why my uploaded photo would just disappear from 'My Media' library.

First of all. It seems like some moderator has gone in and removed the picture I posted earlier on page one, (on post # 12 to be exact.) It was this picture here of hominid skulls lined up in the 'evolutionary' timeline ( I edited in a Cro magnon 1 skull.) I will post it again just for people who are actually scientifically interested in this debate. Ophiolite. I was expecting a more complex reply. In my opinion, if it has archaic features, and is a sub species...then it makes little sense for "Homo Sapiens Idaltu" to be considered a true MODERN human. I'm at a loss how this is somehow hard to understand.