Cro magnons were the earliest 'modern humans.' Berkeley, The smithsonian, etc, are wrong (in my opinion.)

[EvanF]

Scientists have recently claimed that the earliest 'modern humans' date back to 160,000-200,000 years ago...

 

Here is the Smithsonian article. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/meet-the-contenders-for-earliest-modern-human-17801455/?no-ist

 

Right off the bat, they get the date for Cro magnon wrong, "30,000 years ago"...When the oldest Cro magnon dates 45,000+ years ago.

 

They are claiming that Omo 1 and 2 are the oldest, but this is quite a bold claim as they are impartial skulls and we can't even see what they really looked like. Secondly most researchers already agree that Omo 2 is too 'archaic' to be considered a 'modern human.' But I am going to disregard both of these skulls anyway since they are incomplete.

 

The second contender is dated to around 160,000 years ago, dubbed "Homo sapiens Idaltu"

 

 

^THIS is what they are calling a "modern human"?? It is quite clearly NOT a modern human, and is a VERY archaic form of homo sapien AT BEST, and is a sub species.

 

 

The third "contender" is the Qafzeh and Skhul fossils from israel...The problem is that they are NEANDERTHAL hybrids, and neanderthals were recently proven to be a SEPARATE species from Homo sapiens.

 

 

 

 

That leaves Cro magnon. The true oldest 'modern human' (that has been found.)

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by EvanF

[Delta1212]

If there are Neanderthal hybrids, and Neanderthals are a separate species, doesn't that, by definition, require some population of modern humans for them to hybridize with? You can't have a half-human half-Neanderthal if humans don't exist.

[Moontanman]

Modern Humans are a combination of at least three species of human...

[EvanF]

If there are Neanderthal hybrids, and Neanderthals are a separate species, doesn't that, by definition, require some population of modern humans for them to hybridize with? You can't have a half-human half-Neanderthal if humans don't exist.

Well that's the thing...Since most of the skulls appear to be neanderthal hybrids, there is no real way of knowing what kind of homo sapien they were hybridized with(it could have been archaic homo sapiens)...Neanderthals shared the general territories of Europe with Cro magnons 45,000+ years ago, so it is possible that the modern humans they were cross breeding with were early 'Cro magnons.' These skull findings from israel are a good contender for earliest modern humans, the problem is that they appear to be more like archaic homo sapiens with brow ridges and protruding mouths, etc.

Modern Humans are a combination of at least three species of human...

Care to be more specific? "Modern humans" are a sub species within themselves (homo sapiens sapiens.) There are simply DNA remnants of different species of hominids like neanderthals within some modern human genetics, but neanderthals were not "humans." Even homo sapiens Idaltu, despite the name, were not really the same as "humans" in terms of being modern humans.

Edited September 27, 2016 by EvanF

[Delta1212]

If that were true, the term "anatomically modern humans" would be completely redundant.

[Moontanman]

Well that's the thing...Since most of the skulls appear to be neanderthal hybrids, there is no real way of knowing what kind of homo sapien they were hybridized with(it could have been archaic homo sapiens)...Neanderthals shared the general territories of Europe with Cro magnons 45,000+ years ago, so it is possible that the modern humans they were cross breeding with were early 'Cro magnons.' These skull findings from israel are a good contender for earliest modern humans, the problem is that they appear to be more like archaic homo sapiens with brow ridges and protruding mouths, etc.

Care to be more specific? "Modern humans" are a sub species within themselves (homo sapiens sapiens.) There are simply DNA remnants of different species of hominids like neanderthals within some modern human genetics, but neanderthals were not "humans." Even homo sapiens Idaltu, despite the name, were not really the same as "humans" in terms of being modern humans.

 

 

You are making the mistake of assuming that there is a cut off point of human and not human. If you could line up every "human" and human ancestor who ever lived there is no place and or time that you could point to and say that one is a hominid and the next one is human. The definition of what it means to be human has been in flux in recent years and you perhaps haven't kept up. Neanderthals were human, Denisovans were human so were a great many others who lived beside us. Our gene pool wasn't located in quite as exclusive a country club as many seem to think and interbreeding was more common than you seem to think. The further back you go the more and varied the occupants of that pool were...

 

We became genetically isolated at some point to be sure but that point is still not exactly well defined...

[EvanF]

 

 

You are making the mistake of assuming that there is a cut off point of human and not human. If you could line up every "human" and human ancestor who ever lived there is no place and or time that you could point to and say that one is a hominid and the next one is human. The definition of what it means to be human has been in flux in recent years and you perhaps haven't kept up. Neanderthals were human, Denisovans were human so were a great many others who lived beside us. Our gene pool wasn't located in quite as exclusive a country club as many seem to think and interbreeding was more common than you seem to think. The further back you go the more and varied the occupants of that pool were...

 

We became genetically isolated at some point to be sure but that point is still not exactly well defined...

"Human" becomes a nebulous word once we start considering even the earliest hominids to be "humans" they could be more properly labeled as "Human-like." In the context of this conversation I am using "Human" to mean non-archaic homo sapiens, IE Modern humans. If you haven't kept up with recent research on neanderthals, they are no longer considered homo sapiens, but a separate species. You certainly could line up a Homo Erectus skull, a neanderthal skull, a so called "Homo sapiens Idaltu" skull, and a Cro magnon skull, and easily see which one was a modern human. Not all humans even have neanderthal DNA, and the ones that do only have a small amount due to interbreeding. When you said modern humans were a "combination of different species" that's not a very well defined statement... Modern humans were not a creation of neanderthals and other species coming together, but rather homo sapiens were a independent lineage that were simply related to neanderthals kind of like how we are theoretically related to chimps but not directly evolved from them.

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

"Human" becomes a nebulous word once we start considering even the earliest hominids to be "humans" they could be more properly labeled as "Human-like."

 

Evolution is a continuous process so it's hard and rather incorrect to try and put some sort of hard boundaries between species especially in a lineage as complicated as genus Homo.

 

 

 

But I am going to disregard both of these skulls anyway since they are incomplete.

 

*sarcasm* That's an attitude befitting a real scientist! */sarcasm*

 

Well, they are not complete skulls, but a lot of important features have been preserved and such finds are not very common at all. Disregarding these just because they don't quite fit into your line of thinking is just plain wrong. For example, Denisovans were described based on just one tooth and one finger bone fragment.

 

 

 

^THIS is what they are calling a "modern human"?? It is quite clearly NOT a modern human, and is a VERY archaic form of homo sapien AT BEST, and is a sub species.

 

Care to explain why?

 

 

 

The third "contender" is the Qafzeh and Skhul fossils from israel...The problem is that they are NEANDERTHAL hybrids, and neanderthals were recently proven to be a SEPARATE species from Homo sapiens.

 

Explain why (the second bold part)?

 

EDIT:

 

Oh, yeah, and this:

 

 

 

Current scientific literature prefers the term European early modern humans (EEMH), to the term Cro-Magnon, which has no formal taxonomic status, as it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.

Edited September 29, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[Moontanman]

"Human" becomes a nebulous word once we start considering even the earliest hominids to be "humans" they could be more properly labeled as "Human-like." In the context of this conversation I am using "Human" to mean non-archaic homo sapiens, IE Modern humans. If you haven't kept up with recent research on neanderthals, they are no longer considered homo sapiens, but a separate species. You certainly could line up a Homo Erectus skull, a neanderthal skull, a so called "Homo sapiens Idaltu" skull, and a Cro magnon skull, and easily see which one was a modern human. Not all humans even have neanderthal DNA, and the ones that do only have a small amount due to interbreeding. When you said modern humans were a "combination of different species" that's not a very well defined statement... Modern humans were not a creation of neanderthals and other species coming together, but rather homo sapiens were a independent lineage that were simply related to neanderthals kind of like how we are theoretically related to chimps but not directly evolved from them.

 

 

I didn't say line up a couple skulls, I said every skull of every ancestor, neanderthals are not our ancestors and you need to stop looking at individuals and start thinking of genomes. Genomes are plastic to the environment, individuals do not evolve, gene pools evolve. I have indeed kept up with recent research which is something you seem to have skipped...

[Delta1212]

 

 

I didn't say line up a couple skulls, I said every skull of every ancestor, neanderthals are not our ancestors and you need to stop looking at individuals and start thinking of genomes. Genomes are plastic to the environment, individuals do not evolve, gene pools evolve. I have indeed kept up with recent research which is something you seem to have skipped...

Well, I don't know about you, but I have some Neanderthal in my ancestry. I expect at least most people of European descent have a good few percentage points of Neanderthal in them.

[Moontanman]

Well, I don't know about you, but I have some Neanderthal in my ancestry. I expect at least most people of European descent have a good few percentage points of Neanderthal in them.

 

 

Being of Native American ancestry I probably do not but cross breeding with different species is not what I am talking about. If you line up, not just the skulls, but the individual ancestors of humans, every one, there would never be a point where you could point to an individual and say this is an ape and the next one is human.

 

If you went back to the time of denisovans and neanderthals the differences between them and sapiens would not be as great as you think. They did interbreed, must have been some similarities.

 

I ascribe to the idea of gene pools flowing around the globe not individuals, the further back you go the more cross breeding went on and the line between species is quite blurry. Kind of like the idea that polar bears and grizzly bears are different species, they are beginning to interbreed due to climate change, the gene pool will contain both genes as this progresses. If climate changes back to favor polar bears their genes might be expressed again...

[EvanF]

Being of Native American ancestry I probably do not but cross breeding with different species is not what I am talking about. If you line up, not just the skulls, but the individual ancestors of humans, every one, there would never be a point where you could point to an individual and say this is an ape and the next one is human.

 

If you went back to the time of denisovans and neanderthals the differences between them and sapiens would not be as great as you think. They did interbreed, must have been some similarities.

 

I ascribe to the idea of gene pools flowing around the globe not individuals, the further back you go the more cross breeding went on and the line between species is quite blurry. Kind of like the idea that polar bears and grizzly bears are different species, they are beginning to interbreed due to climate change, the gene pool will contain both genes as this progresses. If climate changes back to favor polar bears their genes might be expressed again...

"Native Americans" are a genetic mix between archaic Europeans and asian populations, so yes indeed many native americans did and could have neanderthal DNA, because they used to live around Europe before migrating to America.

 

If you lined up all the theoretical hominid evolution skulls, you basically COULD draw a line starting at modern humans...It's quite obvious which skulls look more 'ape like.' In fact, I'll go ahead and do that for you....

 

If you look at these skulls, it's quite clear that the first 4 of them have very similar features, being very chimp like. (The last skull is a cro magnon skull I have edited in,) but the 5th skull and the cro magnon skull represent a certain deviation from the rest that makes them MODERN HUMANS. You could roughly consider the 4th skull to be a "human" (or rather human-like) but it is not a MODERN HUMAN.

 

*edit Also, there would be quite obvious differences between the appearance of a neanderthal and a modern human. A lot of 'neanderthal' skulls you find are hybrids between homo sapiens...but if you look at a pure neanderthal skull it is quite easy to tell they are different, they look roughly similar, but it is not illogical to consider them a different species.

 

 

 

 

*sarcasm* That's an attitude befitting a real scientist! */sarcasm*

 

Well, they are not complete skulls, but a lot of important features have been preserved and such finds are not very common at all. Disregarding these just because they don't quite fit into your line of thinking is just plain wrong. For example, Denisovans were described based on just one tooth and one finger bone fragment.

 

 

Care to explain why?

Why be sarcastic? The only thing that would be "un scientific" is to make a ridiculous claim about it being the "first modern human" when I can't even see the entire skull. Making assumptions is not scientific. And like I already said in the first post, archeologists already agree that the Omo 2 skull is too thick and archaic looking to be a modern human.

Edited September 29, 2016 by EvanF

[Ophiolite]

Hello Evan. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I must question your objectivity. Let me seek to reveal the lack of that objectivity to you.

 

Please specify which features differ between "modern human" and "pre-modern humans".

Further, specify the quantitative magnitude of difference that distinguishes between one and another.

Explain in what way you have taken account of variations of these quantities in potential specimens that would have been alive at the same time. Explain how you have determined the extent of such variation.

 

If you are unable to do this then you are not engaged in science, but in amateurish pre-Enlightenment classification.

[Moontanman]

"Native Americans" are a genetic mix between archaic Europeans and asian populations, so yes indeed many native americans did and could have neanderthal DNA, because they used to live around Europe before migrating to America.

Ok, you have made an unsupported assertion about the origins of my people. Something I have and continue to look into deeply. Please provide evidence that native Americans are derived from Europeans...

 

 

Since i am a mix of native American an Scots Irish it may very well that neanderthal genes are part of my make up... I hope so...

 

 

 

If you lined up all the theoretical hominid evolution skulls, you basically COULD draw a line starting at modern humans...It's quite obvious which skulls look more 'ape like.' In fact, I'll go ahead and do that for you....

 

 

 

If you look at these skulls, it's quite clear that the first 4 of them have very similar features, being very chimp like. (The last skull is a cro magnon skull I have edited in,) but the 5th skull and the cro magnon skull represent a certain deviation from the rest that makes them MODERN HUMANS. You could roughly consider the 4th skull to be a "human" (or rather human-like) but it is not a MODERN HUMAN.

 

*edit Also, there would be quite obvious differences between the appearance of a neanderthal and a modern human. A lot of 'neanderthal' skulls you find are hybrids between homo sapiens...but if you look at a pure neanderthal skull it is quite easy to tell they are different, they look roughly similar, but it is not illogical to consider them a different species.

Six skulls do not a sample make, you missed my point completely...

[EvanF]

Hello Evan. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I must question your objectivity. Let me seek to reveal the lack of that objectivity to you.

 

Please specify which features differ between "modern human" and "pre-modern humans".

Further, specify the quantitative magnitude of difference that distinguishes between one and another.

Explain in what way you have taken account of variations of these quantities in potential specimens that would have been alive at the same time. Explain how you have determined the extent of such variation.

 

If you are unable to do this then you are not engaged in science, but in amateurish pre-Enlightenment classification.

Even amateurs in evolution theory/ the study of hominids should know the difference between archaic and modern homo sapiens. Archaic homo sapiens are a sub species that are anatomically distinct from modern humans. Now what that means is that they have significantly different features. From an evolutionary perspective, archaic homo sapiens are considered the next level up in evolution from Homo Erectus. Archaic homo sapiens are similar looking to Homo Erectus in skull features, but just with a bit larger brain.

 

 

 

 

 

The best way to help you understand is to simply compare an archaic homo sapien skull with a modern human skull, which I will do for you. It should be quite easy for you to specify the features that are different between the two.

 

 

This is an archaic homo sapien skull found in China.

 

 

 

This is a "Cro magnon" skull, IE a modern human.

 

Ok, you have made an unsupported assertion about the origins of my people. Something I have and continue to look into deeply. Please provide evidence that native Americans are derived from Europeans...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Six skulls do not a sample make, you missed my point completely...

http://sciencenordic.com/dna-links-native-americans-europeans

 

 

Those six skulls actually are quite a good sample of all the hominids that have been found. I could for example link you a wikipedia page that has a bunch of different fossil fragments...but unfortunately there is only a handful of hominid skulls that have been found in good condition, but this picture conveniently lines them up for you. And I don't see how I missed your point? I tried to point out the line you could draw where ape like hominids/archaic humans started to become modern humans.

Edited September 29, 2016 by EvanF

[Moontanman]

Even amateurs in evolution theory/ the study of hominids should know the difference between archaic and modern homo sapiens. Archaic homo sapiens are a sub species that are anatomically distinct from modern humans. Now what that means is that they have significantly different features. From an evolutionary perspective, archaic homo sapiens are considered the next level up in evolution from Homo Erectus. Archaic homo sapiens are similar looking to Homo Erectus in skull features, but just with a bit larger brain.

 

 

 

 

 

The best way to help you understand is to simply compare an archaic homo sapien skull with a modern human skull, which I will do for you. It should be quite easy for you to specify the features that are different between the two.

 

 

This is an archaic homo sapien skull found in China.

 

 

 

This is a "Cro magnon" skull, IE a modern human.

 

 

http://sciencenordic.com/dna-links-native-americans-europeans

 

 

Those six skulls actually are actually quite a good sample of all the hominids that have been found. I could for example link you a wikipedia page that has a bunch of different fossil fragments...but unfortunately there is only a handful of hominid skulls that have been found in good condition, but this picture conveniently lines them up for you. And I don't see how I missed your point? I tried to point out the line you could draw where ape like hominids/archaic humans started to become modern humans.

If you think six skulls allow you to draw a line then your idea is full of horse feathers...

[Strange]

The best way to help you understand is to simply compare an archaic homo sapien skull with a modern human skull, which I will do for you. It should be quite easy for you to specify the features that are different between the two.

 

 

You have completely failed to quantify the differences, as requested. Why is that?

[Ophiolite]

Even amateurs in evolution theory/ the study of hominids should know the difference between archaic and modern homo sapiens.

I am certainly an amateur in evolution theory, despite a geology degree that contained a significant amount of paleontology. Nor would I expect a further couple of decades informal and at times casual study of the development of evolutionary theory from Darwin and Wallace, through de Vries et al, on to Haldane, Fisher and Sewell Wright, from there to Mayr/Dhobzansky/Simpson and the more recent punctuated equilibrium, or evo-devo, despite, or perhaps because of all that I remain very clearly an amateur, though perhaps one who is reasonably informed.

 

Likewise my grasp of hominids is woefully inadequate, being limited to the little I have gleaned from reading biographies of the likes of Eugene Dubois, the work of the Leakeys, including their sponsoring of field primate research by Gilkas, Fossey and Goodall, conventional reviews by the likes of Tattersall, or radical interpretations by such as Deacon, not to mention a hundred or so reasonably recent research papers on the topic.

 

So, I fully concede that the term amateur is a wholly appropriate and accurate description. Where we differ is in your expectation that an amateur could make the distinction you say is so obvious.

 

Those six skulls actually are actually quite a good sample of all the hominids that have been found. I could for example link you a wikipedia page that has a bunch of different fossil fragments...but unfortunately there is only a handful of hominid skulls that have been found in good condition, but this picture conveniently lines them up for you. And I don't see how I missed your point? I tried to point out the line you could draw where ape like hominids/archaic humans started to become modern humans.

Well, as Strange has pointed out, you have completely failed to address the quantitative difference you assert is there, or even to specify which features are affected. You sound very much like the late Victorian phrenologists who imagined differences in the form of the skull that revealed the individual's character. On closer examination those features and supposed relationships evaporated. I await some evidence that your claimed clear distinctions are anything more than the same, at least in the manner in which you claim them.

 

I'm not seeking to give you a hard time, I am just suggesting, as Moontanman has so eloquently put it, that your idea is "full of horse feathers". And I'm just puzzled as to how someone who has studied the topic as much as you have could arrive at such erroneous conclusions.

[EvanF]

 

 

You have completely failed to quantify the differences, as requested. Why is that?

It's unnecessary to "quantify" the differences when the physical differences are already apparent. As it's said, "A picture is worth a thousand words."

[Delta1212]

But not nearly as useful as 1000 measurements.

[EvanF]

I am certainly an amateur in evolution theory, despite a geology degree that contained a significant amount of paleontology. Nor would I expect a further couple of decades informal and at times casual study of the development of evolutionary theory from Darwin and Wallace, through de Vries et al, on to Haldane, Fisher and Sewell Wright, from there to Mayr/Dhobzansky/Simpson and the more recent punctuated equilibrium, or evo-devo, despite, or perhaps because of all that I remain very clearly an amateur, though perhaps one who is reasonably informed.

 

Likewise my grasp of hominids is woefully inadequate, being limited to the little I have gleaned from reading biographies of the likes of Eugene Dubois, the work of the Leakeys, including their sponsoring of field primate research by Gilkas, Fossey and Goodall, conventional reviews by the likes of Tattersall, or radical interpretations by such as Deacon, not to mention a hundred or so reasonably recent research papers on the topic.

 

So, I fully concede that the term amateur is a wholly appropriate and accurate description. Where we differ is in your expectation that an amateur could make the distinction you say is so obvious.

 

Well, as Strange has pointed out, you have completely failed to address the quantitative difference you assert is there, or even to specify which features are affected. You sound very much like the late Victorian phrenologists who imagined differences in the form of the skull that revealed the individual's character. On closer examination those features and supposed relationships evaporated. I await some evidence that your claimed clear distinctions are anything more than the same, at least in the manner in which you claim them.

 

I'm not seeking to give you a hard time, I am just suggesting, as Moontanman has so eloquently put it, that your idea is "full of horse feathers". And I'm just puzzled as to how someone who has studied the topic as much as you have could arrive at such erroneous conclusions.

That would be true in a way, but it has little to do with my idea and more to do with the fact that the theoretical evolutionary timeline itself is 'full of horse feathers' in the sense that there is not one thousand different well preserved skulls we can lay out to perfectly examine minute evolution. The theoretical evolution of humans was very rapid, and the very origin of Modern humans is somewhat mysterious...

 

But anyways. You don't seem to be satisfied with the pictures I posted clearly showing how archaic and modern humans were physically different...So I guess I'll have to give you much more specific data.

 

I don't know how you could conclude I was like a Victorian phrenologist simply from posting archeological evidence. Even though scientists don't fully understand everything about the brain, it's simply a fact that the shape and size of the brain indeed plays a role in it's function. That is for example why a dog or a cat or chimp may not reach the same intelligence levels of a human being, but I think you might agree with me that there are differences between chimps and humans, (despite us being similar on the DNA level.)

 

You say it's "erroneous" for me to conclude that Modern Humans were different from archaic homo sapiens, which makes no sense. To me it's silly/unscientific to assume that archaic homo sapiens behaved the same and were just as intelligent as us.

 

Neanderthals and archaic homo sapiens had a similar but slightly smaller brain capacity than modern humans. They had smaller/less advanced frontal lobes and parietal lobes than modern humans. In fact, Cro magnons had even larger brains than we do, their brain size averaging around 1600cc, and larger. (archaic homo sapiens averaged around 1200cc) Here is a small article that goes more into how neanderthals for example had certain parts of their brains that were less complex than modern humans...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/03/13/neanderthal-brains-show-fatal-lack-of-social-skills/#.V-z67MnTanN

 

 

It's hard to assess everything about archaic homo sapiens and neanderthals, because obviously they aren't around anymore...But we can look at archeological evidence of their tools and art.

 

Here is an example of neanderthal art:

 

 

 

 

 

And here is one example of Cro magnon artwork

 

 

 

 

 

If you look at neanderthal tools, they never really changed over thousands of years, they just used sharpened stones.

 

However, when you look at Cro magnon tools/ culture they created everything from clothes and bead necklaces, to Atl Atls(specially shaped sticks used to increase velocity on throwing spears), to advanced bone hooks and bone spear points,(they also invented the first advanced bow and arrow), and they likely even had a kind of religion.

 

 

So, I've given you a few examples of archeological and scientific evidence suggesting not only the physical differences, but the differences in character between modern humans and archaic 'humans.' In contrast to your simple assumption that there was no difference between them.

Edited September 30, 2016 by EvanF

[pavelcherepan]

Evan, you keep saying that "pictures clearly showing" and "differences are obvious" when comparing pre-modern humans and early modern humans, but despite the fact I've asked you to elaborate earlier, you still haven't explained which features in particular you're referring to.

 

You then go on to say that Cro-Magnon skulls were in fact different from modern human skulls as they had larger cranial capacity on average, so where do you draw the line between modern and pre-modern humans? Say, Neanderthals also had larger cranial capacity than modern humans, but they did have sloping forehead. On the other hand, sloping forehead does appear somewhat often in modern populations too, for example, here's the picture of a Russian boxer, former world champion:

 

 

To me it's silly/unscientific to assume that archaic homo sapiens behaved the same and were just as intelligent as us.

 

This is just guesswork, not science. What is your evidence?

 

 

 

Neanderthals and archaic homo sapiens had a similar but slightly smaller brain capacity than modern humans.

 

This is false. Neanderthals had larger cranial capacity than modern humans on average.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

 

 

 

Their average cranial capacity of 1600 cm^3[14] was notably larger than the 1250 – 1400 cm³ average for modern humans.

Edited September 29, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[EvanF]

Evan, you keep saying that "pictures clearly showing" and "differences are obvious" when comparing pre-modern humans and early modern humans, but despite the fact I've asked you to elaborate earlier, you still haven't explained which features in particular you're referring to.

 

You then go on to say that Cro-Magnon skulls were in fact different from modern human skulls as they had larger cranial capacity on average, so where do you draw the line between modern and pre-modern humans? Say, Neanderthals also had larger cranial capacity than modern humans, but they did have sloping forehead. On the other hand, sloping forehead does appear somewhat often in modern populations too, for example, here's the picture of a Russian boxer, former world champion:

 

 

 

This is just guesswork, not science. What is your evidence?

 

 

This is false. Neanderthals had larger cranial capacity than modern humans on average.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

 

A few humans here and there with deformities and archaic features is quite irrelevant. It's well known that many humans carry neanderthal DNA for example so it's no surprise that we can find humans alive today with archaic features like that Russian guy (I'm not sure if he has some kind of medical condition.)

 

Certain neanderthals having 1600cc cranial capacities was likely caused by the fact that they interbred with Cro magnons.

 

It's not false. I should have separated them but I included Neanderthals ALONG with archaic homo sapiens in that statement. Archaic homo sapiens averaged around the same general brain size, but slightly smaller than us, and significantly smaller than Cro magnons. Since Cro magnons WERE the modern humans of the archaic world, it would be better to make the comparison with them instead of us. And just because archaic homo sapiens had roughly the same brain size does not mean they had the same exact cognitive ability that we do, that would be an unscientific assumption. I have already linked an article explaining how neanderthal brains weren't as 'advanced' as ours in a few ways, and some parts of their brains were indeed smaller than ours(they had smaller parietal and frontal lobes.)

 

 

 

You're the only one doing guesswork. You have done nothing but make the assumption that archaic humans and modern humans were the exact 'same'...You need to elaborate on why you think archaic homo sapiens from 200,000 years ago are the exact same as modern humans despite the fact that they are anatomically distinct from modern humans.

Edited September 30, 2016 by EvanF

[Delta1212]

Certain neanderthals having 1600cc cranial capacities was probably caused by the fact that they interbred with Cro magnons. (Well, it's actually a fact that neanderthals interbred with Cro magnons.)

 

Why is that the "probable" cause? Not only did you present no evidence, but the earliest Cro-magnon specimens are from right around the time that Neanderthals were dying out. Neanderthals pre-date Cro-magnons by quite a lot, so they self-evidently can't have gotten any prominent features of their sub-species by interbreeding with a population that did not exist yet.

 

Considering that it rather seems that you pulled that out of your ass, perhaps you should refrain from admonishing others for doing "guesswork."

[Moontanman]

That would be true in a way, but it has little to do with my idea and more to do with the fact that the theoretical evolutionary timeline itself is 'full of horse feathers' in the sense that there is not one thousand different well preserved skulls we can lay out to perfectly examine minute evolution. The theoretical evolution of humans was very rapid, and the very origin of Modern humans is somewhat mysterious...

 

But anyways. You don't seem to be satisfied with the pictures I posted clearly showing how archaic and modern humans were physically different...So I guess I'll have to give you much more specific data.

 

I don't know how you could conclude I was like a Victorian phrenologist simply from posting archeological evidence. Even though scientists don't fully understand everything about the brain, it's simply a fact that the shape and size of the brain indeed plays a role in it's function. That is for example why a dog or a cat or chimp may not reach the same intelligence levels of a human being, but I think you might agree with me that there are differences between chimps and humans, (despite us being similar on the DNA level.)

 

You seem to think it's silly for me to conclude that Modern Humans were different from archaic homo sapiens, which makes little sense to me. To me it's silly/unscientific to assume that archaic homo sapiens behaved the same and were just as intelligent as us.

 

Neanderthals and archaic homo sapiens had a similar but slightly smaller brain capacity than modern humans. They had smaller/less advanced frontal lobes and parietal lobes than modern humans. In fact, Cro magnons had even larger brains we do, their brain size averaging around 1600cc, and larger. (archaic homo sapiens averaged around 1200cc) Here is a small article that goes more into how neanderthals for example had certain parts of their brains that were less complex than modern humans...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/03/13/neanderthal-brains-show-fatal-lack-of-social-skills/#.V-z67MnTanN

 

 

It's hard to asses everything about archaic homo sapiens and neanderthals, because obviously they aren't around anymore...But we can look at archeological evidence of their tools and art.

 

Here is an example of neanderthal art:

 

 

 

 

 

And here is one example of Cro magnon artwork

 

 

 

 

 

If you look at neanderthal tools, they never really changed over thousands of years, they just used sharpened stones.

 

However, when you look at Cro magnon tools/ culture they created everything from clothes and bead necklaces, to Atl Atls(specially shaped sticks used to increase velocity on throwing spears), to advanced bone hooks and bone spear points, and they likely even had a kind of religion.

 

 

So, I've given you a few examples of archeological and scientific evidence suggesting not only the physical differences, but the differences in character between modern humans and archaic 'humans.' In contrast to your simple assumption that there was no difference between them.

 

You are, from what i can gather on the net, wrong on nearly if not all of your talking points. Can you please give us some links to the assertions you keep making?

 

http://www.livescience.com/38821-neanderthal-bone-tool-discovered.html

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior

 

The section on tools is quite enlightening...

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/08/12/neanderthals-not-homo-sapiens-crafted-the-oldest-known-specialized-bone-tools-in-europe/#.V-2lXPArKHs

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/neanderthal-jewelry-just-fiercely-cool-you-imagine-180954553/?