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

[EvanF]

 

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/?

 

That's funny because none of your links have proven anything I've said wrong. You can gather the information I am talking about on the net, it's just that there aren't nearly as many mainstream science articles talking about Cro Magnons as there SHOULD be, compared to the endless articles on neanderthals.

 

Neanderthal culture and tools were not anywhere near as advanced as Cro magnon's. This is a fact.

 

Neanderthals are theoretically older than modern humans so yes their simple stone tools predate modern human's tools, but that was kind of my point to begin with...They had tens of thousands of years to evolve their tools and art, but they never came anywhere close to the culture of the Cro magnon man. The article about Neanderthal "jewelry" again is just proving my point, their jewelry was brutish, made out of bones no less (Neanderthals were cannibals.) The theory that neanderthals taught Modern Humans how to make tools doesn't even make sense. Cro magnon sites show a quite clear superiority and complexity that surpasses neanderthal tools, it would make little sense for a more advanced culture to be taught by a less advanced one. In fact, Cro magnon's higher intelligence/more advanced tools is the best explanation for neanderthal's extinction (they were unable to compete with modern humans and were exterminated.)

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."

Far from 'pulling it out of my ass' I am basing it on common knowledge. It's a fact that Neanderthals interbred with Modern humans, and Cro magnons were the main group they would have come into contact with. They 'interacted' with each other for a while before neanderthals died out...And unless Cro magnons were just instantly 'created' out of nowhere, then Cro magnons no doubt are older than 45,000 years, (that's simply the oldest dated remains that have been found.) There are neanderthal skulls with varying different sizes of brains and general shape. To me it seems more than just a coincidence that Neanderthal hybrids happen to have the same average large brain capacity as Cro magnons... (1600cc) Though it could of course be a coincidence.

 

 

 

 

*Edit note*. So I've received -2 Reputation points so far on this comment for some reason. I expected to rustle a few jimmies with this thread, but it's sad that people on a science forum no less have to react so emotionally instead of simply forming a rebuttal.

Edited September 30, 2016 by EvanF

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

so yes their simple stone tools predate modern human's tools

 

Simple? Yeah, right.

 

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/origins/mousterian_stone_tools.php

 

 

 

As research continues and the world of the Middle Paleolithic comes into clearer focus, the line between Neanderthals and earlymodern humans blur - technologically, culturally and even genetically.

 

And this:

 

 

 

but they never came anywhere close to the culture of the Cro magnon man.

 

There is no such thing as "Cro-Magnon culture".

 

Let's do a thought experiment, which, unlike your wild guesswork is a valid instrument of science. Let's assume that cloning technology has gotten advanced enough that we can safely clone humans and scientists secretly cloned a Neanderthal from one of the many available DNA samples. This cloned child gets placed in a foster family and raised like a normal human child, including going to kindergarten, school, socialising with other kids etc.

 

So in this hypothetical situation and given the fact that Neanderthal is essentially anatomically the same as a modern human let's answer some questions:

 

1) Would this H. Neanderthalensis be able to learn the language and effectively communicate? - Most likely, yes, since vocal chords of Neanderthals are developed as well as modern men.

 

2) Would this child be able to comprehend idea of culture, society and things that make up modern life? - Most likely, yes, since Neanderthals had culture, burial rituals and lived as a part of albeit smaller society

 

3) Would this child be able to be at least moderately successful at school - Most likely, yes. The brain size is more than sufficient to store needed information and modern humans lack any significant differences as far as development of different parts of brain is concerned compared to Neanderthals.

 

4) Would he be able to seamlessly integrate into society? - Most likely, yes. Well, he'd look a bit different - short (*), stocky, with slating forehead, but not so much different that he'd look repulsive. If all of the above are yes, then he'd be able to become a part of human society and eventually find a mate and reproduce.

 

(*) Short part is not essential. Current increase in average height of humans of around 10-15 cm in last 3 centuries is mostly due to better nutrition. Hence if our Neanderthal child would be well fed, he might not be short at all.

 

So, if all of of that is true then it would be rather hard to think of Neanderthals as separate species at all. You can repeat the same thought experiment with other species of genus Homo, for example with your beloved "Cro-Magnons" you'd get rather similar results. With H. Erectus and earlier hominids results would be different significantly, for starters they won't be able to speak properly, except potentially using sign language.

 

This all is to show how rather complicated and arbitrary species boundaries are in human lineage, especially when you start discussing something that is not really a taxon.

 

P.S. You also seem convinced that it's universally accepted that Neanderthals are a separate species, but if you run a search on Google Scholar for the last 5 years you'll get about 3k hits for "Homo Neanderthalensis" and about 1k hits for "Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis", so it's not nearly universal.

Edited September 30, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[EvanF]

 

Simple? Yeah, right.

 

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/origins/mousterian_stone_tools.php

 

 

And this:

 

 

There is no such thing as "Cro-Magnon culture".

 

Let's do a thought experiment, which, unlike your wild guesswork is a valid instrument of science. Let's assume that cloning technology has gotten advanced enough that we can safely clone humans and scientists secretly cloned a Neanderthal from one of the many available DNA samples. This cloned child gets placed in a foster family and raised like a normal human child, including going to kindergarten, school, socialising with other kids etc.

 

So in this hypothetical situation and given the fact that Neanderthal is essentially anatomically the same as a modern human let's answer some questions:

 

1) Would this H. Neanderthalensis be able to learn the language and effectively communicate? - Most likely, yes, since vocal chords of Neanderthals are developed as well as modern men.

 

2) Would this child be able to comprehend idea of culture, society and things that make up modern life? - Most likely, yes, since Neanderthals had culture, burial rituals and lived as a part of albeit smaller society

 

3) Would this child be able to be at least moderately successful at school - Most likely, yes. The brain size is more than sufficient to store needed information and modern humans lack any significant differences as far as development of different parts of brain is concerned compared to Neanderthals.

 

4) Would he be able to seamlessly integrate into society? - Most likely, yes. Well, he'd look a bit different - short (*), stocky, with slating forehead, but not so much different that he'd look repulsive. If all of the above are yes, then he'd be able to become a part of human society and eventually find a mate and reproduce.

 

(*) Short part is not essential. Current increase in average height of humans of around 10-15 cm in last 3 centuries is mostly due to better nutrition. Hence if our Neanderthal child would be well fed, he might not be short at all.

 

So, if all of of that is true then it would be rather hard to think of Neanderthals as separate species at all. You can repeat the same thought experiment with other species of genus Homo, for example with your beloved "Cro-Magnons" you'd get rather similar results. With H. Erectus and earlier hominids results would be different significantly, for starters they won't be able to speak properly, except potentially using sign language.

 

This all is to show how rather complicated and arbitrary species boundaries are in human lineage, especially when you start discussing something that is not really a taxon.

 

P.S. You also seem convinced that it's universally accepted that Neanderthals are a separate species, but if you run a search on Google Scholar for the last 5 years you'll get about 3k hits for "Homo Neanderthalensis" and about 1k hits for "Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis", so it's not nearly universal.

Yeah, that's right. Simple. Neanderthal tools were essentially just sharpened rocks compared to Cro magnon tools that included everything from the first advanced bow and arrow to advanced throwing spears.

 

And yes, there is certainly such thing as a "Cro magnon culture"...there is a distinct culture within basically every group of people, saying, "There is no such thing as Cro magnon culture" is simply silly and ignorant.

 

Neanderthals had no real equivalent in tools to the Cro magnon people, that is likely why neanderthals died out.

In military terms, Cro magnons had ranged weapons while neanderthals likely did not.

In fact, neanderthals were so anatomically different than Modern Humans, that they didn't even have the same kind of arm structure, making it basically impossible for them to even use throwing spears effectively. http://phys.org/news/2009-01-neanderthal-lacked-anatomical-competitive-edge.html

 

This quote you are using that says the "the lines between Neanderthals and modern humans blur, culturally and even genetically," is simply wrong.

 

Neanderthals had distinctive genetics apart from modern humans. Researchers have even discovered unique genes in humans that come from Neanderthal interbreeding that leads to negative medical disorders/diseases ranging from immune system disorders to Depression. http://www.medicaldaily.com/neanderthal-dna-depression-anatomically-modern-humans-373318

 

I find it ironic that literally right after you once again accuse me of "guesswork" you propose that we should "assume" that neanderthals could fit into modern society in almost every way.

 

There's no way of knowing man. We can only make a guess that they could.

But Neanderthal's lack of complex society, culture/tools, and social skills is likely what led to their demise. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/03/13/neanderthal-brains-show-fatal-lack-of-social-skills/#.V-39C8nTanO

 

 

As far as Neanderthals being anatomically distinct from modern humans...this is already agreed upon among scientists. It's not even a matter of debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans

 

 

There has been some debate however whether Neanderthals should be considered a sub species, or an entirely different species apart from homo sapiens. However, just 2 years ago there was new research that further supports the idea that they are indeed a separate species. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/were-neanderthals-separate-species-scientists-say-yes-nose-n252031

Edited September 30, 2016 by EvanF

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

And yes, there is certainly such thing as a "Cro magnon culture"...there is a distinct culture within basically every group of people, saying, "There is no such thing as Cro magnon culture" is simply silly and ignorant.

 

I've been wrong, I admit. I went to Scholar and did a search for "cro-magnon culture" without any time limits and it came back with 127 hits, so yeah it does exist in mind of very few, but generally the following tool traditions and cultures are identified in archaeology:

 

thought experiment for my own entertainment was not whether or not Neanderthals would fit into society, but if they did (which they potentially could), do they still deserve to be called a separate species. I probably could've made myself more clear.

[Moontanman]

 

That's funny because none of your links have proven anything I've said wrong. You can gather the information I am talking about on the net, it's just that there aren't nearly as many mainstream science articles talking about Cro Magnons as there SHOULD be, compared to the endless articles on neanderthals.

 

Neanderthal culture and tools were not anywhere near as advanced as Cro magnon's. This is a fact.

 

Neanderthals are theoretically older than modern humans so yes their simple stone tools predate modern human's tools, but that was kind of my point to begin with...They had tens of thousands of years to evolve their tools and art, but they never came anywhere close to the culture of the Cro magnon man. The article about Neanderthal "jewelry" again is just proving my point, their jewelry was brutish, made out of bones no less (Neanderthals were cannibals.) The theory that neanderthals taught Modern Humans how to make tools doesn't even make sense. Cro magnon sites show a quite clear superiority and complexity that surpasses neanderthal tools, it would make little sense for a more advanced culture to be taught by a less advanced one. In fact, Cro magnon's higher intelligence/more advanced tools is the best explanation for neanderthal's extinction (they were unable to compete with modern humans and were exterminated.)

Far from 'pulling it out of my ass' I am basing it on common knowledge. It's a fact that Neanderthals interbred with Modern humans, and Cro magnons were the main group they would have come into contact with. They 'interacted' with each other for a while before neanderthals died out...And unless Cro magnons were just instantly 'created' out of nowhere, then Cro magnons no doubt are older than 45,000 years, (that's simply the oldest dated remains that have been found.) There are neanderthal skulls with varying different sizes of brains and general shape. To me it seems more than just a coincidence that Neanderthal hybrids happen to have the same average large brain capacity as Cro magnons... (1600cc) Though it could of course be a coincidence.

 

 

 

 

*Edit note*. So I've received -2 Reputation points so far on this comment for some reason. I expected to rustle a few jimmies with this thread, but it's sad that people on a science forum no less have to react so emotionally instead of simply forming a rebuttal.

 

 

Pot please meet kettle, so far you have done nothing but repeat what is outdated material (when it supports your argument) and only repeat up to date material when it supports your assumptions. To be honest i am surprised you have gotten more neg rep than you have in this thread.

 

I wonder if you are honest enough to reveal your agenda? You are difficult to pin down but you definitely have an agenda of some sort...

 

BTW the current consensus is that modern humans have been around for 150k to even 250k for some sources. In fact the genus homo could be one species in the same way that various modern animals are only called separate species due to being geographically isolated. For humans this isolation is less than perfect due to our own wonder lust and some sources consider the possibility that many species of the genus homo were really just variations among a common gene pool that were separated geographically and slowly merged into a similar but still widely separated gene pool. So far we know for sure that we are a combination of at least three "species".

[EvanF]

 

 

Pot please meet kettle, so far you have done nothing but repeat what is outdated material (when it supports your argument) and only repeat up to date material when it supports your assumptions. To be honest i am surprised you have gotten more neg rep than you have in this thread.

 

I wonder if you are honest enough to reveal your agenda? You are difficult to pin down but you definitely have an agenda of some sort...

 

BTW the current consensus is that modern humans have been around for 150k to even 250k for some sources. In fact the genus homo could be one species in the same way that various modern animals are only called separate species due to being geographically isolated. For humans this isolation is less than perfect due to our own wonder lust and some sources consider the possibility that many species of the genus homo were really just variations among a common gene pool that were separated geographically and slowly merged into a similar but still widely separated gene pool. So far we know for sure that we are a combination of at least three "species".

 

 

That's all you have to say?

 

I have an agenda? I don't even know what that "agenda" would be, much less how it would even be relevant.

 

 

And yes I realize that the mainstream consensus is that "modern humans" date back to 160,000 years ago based on Homo sapiens Idaltu finds, and I disagree with that consensus...

You realize that is literally what this whole thread was about to begin with/ I talked about that in my first post.

 

 

 

 

By the way, did you ever notice that link I gave you about Native Americans being linked to Europeans?...Here it is. http://sciencenordic.com/dna-links-native-americans-europeans

 

I've been wrong, I admit.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Paleolithic#Cultures

 

Cro-Magnon culture is not there. That is not to say, that Cro-Magnons didn't have culture or tool making, but those were not unique to these particular people.

 

Actually the oldest atl atls (spear throwers) come from Europe 30,000 years ago originating with the Cro magnon peoples...so it was essentially unique to them because they invented them. They also used some of the earliest bow and arrows...though it's possible people used very primitive bow and arrows before them, the cro magnon peoples were likely the first to use the bow and arrow effectively and with complex and proper arrow heads+bows.

 

 

The Châtelperronian, Aurignacian, and the Gravettian could all essentially be considered "Cro magnon" culture, IE culture from the earliest modern humans in Europe.

 

"Cro magnon" is just a term that refers to the cave in which the true first Modern Human skull (Cro magnon 1) was discovered.

 

"Cro magnon culture" is used for lack of a better word because the science world has not given The 'Cro magnon' people a proper name. Because of this you cannot type in "cro magnon culture" and get thousands of results because it's not a proper term for an archeological culture. That doesn't mean there technically isn't a "cro magnon culture," you simply have to do things like type in 'Cro magnon tools' or 'Cro magnon art', etc.

Edited September 30, 2016 by EvanF

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

The Châtelperronian, Aurignacian, and the Gravettian could all essentially be considered "Cro magnon" culture, IE culture from the earliest modern humans in Europe.

 

I'm not an expert in archaeology, but I have a nagging feeling that there is a perfectly valid reason, why these cultures are considered separate, like the fact that these cover different time intervals or the that tools, techniques, and uses of those tools were different.

[EvanF]

 

I'm not an expert in archaeology, but I have a nagging feeling that there is a perfectly valid reason, why these cultures are considered separate, like the fact that these cover different time intervals or the that tools, techniques, and uses of those tools were different.

Well, yes the cultures are separated by large periods of time, but they are mostly from the European Upper Paleolithic.

 

There are also very specific things that passed down through these cultures that stayed the same/ suggest a similar origin.

 

For example the Gravettian and Aurignacian have thousands of years in between them yet they still created what's known as "Venus Figures" or the veneration of some sort of 'Mother Goddess.'

 

The first finds from both the Aurignacian and Gravettian cultures originate from sites in France around the same place where Cro Magnon 1 was discovered (Cro magnon being the named for a cave in France, and the word Aurignacian comes from a town in France called Aurignac.)

Edited September 30, 2016 by EvanF

[Ophiolite]

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.

It seems I was unclear in my post. There are differences between modern humans and archaic humans. I am not now, nor have I every disputed this statement, for it is automatically true as a consequence of definition. (I am at a loss as to how you believed I was making such a claim, but attribute it to ambiguous writing on my part.)

 

Two things are in dispute. What are the nature of these differences and where, in the "timeline" of specimens we have available does the division occur. If you read any textbook, popular science work, or relevant research paper published on the matter during the last two decades then these areas of dispute are clear. These matters present a moving target that moves because of differences of opinion among the experts, because of new information, some gleaned by new techniques, and new interpretations of old evidence. That is what makes this such an exciting area of research.

 

Yet you come into this debate overbrimming with confidence that you can easily pick out the archaic from the non-archaic human. Such confidence can arise in one of two ways:

1. You are superbly well equipped to make such a distinction.

2. You are seriously over-confident in your abilities.

 

It is very easy to distinguish between these two explanations for your approach. If the explanation is number 1 then you will be able to specify which features enable you to make the distinction between archaic and modern humans and to quantify the magnitude of those differences. Your deviation into aspects of culture are irrelevant, since you say you make the distinction from half a dozen skulls.

 

You have avoided addressing this key point twice now. A third time will suggest you are completely unable to do so. This will signal to readers that you have nothing interesting to say, since your claims are unreliable. I hope you will now take this opportunity to address this point properly. Feel free to address any other aspect of my post(s), but please do ensure this is the one that takes precedence.

And yes I realize that the mainstream consensus is that "modern humans" date back to 160,000 years ago based on Homo sapiens Idaltu finds, and I disagree with that consensus...

You realize that is literally what this whole thread was about to begin with/ I talked about that in my first post.

Indeed. Your argument is exactly that. This is how I would have expected such an argument to proceed in this way:

 

I believe the consensus view on the earliest date at which modern humans evolved is incorrect. The date was much later.

I base this belief on the following specific observations relating to anatomy of hominids dated to the last 200,000 years.

{Quantitative details of specific features on which the argument is based}

What are your views on this?

 

Instead we got this approach:

 

I believe the consensus view on the earliest date at which modern humans evolved is incorrect. The date was much later.

Any fool can see that some of the so-called modern human beings are in fact archaic.

Don't ask me for facts, the differences are obvious and I certainly don't need to tell you what they are

Why aren't you agreeing with me?

 

 

I have an agenda? I don't even know what that "agenda" would be, much less how it would even be relevant.

You display some of the characteristics of someone with an agenda. I am tempted to say these characteristics are obvious even to an amateur forum member, but I shall be specific.

1. Emotional content from the outset.

2. Misinterpretation of data.

3. Cherry picking of data.

4. Dismissive tone.

 

This is unfortunate as you may actually have some interesting points to make, but they are currently being lost in a reaction against your style and a failure to support your argument properly.

[Strange]

You're the only one doing guesswork.

 

 

He is citing sources. You are making assertions (as well as saying your opinions are "obvious" and alternative views are "silly/unscientific"). Sounds like you are the one doing (unjustified) guesswork, to me.

 

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.)

 

How many is "a few" (please provide a source for the number)?

 

How do you know these "deformities" are due to Neanderthal DNA or a "medical condition"? Please provide sources to support this.

 

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

How do you know that this is due to interbreding with Cro Magnons? Please provide references to support your answer.

*Edit note*. So I've received -2 Reputation points so far on this comment for some reason.

 

The reason is, as always, your attitude. (Not the fact that you are bringing dangerous new ideas to our attention. Which you aren't.)

[EvanF]

It seems I was unclear in my post. There are differences between modern humans and archaic humans. I am not now, nor have I every disputed this statement, for it is automatically true as a consequence of definition. (I am at a loss as to how you believed I was making such a claim, but attribute it to ambiguous writing on my part.)

 

Two things are in dispute. What are the nature of these differences and where, in the "timeline" of specimens we have available does the division occur. If you read any textbook, popular science work, or relevant research paper published on the matter during the last two decades then these areas of dispute are clear. These matters present a moving target that moves because of differences of opinion among the experts, because of new information, some gleaned by new techniques, and new interpretations of old evidence. That is what makes this such an exciting area of research.

 

Yet you come into this debate overbrimming with confidence that you can easily pick out the archaic from the non-archaic human. Such confidence can arise in one of two ways:

1. You are superbly well equipped to make such a distinction.

 

If the explanation is number 1 then you will be able to specify which features enable you to make the distinction between archaic and modern humans and to quantify the magnitude of those differences. Your deviation into aspects of culture are irrelevant, since you say you make the distinction from half a dozen skulls.

 

You have avoided addressing this key point twice now. A third time will suggest you are completely unable to do so. This will signal to readers that you have nothing interesting to say, since your claims are unreliable. I hope you will now take this opportunity to address this point properly. Feel free to address any other aspect of my post(s), but please do ensure this is the one that takes precedence.

 

 

This is unfortunate as you may actually have some interesting points to make, but they are currently being lost in a reaction against your style and a failure to support your argument properly.

You simply want me to specify the features that are different between archaic and modern humans?

 

I was just at a loss as to why you would need me to present such basic information.

 

But here it is...From Wikipedia,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans

A sentence on Archaics sourced from Richard Dawkin's book , 'The Ancestor's tale'..."Archaics are distinguished from anatomically modern humans by having a thick skull, prominent supraorbital ridges (brow ridges) and the lack of a prominent chin..."

 

Now of course Archaic Homo sapiens have roughly the same brain size as modern-day humans, but I still don't necessarily consider this exactly the same 'characteristic,' because Neanderthals and archaic homo sapiens did not have the same KIND of complex brains as we do.

 

Also, it would be more proper in my opinion to compare Archaic homo sapiens' brain size to Cro magnon's and not to modern day human's brain size, since Cro magnons, while not being biologically 'archaic', were historically 'archaic.' Considering that Cro magnons were the true first modern humans, early modern humans actually did have a significantly larger brain than archaic homo sapiens, it's just that we lost that brain size over time for whatever reason.

 

I realize experts have different opinions on where you draw the line at "modern human."

The lines between archaic homo sapiens to 'modern humans' can be somewhat nebulous in the context of evolution theory.

But say you have the theoretical timeline of hominids in front you...

 

A few of the main ways to see the deviation to Modern Humans on the 'time line' are things like the prominent protruding 'brow ridge' and receding shape of the chin+protruding mouth. These aren't just arbitrarily considered 'archaic'... these features are identical/very similar to early ape like hominids. Those features are essentially gone in most anatomically modern humans.

In my opinion, if it has these 'archaic' chimp like/early hominid features, then it can't really be considered a "modern human"...("Homo sapiens Idaltu" is basically identical to archaic homo sapiens skulls that have been found.)

Edited September 30, 2016 by EvanF

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

Also, it would be more proper in my opinion to compare Archaic homo sapiens brain size to Cro magnon's and not to modern day human's brain size, since Cro magnons, while not being not biologically 'archaic', were historically 'archaic.'

 

How does being 'historically archaic' (which for some reason feels like a tautology to me) make it more suitable than 'historically modern' for comparison? There wouldn't have been much of evolution going on in some 1-2 thousand generations, so it wouldn't make much difference. The only reason I can see to compare Neanderthal brains with Cro-Magnon is the similar cranial capacity of both "species", both around 1600 cc.

 

 

 

A sentence on Archaics sourced from Richard Dawkin's book , 'The Ancestor's tale'..."Archaics are distinguished from anatomically modern humans by having a thick skull, prominent supraorbital ridges (brow ridges) and the lack of a prominent chin..."

 

OK, but where do you draw the line? For example, H. Sapiens Idaltu is currently considered a subspecies of H. Sapiens, while it very obviously has brow ridges and somewhat sloping forehead, hence by the very definition you just quoted, it's actually an archaic human, right?

 

 

 

 

early modern humans actually didhave a significantly larger brain than archaic homo sapiens, it's just that we lost that brain size over time for whatever reason.

 

A bold claim. Care to include some sources?

 

 

 

The lines between archaic homo sapiens to 'modern humans' can be somewhat nebulous in the context of evolution theory.

 

It is indeed. Drawing lines be hard and especially if this chart also included all the regional slightly morphologically different populations, subspecies and all the actual events of interbreeding between different contemporary species. This pretty chart would be such a mess.

 

Edited September 30, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[EvanF]

 

OK, but where do you draw the line? For example, H. Sapiens Idaltu is currently considered a subspecies of H. Sapiens, while it very obviously has brow ridges and somewhat sloping forehead, hence by the very definition you just quoted, it's actually an archaic human, right?

 

 

 

That's right! I think you're starting to get it!

 

How does being 'historically archaic' (which for some reason feels like a tautology to me) make it more suitable than 'historically modern' for comparison?

 

 

 

 

 

A bold claim. Care to include some sources?

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

 

Cro magnons (early modern humans) had larger brains than modern-day humans and also archaic homo sapiens. I thought we went over this already?

 

Cro magnons being 45,000+ years old would of course be a more proper comparison to archaic homo sapiens in the theoretically evolution timeline. We can't just skip 45,000+ years and go straight to modern day humans without looking at Cro magnons/ early modern humans.

Edited September 30, 2016 by EvanF

[pavelcherepan]

That's right! I think you're starting to get it!

 

No. I just applied your, or rather Dawkins' definition to a skull of H. Sapiens Idaltu. I also get the point that big part of scientific community agrees on classifying it as a subspecies of species homo sapiens, but you object that. So here is a good time to present your ideas as to why it should not be classified as such.

 

 

Cro magnons (early modern humans) had larger brains than modern-day humans and also archaic homo sapiens. I thought we went over this already?

 

Since H. Neanderthalensis are considered archaic, then no. We didn't. Neanderthals had on an average a larger cranial capacity then modern humans and similar to Cro-Magnon skull. And not SOME of them as you claim, it's an AVERAGE value.

 

 

This impression is offset somewhat by the observation that the Neanderthal braincase measured on average about 1600 cc, larger than contemporary Homo sapiens.

 

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/society/neanderthal-man.html

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/09/neanderthal/

Edited September 30, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[EvanF]

 

No. I just applied your, or rather Dawkins' definition to a skull of H. Sapiens Idaltu. I also get the point that big part of scientific community agrees on classifying it as a subspecies of species homo sapiens, but you object that. So here is a good time to present your ideas as to why it should not be classified as such.

Idaltu appears to me to be an archaic homo sapien. Archaic homo sapiens are a subspecies, that are anatomically distinct from modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens.)

[Strange]

Idaltu appears to me to be an archaic homo sapien. Archaic homo sapiens are a subspecies, that are anatomically distinct from modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens.)

 

 

"Appears to me" is not a scientific argument. Please provide details (i.e. not "its obvious") of the features that are different, how they are different (i.e. quantifying it) and how this compares with the normal range in each group.

[EvanF]

 

 

"Appears to me" is not a scientific argument. Please provide details (i.e. not "its obvious") of the features that are different, how they are different (i.e. quantifying it) and how this compares with the normal range in each group.

Correct.

It's not a scientific argument, it's a statement based on scientific classification.

 

 

It's quite strange to me why you are asking this again when I just explained this a few comments ago.

 

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

Most researches agree that Homo Sapiens Idaltu has archaic features, and they even classify it as a sub species because of this.

That is why I don't consider it a true modern human.

 

Does that make sense?

Edited September 30, 2016 by EvanF

[pavelcherepan]

But let's come back to the fact that Cro-Magnon is not a taxon. So in essence you're saying 'Idaltu has archaic features so I refuse to consider it a first modern man and instead I will take something that is not a distinct taxon and a bit different in terms of size and cranial capacity to modern humans and call it the first modern human'.

 

At least that's what I've understood so far.

[EvanF]

But let's come back to the fact that Cro-Magnon is not a taxon. So in essence you're saying 'Idaltu has archaic features so I refuse to consider it a first modern man and instead I will take something that is not a distinct taxon and a bit different in terms of size and cranial capacity to modern humans and call it the first modern human'.

 

At least that's what I've understood so far.

Cro magnons are a taxon (homo sapiens sapiens.) It's just that the word 'Cro magnon' is not a taxonomical status. But some might say it should have some kind of different proper title due to the larger brain size, etc. But since Cro magnons were roughly anatomically the same as modern day humans (at least on an essential level,) it's not necessarily a dire need of most scientists to classify 'Cro magnon' as a sub species.

[Strange]

Does that make sense?

 

It doesn't answer the question about what data you are using to reach your conclusions. You rely on some current conclusions to confirm your opinions and then say others are wrong simply because you disagree with them.

 

I would like to see the evidence judged by more than your opinion. I would like to see some data (and references to the source of the data).

[Ophiolite]

Evan F, your most recent posts suggest that your essential point is that if it doesn't walk exactly like a duck, swim like a duck, quack like a duck and lay eggs, then it is not a duck. You then proceed to argue that only mallards are true ducks. Have I missed something?

[EvanF]

Evan F, your most recent posts suggest that your essential point is that if it doesn't walk exactly like a duck, swim like a duck, quack like a duck and lay eggs, then it is not a duck. You then proceed to argue that only mallards are true ducks. Have I missed something?

 

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.

Edited September 30, 2016 by EvanF

[Phi for All]

 

First of all. Some moderator has gone in and removed the picture I posted earlier on page one, (on post # 12 to be exact.)

!

Moderator Note

Thanks for the false accusation. I see a link to a broken jpg in that post. Paranoia unnecessary.

[Strange]

In my opinion ...

 

 

You have demonstrated that your opinion isn't worth much (*). How about some data?

 

(*) For example you thread asking why "all Cro Magnons have the same dent in the forehead"

[EvanF]

 

 

 

 

You have demonstrated that your opinion isn't worth much (*). How about some data?

 

(*) For example you thread asking why "all Cro Magnons have the same dent in the forehead"

 

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.

!

Moderator Note

Thanks for the false accusation. I see a link to a broken jpg in that post. Paranoia unnecessary.

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.

Edited October 1, 2016 by EvanF