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

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Your thread attempts to refute something accepted by mainstream science. That it is your opinion is literally in the title. It belongs in Speculations. If you have an issue with this, please voice it via PM or the report feature. I will be removing any more off topic replies.

 

Edit: others have mentioned the issues with your so-called support. Please address those claims.

[Ophiolite]

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...

You have serious reading comprehension difficulties.

 

The evolutionary pathway from early hominid to current humans is interesting. How we choose to subdivide the pathway, for convenience of discussion, is not interesting¹. This you choose not to see, or are unable to see.

 

 

1. It is of course interesting as an exercise in taxonomy, but that is the same way the grammatical structures used by Dickens in A Tale of Two Cities are interesting. I prefer to focus on the story.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Ophiolite

[Delta1212]

The only really discrete units in evolutionary biology are specific genes and individual organisms. Unfortunately, we don't have much of any direct data on the gene pool of historical populations, and the sheer number of organisms involved over time is both much larger than we can handle and also missing a huge chunk of the total population.

 

So we categorize by things like species that group together organisms according to various criteria. But those categories are fuzzy at best. They exist only for convenience of study and discussion. Treating them as if they have any fundamental reality beyond that is liable to make for sloppy thinking and gross misunderstanding.

[EvanF]

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.

[Strange]

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.

 

 

The problem is you haven't really been asking questions, you have been saying that the experts in the field are wrong and you are right (based on very little evidence apart from things that appear "obvious" to you).

 

And your thread isn't in the Trash; it is in Speculations: the right place for people who say that the experts in the field are wrong and who have a new idea of their own.

 

I'm afraid I can't suggest any other science forums where you might find more relevant expertise (I am more interested in the physical sciences). But if you do, I suggest that you stick to asking questions until you have learned enough to provide clear support for any new ideas. Good luck.

[Phi for All]

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.

 

!

Moderator Note

Please get over yourself. Speculations isn't the Trash. Nobody got emotional (except you just now). The rules you agreed to when you joined explain that, if you are proposing something outside mainstream science (which isn't even allowed on most science discussion forums), the topic may get moved to Speculations where you can support it with evidence. Show how your assertions can be supported, convince people skeptical of your extraordinary claims, and we can move it back to mainstream.

 

It sounds more like you've gotten emotional about this, and are transferring your frustration. No need for this at all. If your idea is sound, it won't be difficult to show that.

[EvanF]

 

 

The problem is you haven't really been asking questions, you have been saying that the experts in the field are wrong and you are right (based on very little evidence apart from things that appear "obvious" to you).

 

And your thread isn't in the Trash; it is in Speculations: the right place for people who say that the experts in the field are wrong and who have a new idea of their own.

 

I'm afraid I can't suggest any other science forums where you might find more relevant expertise (I am more interested in the physical sciences). But if you do, I suggest that you stick to asking questions until you have learned enough to provide clear support for any new ideas. Good luck.

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.

Edited October 5, 2016 by EvanF

[Strange]

But I still think my theory/this thread isn't to the point of being pure speculation.

 

 

This is probably the wrong place for this discussion, but the point of the "Speculations" area of the forum is not for "pure speculation". Unfortunately, there are sometimes people with the most nonsensical and unsupported (unsupportable) ideas which, they say, they should be allowed to present here because it is called "Speculations".

 

The real intention is that it is for presenting novel hypotheses supported by evidence and/or a solid theoretical basis. (Rarely do people achieve anything close to that!)

[CharonY]

I would also refer to the various sticky posts which, among other things, discuss what a "theory" (unified explanation of a given set of well-established elements) and a "hypothesis" are.

[EvanF]

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.

[Ophiolite]

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.

You have used a circular argument. you have defined specific features as being archaic, then noted that particular samples have those features and must therefore be archaic. You have largely ignored, or failed to understand, my central point: which features we choose to call archaic or modern is a subjective value judgement and therefore incidental to the important discussion of the evolution of hominims towards modern homo sapiens. (It's relevance, as has been repeatedly noted, is as a convenience to facilitate that discussion, not an integral part of it.)

 

 

-I have given evidence of modern human cognitive ability coinciding solely with Cro magnons around 50,000 years ago.

 

Yet you have not, as far as I can see, defined what you mean by modern cognitive ability, nor applied any quantitative assessment of it.

Nor have you acknowledged the evidence that contradicts your assertion. That is known as cherry picking, or alternatively sloppy research.

 

 

-I have addressed the lack of evidence suggesting archaic humans (like neanderthals) had modern human cognitive abilities.

 

And thereby have ignored the body of research that claims differently.

 

 

In several of your posts you appear to think I am arguing for a view the opposite of yours. I am not. I am arguing for a clear, coherent, logical, scientific, comprehensive, evidence based argument. That is what, so far, you have failed to provide.

[EvanF]

You have used a circular argument. you have defined specific features as being archaic, then noted that particular samples have those features and must therefore be archaic. You have largely ignored, or failed to understand, my central point: which features we choose to call archaic or modern is a subjective value judgement and therefore incidental to the important discussion of the evolution of hominims towards modern homo sapiens. (It's relevance, as has been repeatedly noted, is as a convenience to facilitate that discussion, not an integral part of it.)

 

 

 

Yet you have not, as far as I can see, defined what you mean by modern cognitive ability, nor applied any quantitative assessment of it.

Nor have you acknowledged the evidence that contradicts your assertion. That is known as cherry picking, or alternatively sloppy research.

 

 

 

And thereby have ignored the body of research that claims differently.

 

 

In several of your posts you appear to think I am arguing for a view the opposite of yours. I am not. I am arguing for a clear, coherent, logical, scientific, comprehensive, evidence based argument. That is what, so far, you have failed to provide.

 

 

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.

[Ophiolite]

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.

And you have yet to demonstrate that all involved scientists consider these features to be archaic. Perhaps they do, but it is incumbent on you to demonstrate this. Providing a single example creates the suspicion of cherry picking.

 

As to the rest, I will seek to reply later. My executive summary is this: your exposition style stinks. The support information for your opinion - the opinion with which you opened the thread almost 100 posts ago - should be presented at the beginning, not dragged out from you through a series of tortuous exchanges.

[EvanF]

And you have yet to demonstrate that all involved scientists consider these features to be archaic. Perhaps they do, but it is incumbent on you to demonstrate this. Providing a single example creates the suspicion of cherry picking.

 

As to the rest, I will seek to reply later. My executive summary is this: your exposition style stinks. The support information for your opinion - the opinion with which you opened the thread almost 100 posts ago - should be presented at the beginning, not dragged out from you through a series of tortuous exchanges.

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.

[Ophiolite]

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.

Based on this post you are asserting that there is no meaningful dispute among anthropologists as to what does and does not constitute an archaic feature, or which hominids do or do not posses them. Is that correct? (For that is what you have just said.)

 

Edit: By the way, as an aside, I see someone keeps giving you negative rep. That seems inappropriate, but perhaps represents the frustration some members are feeling in respect of your apparent inability to see certain points.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Ophiolite

[EvanF]

Based on this post you are asserting that there is no meaningful dispute among anthropologists as to what does and does not constitute an archaic feature, or which hominids do or do not posses them. Is that correct? (For that is what you have just said.)

 

Edit: By the way, as an aside, I see someone keeps giving you negative rep. That seems inappropriate, but perhaps represents the frustration some members are feeling in respect of your apparent inability to see certain points.

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.)

Edited October 12, 2016 by EvanF

[EvanF]

 

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.

[Moontanman]

Evolution=homo-erectus+austrailopithecus+neanderthal+cromagnon.jpg

 

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.

 

 

Did you read my reply about lining up all your ancestors back as far as you want and never being able to point at two and say one is an ape the next one is human? You are trying to introduce a fallacy here, not sure which one, but to look at four skulls and come to that conclusion is simply ignoring reality..

[EvanF]

 

 

Did you read my reply about lining up all your ancestors back as far as you want and never being able to point at two and say one is an ape the next one is human? You are trying to introduce a fallacy here, not sure which one, but to look at four skulls and come to that conclusion is simply ignoring reality..

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...

Edited October 12, 2016 by EvanF

[Strange]

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.

 

 

All four skulls appear about equally different to me. Picking any one of them out as different from the other three would seem completely arbitrary.

 

But perhaps you could point out specifically which features are common to the first three and different from the last (ideally in a quantitative way). Or are you just going to say "it's obvious".

Edited October 12, 2016 by Strange

[EvanF]

 

 

All four skulls appear about equally different to me. Picking any one of them out as different from the other three would seem completely arbitrary.

 

But perhaps you could point out specifically which features are common to the first three and different from the last (ideally in a quantitative way). Or are you just going to say "it's obvious".

 

 

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.

Edited October 13, 2016 by EvanF

[Strange]

Thank you for (finally) providing some specific details. I can only second Ophiolite's comment that it would have been helpful if you had provided at least this level of detail to start with, rather than us having to draw it out of you painfully over 5 pages.

 

• The brow ridge on the first three is almost identical, not changing much over the course of 3 million years.

 

 

While I agree that the last skull is notably different from the others, I disagree that the first three are "almost identical". I see a steady progression there. It would be just as valid, in my opinion, to say that the first is significantly different from the other three.

 

My opinion on the other traits you mention would be similar so I am not going to go through them all.

 

However, I am not trained in analysing the features of hominid skulls (I suspect that there is a lot more to it than just a superficial "it looks like"; I assume there are detailed comparative measurements, and I assume it takes more than a single sample of each species, etc) so my opinions are of no value whatsoever. I haven't seen anything yet to suggest that your opinions are worth any more than mine on this subject.

 

But good luck persuading people. I suggest you start with some detail in future, rather than just insisting you are right "because it is obvious".

[DrP]

As an outside observer I'd too like to add that you could argue the same from the opposite prospective - you can take features from the last 3 and say that they are similar and that the first one is vastly different.

 

e.g.

-The last 3 have a flattened mouth from whereas the oldest has a more pronounced lower jaw that projects out more..

-The last 2 are very similar in the way that they have little thickness to the bone around the eyes socket, where as the earliest one has thick armoured bone protecting the eyes.

- The teeth of the last 3 look more human whereas the oldest skull has more animal looking teeth.

- The last 3 have more flattened faces whilst the oldest has a longer face.

etc...

 

You can take any of the pics and cherry pick which feature you focus on and make a case... then someone else can focus on different features and make the opposite case as I have shown.

[Ophiolite]

You can take any of the pics and cherry pick which feature you focus on and make a case... then someone else can focus on different features and make the opposite case as I have shown.

And this happens routinely. It's called anthropology.

[EvanF]

As an outside observer I'd too like to add that you could argue the same from the opposite prospective - you can take features from the last 3 and say that they are similar and that the first one is vastly different.

 

e.g.

-The last 3 have a flattened mouth from whereas the oldest has a more pronounced lower jaw that projects out more..

-The last 2 are very similar in the way that they have little thickness to the bone around the eyes socket, where as the earliest one has thick armoured bone protecting the eyes.

- The teeth of the last 3 look more human whereas the oldest skull has more animal looking teeth.

- The last 3 have more flattened faces whilst the oldest has a longer face.

etc...

 

You can take any of the pics and cherry pick which feature you focus on and make a case... then someone else can focus on different features and make the opposite case as I have shown.

I appreciate you adding your opinion to this discussion, DrP.

 

The only skull that has a flattened mouth is the Cro magnon. The Cro magnon has no similar features to the others. The first three represent any easy to see 'progression' of features over millions of years, while the Cro magnon shows what I call an anatomical deviation from the rest.

 

-Australopithecus is almost identical to a chimp skull, the mouth is very protruding. The homo Erectus and neanderthal represent a progression but their mouth angles are still very similar to Australopithecus, they just lost the large front teeth bones that make the mouth look more projecting in Australopithecus.

 

-The Neanderthal actually does have very thick bones around the eyesockets and zygomatic arch almost identical to Homo Erectus, you just can't see it well in that picture.

 

-Australopithecus is almost identical to a chimp, so yes it's teeth are more 'animal' like. But Homo Erectus and Neanderthal had quite different teeth than modern humans. Apart from being much larger, neanderthal teeth were situated at completely different angle than modern human teeth.

 

-None have a flat face or a short face except Cro magnon. The face of Australopithecus is not that much longer than Homo Erectus and Neanderthal. In fact, you can do a measurement right now. To measure the face, start from the top of the eye to the bottom of the teeth...the first three have almost the same face length.

Edited October 13, 2016 by EvanF