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

pavelcherepan · October 14, 2016

Once again, your metrics are very arbitrary. You can't just say "oh, this one is flattened and that one is not", you need to provide some numbers and proper numerical measurement format.

For example here's a table with numerical values for some important cranial features used to id anatomically modern humans. How do these numbers fit into your hypothesis?

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/3/1134/T1.expansion.html

Taken from this paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/3/1134.full

P.S. These metrics are arbitrary as well, but at least they have some science basis behind them.

P.P.S. Here's another paper with numerical measurements of several hominid skulls including your beloved Cro-Magnon too and comparison to ranges within modern human populations (page 6): http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca

Surprisingly for you C-M is outside normal modern human range in 3 categories and in most others it's very much on the upper limit.

Edited October 15, 2016 by pavelcherepan

Ophiolite · October 15, 2016

Pavel, shame on you! You are using sound references, flawless logic, quantitative data and appropriate uncertainty to present your counter argument. It's almost as if you knew what you were doing. How can you expect Evan to compete?

EvanF · October 15, 2016

Once again, your metrics are very arbitrary. You can't just say "oh, this one is flattened and that one is not", you need to provide some numbers and proper numerical measurement format.

For example here's a table with numerical values for some important cranial features used to id anatomically modern humans. How do these numbers fit into your hypothesis?

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/3/1134/T1.expansion.html

Taken from this paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/3/1134.full

P.S. These metrics are arbitrary as well, but at least they have some science basis behind them.

P.P.S. Here's another paper with numerical measurements of several hominid skulls including your beloved Cro-Magnon too and comparison to ranges within modern human populations (page 6): http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca

Surprisingly for you C-M is outside normal modern human range in 3 categories and in most others it's very much on the upper limit.

Thanks for the information Pavel.

However simply posting a small amount of data does not amount to a counter argument if it's not contradictory to my own argument.

I believe I've already made you aware of the fact that Cro magnon had a few features that are outside the average for modern humans, like the larger cranial capacity.

However, taken from your second link...

(pg.6) "The analyses show that Cro magnon 1 is the most similar in these variables to H.s.s. (88% of variables fall within H.S.S range of variation.")

Again, I appreciate you supplying even more data to support my argument.

Cro magnon is indeed the most similar to Modern humans, because it is arguably the first modern human.

You say that I can't just just say "one is flattened and one is not"...Why is that the case? Homo erectus and Neanderthal have a projecting mouth, while Cro magnon has a flat mouth...It's not rocket science.

If I had all the skulls in front of me I could give you precise measurements of all of them, but I don't.

I wasn't able to find measurements of Homo Sapiens Idaltu, and unfortunately the data you provided me doesn't have Idaltu in it either. The closest looking skull to Idaltu in your chart was the Kabwe Skull.

However, you can do a sort of theoretical measurement with the picture I posted by measuring how the faces of Australopithecus, Homo Erectus, and Neanderthal are all about the same length, while Cro magnon's is significantly shorter.

**Strange** · October 15, 2016

However simply posting a small amount of data does not amount to a counter argument if it's not contradictory to my own argument.

More important than whether it contradicts your idea or not is the fact that it uses objective, quantitative data. Something you have spectacularly failed to do.

Ophiolite · October 15, 2016

More important than whether it contradicts your idea or not is the fact that it uses objective, quantitative data. Something you have spectacularly failed to do.

It was something I asked for as early as post #13. Such material as we have dragged out of him has been disjointed and of questionable relevance. It leaves me feeling much the same as I did when I posted #13. "If you are unable to do this [provide quantitative data] then you are not engaged in science, but in amateurish pre-Enlightenment classification."

You could have said something along these lines.

"There is dispute as to which hominids were the earliest modern humans. These are the conventional views [details with full citations would be provided]. I view this slightly differently and this is why. [Details, citations and structured argument provided.]"

Had you done so members might have questioned your conclusions. They would not have questioned you. Instead you chose the arrogant, some might say ignorant, approach and the result is this morass of a thread.

EvanF · October 15, 2016

More important than whether it contradicts your idea or not is the fact that it uses objective, quantitative data. Something you have spectacularly failed to do.

I have provided data, many different kinds as well. (DNA+archeological)

The reason I haven't provided specific measurements though, is simply because I couldn't find any measurements of the Idaltu skull from searching google.

I do appreciate Pavel giving those specific measurements of Cro magnon 1 though, because, of course, it simply confirms the theory I've already put forth... (that Cro magnon is more similar to H.s. sapiens than any other skull found, and is thus most qualified to be termed the oldest modern human.)

**Strange** · October 15, 2016

I have provided data, many different kinds as well. (DNA+archeological)

You obviously have a different definition of the word "data".

The reason I haven't provided specific measurements though, is simply because I couldn't find any measurements of the Idaltu skull from searching google.

It seems you are totally missing the point. Without data (whatever the reason) all you have is an opinion. And it is not clear why anyone would care about your opinion. It seems it isn't too difficult for others to find relevant data so I can only assume you don't really care about the facts.

Delta1212 · October 15, 2016

I'm pretty sure that human skulls have been found that are more similar to human skulls than Cro magnon skulls are.

If we're classifying the most similar thing to something as being the same thing, then wolves are dogs.

pavelcherepan · October 15, 2016

it simply confirms the theory I've already put forth... (that Cro magnon is more similar to H.s. sapiens than any other skull found, and is thus most qualified to be termed the oldest modern human.)

No. Let's look at the definition again:

The term anatomically modern humans^[1] (AMH) or anatomically modern Homo sapiens^[2] (AMHS) refers in paleoanthropology to individual members of the species Homo sapiens with an appearance consistent with the range of phenotypes in modern humans.

Since only 88% of the cranial features of C-M fall within ranges common in human populations, it bears a phenotype not common in modern humans and therefore, by the definition, can not be considered an AMH.

The phenotype being an expression of genotype means that the genotype of C-M would've been different from genotypes in modern populations. And no, you haven't provided any genetical data, don't fool yourself.

It can be considered a very advanced archaic human, potentially the closest to modern humans, but again, by the very definition it's not an AMH.

The reason I haven't provided specific measurements though, is simply because I couldn't find any measurements of the Idaltu skull from searching google.

And this one..

and unfortunately the data you provided me doesn't have Idaltu in it either.

Hahahaha! Like, really?! That data is in the paper I linked, it just doesn't show species names and instead names skulls by the locality of their discovery, which is for obvious reasons, because skulls from different localities can represent different time periods and be different even if they're the part of same species.

Herto skull is H.S. Idaltu. It has 70% of features similar to H.S.sapiens. Yet again, going by the definition, it's an archaic H.S.

Edited October 15, 2016 by pavelcherepan

EvanF · October 15, 2016

You obviously have a different definition of the word "data".

It seems you are totally missing the point. Without data (whatever the reason) all you have is an opinion. And it is not clear why anyone would care about your opinion. It seems it isn't too difficult for others to find relevant data so I can only assume you don't really care about the facts.

I think you might be missing the point...

This beloved "data" you are referring to is just (as Pavel admits) arbitrary measurements that unsurprisingly already show you with minute measurements that Cro magnon is anatomically the closest to modern humans. This is of course obvious and is what I've already been telling you.

So let's clarify here.

-The all so important "data" in the form of measurements is provided by Pavel, which only confirms my own theory.

- I have provided Archeological and DNA evidence.

So what exactly are these "facts" that you are assuming I don't care about?

Edited October 15, 2016 by EvanF

pavelcherepan · October 15, 2016

Read my earlier post ^

EvanF · October 15, 2016

Hahahaha! Like, really?! That data is in the paper I linked, it just doesn't show species names and instead names skulls by the locality of their discovery, which is for obvious reasons, because skulls from different localities can represent different time periods and be different even if they're the part of same species.

Herto skull is H.S. Idaltu. It has 70% of features similar to H.S.sapiens. Yet again, going by the definition, it's an archaic H.S.

My mistake. I scanned over it forgetting Herto= H.s. Idaltu.

Once again, Thank you for providing this data for me Pavel.

Cro magnon is not 100% similar to Modern day humans, I never claimed so and explained that for you, if you remember...

The theory is that they are the first 'modern humans', or rather the oldest skull that has been found that represents the closest similarity to our modern species.

I believe my theory is quite solid at this point.

pavelcherepan · October 15, 2016

No, your "theory" is junk. It contradicts the very definition of what qualifies to be an AMH.

Edited October 16, 2016 by pavelcherepan

EvanF · October 15, 2016

No. Let's look at the definition again:

Since only 88% of the cranial features of C-M fall within ranges common in human populations, it bears a phenotype not common in modern humans and therefore, by the definition, can not be considered an AMH.

Well then Idaltu certainly can not be considered an AMH. Do you understand my argument now?

Edited October 15, 2016 by EvanF

pavelcherepan · October 15, 2016

Yes, Idaltu probably shouldn't be considered and AMH, but that doesn't magically make C-M an AMH.

EvanF · October 15, 2016

Yes, Idaltu probably shouldn't be considered and AMH, but that doesn't magically make C-M an AMH.

Cro magnon is already considered an AMH/ early modern human by mainstream science.

pavelcherepan · October 16, 2016

Where's your integrity, mate? Idaltu is also considered an AMH by mainstream science, therefore if you decided to create you own classification that goes against what scientists agree upon, don't go bringing mainstream science references to support your losing hand.

EvanF · October 16, 2016

Where's your integrity, mate? Idaltu is also considered an AMH by mainstream science, therefore if you decided to create you own classification that goes against what scientists agree upon, don't go bringing mainstream science references to support your losing hand.

But you just admitted H.S Adaltu is not really an AMH...It looks like you're going against "mainstream science"...

It's not against mainstream science in any way to consider Cro Magnon an AMH.

pavelcherepan · October 16, 2016

Your thinking is so flawed it almost physically hurts me to read your posts.

Going by Wikipedia definition and precise measurements in the paper I linked: Cro-Magnon - not AMH, Idaltu - not AMH.

Going by mainstream science consensus: Cro-Magnon - AMH, Idaltu - AMH.

We're not in QM forums so you can't have quantum superposition of these two possible states

And we're at this stage in the discussion where I have to resort to memes:

EvanF · October 16, 2016

My % amount that I'm trolling is really small.

I'm just expecting some kind of honesty from you at this point man. (*even though you have essentially already agreed with me.)

Edited October 16, 2016 by EvanF

pavelcherepan · October 16, 2016

(*even though you have essentially already agree with me.)

EvanF · October 16, 2016

There's no point in running from the truth.

Edited October 16, 2016 by EvanF

meLothedestroyerofworlds · October 17, 2016

There's no point in running from the truth.

Okay, sorry if this conversation is dead but I feel as though I need to make some conjectures. I am a know-it-all so please forgive me. Evan, if I am correctly accessing your argument's position you are claiming the first anatomically/behaviorally modern Humans were european "cro magnons"? Maybe I could give you a realistic response, I am an amateur anthropologist, and have been lurking around this discussion for a few days.

First, as you said earlier, there is only 1 complete cro magnon skull. Well the same goes for Idaltu:

“Three well preserved crania are accounted for, the best preserved being from an adult male (BOU-VP-16/1) having a brain capacity of 1,450 cm3 (88 cu in). The other crania include another partial adult male and a six-year-old child.”

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

I believe it would be extremely fallacious to try and base any concrete assertions on only two skulls. Lets put this aside for a minute and lets just assume that the few skulls we have are indeed representative of a whole species. The main issue with your claims is that they are incredibly oversimplified and possibly subjective: You sighted tool complexity as evidence of Cro magnon's cognitive superiority over neanderthals, however intelligence is not entirely the cause of tool use and complexity, it only supplies it with necessary power when tool use becomes a necessity. Correct if I'm wrong but you sighted Cro magnon's bigger brains as evidence of higher intelligence over other archaic hominids but then chose Neural structure as a case for mental prowess when another poster showed you that Modern humans had smaller brains compared to their ancestors. Both neural/cranial structure and absolute size are inherent determinants of a creature's intelligence. So is neuron density, amount of blood flow to the brain(which homo sapiens have 6 times the amount compared to their relative brain size) and maturation rate.

In relation to brain size I have a formula that I believe can give you an accurate(as accurate as it this kind of shit can get) measure of cognitive ability between Idaltu, cro magnon and AMH. lets do some math try to follow along I'm not the best teacher:

Cro magnon's Skull Size is 1600cc Idaltus is 1450cc, the correlation between IQ and brain size is .35. There are about 2(or 3 but I am lazy) different ways we could do this but I am confident that both will show that Idaltu is actually more close to intelligence with "AMH" than Cro magnon were.

The Mean brain size for Africans is 1276cc all we do is subtract Idaltu's Size of 1450cc from the African mean which gives us 174 now we just divide that by the standard deviation of african brain size which is 84 that gives us a Z- score of about 2.071 we then multiply this by the SD of african IQ which is about 12 that gives us 24.8571 Finally, all we do now is multiply 24.8571 by the correlation which is .35 and then add the racial mean IQ for Africans(85). So 8.7 plus 85 is 93.7 meaning Idaltu were slightly above the current world average of intelligence.

Europeans average brain size is 1362cc with a standard deviation of 35 and an IQ standard deviation of about 15 Using the same formula above, Cro magnon's IQ should come out to about 135.7 which is ENORMOUS! That means Cro magnons were borderline genius compared to most humans today. Now this may be inaccurate because I am using the racial mean and SD of IQ for blacks and whites when I should probably be using the world average and world SD instead.

The World average IQ is 87 with a SD of 17.3, using the same figures for cranial capacity for africans and europeans and plugging them in the formula: Cro magnon's IQ becomes 128 while Idaltus becomes 99(todays average europeans IQ) This shows that Idaltus are more closer to us than Cro magnon on an intellectual level

My final criticism albeit a short one, is simply your preference of neotenous features in regards to how it translates to evolutionary "superiority" on our family branch. One of the most neotenous groups, the Khoisan have IQs that are borderline mentally retarded. I argue that our gracility is mostly due to self domestication, genetic drift and sexual selection which may have less to do with intelligence than you would like to think. The fact that the neanderthals did not have these features but were still overlapping us in intelligence shows that appearance isn't everything. Hell, I have some prognathous features but my IQ is above average.

I'm sorry you feel that this site is not stimulating you enough but I have tried my best to argue your claims as much as I could, I just feel your argument has too much subjectivity and I tend to lean towards the genetic evidence which shows that we come from africa.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/09/03/the-iq-distribution-of-the-entire-world/

https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/12/23/what-exactly-is-the-correlation-between-iq-and-brain-size-in-adults/

http://phys.org/news/2016-08-smarter-brains-blood-thirsty.html

http://www.evoanth.net/2015/11/26/neanderthals-humans-evolved-by-accident-via-genetic-drift/

Edited October 17, 2016 by HelloI'mmeLo