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

[EvanF]

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

 

 

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.

 

Thanks for adding your opinion.

 

 

 

Our whole theory on human evolution is based on just a few fossil fragments and when we are lucky we find some well preserved skulls.

By your logic the whole theory of human evolution is "extremely fallacious"...

Many times we can only discover one or two well preserved skulls of a species that go that far back in time, just because they are so hard to find to begin with...(A well preserved skull is a significant piece of evidence. Idaltu was not as well preserved as Cro magnon 1.)

But in this thread I have already suggested that more archeology be done looking for more Cro magnons.

 

 

And yes, I will have to correct you, because I never said Cro magnon's larger brain=evidence of higher intelligence (even though you could make an argument for that being the case.) I wouldn't necessarily argue that point because like I have mentioned, Neanderthals had larger brains than the average modern day human, but that doesn't necessarily equal larger intelligence...You have to look at the structure of the brain itself, and a large % of neanderthal's brain was used for vision and movement processing, while modern day human (including Cro magnon) brains have more 'complex' brain structure. Modern day humans may have a smaller general brain size than neanderthals, but there are certain parts of the brain in modern humans that are actually larger...(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/03/13/neanderthal-brains-show-fatal-lack-of-social-skills/#.WATMaMnTanM)

 

 

Yes, I sight the tool and cultural complexity of around 50,000 years ago as evidence of Cro magnon's behavioral modernity/cognitive ability making them closest to true 'modern humans,' but this is quite standard. From my understanding there's really no other definitive evidence we could go on to get an idea of an ancient group's cognitive abilities outside of the tools they used/things they created. This is one of the key parts of my argument though, is our modern capacity to accomplish all of our amazing feats of intelligence, largely manifested through advanced technology, is something that makes us unique from other primates/ hominids of the past (including archaic humans.)

 

 

Trying to calculate an ancient species' IQ is of course just speculation.

 

Idaltu simply having the same general brain size does not mean they had the same cognitive ability as modern day humans, as they were anatomically 30% different from H.S. sapiens. Despite their larger brain size, Cro magnon was likely much closer to many modern day human IQs than Idaltu (though of course IQ varies among populations and even more greatly among individuals.)

 

But besides that, it's still actually really cool that you did those IQ calculations for me.

 

 

Even though it's insignificant whether we did or not, I never said 'we' didn't "come from Africa."

Cro magnons likely originated from North and North east Africa, it's just that Cro magnon 1 was found in France, and most of their culture and remains are found in and around Europe.

Edited October 17, 2016 by EvanF

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

Our whole theory on human evolution is based on just a few fossil fragments and when we are lucky we find some well preserved skulls.

By your logic the whole theory of human evolution is "extremely fallacious"...

Many times we can only discover one or two well preserved skulls of a species that go that far back in time, just because they are so hard to find to begin with...(A well preserved skull is a significant piece of evidence. Idaltu was not as well preserved as Cro magnon 1.)

But in this thread I have already suggested that more archeology be done looking for more Cro magnons.

Not really, our fossil evidence is just splotchy. Some species' fossils we have an abundance of(Australopithecus) and some we only have a few skulls of(cro magnon and Idaltu). The fossils are only one type of evidence and honestly, your anatomic argument is the weakest one. I figured my first post showed this but I'll try to further demonstrate these inconsistencies.

 

 

And yes, I will have to correct you, because I never said Cro magnon's larger brain=evidence of higher intelligence (even though you could make an argument for that being the case.) I wouldn't necessarily argue that point because like I have mentioned, Neanderthals had larger brains than the average modern day human, but that doesn't necessarily equal larger intelligence...You have to look at the structure of the brain itself, and a large % of neanderthal's brain was used for vision and movement processing, while modern day human (including Cro magnon) brains have more 'complex' brain structure. Modern day humans may have a smaller general brain size than neanderthals, but there are certain parts of the brain in modern humans that are actually larger...(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/03/13/neanderthal-brains-show-fatal-lack-of-social-skills/#.WATMaMnTanM)

Forgive me I swore you had argued something to that nature, I guess I'll go back and look through the previous posts. I speculate that neanderthals were more intelligent than modern day humans but the method I calculated Cro magnon's IQ would not work for neanderthals because they are a different species and have a different neural morphology. The good thing about this .35 correlation is that it takes other factors into account for me. If brain size was the only determinant of intelligence then there would be a perfect correlation between the two but there isn't so that's why I multiply the differential by the correlation because it corrects any overestimate I make.

 

 

Yes, I sight the tool and cultural complexity of around 50,000 years ago as evidence of Cro magnon's behavioral modernity/cognitive ability making them closest to true 'modern humans,' but this is quite standard. From my understanding there's really no other definitive evidence we could go on to get an idea of an ancient group's cognitive abilities outside of the tools they used/things they created. This is one of the key parts of my argument though, is our modern capacity to accomplish all of our amazing feats of intelligence, largely manifested through advanced technology, is something that makes us unique from other primates/ hominids of the past (including archaic humans.)

Yes but my calculations showed that Cro magnon was much more intelligent than modern humans even though modern humans have an exponentially greater tool complexity than any known hominid species. Two hominid populations could have the same level of g and still have differing tool set complexity because if there is no need for innovation then none will happen. Human brain size has been decreasing while relative body size has practically remained constant, as a collective we are more intelligent than we were, but on an individual level we are less intelligent. The mere fact that some scientists claim that our decreasing EQ isn't relevant to our intelligence is simply more evidence of dysgenic intellectual trends. If we cloned a full grown Cro magnon today it would probably have a lower IQ because it simply does not have the crystallized knowledge that we do, but if you cloned a baby cro magnon and raised in from birth I suspect it would grow up to be far more intelligent than the average human.

 

http://www.evoanth.net/2014/03/13/our-brain-is-shrinking-but-our-frontal-lobe-is-growing/

 

http://www.evoanth.net/2013/08/02/4023/

 

http://www.evoanth.net/2016/04/26/technology-evolve-not-population-size/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843435/

 

 

 

 

Trying to calculate an ancient species' IQ is of course just speculation.

Idaltu simply having the same general brain size does not mean they had the same cognitive ability as modern day humans, as they were anatomically 30% different from H.S. sapiens. Despite their larger brain size, Cro magnon was likely much closer to many modern day human IQs than Idaltu (though of course IQ varies among populations and even more greatly among individuals.)

But besides that, it's still actually really cool that you did those IQ calculations for me.

Even though it's insignificant whether we did or not, I never said 'we' didn't "come from Africa."

Cro magnons likely originated from North and North east Africa, it's just that Cro magnon 1 was found in France, and most of their culture and remains are found in and around Europe.

Yes, it would be but cro magnon is not a different species than us(at least not according to you) so Cro magnons are basically analogous to big brained europeans. The calculations I performed are the closest estimation to an individual's IQ besides actually taking a test itself(95% confidence rating). Again if you are talking about the differences in neotenization between hominids this has less do do with mental modernity and more to do with sexual selection. The fact that Cro magnon's facial features are so unique compared to other ancestors further demonstrates this factoid. If facial features were completely equivalent to our encephalization, you would see a much more gradual transition. Idaltu actually had bigger brains than modern day humans. If cro magnon didn't in fact originate in europe then I may need to do some tweaks to my calculations.

 

Assuming that cro magnon is originally an Africa hominid I recalculated their respective IQ's. Cro magnon is around 100 while Idaltu is around 90. The average African IQ is 80 While the world average is 87 so even then Idaltu is still closer to Modern day humans than cro magnon is regarding intelligence.

 

I think the reason you get downvoted so much is because of your initially arrogant approach to this discussion and it didn't help that most of the people responding to you were simply not informed enough to give you meaningful responses. It simply fueled your fire.

Edited October 17, 2016 by HelloI'mmeLo

[EvanF]

 

 

Yes, it would be but cro magnon is not a different species than us(at least not according to you) so Cro magnons are basically analogous to big brained europeans.

 

Idaltu actually had bigger brains than modern day humans. If cro magnon didn't in fact originate in europe then I may need to do some tweaks to my calculations.

 

 

Assuming that cro magnon is originally an Africa hominid I recalculated their respective IQ's. Cro magnon is around 100 while Idaltu is around 90. The average African IQ is 80 While the world average is 87 so even then Idaltu is still closer to Modern day humans than cro magnon is regarding intelligence.

 

I think the reason you get downvoted so much is because of your initially arrogant approach to this discussion and it didn't help that most of the people responding to you were simply not informed enough to give you meaningful responses. It simply fueled your fire.

 

 

Cro magnon is not a different species than us according to mainstream classification.

 

Idaltu's brain size wasn't necessarily larger than modern day humans...(brain size can vary significantly.) The brain volume for current men usually ranges from 1052.9 to 1500cm...

But of course Idaltu was essentially an archaic human, so he possibly had a similar type of brain structure as neanderthal, at least in terms of the brain not being as advanced/not organized in the same way as modern humans.

 

 

"An african hominid" is too broad of a term...(there are theoretically many different 'branches' coming out of Africa.)

 

I don't even know if most modern day Africans are even closely related to Cro magnon, kind of like how most Africans don't have neanderthal DNA.

 

I think the DNA sequences have Cro magnons related to Europeans and slightly to Asians...Here's a quote from the wiki page...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon " A mitochondrial DNA sequence of two Cro-Magnons from the Paglicci Cave, Italy, dated to 23,000 and 24,000 years old , identified the mtDNA as haplogroup N, typical of the descendants in Central Asia.^[33] The inland group is the founder of North and East Asians, Europeans, large sections of the Middle East, and North African populations"

 

Though, a lot of this DNA being spread out so far could of course could be due to interbreeding between different populations.

 

 

 

 

 

But yeah...It's unfortunate I got so many down votes, I wasn't really expecting that level of emotion/negativity.

I came out from the start a bit over confident and didn't have the absolute perfect approach (in hindsight,) but I haven't become any less confident in my theory.

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

 

Cro magnon is not a different species than us according to mainstream classification.

Exactly, so this further proves my calculations are accurate.

 

Idaltu's brain size wasn't necessarily larger than modern day humans...(brain size can vary significantly.) The brain volume for current men usually ranges from 1052.9 to 1500cm...

But of course Idaltu was essentially an archaic human, so he possibly had a similar type of brain structure as neanderthal, at least in terms of the brain not being as advanced/not organized in the same way as modern humans.

True, brain size variance is enormous but so is intelligence. A quote from wikipedia about Idaltu: "in that their morphology has features, that show resemblances to more primitive African fossils, such as huge and robust skulls, yet a globular shape of the brain-case and the facial features typical of H. sapiens." Maybe Idaltu is simply an earlier form of cro magnon?

 

"An african hominid" is too broad of a term...(there are theoretically many different 'branches' coming out of Africa.) I don't even know if most modern day Africans are even closely related to Cro magnon, kind of like how most Africans don't have neanderthal DNA.

Well either way no matter how I spin my calculations Idaltu seems to always be closer to modern day humans in intelligence than cro magnon. In my earlier calculations Idaltu was even closer to european's intelligence than cro magnon. If it helps your case at all the new figure of 100 for cro magnon is spot on for european intelligence.

 

 

I think the DNA sequences have Cro magnons related to Europeans and slightly to Asians...Here's a quote from the wiki page...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon " A mitochondrial DNA sequence of two Cro-Magnons from the Paglicci Cave, Italy, dated to 23,000 and 24,000 years old , identified the mtDNA as haplogroup N, typical of the descendants in Central Asia.^[33] The inland group is the founder of North and East Asians, Europeans, large sections of the Middle East, and North African populations"

I'm aware, but again that just helps my case more than anything. but speaking of dna, Mitochondrial dna tells us our most recent ancestor is from africa, about 200,000 years ago and not 40,000 years ago.

 

But yeah...It's unfortunate I got so many down votes, I wasn't really expecting that level of emotion/negativity.

I came out from the start a bit over confident and didn't have the absolute perfect approach (in hindsight,) but I haven't become any less confident in my theory.

 

You haven't? I mean I don't expect you to suddenly change your mind out of nowhere but I do expect you take my criticisms seriously especially if you cannot empirically argue against them. You should be changing your theory to fit the data that i have presented you. I don't necessarily disagree with cro magnons being a direct ancestor but they are not the first AMH.

 

EDIT:

 

I think you may be underestimating neanderthal's intelligence take a look at this:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140430-neanderthals-cook-food-evolution-science/

 

and this: http://www.livescience.com/54906-neanderthals-built-bizarre-underground-ring-structures.html

 

They boiled food, built water reservoirs and even made primitive glue out of birch tar wax. I believe someone showed you evidence of sophisticated neanderthal behavior earlier but you simply hand waived it away.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by HelloI'mmeLo

[EvanF]

 

 

A quote from wikipedia about Idaltu: "in that their morphology has features, that show resemblances to more primitive African fossils, such as huge and robust skulls, yet a globular shape of the brain-case and the facial features typical of H. sapiens." Maybe Idaltu is simply an earlier form of cro magnon?

 

Well either way no matter how I spin my calculations Idaltu seems to always be closer to modern day humans in intelligence than cro magnon. In my earlier calculations Idaltu was even closer to european's intelligence than cro magnon. If it helps your case at all the new figure of 100 for cro magnon is spot on for european intelligence.

 

I'm aware, but again that just helps my case more than anything. but speaking of dna, Mitochondrial dna tells us our most recent ancestor is from africa, about 200,000 years ago and not 40,000 years ago.

 

 

You haven't? I mean I don't expect you to suddenly change your mind out of nowhere but I do expect you take my criticisms seriously especially if you cannot empirically argue against them. You should be changing your theory to fit the data that i have presented you. I don't necessarily disagree with cro magnons being a direct ancestor but they are not the first AMH.

Idaltu theoretically is an ancestor to modern humans, but Cro magnon could be a different branch of modern humans separate from Idaltu.

 

Theoretically we all have some kind of common ancestor in Africa, but when you go back that far ancestry becomes kind of nebulous...In other words, did we descend from a single person? That's not likely or we would all be severely inbred...did we all descend from a single small tribe in africa, or was it multiple tribes of archaic humans that split off into different genetic groups?...(Neanderthal being one of them, Cro magnon the other, etc) Not even Europeans themselves all descend from the same genetic tribe, they descend from 3 separate genetic tribes... The 'indigenous' darker skinned Cro magnons mixed with other 'Europeans' who had evolved lighter skin. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892

It's actually possible that Cro magnons represented a distinct group of people that essentially don't exist anymore as a unique genetic group... They interbred into different groups instead of all Europeans simply being the modern day versions of Cro magnons.

 

 

 

If you want to change my mind then you need to argue against the evidence my theory is based on by providing the following:

 

-Provide a skull older than 50,000 years that is more similar to modern humans than cro magnon. Cro magon is anatomically 88% similar to modern day humans...which is the most similar to H.S. sapiens than any other archaic skull that has been found.

 

-Provide archeological evidence of behavioral modernity that precedes the upper paleolithic (45,000-50,000 years ago.) This doesn't mean just a stone tool or a bone necklace like neanderthals had, as even chimps and birds can make simple tools. You need to provide evidence of a complex culture that would include things like musical instruments, complex art, complex tools, religious artifacts, evidence of a caring/social community that can support large amounts of people, etc...(IE things that modern humans do.)

 

- You would somehow need to provide evidence against the fact that human DNA suggests human beings started evolving rapidly to a point around 50,000 years ago, and not gradually starting from Homo erectus 2 million years ago...I tried to show a visual representation of this earlier...The fossil evidence suggests Cro magnon did not evolve gradually from archaic homo sapiens but very rapidly. For example, if you believe Cro Magnon evolved from H.S. Idaltu they were not very far apart in terms of evolution time, but the transition from Idaltu to Cro magnon was a huge deviation (in terms of anatomical measurements, Idaltu was 30% different from modern day humans, and Cro magnon was 12% different from modern humans. I'm not sure the exact %, but that would mean Cro magnon was significantly anatomically different than Idaltu. )

 

 

 

*Edit (about your neanderthal comment.) I never said Neanderthals were dumb...I said they simply weren't as smart as Cro magnons, and didn't have the same kind of cognitive ability as modern humans.

 

 

 

If Cro magnon was not the first AMH then who was?

Edited October 18, 2016 by EvanF

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

If you want to change my mind then you need to argue against the evidence my theory is based on by providing the following:

 

-Provide a skull older than 50,000 years that is more similar to modern humans than cro magnon. Cro magon is anatomically 88% similar to modern day humans...which is the most similar to H.S. sapiens than any other ancient skull that has been found.

-Provide archeological evidence of behavioral modernity that precedes the upper paleolithic (45,000-50,000 years ago.) This doesn't mean just a stone tool or a bone necklace like neanderthals had, as even chimps and birds can make simple tools. You need to provide evidence of a complex culture that would include things like musical instruments, complex art, complex tools, religious artifacts, evidence of a caring community, etc...(IE things that modern humans do.)

- You would somehow need to provide evidence against the fact that human DNA suggests human beings started evolving rapidly to a point around 50,000 years ago, and not gradually starting from Homo erectus 2 million years ago...I tried to show a visual representation of this earlier...The fossil evidence suggests Cro magnon did not evolve gradually from archaic homo sapiens but very rapidly. For example, if you believe Cro Magnon evolved from H.S. Idaltu they were not very far apart in terms of evolution time, but the transition from Idaltu to Cro magnon was a huge deviation (in terms of anatomical measurements, Idaltu was 30% different from modern day humans, and Cro magnon was 12% different from modern humans, which means Idaltu was somewhere around 40% anatomically different from Cro magnon!)

*Edit (about your neanderthal comment.) I never said Neanderthals were dumb...I said they simply weren't as smart as Cro magnons, and didn't have the same kind of cognitive ability as modern humans.

If Cro magnon was not the first AMH then who was?

 

1)- Phenotype is not genotype and again neoteny is not equivalent to modernity. Two skulls do not tell the whole story, and it's possible that idaltus and cro mag's physical variation overlapped. I would like the link to that study about the 80% thing, Idaltu had a more similar brain size and intelligence to humans and there are plenty of modern humans with brow ridges and other prognathic features. Truthfully, You may need to knock this off your list of evidence because it is far too subjective and uncertain.

2)- The whole point of those IQ/brain size calculations was to show you that intelligence and innovation do not always coalesce. Are you deliberately hand waving away the data I have presented you? Screw it I'll humor you anyway:

"A variety of evidence of abstract imagery, widened subsistence strategies, and other "modern" behaviors have been discovered in Africa, especially South Africa. The Blombos Cave site in South Africa, for example, is famous for rectangular slabs of ochre engraved with geometric designs. Using multiple dating techniques, the site was confirmed to be around 77,000 years old. Beads and other personal ornamentation have been found from Morocco which might be as old as 130,000 years old; as well, the Cave of Hearths in South Africa has yielded a number of beads significantly before 50,000 years ago.

Expanding subsistence strategies beyond big-game hunting and the consequential diversity in tool types has been noted as signs of behavioral modernity. A number of South African sites have shown an early reliance on aquatic resources from fish to shellfish. Pinnacle Point, in particular, shows exploitation of marine resources as early as 120,000 years ago, perhaps in response to more arid conditions inland.Establishing a reliance on predictable shellfish deposits, for example, could reduce mobility and facilitate complex social systems and symbolic behavior. Blombos Cave and Site 440 in Sudan both show evidence of fishing as well. Taphonomic change in fish skeletons from Blombos Cave have been interpreted as capture of live fish, clearly an intentional human behavior" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity#Archaeological_Evidence

3)- You should provide Dna evidence not archaeological evidence to substantiate your claims of faster mutation rates. There were bottle necks and founder effects going on around 50,000 years ago so that data doesn't really surprise me. Again your anatomical evidence is your weakest point. In this study did they compare complete skeletons or skulls, and did it give equal weight to each characteristic or were some traits considered more important to our overall evolution therefore given more weight in relation to their value?? If it gave equal distribution to each variable trait then it may actually be very inaccurate. Again and for the last time neoteny does not equal genomic relation!

Honestly, I gotta go with Idaltu being the first human, he is just far too similar to us in appearance, intelligence, skull size and behavior for me to ignore.

Edited October 17, 2016 by HelloI'mmeLo

[EvanF]

 

 

1)- Phenotype is not genotype and again neoteny is not equivalent to modernity. Two skulls do not tell the whole story, and it's possible that idaltus and cro mag's physical variation overlapped. I would like the link to that study about the 80% thing, Idaltu had a more similar brain size and intelligence to humans and there are plenty of modern humans with brow ridges and other prognathic features. Truthfully, You may need to knock this off your list of evidence because it is far too subjective and uncertain.

 

2)- The whole point of those IQ/brain size calculations was to show you that intelligence and innovation do not always coalesce. Are you deliberately hand waving away the data I have presented you? Screw it I'll humor you anyway:

 

"A variety of evidence of abstract imagery, widened subsistence strategies, and other "modern" behaviors have been discovered in Africa, especially South Africa. The Blombos Cave site in South Africa, for example, is famous for rectangular slabs of ochre engraved with geometric designs. Using multiple dating techniques, the site was confirmed to be around 77,000 years old. Beads and other personal ornamentation have been found from Morocco which might be as old as 130,000 years old; as well, the Cave of Hearths in South Africa has yielded a number of beads significantly before 50,000 years ago.

Expanding subsistence strategies beyond big-game hunting and the consequential diversity in tool types has been noted as signs of behavioral modernity. A number of South African sites have shown an early reliance on aquatic resources from fish to shellfish. Pinnacle Point, in particular, shows exploitation of marine resources as early as 120,000 years ago, perhaps in response to more arid conditions inland.Establishing a reliance on predictable shellfish deposits, for example, could reduce mobility and facilitate complex social systems and symbolic behavior. Blombos Cave and Site 440 in Sudan both show evidence of fishing as well. Taphonomic change in fish skeletons from Blombos Cave have been interpreted as capture of live fish, clearly an intentional human behavior" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity#Archaeological_Evidence

 

3)- You should provide Dna evidence not archaeological evidence to substantiate your claims of faster mutation rates. There were bottle necks and founder effects going on around 50,000 years ago so that data doesn't really surprise me. Again your anatomical evidence is your weakest point. In this study did they compare complete skeletons or skulls, and did it give equal weight to each characteristic or were some traits considered more important to our overall evolution therefore given more weight in relation to their value?? If it gave equal distribution to each variable trait then it may actually be very inaccurate. Again and for the last time neoteny does not equal genomic relation!

 

Honestly, I gotta go with Idaltu being the first human, he is just far too similar to us in appearance, intelligence, skull size and behavior for me to ignore.

 

1. Idaltu is anatomically only 70% similar to H.S.sapiens. Out of all the ancient human skulls it is one the least similar to modern humans...While Cro magnon is 88% similar. In this link, Idaltu is referred to as the "Herto" skull. (pg. 6) http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca

 

2.While your IQ calculations are interesting, they are too uncertain to be considered definitive evidence.

Homo erectus also had a similar brain capacity to modern day humans, but I'd imagine you wouldn't assume a 2 million year old proto-human was just as intelligent as us.

Like I've explained with neanderthals, there is more to consider than just general brain size when you're trying to calculate the intelligence/cognitive ability of an archaic human.

 

It doesn't count as an argument against my theory to simply hand wave away the archeological evidence of behavioral modernity expressed mainly through the Upper paleolithic around 50,000 years ago.

There are small examples of somewhat "modern" behavior in Africa starting around 100,000 years ago...but it's similar to what neanderthals created. Neanderthals and the other arcaic humans had thousands of years to advance their culture and tools, but they stayed around the same. Cro magnon's culture seemed to have come out of nowhere with a fully formed culture...

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

Taken from Richard Klein's 'Anatomy, behavior, and modern human origins'. Journal of World Prehistory. 9: (source linked in the first part of the Behavioral modernity Wikipedia page.)

 

"it was only around 50,000-40,000 years ago that a major behavioral difference developed. Archaeological indications of this difference include the oldest indisputable ornaments (or art broadly understood); the oldest evidence for routine use of bone, ivory, and shell to produce formal (standardized) artifacts; greatly accelerated variation in stone artifact assemblages through time and space; and hunting-gathering innovations that promoted significantly larger populations. As a complex, the novel traits imply fully modern cognitive and communicative abilities, or more succinctly, the fully modern capacity for Culture. The competitive advantage of this capacity is obvious. Arguably, the development of modern behavior depended on a neural change."

 

3. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html

 

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."

 

 

We aren't talking about who the first "human" is...Even Homo erectus could roughly be considered the first "human." We are talking about an AMH.

 

The Idaltu skull actually looks quite different than most modern human skulls. It wouldn't make much sense to consider Idaltu an anatomically modern human, it would be better to consider him one of the first ancestors of modern humans. Go to the chart above I just posted, there are other contenders you can choose from that are more similar to modern humans than Idaltu.

Edited October 18, 2016 by EvanF

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

1. Idaltu is anatomically only 70% similar to H.S.sapiens. Out of all the ancient human skulls it is one the least similar to modern humans...While Cro magnon is 88% similar. In this link, Idaltu is referred to as the "Herto" skull. (pg. 6) http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca

Thank you for the link. It confirmed my fears though, It didn't specify a weighted importance on any particular features. Some of these physical variations could be benign in their overall benefit to our mental facilities. For example it seems most of these differences between Idaltu and HSS are mostly facial and not cranial. Still, it does confirm what you are trying to say, however according to this research cro magnon is still not an anatomically modern human. If your goal isn't showing who the first Human is then what are you trying to prove? I don't expect many fossil's to perfectly resemble us so are you just trying to assert that cro magnon is the latest ancestor we currently have?

 

2.While your IQ calculations are interesting, they are too uncertain to be considered definitive evidence.

Homo erectus also had a similar brain capacity to modern day humans, but I'd imagine you wouldn't assume a 2 million year old proto-human was just as intelligent as us.

Like I've explained with neanderthals, there is more to consider than just general brain size when you're trying to calculate the intelligence/cognitive ability of an archaic human.

 

It doesn't count as an argument against my theory to simply hand wave away the archeological evidence of behavioral modernity expressed mainly through the Upper paleolithic around 50,000 years ago.

There are small examples of somewhat "modern" behavior in Africa starting around 100,000 years ago...but it's similar to what neanderthals created. Neanderthals and the other arcaic humans had thousands of years to advance their culture and tools, but they stayed around the same. Cro magnon's culture seemed to have come out of nowhere with a fully formed culture...

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

Taken from Richard Klein's 'Anatomy, behavior, and modern human origins'. Journal of World Prehistory. 9: (source linked in the first part of the Behavioral modernity Wikipedia page.)

 

"it was only around 50,000-40,000 years ago that a major behavioral difference developed. Archaeological indications of this difference include the oldest indisputable ornaments (or art broadly understood); the oldest evidence for routine use of bone, ivory, and shell to produce formal (standardized) artifacts; greatly accelerated variation in stone artifact assemblages through time and space; and hunting-gathering innovations that promoted significantly larger populations. As a complex, the novel traits imply fully modern cognitive and communicative abilities, or more succinctly, the fully modern capacity for Culture. The competitive advantage of this capacity is obvious. Arguably, the development of modern behavior depended on a neural change."

 

 

 

No they aren't. Do you even read all of what I write? The fact that brain size does not have a perfect correlation with IQ means there are obviously other factors, but this is why I simply multiply the differential by the correlation it corrects any overestimate I make. It has a 95% confidence rating and since Cro magnon is the same species as us and virtually genetically identical, they are analogous to big headed white people. Homo erectus did not have similar brain sizes to us, their variation was 750 to 1250cc and the 1250 ones are actually just homo Heidelbergensis which is arguably a completely different species. Not only this but their inner anatomic brain structure was no where near as modern as ours. Plus my Calculations would be irrelevant to them because they are a different species. Both neanderthals and african HSS were behaviorally modern, not saying you think they are dumb but you obviously underestimate them. I have a plethora of research showing this:

http://www.evoanth.net/2012/08/21/human-technology-superior-neanderthal/

 

http://www.evoanth.net/2015/12/10/are-humans-smarter-than-neanderthals/

 

http://www.evoanth.net/2014/05/13/neanderthal-technology-on-par-with-humans/

3. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html

 

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."

Thank you, I am aware of this research already, I just wanted to make sure you knew that if you're going to make claims in relation to genetics you should provide evidence pertaining to that subject. It helps your case much more. Unfortunately though this data does not support your conclusions. First the article claims that these mutation rates increased around 40,000 years ago, Didn't cro magnon show up 50,000 years ago? Not only this but you even said that cro magnon probably originated in africa, and I would agree I seriously doubt the french fossil is the very first cro magnon and these specific mutations the researchers are discussing is in pertinence to racial differences in IQ, impulsitivity, fertility, disease etc. It never specifies that major facial changes were happening. Also we left africa 100,000 years ago and while no bodies have been found in certain areas, tools have been and they are modern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations

 

The Idaltu skull actually looks quite different than most modern human skulls. It wouldn't make much sense to consider Idaltu an anatomically modern human, it would be better to consider him one of the first ancestors of modern humans. Go to the chart above I just posted, there are other contenders you can choose from that are more similar to modern humans than Idaltu.

 

You mean like the Israeli skulls? I seriously believe cranial capacity trumps neoteny. These creatures were obviously modern in their behavior they just looked different. This is dumb because i had a really good link that explained why we are so neotenized but I cant freaking find it so here is a different link, that talks about our weird chins: https://now.uiowa.edu/2015/04/why-we-have-chins heres another thing: https://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/pdfs/2008c.pdf

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by HelloI'mmeLo

[EvanF]

Still, it does confirm what you are trying to say, however according to this research cro magnon is still not an anatomically modern human. If your goal isn't showing who the first Human is then what are you trying to prove? I don't expect many fossil's to perfectly resemble us so are you just trying to assert that cro magnon is the latest ancestor we currently have?

 

 

No they aren't. Do you even read all of what I write? The fact that brain size does not have a perfect correlation with IQ means there are obviously other factors, but this is why I simply multiply the differential by the correlation it corrects any overestimate I make. It has a 95% confidence rating and since Cro magnon is the same species as us and virtually genetically identical, they are analogous to big headed white people. Homo erectus did not have similar brain sizes to us, their variation was 750 to 1250cc and the 1250 ones are actually just homo Heidelbergensis which is arguably a completely different species. Not only this but their inner anatomic brain structure was no where near as modern as ours. Plus my Calculations would be irrelevant to them because they are a different species. Both neanderthals and african HSS were behaviorally modern, not saying you think they are dumb but you obviously underestimate them. I have a plethora of research showing this:

http://www.evoanth.net/2012/08/21/human-technology-superior-neanderthal/

 

http://www.evoanth.net/2015/12/10/are-humans-smarter-than-neanderthals/

 

http://www.evoanth.net/2014/05/13/neanderthal-technology-on-par-with-humans/

Thank you, I am aware of this research already, I just wanted to make sure you knew that if you're going to make claims in relation to genetics you should provide evidence pertaining to that subject. It helps your case much more. Unfortunately though this data does not support your conclusions. First the article claims that these mutation rates increased around 40,000 years ago, Didn't cro magnon show up 50,000 years ago? Not only this but you even said that cro magnon probably originated in africa, and I would agree I seriously doubt the french fossil is the very first cro magnon and these specific mutations the researchers are discussing is in pertinence to racial differences in IQ, impulsitivity, fertility, disease etc. It never specifies that major facial changes were happening. Also we left africa 100,000 years ago and while no bodies have been found in certain areas, tools have been and they are modern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations

 

 

You mean like the Israeli skulls? I seriously believe cranial capacity trumps neoteny. These creatures were obviously modern in their behavior they just looked different. This is dumb because i had a really good link that explained why we are so neotenized but I cant freaking find it so here is a different link, that talks about our weird chins: https://now.uiowa.edu/2015/04/why-we-have-chins heres another thing: https://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/pdfs/2008c.pdf

 

 

If Cro magnon is almost 90% anatomically similar to modern day H.s.sapiens then it is obvious they are most qualified to be considered the first AMH. A lot of the anatomic difference is just because they had larger brains than we do.

 

 

There are also plenty of people alive today that have around the same general cranial capacity as Homo erectus. Homo Erectus ranging from 850-1100cc...That roughly fits into the small end of modern day brain size that ranges from 950-1100.

 

 

You can't simply type in calculations and assume IQ like that. You are using the correlation between brain size and IQ among modern populations and assuming archaic humans like Idaltu over 150,000 years ago were the exact same on the neural level. There's so much more than simply general brain size. The brain is so complex...you just can't make a definitive statement like that just based on such a simple measurement apart from no other evidence.

 

 

 

This "plethora of research" you linked isn't even proving your point about neanderthals being behaviorally modern. They just amount to opinion pieces written all by the same author "Adam Benton" providing no definitive evidence. At least in the link I provided about neanderthals it gives you a general clue as to how neanderthal's brains were organized in quite a different way than modern humans.

 

Let's start with your first link...In the very title, it starts off with a question and then admits "there is little evidence."

Sadly he just appears to be "arguing" from a state of ignorance.

There is no question that the Aurignacian (cro magnon) culture was more advanced than neanderthal's...This is the most plausible explanation for neanderthal extinction because they disappeared as soon as Cro magnon moved through Europe.

Neanderthal came up against Cro magnons who had advanced bow and arrows and throwing spears and they simply got wiped out. There are other less logical explanations for neanderthal's disappearance, but that is the most plausible.

 

Your second link about neanderthals is basically just supporting my argument, in the very TITLE/introduction it literally says, "we were still smarter than them. These allowed us to make all sorts of technological advances"...It goes on to supply some quotes from some researcher saying there was no difference between modern human technology and neanderthal technology, which is of course incorrect.The problem is they conveniently make that statement based on the time period before the Aurginacian culture around 40,000 years ago, IE when there was no real advanced culture. (They are comparing so called "modern human" culture from africa 200,000-100,000 years ago to Neanderthal's, and then conveniently stopping their comparison when the Aurignacian culture appeared.)

 

And the third link is little more than a joke. It provides little evidence of such a claim that "neanderthal technology was on par with humans"...What is the evidence? They say they made a necklace (out of broken bones.) They made a simple spear. They buried dead people. And then just makes the claim "they were innovative" as if that amounts to evidence. Again, neanderthals were not dumb (I'm assuming) but there is no evidence to suggest that they reached the complexity of Cro magnon/modern human behavior...they were different from modern humans physically and mentally, a different species with different capacities.

 

 

 

 

About the DNA evidence. This Gene analysis in human DNA is not something that could be pin pointed exactly at 40,000 years ago...it's just can't be that accurate. They just know that somewhere around that time period that Human DNA started to make very rapid genetic changes, oddly enough coinciding with the emergence of the Aurginacian culture/Cro magnon...The DNA is showing that there was some kind of rapid genetic change that seems to have made modern humans into what they are, and not gradual genetic change starting millions of years ago.

 

 

You can't just assume any archaic human was "obviously modern in their behavior" unless it is obviously apparent by studying evidence that supports that idea.

 

 

 

I don't know why you keep referring to neoteny...We aren't talking about baby chimps that resemble modern human features in basic shape...(which isn't surprising anyways since they share almost identical DNA with humans.) Cro magnon /AMH do not represent "neoteny"...Cro magnon 1 is not the skull of a baby but an old man. Neoteny is a matter of scale and development, not cranial capacity and evolution.

Edited October 18, 2016 by EvanF

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

 

If Cro magnon is almost 90% anatomically similar to modern day H.s.sapiens then it is obvious they are most qualified to be considered the first AMH. A lot of the anatomic difference is just because they had larger brains than we do.

90% Facially similar*

 

There are also plenty of people alive today that have around the same general cranial capacity as Homo erectus. Homo Erectus ranging from 850-1100cc...That roughly fits into the small end of modern day brain size that ranges from 950-1100.

 

We are not talking about extremes but averages, and any person with a head that small probably has the intelligence to reflect it. The average brain size for humans is 1350cc the average for homo erectus was much smaller and their brain structure more primitive.

 

You can't simply type in calculations and assume IQ like that. You are using the correlation between brain size and IQ among modern populations and assuming archaic humans like Idaltu over 150,000 years ago were the exact same on the neural level. There's so much more than simply general brain size.

 

Yes I can, g is the best measure of intelligence we have. Why wouldn't they be on the same level? They came after our common ancestor, they were behaviorally modern and had bigger brains than us.

 

you just can't make a definitive statement like that just based on such a simple measurement apart from no other evidence.

cough cough*

 

This "plethora of research" you linked isn't even proving your point about neanderthals being behaviorally modern. They just amount to opinion pieces written all by the same author "Adam Benton" providing no definitive evidence. At least in the link I provided about neanderthals it gives you a general clue as to how neanderthal's brains were organized in quite a different way than modern humans.

 

Are you mentally challenged? It's a blog that reviews anthropological studies, he almost always sources it too. His opinions are not points of the blogs and in fact he critically analyzes most research he reviews. Don't act like a bitter ass, it's a discussion.

 

Let's start with your first link...In the very title, it starts off with a question and then admits "there is little evidence."

Sadly he just appears to be "arguing" from a state of ignorance.

There is no question that the Aurignacian (cro magnon) culture was more advanced than neanderthal's...This is the most plausible explanation for neanderthal extinction because they disappeared as soon as Cro magnon moved through Europe.

Neanderthal came up against Cro magnons who had advanced bow and arrows and throwing spears and they simply got wiped out. There are other less logical explanations for neanderthal's disappearance, but that is the most plausible.

 

The first link was simply to show you that neanderthals had bone tools, I was pertaining to when you had said earlier in the discussion that all they had were rocks.

 

Your second link about neanderthals is basically just supporting my argument, in the very TITLE/introduction it literally says, "we were still smarter than them. These allowed us to make all sorts of technological advances"...It goes on to supply some quotes from some researcher saying there was no difference between modern human technology and neanderthal technology, which is of course incorrect.The problem is they conveniently make that statement based on the time period before the Aurginacian culture around 40,000 years ago, IE when there was no real advanced culture. (They are comparing so called "modern human" culture from africa 200,000-100,000 years ago to Neanderthal's, and then conveniently stopping their comparison when the Aurignacian culture appeared.)

 

When did I ever at any point, say we were not smarter than them? Of course we were. You're arguing a straw man. It says right in the text "This period is good for this sort of comparison because humans hadn’t reached Europe yet. As such they probably wouldn’t be regularly encountering Neanderthals. So any advanced Neanderthal technology couldn’t be explained away as simply them copying the local humans." I was simply showing you that Neanderthals were BEHAVIORALLY MODERN. Talk about emotional.

 

And the third link is little more than a joke. It provides little evidence of such a claim that "neanderthal technology was on par with humans"...What is the evidence? They say they made a necklace (out of broken bones.) They made a simple spear. They buried dead people. And then just makes the claim "they were innovative" as if that amounts to evidence. Again, neanderthals were not dumb (I'm assuming) but there is no evidence to suggest that they reached the complexity of Cro magnon/modern human behavior...they were different from modern humans physically and mentally, a different species with different capacities.

Oh, so you didn't even read it. Well here is the actual study itself: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096424#s3

 

Cro magnon behavior does not equal modern human behavior, that is circular logic. You think I'm trying to downplay cro magnon intelligence relative to neanderthals but I am not.

 

About the DNA evidence. This Gene analysis in human DNA is not something that could be pin pointed exactly at 40,000 years ago...it's just can't be that accurate. They just know that somewhere around that time period that Human DNA started to make very rapid genetic changes, oddly enough coinciding with the emergence of the Aurginacian culture/Cro magnon...The DNA is showing that there was some kind of rapid genetic change that seems to have made modern humans into what they are, and not gradual genetic change starting millions of years ago.

Yes but your article even showed that these genetic changes were affecting a lot of different populations and not just european cro magnons.

 

You can't just assume any archaic human was "obviously modern in their behavior" unless it is obviously apparent by studying evidence that supports that idea.

The evidence does support this idea. When you aren't busy hand waving my ideas you tend to just completely misunderstand them instead.

 

I don't know why you keep referring to neoteny...We aren't talking about baby chimps that resemble modern human features in basic shape...(which isn't surprising anyways since they share almost identical DNA with humans.) Cro magnon /AMH do not represent "neoteny"...Cro magnon 1 is not the skull of a baby but an old man. Neoteny is a matter of scale and development, not cranial capacity and evolution.

Neoteny is the tendency for a species to retain it's juvenile features. While connected with maturation rates being neotenous is not always associated with being intelligent as is evidence with the khoisan tribe. You pointed to cro magnon's neotenous features (spherical head, lack of prognathism) as proof of anatomical modernity but that's complete bullshit.

Edited October 18, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[EvanF]

90% Facially similar*

 

We are not talking about extremes but averages, and any person with a head that small probably has the intelligence to reflect it. The average brain size for humans is 1350cc the average for homo erectus was much smaller and their brain structure more primitive.

 

Yes I can, g is the best measure of intelligence we have. Why wouldn't they be on the same level? They came after our common ancestor, they were behaviorally modern and had bigger brains than us.

 

cough cough*

 

Are you mentally challenged? It's a blog that reviews anthropological studies, he almost always sources it too. His opinions are not points of the blogs and in fact he critically analyzes most research he reviews. Don't act like a bitter ass, it's a discussion.

 

The first link was simply to show you that neanderthals had bone tools, I was pertaining to when you had said earlier in the discussion that all they had were rocks.

 

 

When did I ever at any point, say we were not smarter than them? Of course we were. You're arguing a straw man. It says right in the text "This period is good for this sort of comparison because humans hadn’t reached Europe yet. As such they probably wouldn’t be regularly encountering Neanderthals. So any advanced Neanderthal technology couldn’t be explained away as simply them copying the local humans." I was simply showing you that Neanderthals were BEHAVIORALLY MODERN. Talk about emotional.

 

Oh, so you didn't even read it. Well here is the actual study itself: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096424#s3

 

Cro magnon behavior does not equal modern human behavior, that is circular logic. You think I'm trying to downplay cro magnon intelligence relative to neanderthals but I am not.

 

Yes but your article even showed that these genetic changes were affecting a lot of different populations and not just european cro magnons.

 

The evidence does support this idea. When you aren't busy hand waving my ideas you tend to just completely misunderstand them instead.

 

Neoteny is the tendency for a species to retain it's juvenile features. While connected with maturation rates being neotenous is not always associated with being intelligent as is evidence with the khoisan tribe. You pointed to cro magnon's neotenous features (spherical head, lack of prognathism) as proof of anatomical modernity but that's complete bullshit.

"Facial" is a specific measurement. The entire skull is not a facial measurement.

If you want to look at facial length measurement then Cro magnon is basically the only archaic skull that has a short face, as opposed to the archaic human skulls that have very long faces like homo erectus and neanderthal.

 

You are claiming H.S idaltu was behaviorally modern...based on what evidence? The term behavioral modernity is not based on assumptions based on general brain size, it's based on archeological evidence.

 

By cough cough you are implying I'm only basing my theory on simple measurements, which is of course evidently untrue as I am basing it on multiple factors.

You are the one who is basing your argument solely off of general measurements.

Human evolution theory and hominid study is largely based on the physical measurements/ differences between hominids. But one thing you probably won't see someone like Richard Dawkins do is try to assume/ make a definitive statement about the IQ of an archaic human that lived almost 200,000 years ago based simply on their general brain size.

 

 

In comparison to Cro magnons, neanderthals didn't innovate very much past simple chipped rock tools over many tens of thousands of years, But even if these singular examples of simple bone tools were evidence of complex culture, it's possible it was influenced by Cro magnon's tools.

 

You really need to find a better source to support your argument because your links are barely even supporting your argument more than mine.

Here's a page from the very source you are using suggesting neanderthals simply stole Modern Human (Cro magnon) technology.

http://www.evoanth.net/2016/04/19/neanderthals-stole-human-technology/

 

 

I simply quoted the very article that you linked about neanderthals not being smarter than us humans...

Not only is your source contradicting itself with it's different articles, but now you are.

I'm not making a strawman out of you.

Now you've literally just said Neanderthals were Behaviorally modern...You do realize that's basically saying they had similar/ the same level of intelligence/cognitive ability as modern humans on an essential level.

 

 

Of course the genetic changes were affecting a lot of different populations, H.S. sapiens is a world wide species.

Cro magnon does not necessarily equal modern day Europeans, at least not 100%, as I've explained before.

Cro magnons were a group that theoretically emerged from somewhere in Africa and dissipated through different genetic groups including Asians.

Cro magnon is simply the earliest fossil that is closest to a modern human.

 

Again about neoteny..."juvenile features" refer to the proportions of a baby/small child.

 

Cro magnon 1 did not have neoteny proportions.

 

 

 

Your logic is as follows- We didn't really evolve past other primates/archaic humans...which just became baby-like. And archaic humans 150,000+ years ago were obviously behaviorally/cognitively modern because calculations.

Edited October 18, 2016 by EvanF

[Delta1212]

Wouldn't the first remains that are 100% similar to modern Homo sapiens be the best candidate for the first AMH?

 

If there are anatomical differences, then they aren't anatomically modern humans, pretty much by definition, no?

 

And if we're fudging it, why 90%? That's a rather arbitrary threshold. Why not 95%? Or 85%? And even granting 90%, you haven't shown that Cro Magnons were the first population to fall within that range.

[EvanF]

Wouldn't the first remains that are 100% similar to modern Homo sapiens be the best candidate for the first AMH?

 

If there are anatomical differences, then they aren't anatomically modern humans, pretty much by definition, no?

 

And if we're fudging it, why 90%? That's a rather arbitrary threshold. Why not 95%? Or 85%? And even granting 90%, you haven't shown that Cro Magnons were the first population to fall within that range.

 

 

Not even modern day humans are all 100% similar to each other. There is variation between groups of people and individuals.

 

It's not my opinion that Cro magnon was an AMH, that's mainstream scientific classification...The point of my OP was simply to point out that Idaltu is not quite anatomically modern enough to really be considered the first AMH.

 

And yes, I've quite clearly shown Cro magnon 1 is the first, and should be considered the first, based on archeological evidence and measurements.

Go to pg. 6 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca

Edited October 18, 2016 by EvanF

[Delta1212]

Everyone is not identical, but there is a range of variation that Cro Magnons fall outside of.

 

Additionally, what about Idaltu makes it not similar "enough" but leaves Cro magnon as being so? You are arguing that you are not using an arbitrary, but rather an objective, threshold of similarity for comparison, or at least that is the impression that I have been given by your arguments.

 

Why is the the threshold for dissimilarity that includes Cro Magnons as AMH but excludes Idaltu better than the one that does not exclude either or one that excludes both?

 

I reviewed your link. It shows that Cro Magnon 1 is the most similar to modern humans with 88% of measured skull characteristics falling within the range of modern human variation. However, it was most similar out of five skulls that were measured, including two other Cro magnon samples that didn't get above 80%. Additionally, the comparison didn't include Idaltu or numerous other ancestor skulls.

 

In order to establish that Cro Magnon is the first Anatomically Modern Human, you have to do two things:

 

You have to establish a threshold for what is and is not considered anatomically modern, with Cro Magnon falling on the modern side. You must then show that no older population meets the criteria to be consider anatomically modern according to those guidelines.

 

And since you seem to be arguing that this is an objective fact and not just a classification preference on your part, you have to do a third thing, which is to show that the threshold for establishing what is and isn't an AMH has some kind of compelling justification that wasn't driven by just looking at the stats for Cro Magnons and drawing all the lines right there so that they'd be at the outer edge of what is included.

 

You have, at most, attempted to do only the first of those two things in even a vaguely scientific fashion, and even there only after intense prodding. Additionally, the only evidence you have given at all for your position is where it directly lines up with mainstream opinion (that Cro Magnon is anatomically modern) and not at all where your views diverge (that it is the first modern human and that this classification is objectively correct and not merely an arbitrary labeling of convenience).

 

I'm open to being persuaded, but so far most of your evidence has been to insist that you are obviously correct and that everyone should be able to see that. I find this to be less than convincing.

[Ophiolite]

Delta1212: excellent post. I differ from your position slightly in that I think Evan's entire argument is a classification preference.

 

Evan appears to be basing his case on the departure of certain measurements of certain features by a certain amount from their current values as evidence that an hominid was or was not an AMH. But, as you point out, at no time has he provided a justification for why he has selected those particular features, or why he has chosen particular values for them. They are arbitrary. That is perfectly acceptable in a classification system. It is not acceptable in an absolutist argument of the type Evan is making.

 

meLothe destroyer of worlds: is there any cited material that would justify your seemingly quaint approach to estimating the IQ of hominid fossils? The excellent job you have done of deconstructing many of Evan's arguments are not sufficient to convince me that your calculations are more than pseudoscience.

[EvanF]

Everyone is not identical, but there is a range of variation that Cro Magnons fall outside of.

 

Additionally, what about Idaltu makes it not similar "enough" but leaves Cro magnon as being so? You are arguing that you are not using an arbitrary, but rather an objective, threshold of similarity for comparison, or at least that is the impression that I have been given by your arguments.

 

Why is the the threshold for dissimilarity that includes Cro Magnons as AMH but excludes Idaltu better than the one that does not exclude either or one that excludes both?

 

I reviewed your link. It shows that Cro Magnon 1 is the most similar to modern humans with 88% of measured skull characteristics falling within the range of modern human variation. However, it was most similar out of five skulls that were measured, including two other Cro magnon samples that didn't get above 80%. Additionally, the comparison didn't include Idaltu or numerous other ancestor skulls.

 

In order to establish that Cro Magnon is the first Anatomically Modern Human, you have to do two things:

 

You have to establish a threshold for what is and is not considered anatomically modern, with Cro Magnon falling on the modern side. You must then show that no older population meets the criteria to be consider anatomically modern according to those guidelines.

 

And since you seem to be arguing that this is an objective fact and not just a classification preference on your part, you have to do a third thing, which is to show that the threshold for establishing what is and isn't an AMH has some kind of compelling justification that wasn't driven by just looking at the stats for Cro Magnons and drawing all the lines right there so that they'd be at the outer edge of what is included.

 

You have, at most, attempted to do only the first of those two things in even a vaguely scientific fashion, and even there only after intense prodding. Additionally, the only evidence you have given at all for your position is where it directly lines up with mainstream opinion (that Cro Magnon is anatomically modern) and not at all where your views diverge (that it is the first modern human and that this classification is objectively correct and not merely an arbitrary labeling of convenience).

 

I'm open to being persuaded, but so far most of your evidence has been to insist that you are obviously correct and that everyone should be able to see that. I find this to be less than convincing.

Idaltu is referred to as the "Herto" in the data.

 

 

Scientists draw different lines, and have different opinions on where you can draw the 'line' at modern human. However I don't think it's illogical to 'draw the line' around 90%.

You can use common sense and compare Cro magnon to a modern day human skull...they look the same on an essential level.

 

Idaltu (Herto) is only 70% anatomically similar to modern humans.

 

But whether or not Cro magnon 1 is a modern human is a different topic, as it's already been classified as one for a very long time.

Edited October 18, 2016 by EvanF

[Ophiolite]

You can just use common sense and compare Cro magnon to a modern day human skull...t

Seriously? Common sense has no place in science. The methodologies of science were developed in order to overcome the egregious errors that arise when the foolish apply common sense. However, I am not surprised that someone who repeatedly states "It is obvious..." would also think common sense would form a justifiable part of an argument.

[Delta1212]

Thanks. Somehow I missed the Herto skull in there.

 

However, as Ophiolite says, this:

 

You can just use common sense and compare Cro magnon to a modern day human skull...they look the same on an essential level.

is exactly why the arguments that you are trying to make will never be convincing to an actual scientist, or anyone with a scientific outlook, because that outlook runs directly contrary to every foundational principle of science on both philosophical and practical grounds.

 

Common sense is not, and can never be, evidence. You might use "common sense" when choosing what experiments to conduct or what to investigate, but then you have to actually do the experiments and conducts the investigations and produce actual results that can be measured and verified in order to be taken seriously.

 

"Just look at it. It's obvious" is not a compelling argument in science.

[EvanF]

Seriously? Common sense has no place in science. The methodologies of science were developed in order to overcome the egregious errors that arise when the foolish apply common sense. However, I am not surprised that someone who repeatedly states "It is obvious..." would also think common sense would form a justifiable part of an argument.

Relax.

 

It's not part of my argument.

 

I'm simply saying it's easy to see Cro magnon looks almost exactly like us.

 

That's simply an observation... It's not scientific or un scientific.

[Delta1212]

Relax.

 

It's not part of my argument.

 

I'm simply saying it's easy to see Cro magnon looks almost exactly like us.

 

That's simply an observation... It's not scientific or un scientific.

The problem is that it is difficult to tell what is part of your argument.

[Mordred]

The problem is that it is difficult to tell what is part of your argument.

I lost track after the initial post lol

[EvanF]

The problem is that it is difficult to tell what is part of your argument.

No it's not.

 

How about we talk about the rest of the comment, or any of the comments I've made on previous pages, instead of focusing on that one sentence.

 

One can simply observe the obvious 'match' between Cro magnon 1 and modern day humans by looking at their skulls. That's not my argument itself, that's simply the introduction to my argument.

Edited October 18, 2016 by EvanF

[Mordred]

I disagree mere appearance is insufficient evidence. Skulls even in Modern day mankind has numerous visual differences. Do we call them seperate species?

 

This isn't my subject but reading over the thread I have yet to see actual evidence presented. I see a lot of "common sense" based arguments which really isn't science. If there is one thing science has proved. It is common sense can easily fool you.

 

People have been comnenting on your other arguments. I have yet to see a decent scientific response to those questions.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Mordred

[Ophiolite]

Relax.

 

It's not part of my argument.

 

I'm simply saying it's easy to see Cro magnon looks almost exactly like us.

 

That's simply an observation... It's not scientific or un scientific.

 

 

It is a subjective, qualitative observation. As such it is of very limited, possibly no, value.

 

What we require is objective, quantitative observations. You have produced some of these, with great reluctance, and as soon as possible you revert to "common sense" and opinion and "it's obvious" and "it's easy to see". And - amazingly - you expect to be taken seriously.

[EvanF]

I disagree mere appearance is insufficient evidence. Skulls even in Modern day mankind has numerous visual differences. Do we call them seperate species?

 

This isn't my subject but reading over the thread I have yet to see actual evidence presented. I see a lot of "common sense" based arguments which really isn't science. If there is one thing science has proved. It is common sense can easily fool you.

Read over it again then.

 

I know it's a clusterfuck of a thread. But I don't want this non-debate type dialogue making it even longer.

 

Cro magnon is an essential match to H.S.sapiens. We are the same species.

 

Cro magnon is a Modern Human according to mainstream scientific classification for the last 100 years.

 

If you want to debate whether or not Cro magnon should be classified as an AMH then you can start another thread about that.