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

[Mordred]

I'm actually not interested in the debate itself. I'm more interested in your methodology which needs improving.

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.

this being one example

by methodology I mean "how you present your arguments and ideas" How you handle counter arguments.

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

"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.

Facial measurement, as in they're measuring the front of the skull and not the entire skeleton or even the entire head.

 

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.

I already provided you evidence, you're hand waving again, it's a bad habit. By cough cough* I had meant that during this entire conversation you have been trying to make definitive statements and conclusions on limited or subjective evidence. You are a pot calling the kettle black. Edit: You still dont understand my calculations, which does not invalidate them. I am tired of arguing with a brick wall.

 

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.

This shows your problems with reading comprehension. My second link even corrected for the possibility of stolen technology and showed that african homo sapiens and neanderthals had virtually identical tool kits. African homo sapiens are considered behaviorally modern so therefore neanderthals were too. They did have similar levels of intelligence to us. Here is your problem, You're defining "behavioral modernity" as cro magnon behavior (not intentionally) then using cro magnon behavior as evidence of behavioral modernity. This is circular logic, Neanderthals and african HSS hunted big game, fish, other small creatures, had complex symbolism, art, buried their dead, spoke a language, had the ability to plan ahead, and innovated their technology. How the hell are they not behaviorally modern?

 

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.

My point was that the genetic change was irrelevant to cro magnon placement as our ancestor.

 

Anatomical modernity has nothing to do with neoteny. You seem to be selectively focusing on the proportions that neotony has on the head, but there are other features that are included with that term.

Cro magnon did not have neoteny proportions because Cro magnon 1 was not a baby.

My god, you don't even know what neoteny is. Cro magnon doesn't have to be a baby for it to be neotenous.

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.

I posted my sources and data on page 7, it is my very first comment. The basic Idea is that we know the average Bain size 1350 for the world and since cro magnons are virtually identical to humans today they are analogous to big brained europeans therefore I just have to convert the differential in brain size into a Z score which is basically how many standard deviations someone is away from the mean on a certain measurement. Z scores are universal measurements, 15 is the SD for IQ and the SD for brain size in whites is 35. So a brain size of 1385 is equivalent to a Z score of 1 just like a IQ of 115 is equal to a Z score of 1. So I just multiplied the Z score by 15 which tells me how many points in IQ the Z score is equivalent to. But as you and other's pointed out, brain size is not the only influence of intelligence, that's why I multiply how ever many IQ points the Z score was equal to by the correlation between brain size and IQ and this gives me a much more realistic measure.

Edited October 18, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[Mordred]

Doesn't the senses itself correlate to different size of brain regions to support it? For instance an animal with a strong sense of smell will have a larger "processing" region.

 

How much of the human brain deals strictly to problem solving? You will probably find its only a small percentage of the actual volume. Less than 5 percent if memory serves correctly.

 

For example a crow can solve problems that would stump a cow.

 

Ok so how much better is Earlier mans sense of smell? How does this affect brain size % to handle a greater sense of smell?

 

Have either of you considered this?

Edited October 18, 2016 by Mordred

[EvanF]

Here is your problem, You're defining "behavioral modernity" as cro magnon behavior (not intentionally) then using cro magnon behavior as evidence of behavioral modernity. This is circular logic, Neanderthals and african HSS hunted big game, fish, other small creatures, had complex symbolism, art, buried their dead, spoke a language, had the ability to plan ahead, and innovated their technology. How the hell are they not behaviorally modern?

 

My point was that the genetic change was irrelevant to cro magnon placement as our ancestor.

 

Cro magnon doesn't have to be a baby for it to be neotenous.

 

You're misunderstanding...Behavioral modernity is not defined by Cro magnon behavior, it's simply first truly expressed around 50,000 years ago in the Aurginican culture coinciding with Cro magnons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian

 

Your listing things off, but not giving any real evidence of Neanderthal culture like I am with Aurignacian artifacts.

 

The Aurignacian culture includes, The oldest undisputed musical instrument, The oldest undisputed example of human figurative art, and endless evidence of sophistication and self awareness....That is an example of behavioral/cognitive modernity.

Neanderthals were in Europe for thousands and thousands of years...If they were truly modern they would have developed a culture even more advanced than the Aurginician, but the evidence appears to suggest that the few somewhat advanced things neanderthals supposedly made were simply stolen from Cro magnon's tools/culture anyways.

Whether or not Neanderthal had a language is pure speculation. There is no empirical evidence that we could base that off of. Again, simple tools and even mourning the dead is not evidence of behavioral modernity...Even animals like birds can make decent tools, and many animals are known to mourn dead companions...Elephants and chimpanzees are known to perform types of 'death rituals.'

 

Speaking of language, neanderthals did not even have (like I've said before) the same kind of brains that we do, the part of the brain modern humans use for language skills (the parietal lobe) was underdeveloped in neanderthals. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/03/13/neanderthal-brains-show-fatal-lack-of-social-skills/#.WAaI2cnTanM

 

And not to forget a very important thing, is the ability to maintain large populations, this is very important, not just because it shows modernity, but because it plays a big role in evolution.

 

 

The genetic change is very relevant to Cro magnon. It's actually really interesting...The rapid genetic changes that the DNA suggests, happen to give the date of the acceleration around the the same time that the Auriginacian culture and Cro magnons(the first modern humans) appeared.

 

Neoteny means baby like proportions or features in different animals.

Cro magnon was not really "neotenous." I think you might be misunderstanding what that means.

It becomes a vague word if you're just applying it because Cro magnon's brain was big and his features were not archaic.

Someone simply with a large cranial capacity is not neotenous, someone with a small cranial capacity could be netoenous, it's a matter of proportion to the rest of the body. By your logic basically every human being is neotenous if they don't have archaic neanderthal features.

Edited October 18, 2016 by EvanF

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

You're misunderstanding...Behavioral modernity is not defined by Cro magnon behavior, it's simply first truly expressed around 50,000 years ago in the Aurginican culture coinciding with Cro magnons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian

 

No you are misunderstanding, You have not drawn a line where behavioral modernity begins or ends you simply assert that it is "truly expressed" 50,000 years ago but only provide one kind of technology as evidence.

 

 

Your listing things off, but not giving any real evidence of Neanderthal culture like I am with Aurignacian artifacts.

 

The Aurignacian culture includes, The oldest undisputed musical instrument, The oldest undisputed example of human figurative art, and endless evidence of sophistication and self awareness....That is an example of behavioral/cognitive modernity.

Neanderthals were in Europe for thousands and thousands of years...If they were truly modern they would have developed a culture even more advanced than the Aurginician, but the evidence appears to suggest that the few somewhat advanced things neanderthals supposedly made were simply stolen from Cro magnon's tools/culture anyways.

Whether or not Neanderthal had a language is pure speculation. There is no empirical evidence that we could base that off of. Again, simple tools and even mourning the dead is not evidence of behavioral modernity...Even animals like birds can make decent tools, and many animals are known to mourn dead companions...Elephants and chimpanzees are known to perform types of 'death rituals.'

 

Yes I did, it's not my fault you ignored them. Neanderthals arguably made the first instruments. Neanderthals also had "endless evidence of sophistication and self awareness". The fact you simply keep ignoring the data I'm presenting you makes your argument laughable.

Neanderthals made the boats 50,000 years before homo sapiens http://phys.org/news/2012-03-evidence-neanderthals-boats-modern-humans.html

 

Neanderthals use eagle talons(130,000 years ago) and feathers for necklaces http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045927 http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-wore-eagle-talons-as-jewellery-1.17095

 

Neanderthals made glue from birch tar wax and the method is more sophisticated than anything cro magnon produced. http://www.evoanth.net/2016/05/20/neanderthals-make-spear/ "It’s a good thing that it is easy to transport because it’s ruddy hard to come by. When “boiling” the birch bark to make it the tar itself evaporates. As such, if there’s any hole in your ‘kiln’ all of that precious work will just disappear. It has to be air tight. Given such simple mistakes can lead to the loss of the whole batch, it can take an awfully long time to produce a useable amount. It also means nobody has quite figured out how to make it in an authentic Neanderthal way. Most people – including James – boil the birch in sealed tin cans. Hardly prehistoric."

 

Neanderthals were possibly the first "chemists http://www.nature.com/articles/srep22159

 

"They may have used manganese dioxide to accelerate the combustion of wood. Although manganese oxide at Neanderthal sites has been considered to be for decorative use, recent research points out that substances easier to acquire could have been used and that "With archaeological evidence for fire places and the conversion of the manganese dioxide to powder, we argue that Neanderthals at Pech-de-l’Azé I used manganese dioxide in fire-making and produced fire on demand." MnO₂ lowers the combustion temperature of wood from 350 degrees Celsius to 250 degrees Celsius. Manganese dioxide powder is common in Neanderthal archaeological sites"

 

Neanderthal ancestors also made spears, which shows neanderthals simply lacked the proper anatomy to throw spears, but were intelligent enough to make them http://archive.archaeology.org/9705/newsbriefs/spears.html

 

Neanderthal created very complex and large structures miles underground that some even speculate is a water reservoir. There is evidence to suggest that some stalagmites were heated before being placed. http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-built-cave-structures-and-no-one-knows-why-1.19975 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95319-neanderthals-built-a-water-reservoir/

 

neanderthals hunted big game like mammoths, deer, and bison. This requires language, forethought and complex social units. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31506545/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/neanderthals-made-mammoth-jerky/

 

Behavioral modernity is defined as:

 

• burial
• fishing
• figurative art (cave paintings, petroglyphs, figurines)
• systematic use of pigment (such as ochre) and jewelry for decoration or self-ornamentation
• Using bone material for tools
• Transport of resources over long distances
• Blade technology
• Diversity, standardization, and regionally distinct artifacts
• Hearths
• Composite tools

 

Neanderthals had ALL of this and it is more than enough evidence of behavioral modernity in neanderthals. Tools for chimps and birds tend to always be sticks, what a fallacious comparison.

 

Speaking of language, neanderthals did not even have (like I've said before) the same kind of brains that we do, the part of the brain modern humans use for language skills (the parietal lobe) was underdeveloped in neanderthals. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/03/13/neanderthal-brains-show-fatal-lack-of-social-skills/#.WAaI2cnTanM

 

And not to forget a very important thing, is the ability to maintain large populations, this is very important, not just because it shows modernity, but because it plays a big role in evolution.

 

Neanderthals had language, even if slightly less complex, they had the proper anatomy and the genes for it. Language would have been necessary for big game hunting and the complex social structures neanderthals were obviously demonstrating.

 

The genetic change is very relevant to Cro magnon. It's actually really interesting...The rapid genetic changes that the DNA suggests, happen to give the date of the acceleration around the the same time that the Auriginacian culture and Cro magnons(the first modern humans) appeared.

 

It's irrelevant because it doesn't prove anything. The date doesn't coincide with the beginning's of modern behavior, and the genes affected had more to do with racial differences and population growth than any specfic technological increase. I seriously don't understand the point of this useless correlation you brought up.

 

Neoteny means baby like proportions or features in different animals.

Cro magnon was not really "neotenous." I think you might be misunderstanding what that means.

It becomes a vague word if you're just applying it because Cro magnon's brain was big and his features were not archaic.

Someone simply with a large cranial capacity is not neotenous, someone with a small cranial capacity could be netoenous, it's a matter of proportion to the rest of the body. By your logic basically every human being is neotenous if they don't have archaic neanderthal features.

 

Again you have no understanding of neoteny or how I am using it in this context. Netoeny has little do with actual brain size, and more to do with skull and skeleton shape. For example Blacks have wider nose bridges, bigger lips, and rounder faces which are all neotenous features, Whites have spherical craniums, small ears, and a shorter leg arm length in proportion to their torso, these are all neotenous features.

Doesn't the senses itself correlate to different size of brain regions to support it? For instance an animal with a strong sense of smell will have a larger "processing" region.

 

How much of the human brain deals strictly to problem solving? You will probably find its only a small percentage of the actual volume. Less than 5 percent if memory serves correctly.

 

For example a crow can solve problems that would stump a cow.

 

Ok so how much better is Earlier mans sense of smell? How does this affect brain size % to handle a greater sense of smell?

 

Have either of you considered this?

If i remember correctly, homo sapiens have bigger olfactory bulbs than neanderthals which gave them a better sense of smell, If I knew the correlation I could figure IQ from it.

Edited October 18, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[EvanF]

 

No you are misunderstanding, You have not drawn a line where behavioral modernity begins or ends you simply assert that it is "truly expressed" 50,000 years ago but only provide one kind of technology as evidence.

 

 

Yes I did, it's not my fault you ignored them. Neanderthals arguably made the first instruments. Neanderthals also had "endless evidence of sophistication and self awareness". The fact you simply keep ignoring the data I'm presenting you makes your argument laughable.

Neanderthals made the boats 50,000 years before homo sapiens http://phys.org/news/2012-03-evidence-neanderthals-boats-modern-humans.html

 

Neanderthals use eagle talons(130,000 years ago) and feathers for necklaces http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045927 http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-wore-eagle-talons-as-jewellery-1.17095

 

Neanderthals made glue from birch tar wax and the method is more sophisticated than anything cro magnon produced. http://www.evoanth.net/2016/05/20/neanderthals-make-spear/ "It’s a good thing that it is easy to transport because it’s ruddy hard to come by. When “boiling” the birch bark to make it the tar itself evaporates. As such, if there’s any hole in your ‘kiln’ all of that precious work will just disappear. It has to be air tight. Given such simple mistakes can lead to the loss of the whole batch, it can take an awfully long time to produce a useable amount. It also means nobody has quite figured out how to make it in an authentic Neanderthal way. Most people – including James – boil the birch in sealed tin cans. Hardly prehistoric."

 

Neanderthals were possibly the first "chemists http://www.nature.com/articles/srep22159

 

"They may have used manganese dioxide to accelerate the combustion of wood. Although manganese oxide at Neanderthal sites has been considered to be for decorative use, recent research points out that substances easier to acquire could have been used and that "With archaeological evidence for fire places and the conversion of the manganese dioxide to powder, we argue that Neanderthals at Pech-de-l’Azé I used manganese dioxide in fire-making and produced fire on demand." MnO₂ lowers the combustion temperature of wood from 350 degrees Celsius to 250 degrees Celsius. Manganese dioxide powder is common in Neanderthal archaeological sites"

 

Neanderthal ancestors also made spears, which shows neanderthals simply lacked the proper anatomy to throw spears, but were intelligent enough to make them http://archive.archaeology.org/9705/newsbriefs/spears.html

 

Neanderthal created very complex and large structures miles underground that some even speculate is a water reservoir. There is evidence to suggest that some stalagmites were heated before being placed. http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-built-cave-structures-and-no-one-knows-why-1.19975 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95319-neanderthals-built-a-water-reservoir/

 

neanderthals hunted big game like mammoths, deer, and bison. This requires language, forethought and complex social units. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31506545/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/neanderthals-made-mammoth-jerky/

 

Behavioral modernity is defined as:

 

• burial
• fishing
• figurative art (cave paintings, petroglyphs, figurines)
• systematic use of pigment (such as ochre) and jewelry for decoration or self-ornamentation
• Using bone material for tools
• Transport of resources over long distances
• Blade technology
• Diversity, standardization, and regionally distinct artifacts
• Hearths
• Composite tools

 

It's irrelevant because it doesn't prove anything. The date doesn't coincide with the beginning's of modern behavior, and the genes affected had more to do with racial differences and population growth than any specfic technological increase. I seriously don't understand the point of this useless correlation you brought up.

 

I'm glad you are trying to provide some evidence now...Though I think we need to clarify what exactly Behavioral modernity means and what it implies.

 

 

 

Behavioral modernity is not necessarily defined by a list, it's defined by abstract thinking and advanced cognitive abilities that represent the intellectual potentials near to what modern day humans have.

 

 

 

Tools do not necessarily equal Behavioral modernity. Tools arise from the need to adapt to an environment. Basic tools alone are not necessarily evidence of modern human capacities. Birds in the Corvin family (Ravens, crows,) are a good example of this. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/new-videos-prove-crows-can-make-complex-tools-that-only-humans-have-made-before/

 

The contradiction of trying to prove Neanderthals had Behavioral Modernity is that they were not even anatomically modern humans. They weren't even the same species as us.

 

Modern human cognitive ability is actually a deep concept. It's the very thing that makes us what we are...It's about the very mechanics of our brains and the neural changes that happened that made us unique from other animals on the planet. Modern human cognitive ability separates primitive humans banging rocks together from Lenoardo Davinci being able to create super complex paintings and scientists designing rockets to fly to outer space. Our brain is quite an amazing thing...In fact, the modern human brain is the most complex structure in the universe.

 

Essentially everything about Cro magnon culture was more advanced than Neanderthal's. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.

Cro magnons had the first known advanced bow and arrows as well as advanced throwing spears (atlatls) And all kinds of complex bone point and hook innovations.

But one good way we can really see the complexity of Cro magnons, is by looking at their art.

 

This art is as advanced as modern day art. In fact, most of you reading this could probably not carve a stone out like that or re-create that level of painting with primitive tools (on a cave wall no less.)

 

The oldest anthropomorphized figure in the world comes from Cro magnons, dated 40,000+ years ago known as the Lion man

They were known for creating anthropomorphized figures and paintings. Suggesting some kind of 'religious thought.' In fact the Aurignacian/Cro magnon culture essentially represents the first complex and undisputed evidence of "religion" (for lack of a better word.)

 

 

The 'Dolmens' that are found all over Britain are also roughly connected to the indigenous Europeans of antiquity (Cro magnons.) We don't know exactly when they were built, we just know it was a really long time ago.

 

 

 

 

 

Neanderthals never came anywhere near this complexity.

It's a modern trend to over-play Neanderthal's complexity by people in archeology, simply to counter-act the previous notions that Neanderthals were dumb.

 

 

 

Now on to your links...

 

-The idea that neanderthals and other archaic humans were sailing around on boats some 100k- 1 million years ago seems quite silly. There could be different explanations as to how they got to islands instead of, 'they had sail boats.' But this article puts forth a theory, not definitive evidence.

 

-The link you posted after suggesting neanderthals were possibly the first "chemists" is broken, it just brings me to the home page. And again this just ammounts to more conjecture, using "possibly", "may have" "could have"...The first 'chemists' is quite laughable. Even if they did use manganese for starting fire, that doesn't really make them "chemists."I could go out into the woods and grab some pine sap off a tree to use as fire fuel, but that would hardly make me a "chemist."

 

-Everyone knows neanderthals made simple spears...it's the most basic weapon technology. Not until Cro magnon did you get advanced well formed ranged weapon technology.

 

-Your link on the theory that neanderthals made water reservoirs in caves is a broken link...But apart from that you admit it amounts to speculation.

 

- Neanderthals didn't have all the examples of Modernity anyways. They didn't have figurative art, or really much of any art...If you payed attention to my previous post I mentioned that the Aurignacian (Cro magnon) culture had the undisputed earliest figurative art. Neanderthals had very limited bone technology. Neanderthal did not have very diverse artifacts.

 

The whole problem with neanderthal tool examples, like I've mentioned, is that there is evidence that they actually stole much of it from modern humans/ cro magnons. Remember, Neanderthals were thousands of years older than Cro magnon they should have had a much more advanced culture if they truley had modern human capacity for innovation...But all of the evidence does not suggest that...If neanderthals were as smart and socially skilled as Cro magnons/modern humans, then Neanderthals probably wouldn't have gone extinct.

 

 

 

The DNA evidence is what it is.

You don't have to understand it.

It shows some kind of rapid genetic change happened in human DNA around 40,000 years ago and is still going, just happening to coincide with the Aurignacian culture and the first human that was anatomically closest to modern humans, Cro magnon 1.

Edited October 19, 2016 by EvanF

[Delta1212]

You realize that "first humans that were anatomically closest to modern humans" doesn't actually mean anything right? You cousin continually skip forward 10,000 years at a time and most likely find a population that was "anatomically closer" to modern humans than existed 10,000 years previously, and that didn't end with Cro Magnons.

 

You can say that they were the first to cross some threshold that makes them worth putting in the same category as AMH, but you still have to justify that threshold being the best dividing point and demonstrate that nothing anywhere else crossed that threshold before Cro magnons did. Neither of which you have actually done.

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

I'm glad you are trying to provide some evidence now...Though I think we need to clarify what exactly Behavioral modernity means and what it IMPLIES.

 

You are pathetic. I just did define it.

 

Behavior modernity is not really defined by a list

 

Yes it is.

 

Tools do not necessarily equal Behavioral modernity. Tools arise from the need to adapt to an environment. Tools alone are not necessarily evidence of modern human capacities. Birds in the Corvin family (Ravens, crows,) are a good example of this. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/new-videos-prove-crows-can-make-complex-tools-that-only-humans-have-made-before/

 

No shit, I told you a dozen posts back. You are one the worst hypocrites

 

The contradiction of trying to prove Neanderthals had Behavioral Modernity is that they were not even anatomically modern humans. They weren't even the same species as us.

 

They don't have to be, there isn't a contradiction you're obviously grasping at straws by this point

 

Everything about the Aurginacion (Cro magnon) culture was more advanced than Neanderthal's. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.

Cro magnons had the first known advanced bow and arrows as well as advanced throwing spears (atlatls) And all kinds of complex bone point and hook innovations.

But one good way we can really see the complexity of Cro magnons, is through looking at their art.

 

What the hell is your point? all of that is irrelevant I provided evidence that neanderthals were behaviorally modern and you failed to debunk them as I showed below.

 

Now on to your links...

 

-The idea that neanderthals and other archaic humans were sailing around on boats some 100k- 1 million years ago seems quite silly. There could be different explanations as to how they got to islands instead of, 'they had sail boats.' But this article puts forth a theory, not definitive evidence.

 

-The link you posted after suggesting neanderthals were possibly the first "chemists" is broken, it just brings me to the home page. And again this just ammounts to more conjecture, using "possibly", "may have" "could have"...The first 'chemists' is quite laughable. Even if they did use manganese for starting fire, that doesn't really make them "chemists."I could go out into the woods and grab some pine sap off a tree to use as fire fuel, but that would hardly make me a "chemist."

 

-Everyone knows neanderthals made simple spears...it's the most basic weapon technology. Not until Cro magnon did you get advanced well formed ranged weapon technology.

 

-Your link on the theory that neanderthals made water reservoirs in caves is a broken link...But apart from that you admit it amounts to speculation.

 

-The examples of Behavioral modernity is not a definition. Also Neanderthal didn't have all of those anyways. They didn't have figurative art, or really much of any art...If you payed attention to my previous post I mentioned that the Aurignacian (Cro magnon) culture had the undisputed earliest figurative art. Neanderthals had very limited bone technology. Neanderthals did not have a use of pigment (such as ochre) and jewerly. Neanderthal did not have very diverse artifacts.

 

The whole problem with neanderthal tool examples, like I've mentioned, is that there is evidence that they actually stole much of it from modern humans/ cro magnons. Remember, Neanderthals were thousands of years older than Cro magnon they should have had a much more advanced culture if they truley had modern human capacity for innovation...But all of the evidence does not suggest that...If Cro magnons were as smart and socially skilled as Cro magnons/modern humans, then Neanderthals probably wouldn't have gone extinct.

 

- It's not silly, are you really suggesting they swam in freezing water possibly carrying stone tools 12 kilometers off the mainland? Did they get a ride from extra terrestrials? Maybe you should use that "common sense" you were talking about.

 

- Manipulation of Manganese dioxide is far more telling of complex social cognition than pine sap. "The selection and use of manganese dioxide for fire making is unknown from the ethnographic record of recent hunter gatherers. This unusual behaviour holds potential significance for our understanding of Neanderthal cognitive capabilities through the extent of their knowledge and insights. The actions involved in the preferential selection of a specific, non-combustible material and its use to make fire are not obvious, not intuitive and unlikely to be discovered by repetitive simple trials as might be expected for lithic fracturing, tool forming and tool use."Here is a link,Tell me if it doesn't work https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296475941_Selection_and_Use_of_Manganese_Dioxide_by_Neanderthals

 

-The point flies over your head again. Not surprising.

 

- It doesn't mater what people are speculating it's obvious it had some kind of complex use. Here is the link for the caves tell me if the link doesn't work again. http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-built-cave-structures-and-no-one-knows-why-1.19975

 

- Yes it is a definition, You're right they didn't make anthropomorphic art like Cro magnons, what's your point? They were still behaviorally modern as I demonstrated multiple posts ago and had to reiterate for you just now. They did have jewelry, they used eagle talons, and feathers for necklaces I literally just showed you. They also used red ochre for body paint. Why are you deliberately lying about evidence and ignoring mine?

 

You are exaggerating, they added bladelets and started retouching there isn't a whole lot they stole, because the tool kits were not that completely different. "However, things began to change amongst the Neanderthals. They began swapping out their Levallois tools for the blades and bladelets the humans made. Before modern humans arrived >50% of tools at a Neanderthal blade site were still Levallois. Afterwards the blades were in the majority. The Neanderthals also adopted a human technique called “retouching”, which was rare in the Mousterian. As the name suggest, this involved “touching up” tools. This kept them sharp so they could keep being used." http://www.evoanth.net/2016/04/19/neanderthals-stole-human-technology/

 

Again this brings me back to the strawman argument. I have never said neanderthals were smarter than us or even the same intelligence. But it's a fact that they would do perfectly fine in a human society. Get that through your thick skull.

 

The DNA evidence is what it is.

You don't have to understand it.

It shows some kind of rapid genetic change happened in human DNA around 40,000 years ago and is still going, just happening to coincide with the Aurignacian culture and the first human that was anatomically closest to modern humans, Cro magnon 1.

 

I understand it completely. It's obvious you don't hahahahaha. I tried explaining this to you but you're a sore loser. They are not the most close anatomically, and your correlation is completely useless to the conversation and non- causal, a lot of shit was happening 40,000 years ago, but you're so dumb you pick a random thing and claim they coalesce into a bigger picture when it's obvious to people like me who're actually educated enough to understand the literature that they don't.

 

I have provided solid evidence of behavioral modernity in Idaltu, and neanderthals, showed they were closer to our intelligence than cro magnon, and have demonstrated the position of your argued concept to be subjective, oversimplified, and completely lacking in the necessary evidence to back it up. It's not my fault you have chosen to lie about evidence, misinterpreted my clearly coherent points and ignore my evidence. Anyone who reads this discussion will immediately see the voices of reason within it. Unfortunately, yours isn't one of them.

You realize that "first humans that were anatomically closest to modern humans" doesn't actually mean anything right? You cousin continually skip forward 10,000 years at a time and most likely find a population that was "anatomically closer" to modern humans than existed 10,000 years previously, and that didn't end with Cro Magnons.

 

You can say that they were the first to cross some threshold that makes them worth putting in the same category as AMH, but you still have to justify that threshold being the best dividing point and demonstrate that nothing anywhere else crossed that threshold before Cro magnons did. Neither of which you have actually done.

Exactly his criteria is subjective.

Edited October 19, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[EvanF]

You are pathetic. I just did define it.

 

 

 

What the hell is your point? all of that is irrelevant I provided evidence that neanderthals were behaviorally modern and you failed to debunk them as I showed below.

 

 

- It's not silly, are you really suggesting they swam in freezing water possibly carrying stone tools 12 kilometers off the mainland? Did they get a ride from extra terrestrials? Maybe you should use that "common sense" you were talking about.

 

- Manipulation of Manganese dioxide is far more telling of complex social cognition than pine sap. "The selection and use of manganese dioxide for fire making is unknown from the ethnographic record of recent hunter gatherers. This unusual behaviour holds potential significance for our understanding of Neanderthal cognitive capabilities through the extent of their knowledge and insights. The actions involved in the preferential selection of a specific, non-combustible material and its use to make fire are not obvious, not intuitive and unlikely to be discovered by repetitive simple trials as might be expected for lithic fracturing, tool forming and tool use."Here is a link,Tell me if it doesn't work https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296475941_Selection_and_Use_of_Manganese_Dioxide_by_Neanderthals

 

- It doesn't mater what people are speculating it's obvious it had some kind of complex use. Here is the link for the caves tell me if the link doesn't work again. http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-built-cave-structures-and-no-one-knows-why-1.19975

 

- Yes it is a definition, You're right they didn't make anthropomorphic art like Cro magnons, what's your point? They were still behaviorally modern as I demonstrated multiple posts ago and had to reiterate for you just now. They did have jewelry, they used eagle talons, and feathers for necklaces I literally just showed you. They also used red ochre for body paint. Why are you deliberately lying about evidence and ignoring mine?

 

You are exaggerating, they added bladelets and started retouching there isn't a whole lot they stole, because the tool kits were not that completely different. "However, things began to change amongst the Neanderthals. They began swapping out their Levallois tools for the blades and bladelets the humans made. Before modern humans arrived >50% of tools at a Neanderthal blade site were still Levallois. Afterwards the blades were in the majority. The Neanderthals also adopted a human technique called “retouching”, which was rare in the Mousterian. As the name suggest, this involved “touching up” tools. This kept them sharp so they could keep being used." http://www.evoanth.net/2016/04/19/neanderthals-stole-human-technology/

 

Again this brings me back to the strawman argument. I have never said neanderthals were smarter than us or even the same intelligence. But it's a fact that they would do perfectly fine in a human society. Get that through your thick skull.

 

I have provided solid evidence of behavioral modernity in Idaltu, and neanderthals, showed they were closer to our intelligence than cro magnon, and have demonstrated the position of your argued concept to be subjective, oversimplified, and completely lacking in the necessary evidence to back it up. It's not my fault you have chosen to lie about evidence, misinterpreted my clearly coherent points and ignore my evidence. Anyone who reads this discussion will immediately see the voices of reason within

 

It's unfortunate you've come to the point of name calling and all out denial.

 

 

 

 

I take into account and address most of the pieces of evidence you attempt to provide...

While you completely deny the undisputed physical evidence I just posted, and literally your whole response is... "what the hell is your point?"

 

 

As far as your neanderthal sailor theory...

If it was an ice age then people could walk across frozen water. Talking 100,000+ years ago, it would be hard to know all the geological variables that could have come into play, like small land bridges that existed between islands.

 

 

The manganese dioxide theory is interesting, But the article you linked is again is not definitive but suggesting perhaps they used it to start fires with. Most likely they just used it for body decoration.

But Cro magnons also used manganese and iron oxides to create their cave paintings, taken from the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

 

 

"These early humans used manganese and iron oxides to paint pictures and may have created one early lunar calendar..."

Taken from the rest of the Wikipedia paragraph:

 

"The flint tools found in association with the remains at Cro-Magnon have associations with the Aurignacian culture that Lartet had identified a few years before he found the first skeletons. The Aurignacian differ from the earlier cultures by their finely worked bone or antler points and flint points made for hafting, the production of Venus figurines and cave painting.^[43] They pierced bones, shells and teeth to make body ornaments. The figurines, cave-paintings, ornaments and the mysterious Venus figurines are a hallmark of Cro-Magnon culture, contrasting with the utilitarian culture of the Neanderthals."

 

*Remember, one of the things on the Behavioral Modernity list is "Diversity and regionally distinct artifacts"...

 

 

The link you provided about Neanderthals possibly making "cave structures" is interesting, but again it literally says on the page that researchers are wary of making any conclusions.

 

Neanderthals had a kind of "jewelry" but not like Cro magnon's...Ripped off animal parts could roughly be considered "jewelry" I suppose.

 

 

We could assume that neanderthals could "fit in to modern society"...but again, even if that does seem possible, it is speculation. Remember the link I posted, they were a different species with a different brain structure that suggests they didn't have the same social capacities as modern humans. Also "fit in" is kind of vague.

 

 

You're far from providing "solid" evidence of Idaltu's Behavioral Modernity. I don't know how you could honestly believe that. At least you're trying to with neanderthal, though you admit they did not have the same intelligence level as us.

 

Notice how on the Wikipedia page about properties of Behavioral Modernity, -"Speculative IQ calculations" is not on the list.

Edited October 19, 2016 by EvanF

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

 

It seems you've come to the point of name calling and all out denial.

 

It's unfortunate you feel that way.

Don't pretend like this didn't start with you purposely lying about evidence and ignoring data.

 

I take into account and address most of the pieces of evidence you attempt to provide...

While you completely deny the undisputed physical evidence I just posted, and literally your whole response is... "what the hell is your point?"

It was a question, so why don't you answer it. What is it that I am denying? What is cro magnon art supposed to prove? I wasn't stating neanderthals were superior so I don't understand why you would even post that in defense of an argument.

 

As far as your neanderthal sailor theory...

If it was an ice age then people could walk across frozen water. Talking 100,000+ years ago, it would be hard to know all the geological variations that could have come into play, like small land bridges that existed between islands.

So they either walked 12 kilometers across frozen ocean or they built boats. Which do you think is more plausible?

 

The manganese dioxide theory is interesting, But the article you linked is again is not definitive but suggesting perhaps they used it to start fires with. But most likely they just used it for body decoration.

But Cro magnons also used manganese and iron oxides to create their cave paintings, taken from the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

 

 

"These early humans used manganese and iron oxides to paint pictures and may have created one early lunar calendar..."

Taken from the rest of the Wikipedia paragraph:

 

"The flint tools found in association with the remains at Cro-Magnon have associations with the Aurignacian culture that Lartet had identified a few years before he found the first skeletons. The Aurignacian differ from the earlier cultures by their finely worked bone or antler points and flint points made for hafting, the production of Venus figurines and cave painting.^[43] They pierced bones, shells and teeth to make body ornaments. The figurines, cave-paintings, ornaments and the mysterious Venus figurines are a hallmark of Cro-Magnon culture, contrasting with the utilitarian culture of the Neanderthals."

 

*Remember, one of the things on the Behavioral Modernity list is "Diversity and regionally distinct artifacts"...

 

I never said cro magnon didn't use manganese, again how is this proving anything?

 

How is "utilitarian" the opposite of "diverse"? How do you know this isn't a side effect of denser populations? How can you claim tool complexity is not indicative of relative intelligence between populations and then use it to propagate the concept of superior mental facilities over another when it is convenient for current argument? It's so hypocritical. You are not understanding the subjectivity of the conjectures you have.

 

I think it would be a good idea if I reaccessed your ideas a little better. Let me get this straight, You just think cro magnon's were the earliest human ancestors and your basic logic is that because they are the most intelligent hominids and have facial structures the most similar to us, then that means they are the first example of our species? Even though we know without a doubt the first homo sapiens was from africa? That would have to mean cro magnon is from africa, but we do not have any fossils(as far as I'm aware) of cro magnons in africa. So Idaltu and cro magnon must be regional variations of the same macro species.Which modernity hypothesis do you think fits your idea the best?:

 

"-The Late Upper Paleolithic Model, or Upper Paleolithic Revolution, refers to the idea that, though anatomically modern humans first appear around 150,000 years ago, they were not cognitively or behaviorally "modern" until around 50,000 years ago, leading to their expansion into Europe and Asia. These authors note that traits used as a metric for behavioral modernity do not appear as a package until around 40–50,000 years ago. Klein (1995) specifically describes evidence of fishing, bone shaped as a tool, hearths, significant artifact diversity, and elaborate graves are all absent before this point. Although assemblages before 50,000 years ago show some diversity the only distinctly modern tool assemblages appear in Europe at 48,000. According to these authors, art only becomes common beyond this switching point, signifying a change from archaic to modern humans. Most researchers argue that a neurological or genetic change, perhaps one enabling complex language such as FOXP2, caused this revolutionary change in our species.

-Contrasted with this view of a spontaneous leap in cognition among ancient humans, some authors, primarily working in African archaeology, point to the gradual accumulation of "modern" behaviors, starting well before the 50,000 year benchmark of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution models. Howiesons Poort, Blombos, and other South African archaeological sites, for example, show evidence of marine resource acquisition, trade, and abstract ornamentation at least by 80,000 years ago. Given evidence from Africa and the Middle East, a variety of hypotheses have been put forth to describe an earlier, gradual transition from simple to more complex human behavior. Some authors have pushed back the appearance of fully modern behavior to around 80,000 years ago in order to incorporate the South African data. Others focus on the slow accumulation of different technologies and behaviors across time. These researchers describe how anatomically modern humans could have been cognitively the same and what we define as behavioral modernity is just the result of thousands of years of cultural adaptation and learning. D'Errico and others have looked at Neanderthal culture rather than early human behavior for clues into behavioral modernity. Noting that Neanderthal assemblages often portray similar traits as those listed for modern human behavior, researchers stress that the foundations for behavioral modernity may in fact lie deeper in our hominin ancestors. If both modern humans and Neanderthals express abstract art and complex tools then "modern human behavior" cannot be a derived trait for our species. They argue that the original 'human revolution' theory reflects a profound Eurocentric bias. Recent archaeological evidence, they argue, proves that humans evolving in Africa some 300,000 or even 400,000 years ago were already becoming cognitively and behaviourally 'modern'. These features include blade and microlithic technology, bone tools, increased geographic range, specialized hunting, the use of aquatic resources, long distance trade, systematic processing and use of pigment, and art and decoration. These items do not occur suddenly together as predicted by the ‘‘human revolution’’ model, but at sites that are widely separated in space and time. This suggests a gradual assembling of the package of modern human behaviours in Africa, and its later export to other regions of the Old World. Between these extremes is the view – currently supported by archaeologists Chris Henshilwood, Curtis Marean, Ian Watts and others – that there was indeed some kind of 'human revolution' but that it occurred in Africa and spanned tens of thousands of years. The term 'revolution' in this context would mean not a sudden mutation but a historical development along the lines of 'the industrial revolution' or 'the Neolithic revolution'. In other words, it was a relatively accelerated process, too rapid for ordinary Darwinian 'descent with modification' yet too gradual to be attributed to a single genetic or other sudden event. These archaeologists point in particular to the relatively explosive emergence of ochre crayons and shell necklaces apparently used for cosmetic purposes. These archaeologists see symbolic organisation of human social life as the key transition in modern human evolution. Recently discovered at sites such as Blombos Cave and Pinnacle Point, South Africa, pierced shells, pigments and other striking signs of personal ornamentation have been dated within a time-window of 70,000 – 160,000 years ago in the African Middle Stone Age, suggesting that the emergence of Homo sapiens coincided, after all, with the transition to modern cognition and behaviour. While viewing the emergence of language as a 'revolutionary' development, this school of thought generally attributes it to cumulative social, cognitive and cultural evolutionary processes as opposed to a single genetic mutation

-A further view, taken by archaeologists such as Francesco D'Errico and João Zilhão, is a multi-species perspective arguing that evidence for symbolic culture in the form of utilised pigments and pierced shells are also found in Neanderthal sites, independently of any 'modern' human influence. Cultural evolutionary models may also shed light on why although evidence of behavioral modernity exists before 50,000 years ago it is not expressed consistently until that point. With small population sizes, human groups would have been affected by demographic and cultural evolutionary forces that may not have allowed for complex cultural traits. According to some authors until population density became significantly high, complex traits could not have been maintained effectively. It is worth noting that some genetic evidence supports a dramatic increase in population size before human migration out of Africa. High local extinction rates within a population also can significantly decrease the amount of diversity in neutral cultural traits, regardless of cognitive ability."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity#Theories_and_Models

 

The link you provided about Neanderthals possibly making "cave structures" is interesting, but again it literally says on the page that researchers are wary of making any conclusions.

 

Here is some more speculative discussion on it if you are truly interested http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95319-neanderthals-built-a-water-reservoir/

 

We could assume that neanderthals could "fit in to modern society"...but again, even if that does seem possible, it is speculation. Remember the link I posted, they were a different species with different brain structure that suggests they didn't have the same social capacities as modern humans. Also "fit in" is kind of vague.

 

By fit in I mean pay taxes, find a job, live a relatively normal life etc. If I go by brain size alone they would be far more intelligent than modern day humans, but like you said they have slightly different cranial morphologies, which would probably lower their score quite a bit. However they are 300cc above us on the scale so maybe the fact that their brain has such a sheer size difference relative to ours might tip it in their favor.

 

You're far from providing "solid" evidence of Idaltu's Behavioral Modernity. I don't know how you could honestly believe that. At least you're trying to with neanderthal, though you admit they did not have the same intelligence level as us. Notice how on the Wikipedia page about properties of Behavioral Modernity, -"Speculative IQ calculations" is not on the list.

Well they are the same species as us and virtually identical in an anatomical sense, so it isn't really speculative at all. Just because you keep saying it isn't evidence doesn't mean you're right. Like I said it is the closest thing to an IQ test you can get, and the math is pretty sound, with a high confidence rating. I don't really know what else you want me to say to you, take it or leave it.

Edited October 19, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[EvanF]

Don't pretend like this didn't start with you purposely lying about evidence and ignoring data.

 

What is it that I am denying? What is cro magnon art supposed to prove? I wasn't stating neanderthals were superior so I don't understand why you would even post that in defense of an argument.

 

 

I never said cro magnon didn't use manganese, again how is this proving anything?

 

How is "utilitarian" the opposite of "diverse"? How do you know this isn't a side effect of denser populations? How can you claim tool complexity is not indicative of relative intelligence between populations and then use it to propagate the concept of superior mental facilities over another when it is convenient for current argument? It's so hypocritical. You are not understanding the subjectivity of the conjectures you have.

 

I think it would be a good idea if I reaccessed your ideas a little better. Which modernity hypothesis do you think fits your idea the best?:

 

"-The Late Upper Paleolithic Model, or Upper Paleolithic Revolution, refers to the idea that, though anatomically modern humans first appear around 150,000 years ago, they were not cognitively or behaviorally "modern" until around 50,000 years ago, leading to their expansion into Europe and Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity#Theories_and_Models

 

 

Here is some more speculative discussion on it if you are truly interested http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95319-neanderthals-built-a-water-reservoir/

 

 

By fit in I mean pay taxes, find a job, live a relatively normal life etc. If I go by brain size alone they would be far more intelligent than modern day humans, but like you said they have slightly different cranial morphologies, which would probably lower their score quite a bit. However they are 300cc above us on the scale so maybe the fact that their brain has such a sheer size difference relative to ours might tip it in their favor.

 

Well they are the same species as us and virtually identical in an anatomical sense, so it isn't really speculative at all. Just because you keep saying it isn't evidence doesn't mean you're right. Like I said it is the closest thing to an IQ test you can get, and the math is pretty sound, with a high confidence rating. I don't really know what else you want me to say to you, take it or leave it.

I'm not sure what I have "lied" about, and as far as "ignoring data," well I've tried to address the majority of what you say. Just bring it to my attention if I haven't.

 

You made a claim(s) in post #155 that Neanderthals made glue that was, "more sophisticated than anything cro magnon produced"

And that "Neanderthals also had endless evidence of sophistication" and finally that Neanderthals had "ALL" the things listed in the Behavioral Modernity list...

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood what I said about tools...Tool complexity certainly is related to intelligence, but modern human behavior is expressed through more than tools alone.

 

 

Cro magnon art is obviously proof of advanced complexity/ modern behavior.

Neanderthal's "utilitarian" culture meaning they lacked the same kind of complexity that is expressed through the symbolism and figurative art that is shown in Cro magnon/modern human cultures.

 

You're assuming that Neanderthals had dense populations, but that's not the case. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140421-neanderthal-dna-genes-human-ancestry-science/

That's another factor that sets Neanderthals apart from behavioral modernity...they never really had the kind of society/social structure and dispersion that modern humans had that led to large populations. Neanderthals were severely inbred and carried serious diseases because of this. http://phys.org/news/2016-06-inbred-neanderthals-left-humans-genetic.html

 

 

 

The Upper Paleolithic Revolution is of course what I've been talking about this whole time.

 

 

 

 

 

H. S. Idaltu was definitely not virtually anatomically identical to modern humans. I mean you can look at the skull and see that, but did you miss the data I linked earlier on this? Idaltu (Herto) is only 70% anatomically similar to modern humans. (Go to pg. 6) http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca

Edited October 19, 2016 by EvanF

[Ophiolite]

Cro magnon art is obviously proof of advanced complexity/ modern behavior.

Neanderthal's whole culture essentially lacked anything in comparison.

So you reject the possibility that they engaged in complex story telling, choral singing and dance to an equivalent level of the preservable cave paintings. What is your justification for that rejection?

[EvanF]

So you reject the possibility that they engaged in complex story telling, choral singing and dance to an equivalent level of the preservable cave paintings. What is your justification for that rejection?

I mean, you can speculate about all kinds of things. Maybe Neanderthals told stories with a complex language, but there's no concrete evidence that you could base a theory like that on. Neanderthal culture wasn't full of the same kind of complex symbolic expression and creativity that is evident with Cro magnon.

Edited October 19, 2016 by EvanF

[DrP]

To play advocate - there is no evidence against it either. It was so long ago it can't be known.

 

As for the development of tools - it could be acquired cumulative learning passed on. The fact that their tools were more sophisticated is not proof of higher or lower intelligence.

[Ophiolite]

To play advocate - there is no evidence against it either. It was so long ago it can't be known.

Exactly the point I wished to make. While we recognise that Neanderthals were different from modern humans the differences are not sufficient to argue against the possession of skills such as those I suggested. We cannot know, since those skills leave no record of any kind. While we may construct an argument that suggests it is unlikely, it cannot be ruled out.

[EvanF]

To play advocate - there is no evidence against it either. It was so long ago it can't be known.

 

As for the development of tools - it could be acquired cumulative learning passed on. The fact that their tools were more sophisticated is not proof of higher or lower intelligence.

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

 

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence

 

 

I'm not just talking about tools, I'm talking about all of the artifacts as a whole.

And yes that is evidence of higher intelligence/behavioral modernity.

Edited October 19, 2016 by EvanF

[Ophiolite]

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

 

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence

 

 

I'm not just talking about tools, I'm talking about all of the artifacts as a whole.

And yes that is evidence of higher intelligence/behavioral modernity.

Higher intelligence than......?

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

I'm not sure what I have "lied" about, and as far as "ignoring data," well I've tried to address the majority of what you say. Just bring it to my attention if I haven't.

 

I'm wiling to look past it simply because you readdressed it when I brought it to your attention. You claimed I have not been providing evidence when I have been this entire time not only this but you completely ignored some of links to neanderthal tools.

 

You made a claim(s) in post #155 that Neanderthals made glue that was, "more sophisticated than anything cro magnon produced"

And that "Neanderthals also had endless evidence of sophistication" and finally that Neanderthals had "ALL" the things listed in the Behavioral Modernity list...

 

Because it was, at least when it came to hafting techniques. But this isn't indicative of higher intelligence, the materials needed for the glue are almost exclusively in neanderthal territory. Neanderthals did have all the things listed on the behavioral modernity list, I proved it.

 

 

 

Cro magnon art is obviously proof of advanced complexity/ modern behavior.

Neanderthal's "utilitarian" culture meaning they lacked the same kind of complexity that is expressed through the symbolism and figurative art that is shown in Cro magnon/modern human cultures.

 

Again, what is your point? This does not mean they were not modern. Utilitarian also means pragmatic, or efficient. were neanderthals more practical than cro magnon? Isn't that a sign of genius? If it aint broke don't fix it.

 

You're assuming that Neanderthals had dense populations, but that's not the case. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140421-neanderthal-dna-genes-human-ancestry-science/

That's another factor that sets Neanderthals apart from behavioral modernity...they never really had the kind of society/social structure and dispersion that modern humans had that led to large populations. Neanderthals were severely inbred and carried serious diseases because of this. http://phys.org/news/2016-06-inbred-neanderthals-left-humans-genetic.html

 

No, I was assuming the opposite, if neanderthals had lower population density this means their innovation rate would be lower as well.

 

The Upper Paleolithic Revolution is of course what I've been talking about this whole time.

 

Well let's explore this for a minute. This model is not completely wrong, but is arbitrarily bent on making useless divisions, something I have noticed you've been doing this entire discussion. We know that people were anatomically modern in africa(Idaltu) but not technologically, so by this logic it would make sense that humans are not modern until cro magnon appears. BUT, there is increasing evidence of symbolic and artistic complexity beginning in africa that gradually accumulated to Europe. So yes, cro magnon is the most recent and modern of our ancestors but not the earliest one, the earliest is in fact Idaltu or whatever African hominid appears first after the 200,000 year mark.

 

"Howiesons Poort, Blombos, and other South African archaeological sites, for example, show evidence of marine resource acquisition, trade, and abstract ornamentation at least by 80,000 years ago. Given evidence from Africa and the Middle East, a variety of hypotheses have been put forth to describe an earlier, gradual transition from simple to more complex human behavior. Some authors have pushed back the appearance of fully modern behavior to around 80,000 years ago in order to incorporate the South African data.

Others focus on the slow accumulation of different technologies and behaviors across time. These researchers describe how anatomically modern humans could have been cognitively the same and what we define as behavioral modernity is just the result of thousands of years of cultural adaptation and learning. D'Errico and others have looked at Neanderthal culture rather than early human behavior for clues into behavioral modernity. Noting that Neanderthal assemblages often portray similar traits as those listed for modern human behavior, researchers stress that the foundations for behavioral modernity may in fact lie deeper in our hominin ancestors"

 

H. S. Idaltu was definitely not virtually anatomically identical to modern humans. I mean you can look at the skull and see that, but did you miss the data I linked earlier on this? Idaltu (Herto) is only 70% anatomically similar to modern humans. (Go to pg. 6) http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca

 

No, did you miss it when I had deconstructed it as an argument? It only measure cranial/facial features not the whole skeleton, not only this but if your argument is "they look the same" then I can't take you seriously, there are plenty of modern humans with brow ridges and other non neotenous features. For the final time neoteny is not equivalent to any kind of modernity, and practically irrelevant when trying to assess actual similarity.

 

In short, the main issue with your argument is that it is subjectively positioned. You are trying to argue certain divisions when the divisions themselves are not clearly drawn. You basically just want to be right.

Edited October 19, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[J.C.MacSwell]

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

 

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence

 

 

I'm not just talking about tools, I'm talking about all of the artifacts as a whole.

And yes that is evidence of higher intelligence/behavioral modernity.

I guess we have evolved a lot in the last few years then...

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

I guess we have evolved a lot in the last few years then...

We haven't the OP is just full of shit.

[EvanF]

I guess we have evolved a lot in the last few years then...

 

The DNA evidence shows that we have evolved rapidly starting somewhere around 40,000 years ago, and that we are still evolving.

https://www.wired.com/2007/12/humans-evolving/

 

In the last 100 years our technology has evolved amazingly.

 

Modern cognitive ability/the complexity of our brain, has given us essentially unlimited potential.

 

Our abilities/what makes us unique from other primate and animals is not just evident with modern technology though.

It is evident with all the amazing innovations, society and art the first human civilizations created and then going all the way back to 40,000 years ago with Cro magnon.

The advanced art/culture created by Cro Magnon shows they had essentially the same type of intellectual/creative potential that modern day humans have.

 

 

When speaking about this recent rapid evolution/genetic change, there are different factors...One could be anatomical, the other main factor could be neural change.

 

The anatomic transition from neanderthal-like archaic humans to modern humans (Cro magnons) was very rapid when you look at it in the context of the the millions of years of human evolution.

 

Cro magnons however did not represent an anatomically UN-evolved, simple form of modern Human at all...They were almost, strangely enough, more evolved than we are in the sense they had a significantly larger brain and no chimp-like features.

 

And if you look at the skull of an Indigenous European hunter gatherer from only around 7,000 years ago, it's quite similar in it's features to 40,000 year old Cro magnon 1 (just not fossilized.)

 

(Skull picture taken from this article... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/26/swarthy-blue-eyed-caveman-dna-tooth

 

The anatomic features from Cro magnon like the large brain size (that we don't have anymore) was probably not lost from anatomic (de)-evolution (which wouldn't make sense)...But from mixing with other tribes of people. Cro magnons/indigenous Europeans were a distinct genetic group that had unique genetic features like dark skin that made them different from modern day 'Europeans.'

The indigenous Europeans around 7,000 years ago mixed with white skinned people (and other groups) coming from the east. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892

 

So starting around 50,000 year ago with Cro magnon, there doesn't seem to be any major structural/anatomic evolution past that point.

 

So this suggests that this rapid genetic change/evolution that started happening around 40,000 years ago was not just the evolution of different features past archaic humans, but perhaps some kind of neural evolution that brought about Behavioral modernity.

Something that we can't see by looking at skull's features or general brain capacity, but something that happened within the complex mechanisms of the brain itself.

And this is what made us what we are as human beings.

Edited October 20, 2016 by EvanF

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

 

The DNA evidence shows that we have evolved rapidly starting somewhere around 40,000 years ago, and that we are still evolving.

https://www.wired.com/2007/12/humans-evolving/

 

In the last 100 years our technology has evolved amazingly.

 

I don't think those are necessarily correlated, the researchers even say a lot of the changes are racial ones, and they imply that there have been dysgenic trends towards life history and by extension cognitive performance.

 

Our abilities/what makes us unique from other primate and animals is not just evident with modern technology though.

It is evident with all the amazing innovations, society and art the first human civilizations created and then going all the way back to 40,000 years ago with Cro magnon.

The advanced art/culture created by Cro Magnon shows they had essentially same type of intellectual/creative potential that modern day humans have. When speaking about this recent rapid evolution/genetic change, there are different factors...One could be anatomical, the other main factor could be neural change. The anatomic transition from neanderthal-like archaic humans to modern humans (Cro magnons) was very rapid when you look at it in the context of the the millions of years of human evolution. Cro magnons however did not represent an anatomically UN-evolved, simple form of modern Human at all...They were almost, strangely enough, more evolved than we are in the sense they had a significantly larger brain and no chimp-like features.

 

120,000 years ago with African HSS** Wouldn't it make sense for This rapid increase in mutation rate to happen before Cro magnon arrive on the scene? Or are you just trying to convey that their technological innovations in Europe were caused by the increase? Also I think the term "more evolved" is a little subjective here. You are implying that their evolution had a predesignated direction.

 

And if you look at the skull of an Indigenous European hunter gatherer from only around 7,000 years ago, it's quite similar in it's features to 40,000 year old Cro magnon 1 (just not fossilized.)

 

(Skull picture taken from this article... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/26/swarthy-blue-eyed-caveman-dna-tooth

 

Interesting, The more recent specimen seems to have higher levels of neoteny than the cro magnon, although this could be from the positioning of the skulls. It also has smaller eyes and teeth which are much more progressive features and could give more room in the cranial space for actual brain matter. Some have argued that Cro magnon are simply hybridized neanderthal/ homo sapiens.

 

The anatomic features from Cro magnon like the large brain size (that we don't have anymore) was probably not lost from anatomic (de)-evolution (which wouldn't make sense)...But from mixing with other tribes of people who were different. Cro magnons/indigenous Europeans were a distinct genetic group that had unique genetic features like dark skin that made them different from modern day 'Europeans.'

The indigenous Europeans around 7,000 years ago mixed with white skinned people (and other groups) coming from the east. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892

 

Do you know the brain size of the specimen on the left? Also, brain size has been decreasing since 20,000 years ago(supposedly the frontal lobe has continued to grow), all around the world so it can't be due to admixture, even other hominids besides cro magnon had bigger brains than us. Interestingly, EQ has been increasing through out our evolution but is now stagnant, but I'm not sure how accurate that is because the article even says that if our bodies were shrinking as fast as our brains we would be 4'6" on average. So doesn't that imply we are less encephalized now?

 

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

 

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

 

So starting around 50,000 year ago with Cro magnon, there doesn't seem to be any major structural/anatomic evolution past that point. So this suggests that this rapid genetic change/evolution that started happening around 40,000 years ago was not just the evolution of different features past archaic humans, but perhaps some kind of neural evolution that brought about Behavioral modernity.

Something that we can't see by looking at skull's features or general brain capacity, but something that happened within the complex mechanisms of the brain itself.

And this is what made us what we are as human beings.

 

It's kind of major. Our brain decreased by at least 300ccs and we become more neotenous. I think you're extrapolating the wrong information from the DNA article. The article never makes claims on neural function change, I am not denying it's possible existence but it was not on the scale you're thinking it was. It's much more concerned with the variation of regionally adapted traits. The article just doesn't prove what you're trying to.

 

http://news.wisc.edu/genome-study-places-modern-humans-in-the-evolutionary-fast-lane/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion

EDIT: Sorry in my reply to the second quote I said neanderthals instead of cro magnon. It is fixed now.

Edited October 20, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[EvanF]

120,000 years ago with African HSS**

 

Wouldn't it make sense for This rapid increase in mutation rate to happen before Cro magnon arrive on the scene? Or are you just trying to convey that their technological innovations in Europe were caused by the increase? Also I think the term "more evolved" is a little subjective here.

 

 

Some have argued that Cro magnon are simply hybridized neanderthal/ homo sapiens.

 

 

Do you know the brain size of the specimen on the right? Also, brain size has been decreasing since 20,000 years ago

 

 

It's kind of major. Our brain decreased by at least 300ccs and we become more neotenous.

 

I think you're extrapolating the wrong information from the DNA article. The article never makes claims on neural function change, I am not denying it's possible existence but it was not on the scale you're thinking it was. It's much more concerned with the variation of regionally adapted traits. The article just doesn't prove what you're trying to.

120,000 years ago with Idaltu? Where is your evidence for that?

 

The earliest indisputable evidence of the beginnings of human pre-civilization/ human society comes from 40,000 years ago in the Upper paleolithic...IE The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Almost everything that marks a sophisticated human culture is represented in artifacts from the Aurignacian culture.

 

It's not subjective.

Hominids got larger more complex brains and lost their archaic/chimp-like features. That's literally the story of human evolution.

 

 

What link can you provide that shows any reputable scientists saying Cro magnons are a hybrid of Neanderthals?

That doesn't make sense in any way. Cro magnon 1 doesn't look anything like a neanderthal. Neanderthals were a different species all together.

 

 

The specimen on the right is Cro magnon 1, who had a 1600cc cranial capacity.

 

The statement that "brain size has been shrinking but our frontal lobes are growing" is kind of contradictory... One part shrinks but the other part grows kind of just sounds like the brain is prioritizing/adapting. Shrinking would imply degeneration. The brains of hominids for over 4 million years just kept getting bigger, so it wouldn't make any sense for our brains to literally be "shrinking," though I supposed it's possible.

 

 

 

No other hominids outside of Cro magnon really had a true bigger brain than us. Idaltu falls into the high average of modern humans...Neanderthal had a general brain size larger, but certain parts of the neanderthal brain were smaller like the parietal and frontal lobe, so neanderthal doesn't really qualify. And of course brain size would have varied among archaic humans.

 

 

The very idea that brain size is shrinking largely originates from scientists in 2010 studying Cro magnon's cranial capacity and comparing it to us.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/scientists-are-alarmed-shrinking-human-brain-001446

 

I think what has really happened is what you could call Cro magnon dispersion.

Cro magnon's represented a unique genetic type...here's a quote from the article I just posted previously about the 7,000 year old indigenous European http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892 " Their genetic profile is not a good match for any modern group of people, suggesting they were caught up in the farming wave" (IE they interbred with larger groups of agriculture based humans coming from the east and lost their unique genetic profile)...

The researches aren't taking into account that this specific genetic trait for a very large brain that certain people had around 20,000-40,000 (give or take thousands of years) has simply diluted through different groups of people mixing together.

Brain size varies significantly over different groups and individuals.

So say one group of people or parent has a 1400cc brain and the other group is 1200cc...The next generation is 1300cc...and then the trend continues like that...The brain size for the newer generations hasn't literally "shrunk" it's just a matter of genetic variation.

 

 

What the article says on the DNA change is mostly irrelevant, what's important is the DNA data it is referring to.

They don't say anything about what specifically was evolved because that would be such a complicated thing to pin point, but it was obviously something significant and it started around 40,000 years ago.

If anatomically modern humans already existed long before 50,000 years, then what was the rapid genetic change that took place? There should be no rapid genetic change in our DNA starting 40,000 years ago according to a 'gradualism' theory.

But when you apply my theory around this DNA evidence, it essentially gives an answer...WE are what happened. Modern human cognitive ability is what happened(and it's still happening.)

Edited October 20, 2016 by EvanF

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

120,000 years ago with Idaltu? Where is your evidence for that?

no, Idaltu was 160-140 thousand years ago. I said HSS

 

The earliest indisputable evidence of the beginnings of human pre-civilization/ human society comes from 40,000 years ago in the Upper paleolithic...IE The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Almost everything that marks a sophisticated human culture is represented in artifacts from the Aurignacian culture.

No it's not? Stop ignoring evidence, you're so pretentious. Quite changing definitions. One second the Aurignacian culture is behavior modernity now it's precivilization.

 

It's not subjective.

Hominids got larger more complex brains and lost their archaic/chimp-like features. That's literally the story of human evolution.

You are implying two species who coexist have differing "levels of evolution" which is pseudoscience.

 

What link can you provide that shows any reputable scientists saying Cro magnons are a hybrid of Neanderthals?

That doesn't make sense in any way. Cro magnon 1 doesn't look anything like a neanderthal. Neanderthals were a different species all together.

Stop being so defensive it was merely a conjecture, I do not remember where I heard it from but it kind of makes sense. Cro magnon have rectangular orbital sockets and big elongated heads like neanderthals(possibly a large visual cortex), so maybe when HSS came up from africa they interbred with neanderthals in the middle east which are what we call cro magnon:

 

"A nearly complete skull of a young male Oase 2 and fragments of another cranium (Oase 3) were found in 2005, again with mosaic features; some of these are paralleled in the Oase 1 mandible. Later, during 2005, the Oase 3 fragments were assigned as being part of the same individual as Oase 2. In concurrence with the mixed physical traits, DNA sequances from the mandible shows 6-9 % Neanderthal ancestry in fairly long continuous portions, indicating Oase 1 had a Neanderthal ancestor as recent as 4-6 generations back"

 

 

The specimen on the right is Cro magnon 1, who had a 1600cc cranial capacity.

Sorry I mean the left.

 

The statement that "brain size has been shrinking but our frontal lobes are growing" is kind of contradictory... One part shrinks put the other part grows kind of just sounds like the brain is prioritizing/adapting. Shrinking would imply degeneration. The brains of hominids for over 4 million years just kept getting bigger, so it wouldn't make any sense for our brains to literally be "shrinking," though I supposed it's possible. No other hominids outside of Cro magnon really had a true bigger brain than us. Idaltu falls into the high average of modern humans...Neanderthal had a general brain size larger, but certain parts of the neanderthal brain were smaller like the parietal and frontal lobe, so neanderthal doesn't really qualify. And of course brain size would have varied among archaic humans. The very idea that brain size is shrinking largely originates from scientists in 2010 studying Cro magnon's cranial capacity and comparing it to us.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/scientists-are-alarmed-shrinking-human-brain-001446

 

It's not contradictory the brain has been decreasing, the overall size has gotten smaller but the frontal lobe is proportionately still bigger. I don't care if you think it's illogical its empirically verifiable. Cro magnon was the peak of our average brain size so yes they are comparing us to them but HSS 100,000 years ago had larger brains than us so did Idaltu and so did neanderthals. Neanderthals make up for the primitive structure, from sheer size alone. You're being fallacious again, you cant use full scope variation as an argument and then switch to averages.

 

I think what has really happened is what you could call Cro magnon dispersion.

Cro magnon's represented a unique genetic type...here's a quote from the article I just posted previously about the 7,000 year old indigenous European http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892 " Their genetic profile is not a good match for any modern group of people, suggesting they were caught up in the farming wave" (IE they interbred with larger groups of agriculture based humans coming from the east and lost their unique genetic profile)...

The researches aren't taking into account that this specific genetic trait for a very large brain that certain people had around 20,000-40,000 (give or take thousands of years) has simply diluted through different groups of people mixing together.

Brain size varies significantly over different groups and individuals.

So say one group of people or parent has a 1400cc brain and the other group is 1200cc...The next generation is 1300cc...and then the trend continues like that...The brain size for the newer generations hasn't literally "shrunk" it's just a matter of genetic variation.

Too many assumptions and speculations, What specific gene do you mean? Again the shrinkage happened all over the world and for multiple reasons, also the people admixed with the cro magnons 7,000 years ago when the shrinking already began 20,000 years ago.

[EvanF]

 

Quite changing definitions. One second the Aurignacian culture is behavior modernity now it's precivilization.

 

 

Sorry I mean the left.

 

It's not contradictory the brain has been decreasing, the overall size has gotten smaller but the frontal lobe is proportionately still bigger. I don't care if you think it's illogical its empirically verifiable. Cro magnon was the peak of our average brain size so yes they are comparing us to them but HSS 100,000 years ago had larger brains than us so did Idaltu and so did neanderthals. Neanderthals make up for the primitive structure, from sheer size alone. You're being fallacious again, you cant use full scope variation as an argument and then switch to averages.

 

Too many assumptions and speculations, What specific gene do you mean? Again the shrinkage happened all over the world and for multiple reasons, also the people admixed with the cro magnons 7,000 years ago when the shrinking already began 20,000 years ago.

 

Behavioral modernity is of course what leads to human civilization. How do you not understand that?

Something as advanced as the Aurignacian culture is essentially the groundwork from which a human society would/did evolve from.

 

Idaltu had the same brain size as many males living today. You can't just focus on the smaller modern human variations. Idaltu-like humans in Africa 150,000+ years ago surely had small variations as well.

And basing brain shrinkage off of neanderthals wouldn't even make sense because we don't even directly descend from neanderthals, they were a different species.

But of course it's not scientific to simply just focus on the general "sheer size" of the brain (like you typically do) and make a conclusion without examining the structure itself.

 

I think you might be misunderstanding this whole thing about brain shrinkage. Researchers don't know what caused it, and many of them are simply comparing modern day humans to a large brained Cro magnon.

It's not a study that documents that literally every human brain is incrementally shrinking each year or something.

My theory should be easy for you to understand.

The indigenous Europeans (cro magnons) represented a unique genetic profile.

One of the unique traits they had was a very large brain.

Since no modern human group matches the Genetic profile of this indigenous European, that means they do not exist as a distinct group anymore because they interbred with many different human groups.

Asians and many other groups all around the world roughly connect to Cro magnons through Haplogroup N.

The date researchers say brains started "shrinking" was more around 10,000 years ago coinciding with the agricultural revolution, which of course further coincides with what I'm saying.

Researchers speculate it's perhaps because of farming that our brains got smaller...

I say it's also because of the farmers themselves...

IE large human groups with agriculture migrated into the areas where the big brained groups lived and mixed with them...

This caused that unique trait for a large brain to essentially disappear because it became diluted into other groups that had smaller brain sizes.

Edited October 20, 2016 by EvanF