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

[pavelcherepan]

And yet again I'd like to remind you of the fact that species differentiation is quite subjective, in fact there is like 26 different concepts of the term "species". You can read up more on that here -> Species Problem.

 

For example look at dogs, all of them belong to the same subspecies C. lupus familiaris, but individual differences between various breeds or between dogs and wolves are much greater than that even of H. Neanderthalensis compared to modern man. Yet all of them are capable of producing fertile offsprings with any mix of breeds and so at least some of the definition of being a species works well.

 

It can be your personal opinion to believe that Cro-Magnon is in fact the first human, but there's a good saying about that - "Opinions are like genitals - everyone has them". Also it's generally unwise to create discussions where the title itself claims that a respectable science institution or theory is wrong. That's a good opportunity of getting a lot of angry people in your discussion and getting lots of negative rep.

Edited October 1, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[EvanF]

And yet again I'd like to remind you of the fact that species differentiation is quite subjective, in fact there is like 26 different concepts of the term "species". You can read up more on that here -> Species Problem.

 

For example look at dogs, all of them belong to the same subspecies C. lupus familiaris, but individual differences between various breeds or between dogs and wolves are much greater than that even of H. Neanderthalensis compared to modern man. Yet all of them are capable of producing fertile offsprings with any mix of breeds and so at least some of the definition of being a species works well.

 

It can be your personal opinion to believe that Cro-Magnon is in fact the first human, but there's a good saying about that - "Opinions are like genitals - everyone has them". Also it's generally unwise to create discussions where the title itself claims that a respectable science institution or theory is wrong. That's a good opportunity of getting a lot of angry people in your discussion and getting lots of negative rep.

Cro magnons were the first modern humans.

Homo sapiens Idaltu could be considered 'human', just not a true anatomically modern human.

I think my opinion is at least somewhat logical, though apparently no one agrees with me.

 

And yes, like I said earlier, I knew this thread would rustle some jimmies, but that's what I like to do. I want to create a debate that challenges people's beliefs.

 

I want to question what I am told if my own common sense tells me it's wrong.

 

It doesn't matter if it's from 'The Smithsonian' or not, even though it's simply a writer for The Smithsonian repeating what other researchers repeated before them. It all almost amounts to a kind of appeal to authority, because 'X scientist' claims Y is 'Z', therefor it must be unequivocally true.

 

It's necessary to understand, the idea that Homo Sapiens Idaltu should be called the first 'modern human' is not such a definitive thing, it's really an opinion not much different than my own, based on the fact that Idaltu was roughly similar to modern humans, (and it's barely even that. )

Edited October 1, 2016 by EvanF

[pavelcherepan]

 

Cro magnons were the first modern humans.

 

So far you haven't been able to prove it or provide a clear distinction between 'true' and 'not true' anotomically modern humans.

 

 

 

I think my opinion is at least somewhat logical, though apparently no one agrees with me.

 

It's either everyone around you is stuck in their ways or you haven't put much effort into proving your point.

 

 

And yes, like I said earlier, I knew this thread would rustle some jimmies, but that's what I like to do. I want to create a debate that challenges people's beliefs.

 

No, such discussion topics usually indicate a yet another crackpot or simply a very arrogant person who wouldn't listen to what others are saying. And since you said yet again that it's just your opinion, you can't claim that someone else is wrong. Opinion doesn't have much worth in a scientific discussion.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if it's from 'The Smithsonian' or not, even though it's simply a writer for The Smithsonian repeating what other researchers repeated before them. It all amounts to a kind of appeal to authority, because 'X scientist' claims Y is 'Z', therefor it must be unequivocally true.

 

It was not an appeal to authority, it's simply an arrogant and childish attitude to create a discussion with such a topic and then expect to be taken seriously. If you want serious discussion then make a serious topic and provide serious arguments, not just opinions.

 

 

 

It's necessary to understand, the idea that Homo Sapiens Idaltu should be called the first 'modern human' is not such a definitive thing, it's really an opinion not much different than my own, based on the fact that Idaltu was roughly similar to modern humans, (and it's barely even that. )

 

Not true. If you look at the definition on wikipedia you'll see: "The term anatomically modern humans (AMH) or anatomically modern Homo sapiens (AMHS) refers in paleoanthropology to individual members of the species Homo sapiens with an appearance consistent with the range of phenotypes in modern humans."

 

As you see there is no specific requirement for AMH to be a member of H.S. sapiens subspecies, just the species Homo Sapiens, hence H.S. Idaltu fits the definition well. Now, in order to prove your point you need to provide argumentation that will show that H.S. Idaltu is incorrectly identified as subspecies of genus H.S or that their appearance is not consistent with phenotypes present in human population. Then possibly you can get your point across. Come back when you have built up your case.

Edited October 1, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[EvanF]

 

So far you haven't been able to prove it or provide a clear distinction between 'true' and 'not true' anotomically modern humans.

 

 

It's either everyone around you is stuck in their ways or you haven't put much effort into proving your point.

 

 

No, such discussion topics usually indicate a yet another crackpot or simply a very arrogant person who wouldn't listen to what others are saying. And since you said yet again that it's just your opinion, you can't claim that someone else is wrong. Opinion doesn't have much worth in a scientific discussion.

 

 

It was not an appeal to authority, it's simply an arrogant and childish attitude to create a discussion with such a topic and then expect to be taken seriously. If you want serious discussion then make a serious topic and provide serious arguments, not just opinions.

 

 

Not true. If you look at the definition on wikipedia you'll see: "The term anatomically modern humans (AMH) or anatomically modern Homo sapiens (AMHS) refers in paleoanthropology to individual members of the species Homo sapiens with an appearance consistent with the range of phenotypes in modern humans."

 

As you see there is no specific requirement for AMH to be a member of H.S. sapiens subspecies, just the species Homo Sapiens, hence H.S. Idaltu fits the definition well. Now, in order to prove your point you need to provide argumentation that will show that H.S. Idaltu is incorrectly identified as subspecies of genus H.S or that their appearance is not consistent with phenotypes present in human population. Then possibly you can get your point across. Come back when you have built up your case.

Yes, and Homo Sapiens Idaltu does not really have an appearance consistent with the range of phenotypes in modern humans.

 

 

The Wikipedia page on AMH you're talking about says literally in the next sentence,"The emergence of anatomically modern human marks the dawn of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens,^[4] i.e. the subspecies of Homo sapiens to which all humans alive today belong."

 

(You should read through this page a bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human )

 

The sub species homo sapiens sapiens is the scientific classification term for anatomically modern humans. (thought we already went over this?)

 

H.S. Idaltu is more properly considered an archaic human or archaic homo sapien. It is already put into a sub species apart from Homo sapiens sapiens, so basically it's already not scientifically classified as an AMH...( though people still call it an AMH)

 

There is a reason the term 'archaic' is used in scientific classification, it's not an arbitrary word. If it has archaic features then it's not anatomically modern.

 

The fact that some researchers consider 'Homo sapiens Idaltu' to be an anatomically modern human is their opinion based on their assessment of basic skull features, just like I have an opinion based on an assessment of basic skull features.

They are looking at the basic brain shape/ brain capacity and essentially saying "Eh, good enough it's basically a modern human" (despite it's archaic features.)

But as I've already pointed out, same general brain size does not equal the same cognitive function (in terms of archaic humans having the same behavior and cognitive abilities as modern humans.)

 

 

 

 

It's not simply an opinion, it is based on evidence and well known scientific classification.

 

Using your same logic I could say the whole theory of evolution is just an "opinion."

 

 

 

My theory that Cro magnons were the true first modern humans doesn't even come close to being "childish" or "crackpot."

 

What's childish is giving me negative Reputation ratings for simply trying to argue my point.

 

You are going off the assumption that H.S. Idaltu is definitively a "modern human," but rather it is debatable.

Come back to me when you can provide an argument that Idaltu was essentially a match with modern humans despite it's archaic characteristics. You need post evidence of modern-day human skulls from around the world that are almost identical to a Homo sapiens Idaltu skull, if you can do that then could maybe come close to building up your case against mine.

Edited October 1, 2016 by EvanF

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

(You should read through this page a bit. https://en.wikipedia...ly_modern_human )

 

Hahaha! Hilarious! You're telling me to read the page a bit?

 

The next paragraph after the sentence you quoted says:

 

 

 

Other fossils include the proposed Homo sapiens idaltu from Herto in Ethiopia that are almost 160,000 years old^[8] and the Skhul hominids fromIsrael, which are 90,000 years old.^[9]

 

Did you just miss it or does it not fit into your agenda? In fact I did read it properly and since first, second and the sentence I just quoted seem to be conflicting, I took the most broad general definition.

 

You might be interesting in reading this paper that discusses complexities of defining the AMH and proposes some statistical and biological definitions for the term:

 

http://in-africa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Pearson-2008-EvAnth-modern-human-morphology.pdf

 

 

It's not simply an opinion, it is based on evidence and well known scientific classification.

 

You're contradicting yourself. You've stated it was an opinion on more than one occasion. EDIT: You actually have "opinion" in the discussion title.

 

 

 

My theory that Cro magnons were the true first modern humans doesn't even come close to being "childish" or "crackpot."

 

What you have is not a theory as it's not substantiated by evidence. Also my comment wasn't referring to your idea, but to the way you phrased the discussion title, which is childish and arrogant and not suited for serious discussion.

 

And just for your reference, this is one of my all-time favourite examples of a well-structured and substantiated scientific argument. You can learn a lot from it:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88301-earth-what-is-the-real-age/?p=859953

 

 

 

Come back to me when you can provide an argument that Idaltu was essentially a match with modern humans despite it's archaic characteristics.

 

I don't have to prove anything. You came here with the idea potentially seeking for approval from other members and it's not my job to develop your idea. You have to prove it. So far no one seems to be very impressed with it so take a look at a great example above and prepare a solid argumentation. Ciao!

Edited October 1, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[Strange]

And what have you demonstrated?

 

 

That you are unwilling or unable to provide any data to support your opinions/beliefs. And that, therefore, you are not interested in science.

 

 

 

I just didn't know that archeologists had only discovered ONE well preserved cro magnon skull, and didn't realize all the skulls I was looking at were reproductions.

 

And yet, despite your ignorance, we are supposed to take your opinions seriously.

[EvanF]

 

Hahaha! Hilarious! You're telling me to read the page a bit?

 

The next paragraph after the sentence you quoted says:

 

 

Did you just miss it or does it not fit into your agenda? In fact I did read it properly and since first, second and the sentence I just quoted seem to be conflicting, I took the most broad general definition.

 

You might be interesting in reading this paper that discusses complexities of defining the AMH and proposes some statistical and biological definitions for the term:

 

http://in-africa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Pearson-2008-EvAnth-modern-human-morphology.pdf

 

 

You're contradicting yourself. You've stated it was an opinion on more than one occasion.

 

 

What you have is not a theory as it's not substantiated by evidence. Also my comment wasn't referring to your idea, but to the way you phrased the discussion title, which is childish and arrogant and not suited for serious discussion.

 

And just for your reference, this is one of my all-time favourite examples of a well-structured and substantiated scientific argument. You can learn a lot from it:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88301-earth-what-is-the-real-age/?p=859953

 

 

I don't have to prove anything. You came here with the idea potentially seeking for approval from other members and it's not my job to develop your idea. You have to prove it. So far no one seems to be very impressed with it so take a look at a great example above and prepare a solid argumentation. Ciao!

 

I am fully aware it says that.

 

If you notice that is what this whole thread is about is debating the accuracy of science pages calling H.S Idaltu an AMH.

 

But you should read through the rest of the article.

 

It talks about art, culture, behavior, and the higher thinking processes of true Modern humans that is evident starting around 40,000 years ago (IE coinciding with Cro magnons.)

 

Complex cognitive abilities are one of the qualitative things that separate us from archaic humans, like neanderthals.

I've already demonstrated some of these distinctions in culture and behavior between neanderthals and Cro magnons, which would theoretically be similarly distinct between Cro magnons and H.S Idaltu.

This is apart from the already obvious quantitative physical differences between modern day humans and archaic humans/Idaltu.

 

And of course another problem with Idaltu is that since it's an incomplete skeleton, we don't know if it had even more anatomical distinctions from Modern Humans, similar to how Neanderthals didn't even have the same kind of arm/limb functions as AMH.

 

 

 

 

It's not a matter of my theory needing to be substantiated by evidence, it's simply a matter of classification of humans skulls that have already been found.

 

 

You do need to prove the position you are defending. A debate is not a one way street. It may seem to you like you're already defending some kind of concrete position but that's not the case...this very topic is debated among scientists. You should already realize this, seeing that you linked me a paper about the difficulties in classifiying what is truly an AMH.

 

You are defending the mainstream idea that Idaltu was basically the oldest modern human. You see in essence your position is no different than mine.

These roles could be easily reversed.

If Cro magnon was considered by the mainstream science community as the oldest Modern human, then you would have to present evidence as to why the Homo sapiens Idaltu skull was actually the oldest modern human. If the roles were reversed you would have no leg to stand on simply because there is no evidence of Homo Sapien Idaltu having behavioral modernity (similar cognitive skills to modern humans) and Idaltu is very archaic looking compared to Cro magnon 1.

 

 

That you are unwilling or unable to provide any data to support your opinions/beliefs. And that, therefore, you are not interested in science.

 

 

And yet, despite your ignorance, we are supposed to take your opinions seriously.

You're simply projecting at this point.

Edited October 1, 2016 by EvanF

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

I've already demonstrated some of these distinctions in culture and behavior between neanderthals and Cro magnons, which would theoretically be similarly distinct between Cro magnons and H.S Idaltu.

 

You have not. Prove that Idaltu didn't have a well-developed culture. Prove that Idaltu lacked creativity and abstract thinking. Let's see how well you fare. You shouldn't forget about Omo as well, since it's also mentioned in the wiki article as an example of AMH and prove all of that for Omo as well.

 

This discussion didn't start off very well, but now it has descended into the crackpottery hell.

 

Just stop repeating that you've "already shown" or "proved" anything. That's most definitely not the case.

[EvanF]

 

You have not. Prove that Idaltu didn't have a well-developed culture. Prove that Idaltu lacked creativity and abstract thinking. Let's see how well you fare. You shouldn't forget about Omo as well, since it's also mentioned in the wiki article as an example of AMH and prove all of that for Omo as well.

 

This discussion didn't start off very well, but now it has descended into the crackpottery hell.

 

Just stop repeating that you've "already shown" or "proved" anything. That's most definitely not the case.

 

 

Most of page 2 on this thread is me demonstrating the differences between neanderthal's cognitive ability and culture compared to Cro magnons.

 

 

 

I can't prove that Idaltu didn't have a well developed culture, just like I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

I can't prove that Idaltu didn't have an IQ of 180 and knew how to wear pants.

 

 

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

It's not my job to provide evidence for the mainstream position you support that I disagree with and am debating against. There is evidence of basic tools and simple culture dating back around 200,000-300,000 years, but what makes us modern humans different from archaic humans is that we have a whole different level of cognitive function that is manifested in everything from detailed artwork to designing rockets to fly to outer space.

 

 

 

My position is based on evidence. Evidence not only of Cro magnon 1's well preserved anatomically modern skull, but of their cognitive ability that can be seen from their complex culture (arriving at around 40,000-50,000 years ago) that sets them closest to modern human behavior out of any known previous human groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity

 

I have already given all kinds of examples of Cro magnon cultures, tools, art, religion, etc. You don't remember that? (go to pg.2)

Edited October 1, 2016 by EvanF

[pavelcherepan]

 

It's not my job to to provide evidence for the mainstream position you support that I disagree with and am debating against. There is no real evidence for you position...that's the whole point.

 

It's as you said a mainstream position and it's supported by many a scientist. You are arguing against it so it's your responsibility to substantiate YOUR position. And I don't support any position in this discussion, but having a devil's advocate never hurts.

[Ophiolite]

 

Ophiolite. I was expecting a more complex reply.

 

In my opinion, if it has archaic features, and is a sub species...then it makes little sense for "Homo Sapiens Idaltu" to be considered a true MODERN human. I'm at a loss how this is somehow hard to understand.

I am having no difficulty understanding this opinion of yours. As far as I am able to tell no one else participating in this thread has any difficulty understanding this opinion of yours. However:

1. You initially offered no evidence to support this opinion.

2. It took multiple efforts by multiple members to extract what you considered to be evidence and that turned out to have nothing to do with your initial assertion.

3. While you acknowledge that the definition of species can be nebulous you seem blithely unaware of the impact this has on your position.

 

At the end of the day I for one understand that you think the term "modern human" has been misapplied, whereas I think it is used in different senses by different workers, at different times and in different contexts. If you find some comfort in adopting some absolute position on a matter that is currently extremely fluid, that is your right. Apart from a warm, fuzzy feeling of security I can see no advantage to it. Certainly there is no scientific advantage. So, unless you introduce some new thought to the discussion, I think I am done here.

[EvanF]

I am having no difficulty understanding this opinion of yours. As far as I am able to tell no one else participating in this thread has any difficulty understanding this opinion of yours. However:

1. You initially offered no evidence to support this opinion.

2. It took multiple efforts by multiple members to extract what you considered to be evidence and that turned out to have nothing to do with your initial assertion.

3. While you acknowledge that the definition of species can be nebulous you seem blithely unaware of the impact this has on your position.

 

At the end of the day I for one understand that you think the term "modern human" has been misapplied, whereas I think it is used in different senses by different workers, at different times and in different contexts. If you find some comfort in adopting some absolute position on a matter that is currently extremely fluid, that is your right. Apart from a warm, fuzzy feeling of security I can see no advantage to it. Certainly there is no scientific advantage. So, unless you introduce some new thought to the discussion, I think I am done here.

Any claim about the first modern human requires 'evidence' including the claim about H.S. Idaltu.

Initially and ultimately I was never offered evidence to support this claim.

Of course it's not even a matter of evidence, because the basic evidence was already there in the form of the fossils that I conveniently provided pictures of in my first post. If I was debating a scientist on this who was defending the claim that Idaltu was the first AMH, the evidence that he could provide me would be taking the Idaltu skull out and showing me how it is roughly similar to a modern day human in cranial features (though I would simply point out it's archaic features.)

 

More detailed evidence suggesting Idaltu's complex cognitive abilities that would make Idaltu cognitively a true modern human would be hard for him to provide, as opposed to Cro magnon's Behavioral Modernity/cognitive ability being based in endless evidence.

 

 

 

 

To me it seems quite significant for science, evolution theory, archeology, and history in general, to pinpoint the accurate time when true modern humans came onto the scene. It would be even more significant to spend more time studying and discovering new artifacts from the first true modern humans(we have only discovered ONE well preserved Cro magnon skull, that is ridiculous)...I think the study of our species' origin and archaic history is quite interesting and significant...

 

 

 

 

But maybe that's just me.

Edited October 1, 2016 by EvanF

[Ophiolite]

Of course it's not even a matter of evidence, because the basic evidence was already there in the form of the fossils that I conveniently provided pictures of in my first post.

Those are the same fossils which you have failed to provide detailed, quantitative specifications to justify your interpretation of what is and is not modern. You are the one challenging current views. The onus is on you to justify that position. Frankly, I am quite ready to be persuaded by a logical argument, supported by evidence. It's just that to date your argument is short of both.

If I was debating a scientist on this who was defending the claim that Idaltu was the first AMH, the evidence that he could provide me would be taking the Idaltu skull out and showing me how it is roughly similar to a modern day human in cranial features (though I would simply point out it's archaic features.)

If such a scientist were to base his case upon rough similarities, I should treat his argument with the same disdain I presently treat yours. Indeed, I should likely treat him with disdain, since unlike you he cannot use the excuse of being an amateur.

To me it seems quit (sic) significant for science, evolution theory, archeology, and history in general, to pinpoint the accurate time when true modern humans came onto the scene.

Yes, I think I got that point. You seem to have missed the counterpoint: anything we pinpoint in such a way is completely arbitrary, since the evolutionary path to humans alive today has been by a series of tiny steps. Where you place the boundary is unimportant. What is important is the path that has been taken. Let me put it in large letters for you. Classification systems are artificial. Nature does not recognise them.

 

Your misunderstanding of this fundamental is what this entire thread has turned out to be about. In focusing on an inconsequential you are missing the important issues. But, as I noted earlier, it is your right to be wrong.

 

.I think the study of our specie's origin and archaic history is quite interesting and significant...

Precisely. So stop wasting your frigging time on inconsequential and incidental matters of nomenclature.

[EvanF]

 

Those are the same fossils which you have failed to provide detailed, quantitative specifications to justify your interpretation of what is and is not modern. You are the one challenging current views. The onus is on you to justify that position. Frankly, I am quite ready to be persuaded by a logical argument, supported by evidence. It's just that to date your argument is short of both.

If such a scientist were to base his case upon rough similarities, I should treat his argument with the same disdain I presently treat yours. Indeed, I should likely treat him with disdain, since unlike you he cannot use the excuse of being an amateur.

Yes, I think I got that point. You seem to have missed the counterpoint: anything we pinpoint in such a way is completely arbitrary, since the evolutionary path to humans alive today has been by a series of tiny steps. Where you place the boundary is unimportant. What is important is the path that has been taken. Let me put it in large letters for you. Classification systems are artificial. Nature does not recognise them.

 

Precisely. So stop wasting your frigging time on inconsequential and incidental matters of nomenclature.

 

Hm...I didn't think you would get to the point of saying our whole scientific system of classifications is artificial and a "waste of time"....that's an interesting opinion...

 

And yes, H.S. Idaltu is considered an AMH because it is roughly similar to modern humans, even though it has obvious archaic features, like a very thick skull and huge a supraorbital ridge.

So if you are looking at this honestly, you should be just as skeptical as I am.

They really just base it on the fact that Idaltu had the same general 'globular' brain shape as modern humans and around the same brain size...that's basically it, it was an incomplete skeleton and a classification based on limited evidence, so we can't study just how anatomically different Idaltu was from us by studying it's whole skeleton.

 

 

'An exact description was made, by its discoverers, of Homo sapiens idaltu:'

"On the limited available evidence, (it is) a subspecies of Homo sapiens distinguished from Holocene anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) by greater craniofacial robusticity, greater anterior–posterior cranial length, and large glenoid-to-occlusal plane distance."...

 

http://eol.org/pages/8824323/details

 

 

And yes, theoretically evolution is a bunch of tiny steps, but we have to base things on evidence not assumptions.

We don't necessarily understand everything about how human evolution works or specifically how fast it occurred. The evolution of human intelligence from early hominids to high IQ modern humans was very fast in terms of macro evolution...In fact, scientists say even modern day humans are evolving as we speak at a fast rate. https://www.wired.com/2007/12/humans-evolving/

 

The evidence appears to suggest that anatomically modern humans with modern human cognitive ability came upon the scene not in necessarily tiny steps but in very rapid and explosive genetic change/'evolution' that was marked by the first appearance of Cro magnons roughly 50,000 years ago.

In fact, the evolution to anatomically modern humans essentially had to have occurred very rapidly in a sudden burst...Scientists suggest that if we evolved at a steady rate starting at homo erectus/archaic humans, then the genetic differences between modern humans and chimpanzees would be 160 times greater than they are.

 

It seems AMH/ Modern human behavior arose through cognitive, genetic changes abruptly around 40,000 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity

 

Taken from Richard Klein's 'Anatomy, behavior, and modern human origins'. Journal of World Prehistory. 9:

 

"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."

Edited October 1, 2016 by EvanF

[Ophiolite]

Hm...I didn't think you would get to the point of saying our whole scientific system of classifications is artificial and a "waste of time"....that's an interesting opinion...

I know, from meticulous analysis by some very tough editorial "red pens" that my writing is not that bad. Please be more attentive when you read.

 

1. If you are seriously unaware that our classification systems are artificial then demand a refund on any scientific qualifications for which you had to pay for the related tuition. I mean, seriously. You don't understand they are artificial?

2. They are, however, assuredly not a waste of time. They are a convenient and necessary means of describing aspects of the world in a systematic fashion.

3. What is a waste of time is foolishly abusing them, as you are doing, by according a meaningless importance to distinctions that are unimportant of themselves.

[pavelcherepan]

I'll try to reason with you one last time.

 

As Ophiolite has pointed out, this discussion is centered around a simple matter of classification with very little scientific value. Not that I think that any kind of classification is without it's scientific merits. A great example of a scientifically invaluable classification was the periodic table. On one hand, Mendeleev simply wanted to classify known chemical elements into a logical and organised structure, but he didn't just do that. The periodic table did organise elements, but it also predicted a lot of elements not known at the time and very soon after the release of the first version of the table there was an explosion in the rate of discovery of new elements. Also it even predicted outer electron shell configurations of elements, thus wandering in the field of quantum mechanics, the discipline that would not appear for another 30+ years.

 

On the other hand we have classification efforts of International Astronomic Union which led to downgrade of Pluto to a dwarf planet. This particular classification decision did not provide any new scientific data, did not change the way we think about the evolution and formation of the Solar System and does not have any prediction power. And Pluto is still there and it's amazing. This was an example of rather poor classification efforts. Not that I care at all whether Pluto is or isn't a planet.

 

If we think about what you're trying to achieve here, your efforts fall much closer to the Pluto example. If we did agree on something (which is very unlikely) would it provide new scientific data? No. Would it have prediction power? No. Would it challenge ways we look at human evolution? Hell, no!

 

The evolution of humans took several millions of years and science is very interested in the entirety of it. There are some milestones that are more exciting than the others, such as finding out exact time of split between Homo and Pan genera and finding some fossils from that period; establishing exact timeline of early hominins moving to predominantly bipedal life and establish accurate paleogegraphical and paleoecological conditions that forced them to such a change and of course accurately map the various waves of migration of hominins and their spreading around the world. And generally trying to discover as much fossil evidence especially for the last 3 million years of history. If you think that we name Cro-Magnon the first human and then suddenly all paleonthological and archaeological expeditions to Africa and Siberia will be canned in favour of digging every single Cro-Magnon skull, you might be delusional.

 

Evolution is a continous process that never stops, but can move at a varying rate. This would usually be due to changes in the ecosystem the species finds themselves in or any other hardships that might have come about. This generally is the case, because in situation with a scarcity of potential mates ones having unusual characteristics as a result of random mutations, can not be avoided.

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

 

The time before the emergence of modern of pre-modern humans in Africa was most likely one of the periods of high evolution rate. Sahara was growing, climate was becoming drier and drier at a very fast rate and the habitat was changing rapidly and migration out of the continent presented our ancestors with lots and lots of new challenges, so, yeah, it's very likely that evolution was going rather fast back then, but it wouldn't be the first and the only time that has happened. For example, the change from tree-dwelling life to land-based with bipedal statute and tool use was rather abrupt, Neanderthals did also develop quite fast with their ancestors finding themselves in harsh and unwelcoming frigid Europe.

 

It's indeed a widely accepted view that humans are currently evolving at a rather fast rate, but most of the current evolution is influenced by the increased population density and is mostly focused on various infectious diseases. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32047/title/Are-Humans-Still-Evolving-/

 

Although this view is contested by many other publications, for example: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v13/n10/abs/nrg3295.html

 

And with fast evolution and trial-and-error ways of it there is a rather high chance that like modern humans can exhibit archaic features, some individuals of H.S. Idaltu could potentially exhibit "modern" features, it's just that finding that unique individual is highly unlikely statistically speaking. This would even further blur the boundaries between modern and archaic H.S.

 

And, finally, the cognitive abilities. These are quite hard to identify quantitatively even in modern populations with IQ test being very common, but rather inaccurate as a generalised tool. It's even harder to figure out what cognitive abilities extinct hominins had. Based on known skulls of ancient humans neuroscientists can estimate which parts of the brain were more or less developed compared to modern men and very-very roughly guess differences in cognitive abilities, but this is largely is still a guesswork. There are obviously some milestones that we can use to quantify growing of cognition - tool use, fire use, cooking, making of clothes, culture, rituals such as burials etc. But yet again these are all very rough estimates. It's not correct to make far-fetching guesses about the cognitive abilities of species we really know very little of.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17568.short

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1599/2130.short

 

 

I think that should be enough for now. I really do hope you come back with a more structured and logical argument, because I made an effort writing this and so should you.

Edited October 1, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[Ophiolite]

Excellent post.

[EvanF]

On the other hand we have classification efforts of International Astronomic Union which led to downgrade of Pluto to a dwarf planet. This particular classification decision did not provide any new scientific data, did not change the way we think about the evolution and formation of the Solar System and does not have any prediction power. And Pluto is still there and it's amazing. This was an example of rather poor classification efforts. Not that I care at all whether Pluto is or isn't a planet.

 

 

 

The evolution of humans took several millions of years and science is very interested in the entirety of it. If you think that we name Cro-Magnon the first human and then suddenly all paleonthological and archaeological expeditions to Africa and Siberia will be canned in favour of digging every single Cro-Magnon skull, you might be delusional.

 

Evolution is a continous process that never stops, but can move at a varying rate. This would usually be due to changes in the ecosystem the species finds themselves in or any other hardships that might have come about. This generally is the case, because in situation with a scarcity of potential mates ones having unusual characteristics as a result of random mutations, can not be avoided.

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

 

And, finally, the cognitive abilities It's not correct to make far-fetching guesses about the cognitive abilities of species we really know very little of.

I'm not exactly sure why you think the classification of inanimate planets is a good comparison to the classification and evolution of complex life forms.

 

Discovering and isolating the genetic distinctions between species and sub species has all kinds of scientific value. Especially since it's our own species we are talking about here. For example, by isolating Neanderthal DNA that is found in some humans, we have discovered that neanderthal DNA in some people can lead to serious diseases...this could possibly be cured in the future once we learn more about the differences between our species and how to perhaps 'fix' those genetic problems.

 

If classification has little scientific value then why are you even defending the position that Idaltu is really an AMH? It shouldn't even matter to you.

 

I mean, by your logic we shouldn't even bother classifying homo erectus or chimps as different species apart from modern humans.

But scientists are interested in classifications for a reason. Isolating different species and their phenotypes is important when trying to find out how evolution and other factors cause genetic variation between different groups over time.

 

"The evolution of humans" is quite a broad thing...The theoretical emergence of archaic homo sapiens from homo erectus happened around 500,000 years ago.

 

 

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I would want all archeology in Africa to be "canned"...

I simply would like for more archeology and digging to be done searching for more remains of the true first modern humans (cro magnons.)

I don't see how that would make me "delusional"...

 

 

 

And indeed, that is all you can do is make far fetched guesses on the cognitive abilities of a species you know little about and can provide few examples of evidence as your link explains in the first sentence about having limited insight based on the archeological record.

The theory you are subscribing to is based on limited insight and limited evidence.

 

 

The theory I subscribe to is based on practically limitless amounts of evidence that modern cognitive ability emerged around 50,000 years ago, in an explosion of complex culture.

Edited October 2, 2016 by EvanF

[pavelcherepan]

Science news just in:

"An international team of scientists led by Pavel Cherepanskiy after thoroughly testing their hypothesis have confirmed that hitting one's head on the wall is more enjoyable than discussing science with EvanF. This breakthrough discovery will eventually lead to a giant leap forward in the field of crackpottery."

http://www.why_did_I_even_bother.com

Edited October 2, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[EvanF]

Science news just in:

 

"An international team of scientists led by Pavel Cherepanskiy after thoroughly testing their hypothesis have confirmed that hitting one's head on the wall is more enjoyable than discussing science with EvanF. This breakthrough discovery will eventually lead to a giant leap forward in the field of crackpottery."

 

www.why_did_I_even_bother.com

 

 

 

 

Aw come on, you know you enjoyed it a little.

[Ophiolite]

I'm not exactly sure why you think the classification of inanimate planets is a good comparison to the classification and evolution of complex life forms.

Pavel was making the point that classification systems vary in character. He addresses two end points: one in which where a component falls within the classification provides no scientific insight and one where the classification affords significant scientific insight. Planetary classification is taken as a good example of the first, the Periodic Table as a good example of the second. This is clearly and elegantly presented by Pavel.

 

He goes on to note that the classification you are so concerned about falls much closer to the first example, wherein the classification affords no fresh insight, but is there as a convenience when discussing the subject. He provides definitive reasons for reaching that conclusion. This is all clearly and elegantly presented by Pavel. You may wish to reflect on why you were unable to see this. The fault is certainly not with Pavel's exposition.

 

Discovering and isolating the genetic distinctions between species and sub species has all kinds of scientific value.

And this lies at the route of your misunderstanding.

 

Imagine we have ten specimens of hominid. We are interested in the relationships between these hominids. We determine this through very precise and detailed anatomical comparisons. If we are fortunate enough to be able to recover DNA from any of the specimens we can deepen our understanding of the relationships. I trust and expect you would agree with all this. (If not, I shall have to borrow Pavel's brick wall.)

 

Now, let's say the specimens until now have been named 1,2,3 etc. Researcher A declares that specimens 1-4 are modern humans and 5 -10 are archaic humans. Researcher B declares that 1-2 are modern humans and 3-10 are archaic humans. Have these declarations in any way affected our understanding of the relationships between these ten specimens? They should not, since the relationships are based upon the observed precise and detailed anatomical comparisons. And those have not been altered by how we choose to group the specimens.

 

That, as concisely and clearly as I can put it, is why you are mistaken.

[EvanF]

Pavel was making the point that classification systems vary in character. He addresses two end points: one in which where a component falls within the classification provides no scientific insight and one where the classification affords significant scientific insight. Planetary classification is taken as a good example of the first, the Periodic Table as a good example of the second. This is clearly and elegantly presented by Pavel.

 

He goes on to note that the classification you are so concerned about falls much closer to the first example, wherein the classification affords no fresh insight, but is there as a convenience when discussing the subject. He provides definitive reasons for reaching that conclusion. This is all clearly and elegantly presented by Pavel. You may wish to reflect on why you were unable to see this. The fault is certainly not with Pavel's exposition.

 

And this lies at the route of your misunderstanding.

 

Imagine we have ten specimens of hominid. We are interested in the relationships between these hominids. We determine this through very precise and detailed anatomical comparisons. If we are fortunate enough to be able to recover DNA from any of the specimens we can deepen our understanding of the relationships. I trust and expect you would agree with all this. (If not, I shall have to borrow Pavel's brick wall.)

 

Now, let's say the specimens until now have been named 1,2,3 etc. Researcher A declares that specimens 1-4 are modern humans and 5 -10 are archaic humans. Researcher B declares that 1-2 are modern humans and 3-10 are archaic humans. Have these declarations in any way affected our understanding of the relationships between these ten specimens? They should not, since the relationships are based upon the observed precise and detailed anatomical comparisons. And those have not been altered by how we choose to group the specimens.

 

That, as concisely and clearly as I can put it, is why you are mistaken.

I understand everything about what Pavel is saying. I'm simply saying that the classification of pluto is not exactly the best comparison to the evolutionary stages of a complex life form such as a human being.

 

I respect your opinion that there is no scientific insight to be gained by studying when exactly anatomically modern humans/modern cognitive ability started to appear on the planet, or that we shouldn't even bother grouping modern humans apart from archaic humans...

 

But I'd have to disagree.

 

 

It's not necessarily about how we group them, that's simply secondary.

It's about figuring out exactly how and when modern human cognitive ability first appeared. Modern human intelligence has given us the ability to pioneer advanced technology which is the very reason we are typing on a complex computer as we speak.

 

If the answer to this isn't significant to you, then nothing in evolution theory should be significant to you.

As I'm sure you know, evolution is (basically) caused by the need to adapt to change, this is what creates genetic mutation that ultimately changes us...

The question/ mystery is what exactly was this change that so rapidly turned us into modern humans?

Why did we become more intelligent? What was the purpose in the metamorphosis into modern humans? Why don't we still look like archaic humans?

 

 

The typical understanding of evolution is that humans evolved gradually at a steady pace starting from homo erectus... But if you remember earlier I was explaining how human DNA and archeological evidence seems to suggest some kind of rapid genetic change started to happen within humans around 50,000 years ago...studying and understanding this more could give us better insight into how evolution works.

Edited October 4, 2016 by EvanF

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

I understand everything about what Pavel is saying. I'm simply saying that the classification of pluto is not exactly the best comparison to the evolutionary stages of a complex life form such as a human being.

 

No, really, how can you not understand that both the "planet" and "archaic human" (or just "human" for that matter) are totally artificial terms for objects that have no intrinsic features on a deep physics levels that would help differentiate those from any other type of object. Elementary particles have such deep intrinsic features that define them without the need to invent artificial categorisation, but humans or planets do not.

 

There's no reason why Plato's definition of human as "bipedal animal with no wings" is not perfectly applicable. The only potentially defining characteristic of humans that is potentially possessed only by us is consciousness, but the problem is that science doesn't understand what it really is and can't test whether any other living creatures are conscious. I mean, like, scientists wouldn't be able to even say whether their own colleagues are conscious or not.

 

This is why any classification of humans is by default based on arbitrarily chosen parameters defined by scientific consensus, rather than nature.

 

And since you're so transfixed on the cognitive abilities, can you answer a simple question: human complex cognition, forward thinking, culture etc. was a result of:

a) purely biological evolution,

b) influenced by technological advances (i.e. increased food supply and resultant increasing group sizes leading to increased specialisation of individuals and to development of complex structures like economics) or was it

c) positive feedback between biological evolution and technological advancement (i.e. increasing brain size leading to more complex technology, thereby leading to more complex societies and so forth)?

 

Please choose one of these three and explain why you think it's the correct one.

Edited October 4, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I'm moving this thread to Speculations. OP, you need to start providing some actual support for your argument beyond your own heartfelt desires, or this will be closed.

 

Do not respond to this note within the thread. Please PM staff or report this post.

[EvanF]

There was no reason to move this thread. This had over a thousand views with an on going discussion...

 

I have been giving support for my argument.

 

There are many more threads on the Biology section that are much more "speculative" than this one.

 

At least move it to the 'evolution' section of the Biology forum.

 

*I mean seriously, you move a thread discussing evolution and the origins of modern humans to the "speculations" section, but you keep a thread in the biology section for years titled "Do animals have wet dreams?"...

Edited October 4, 2016 by EvanF