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

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

 

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.

 

-facepalm- You didn't even understand my rebuttal, and I'm tired of explaining the same shit to you.

 

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.

 

Oh, but you can focus on on the bigger variations? I'm going to explain this to you the best way I can. You said yourself that cranial varitation among humans is large BUT the average human brain size is 1350, this isn't a focus on smaller variation this is an average from a normalized distribution. You cannot use the fact that Idaltu is within human variation as proof they did not have bigger brains, That is incredibly stupid reasoning. We have 1 Idaltu skull measured at 1450, and have maybe a dozen skulls of cro magnon which some are even in the range of modern day homo sapiens(according to your study of anatomic similarity). A sample size of 1 and a few dozen is not comparable to a sample size in the tens of thousands but even if we throw out averages as credible data, You're still wrong because cro magnon is within the variation of human brain size. You cannot use full variation as an argument and then resort to averages when it is convenient. I don't just focus on sheer brain size, that's just another strawman you keep propagating.

 

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.

 

It doesn't mean they disappeared as a group, their genes may have reshuffled from just....evolution itself and not necessarily because groups admixed, and the change occurred 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. But your point is still somewhat valid. It wasn't the initial cause but mixed breeding did happen and probably did contribute to brain decrease. It's not even the end cause. Of course the brain isn't incrementally decreasing each year that's lamarkian not darwinian but no this is in fact a global phenomena, and we have thousands of skulls showing this. Again what is the cranial size of the left picture? Interestingly it's less archaic than cro magnon but has a smaller head......hmmmm. Finally, no I did not mean the haplogroup, I meant where is the Genetic evidence of neural change in cro magnons 40,000 years ago. You're just speculating.

Edited October 20, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[EvanF]

 

 

 

It doesn't mean they disappeared as a group, their genes may have reshuffled from just....evolution itself and not necessarily because groups admixed, and the change occurred 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. But your point is still somewhat valid. It wasn't the initial cause but mixed breeding did happen and probably did contribute to brain decrease. It's not even the end cause. Of course the brain isn't incrementally decreasing each year that's lamarkian not darwinian but no this is in fact a global phenomena, and we have thousands of skulls showing this. Again what is the cranial size of the left picture? Interestingly it's less archaic than cro magnon but has a smaller head......hmmmm. Finally, no I did not mean the haplogroup, I meant where is the Genetic evidence of neural change in cro magnons 40,000 years ago. You're just speculating.

 

That's exactly what it means.

That is why the geneticist said, "Their genetic profile is not a good match for any modern human group"...

 

Also, we definitely do not have thousands of human skulls dating over 20,000 years. Cro magnon 1 is one of the few well preserved early modern humans that has been found that dates back that kind of time.

 

Human DNA shows rapid genetic change starting somewhere around 40,000 years ago. The evidence of neural change is based on the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, pay attention man.

If humans developed modernity (both physical and mental) in a gradual process (as I assume you believe,) then there would have been no rapid genetic change in human DNA, do you understand?

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

 

That's exactly what it means.

That is why the geneticist said, "Their genetic profile is not a good match for any modern human group"...

So what? Just because they lack the genetic profile doesn't mean it's from mixed breeding. It could be from random evolution, allele frequencies fluctuate regardless of mixed breeding. Like I said I still agree with you, but it is still speculation.

 

Also, we definitely do not have thousands of human skulls dating over 20,000 years. Cro magnon 1 is one of the few well preserved early modern humans that has been found that dates back that kind of time.

Yes we do http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

 

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

 

 

 

Human DNA shows rapid genetic change starting somewhere around 40,000 years ago. The evidence of neural change is based on the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, pay attention man.

If humans developed modernity (both physical and mental) in a gradual process (as I assume you believe,) then there would have been no rapid genetic change in human DNA, do you understand?

Technological revolution is not evidence of neural change, technology is behavior not biology(which are not always intertwined). If you provide an assertion of genetic nature you need to back it up with genetic evidence. No, you are misunderstanding completely, the article DID NOT validate any claim you made, it is irrelevant to this discussion I have already explained this to you and the researchers themselves even spell it out. This is correlation without causation the spike in mutation rate could have been representative of many different factors, and as the article said these new mutations were racial, and could not have been exclusive to cro magnon, Population bottlenecks caused higher levels of intelligence, but these rapid mutations contribute dthe decline of brain size and by extension intelligence.

[EvanF]

T

 

 

Technological revolution is not evidence of neural change, technology is behavior not biology(which are not always intertwined). If you provide an assertion of genetic nature you need to back it up with genetic evidence. No, you are misunderstanding completely, the article DID NOT validate any claim you made, it is irrelevant to this discussion I have already explained this to you and the researchers themselves even spell it out. This is correlation without causation the spike in mutation rate could have been representative of many different factors, and as the article said these new mutations were racial, and could not have been exclusive to cro magnon, Population bottlenecks caused higher levels of intelligence, but these rapid mutations contribute dthe decline of brain size and by extension intelligence.

Advanced technological revolution is basically the best evidence we have of significant neural change/the transition to behavioral modernity.

 

The genetic evidence of rapid genetic change happening somewhere around 40,000 years ago couldn't be any more relevant to my theory.

Maybe you need a recap of my theory...

The theory is (based on current archeological evidence) that modern humans physically and mentally emerged very rapidly at a date somewhere around 50,000 years ago, as opposed to gradually 160,000+ years ago. If it was gradual, then there would be no rapid genetic change evident when studying human DNA.

[EvanF]

Bumping-I would appreciate if this thread was moved to the 'Evolution section' instead of "speculations."

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Bumping-I would appreciate if this thread was moved to the 'Evolution section' instead of "speculations."

 

We are not great fans of bumping! And from my perspective it seems that this is a perfect speculations thread - it is against the mainstream ideas in science, but you are making a valiant effort to defend your corner and show the worth of your idea.

 

[EvanF]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

 

We are not great fans of bumping! And from my perspective it seems that this is a perfect speculations thread - it is against the mainstream ideas in science, but you are making a valiant effort to defend your corner and show the worth of your idea.

 

 

To 'speculate' is to make conjecture based on no evidence...

 

I don't think that really defines my position at this point.

 

 

But I could speculate that having this thread in the 'evolution' section would lead to more individuals who are educated on this subject adding their opinions and knowledge to this topic.

[Daecon]

To 'speculate' is to make conjecture based on no evidence...

If you're discussing a subject that is outside of mainstream science, having that topic in a section dedicated to mainstream science is inappropriate.

 

On this forum, even speculative ideas need to be grounded in real science and thus require evidence to support them.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Daecon

[EvanF]

If you're discussing a subject that is outside of mainstream science, having that topic in a section dedicated to mainstream science is inappropriate.

 

On this forum, even speculative ideas need to be grounded in real science and thus require evidence to support them.

Explain why it's "inappropriate."

It would only be inappropriate if my position was based on 0 evidence.

 

Saying my position is "against science" is a bit extreme. I think the phrase you should have used is, 'against mainstream opinion.'

 

'Against mainstream science' would be like saying the earth is flat, or that Newton's laws are all wrong, etc.

[DrP]

Your selection bias of traits from the 4 photographs are obvious to outside observers. I know it doesn't seem like it to you, but that is how selection bias kind of works... you are biased by your theory. There is no point in going round in circles as we've discussed it way way earlier in this thread.

[EvanF]

Your selection bias of traits from the 4 photographs are obvious to outside observers. I know it doesn't seem like it to you, but that is how selection bias kind of works... you are biased by your theory. There is no point in going round in circles as we've discussed it way way earlier in this thread.

"Selections bias"...

 

 

 

I am using standard scientific classification of hominid features.

 

My theory isn't based on "bias" it's based on evidence.

[DrP]

It is based on YOU thinking that one looks less like the others. You are right in a way..... but you can say the same things about different features going in the other direction with the other photos.... but we've been through this before.

Going back a bit - evidence of more sophisticated tools does not mean higher intelligence (although they could have higher intelligence, I am not saying either way)...

 

Example: Are humans more intelligent today because we use computers than we were a hundred years ago?

[Delta1212]

It is based on YOU thinking that one looks less like the others. You are right in a way..... but you can say the same things about different features going in the other direction with the other photos.... but we've been through this before.

Going back a bit - evidence of more sophisticated tools does not mean higher intelligence (although they could have higher intelligence, I am not saying either way)...

 

Example: Are humans more intelligent today because we use computers than we were a hundred years ago?

 

I do think this is a bit of a complex question insofar as it depends on how you define intelligence and how that definition interacts and is impacted by culture and environment.

 

That said, I think it's rather trivial to state that there is no serious biological contribution to any differences in average intelligence and that the advances in technology over the last hundred years are are not in any way the result of a corresponding evolution of our biological capacity for intelligent thought that allowed us to develop said technology, which I realize is the point you were making for the purposes of this thread.

[DrP]

Yes of course. I'm just saying that because one civilisation has more advanced tech than another it does not necessarily mean that they are more biologically intelligent.... which was an argument made earlier in this thread regarding Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. I am NOT saying that the Cro were not more intelligent than the Neanderthal... but simply having better tools does not guarantee it. I will stand corrected if it has been proven in the literature somewhere - people are welcome to show me a link to any supporting claim that says so.

[EvanF]

Yes of course. I'm just saying that because one civilisation has more advanced tech than another it does not necessarily mean that they are more biologically intelligent.... which was an argument made earlier in this thread regarding Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. I am NOT saying that the Cro were not more intelligent than the Neanderthal... but simply having better tools does not guarantee it. I will stand corrected if it has been proven in the literature somewhere - people are welcome to show me a link to any supporting claim that says so.

We aren't talking about a single civilization...We are talking about tens of thousands of years and the difference between cultural evidence of complex symbolism/art and complex tool development. Neanderthals and archaic 'humans' were around for hundreds of thousands of years, yet they did not develop the same kind of culture as the Cromagnon man...What else can you say about that other than Neanderthal/archaic humans were almost undoubtedly not cognitively the same as modern humans who can and do develop mind blowing art and technology in only a few decades...And that's not something that humans just "can" do, it's something that we intrinsically do as a species, (starting evidently around 45,000 years ago.)

 

More advanced tools is only ONE aspect of behavioral modernity/modern human cognitive ability...and of course I've repeated this so many times...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity

 

What other way of judging cognitive ability/intelligence is there apart from looking at the archaeological evidence we have available? It's not like intelligence is necessarily such an ethereal thing...it can be observed.

Say you have one student who scores a 130 on an IQ test, can paint like Leonardo Davinci, and creates his own invention for the school science fair...And then you have another student who can barely color between the lines and doesn't even understand or even care about science/technology, which one would you say is evidently more intelligent and innovative? What a silly thing that would be to even ponder.

 

 

Also in your previous comment you seem to have referred to a picture I posted on page 5, which I'm going go ahead and post again because most people reading this won't have a clue what you're talking about...

 

 

Anyone looking at these 4 skulls can see the last one looks essentially completely different from the others. The first three while being a little different, still share very similar progressed features over millions of years(,http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter2/fig2-20.jpg homo erectus and Neaderthal look extremely similar)... while Cromagnon1 represents a complete 'deviation' in features, and has no real similarities to the first three. This is evidently the case, saying it's "bias" doesn't even make sense.

Edited January 18, 2017 by EvanF

[Acme]

We aren't talking about a single civilization...We are talking about tens of thousands of years and the difference between cultural evidence of complex symbolism/art and complex tool development. Neanderthals and archaic 'humans' were around for hundreds of thousands of years, yet they did not develop the same kind of culture as the Cromagnon man...What else can you say about that other than Neanderthal/archaic humans were almost undoubtedly not cognitively the same as modern humans who can and do develop mind blowing art and technology in only a few decades...And that's not something that humans just "can" do, it's something that we intrinsically do as a species, (starting evidently around 45,000 years ago.)...

Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies [A Review]

 

 

This book is inspired by just such a cross-cultural encounter as that between Kamal the border raider and the Colonels son of the Guides. In the first chapter the author recounts a conversation that he, a biologist studying bird evolution, had in New Guinea in 1972 with Yali, a local politician preparing his people for self-government, which culminated in the searching question Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo [goods] and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own [p. 14]. Yalis question plays a central role in Professor Diamonds enquiry into a short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years, leading him into a wide-ranging discussion of the history of human evolution and diversity through a study of migration, socio-economic and cultural adaptation to environmental conditions, and technological diffusion. The result is an exciting and absorbing account of human history since the Pleistocene age, which culminates in a sketch of a future scientific basis for studying the history of humans that will command the same intellectual respect as current scientific studies of the history of other natural phenomena such as dinosaurs, nebulas and glaciers.

...

The development of surplus food-producing societies with high population densities provided humans with resistance to the diseases carried by their domesticated flocks, and facilitated other technological changes - especially the development of systems of specialised knowledge that led to advances in metallurgy, literacy and socio-economic organisation - primarily within the Eurasian supercontinent, and its outlying regions in the western Pacific and northern Africa, where the environment, and the geographical networks of migration, trade and communication, most favoured their spread. Diffusion is the key concept here - some continents and regions were more favourable than others, because of internal or external connections. As a result, when the scattered branches of the human species were reunited by trans-oceanic voyages and mercantile capitalism after 1500, Old World invaders had a decisive advantage over their New World cousins - the development of guns, germs and steel ensured that Europeans settled the Americas, Oceania and Southern Africa, eliminating or subduing local populations unable to resist them.

[Strange]

I am using standard scientific classification of hominid features.

 

My theory isn't based on "bias" it's based on evidence.

 

The trouble is, that it is based on your (personal) perception of the visual differences between skulls. (And a limited number of photos of skulls.)

 

A real theory would be based on objective measurements and statistical analysis of those measurements.

Anyone looking at these 4 skulls can see the last one looks essentially completely different from the others.

 

Which reinforces the above point. Anyone looking at any one of them could say that it looked completely different from the rest. A case could be made, just on the basis of "visual similarity" that any one is the outlier. Or that they all are are.

 

Without data, there is no way of distinguishing between you thinking the last is completely different and Fred thinking it is the first that is completely different from the other three.

[DrP]

Yes - it is about what stands out to the individual. Personally I would say that the one on the far left looks the most different and out of place with the others to me. The 2 on the right look pretty similar and the 2 on the left also clump together a bit. Anyway, as we have said - there are too few pictures to draw meaningful conclusions when, as stated by someone above, you can see differing traits in skull shapes looking at various modern day human skulls.

 

Also - I don't think you are getting the picture with the technology advances. Looking at todays humans tools compared to what we had a few hundred years ago would suggest, by your reasoning, that we are far more intelligent than those from a few hundred years ago. Which isn't so. The explosion of arts and crafts in the Cro's era could have been made viable from thousands of years of learning and trials and errors that eventually gave some breakthroughs... Just because the Neanderthal didn't paint art doesn't mean they were stupid in comparison or uncreative or unable - they might have been waiting for the invention of better dyes and tools for crafts. I would attribute the explosion of arts to the discovery and understanding of dyes and paints and tools rather than intellect. Again, I am not saying they were not brighter than the Neanderthal, they probably were, I am saying that you can't full conclude it because their tools were better..... But we have said this before and this is the 3rd loop of this conversation.

[EvanF]

 

The trouble is, that it is based on your (personal) perception of the visual differences between skulls. (And a limited number of photos of skulls.)

 

A real theory would be based on objective measurements and statistical analysis of those measurements.

 

Which reinforces the above point. Anyone looking at any one of them could say that it looked completely different from the rest. A case could be made, just on the basis of "visual similarity" that any one is the outlier. Or that they all are are.

 

Without data, there is no way of distinguishing between you thinking the last is completely different and Fred thinking it is the first that is completely different from the other three.

Starting on page 5 I went over the objective similarities and differences. Personal perception is not the same as what is evident. Though, through your own personal perception you may not be recognizing what is evidently true.

 

It is evidently untrue that all of them are equally different from each other. The middle two (homo erectus and neanderthal) are extremely similar, with the exception of the neanderthal having a bit larger brain of course. http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter2/fig2-20.jpg

 

 

By "data" you mean more precise measurements, which, one can still see obvious differences without precise measurements.

*Edit* (in response to your reply below) For example, I can look at a chimp and a human being and see the obvious physical differences without doing precise measurements, that wouldn't be "anti science" for me to declare what is apparent and observable.

 

However here is some very precise measurements of Cro magnon1, The idaltu skull (herto) and the Kabwe skull. pg. 6

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

 

The Kabwe and Idaltu are similar to each other and are very much like Homo erectus/other archaic 'humans.'

Cro magnon was 88% similar to modern day humans. While Idaltu and Kabwe were only 70%-50% anatomically similar to modern humans respectively. A pure neanderthal skull is quite similar to the Kabwe and Idaltu skulls.

 

 

Here is more precise data on the differences between the Neanderthal and modern human brain. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3619466/

 

"differences in brain morphology have also been noted. For instance, in addition to their (Modern Human's) uniquely globular brain shape [3], it has recently been reported that the temporal pole is relatively larger and more forward-projecting, the orbitofrontal cortex being relatively wider and the olfactory bulbs being larger in AMHs compared with other hominins, including Neanderthals [4]. In addition, Neanderthals show lateral widening but overall flattening of their parietal lobes, whereas AMHs have uniform parietal surface enlargement..."

 

 

 

Here's a pic of 3 archaic skulls for comparison( 3rd being the Idaltu(herto) skull which of course in my opinion is falsely considered to be the first 'modern human.')

Edited January 19, 2017 by EvanF

[Strange]

On page 5 I went over the objective similarities and differences.

 

I can't see any quantitative data on that page. Could you specify which specific post contains the ranges of measurements and how well each skull fits within each range?

 

 

 

It is evidently untrue that all of them are equally different from each other.

 

No one said that they are all equally different. But your opinion that the last is unique is obviously not shared by everyone who looks ate the pictures.

 

 

 

By "data" you mean more precise measurements, which, one can still see obvious differences without precise measurements.

 

I am sorry, I reject absolutely the idea that you can replace quantitive data with "it looks to me". That is some kind of anti-science.

 

 

However here is some very precise measurements of Cro magnon1, The idaltu skull (herto) and the Kabwe skull. pg. 6

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

 

 

Great! I will leave someone who knows more about the subject (and cares enough ) to check whether this data confirms or falsifies your hypothesis.

 

(Just to be clear, I don't know and don't care whether you are right or wrong; I am just concerned with the methodology.)

 

Your link is broken. It looks like it should be: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca

[EvanF]

Also - I don't think you are getting the picture with the technology advances. Looking at todays humans tools compared to what we had a few hundred years ago would suggest, by your reasoning, that we are far more intelligent than those from a few hundred years ago. Which isn't so. The explosion of arts and crafts in the Cro's era could have been made viable from thousands of years of learning and trials and errors that eventually gave some breakthroughs... Just because the Neanderthal didn't paint art doesn't mean they were stupid in comparison or uncreative or unable - they might have been waiting for the invention of better dyes and tools for crafts. I would attribute the explosion of arts to the discovery and understanding of dyes and paints and tools rather than intellect. Again, I am not saying they were not brighter than the Neanderthal, they probably were, I am saying that you can't full conclude it because their tools were better.....

I'm not just talking about the last 100 years...However, for all you know we very well could have evolved intellectually (in a biological sense) over the last centuries.

 

Let me put it in a more simple way...More than 1 million years go from Homo erectus through 'archaic humans'...nothing too significant is created outside of simple stone tools.

Then you have around 40,000 years ago out of nowhere the appearance of the first advanced/complex art and culture going through to ancient civilizations which created the most complex things (art, technology, religion, architecture, writing, etc) that have ever been seen on the planet...If that's not obvious evidence of a cognitive change, I don't know what is.

Edited January 18, 2017 by EvanF

[Sensei]

Right off the bat, they get the date for Cro magnon wrong, "30,000 years ago"...When the oldest Cro magnon dates 45,000+ years ago.

Measurement of age of bones and sculls is done using Carbon C-14, with half-life 5730 years, with +- 40 years difference..

 

If you measure one piece to be 45k, the other one could be 30k, as people move from one place to another in time... They didn't die simultaneously at the same time..

 

If you die today, 30k years later somebody could find your skull,

or somebody else 45k years later could find your skull...

 

But I am going to disregard both of these skulls anyway since they are incomplete.

Sounds like gibberish since the beginning..

 

Incomplete skulls still have enough Carbon inside to perform Carbon C-14 radioactive isotope dating to measure when these people died..

[EvanF]

 

Measurement of age of bones and sculls is done using Carbon C-14, with half-life 5730 years, with +- 40 years difference..

 

If you measure one piece to be 45k, the other one could be 30k, as people move from one place to another in time... They didn't die simultaneously at the same time..

 

If you die today, 30k years later somebody could find your skull,

or somebody else 45k years later could find your skull...

 

 

Sounds like gibberish since the beginning..

 

Incomplete skulls still have enough Carbon inside to perform Carbon C-14 radioactive isotope dating to measure when these people died..

 

Not sure what you are referring to as "gibberish?" Let me know if you need help understanding something about my points.

 

The incompleteness of the Omo 1 and 2 skulls simply prevents being able to examine it completely in this context. I could cut the top off of a neanderthal skull and claim it as the oldest modern human since in a vague sense it looks like the top of a modern human skull, but there are more things to examine than just that... For example, scientists have recently classified neanderthal as a completely separate species based on studying it's nasal cavity.

So I simply moved on to the Idaltu (herto) skull which was at least in a semi complete state that can be measured and compared anatomically to a modern human .

 

The point I was making about the skull incompleteness had nothing to do with carbon dating.

[Strange]

The incompleteness of the Omo 1 and 2 skulls simply prevents being able to examine it completely in this context. I could cut the top off of a neanderthal skull and claim it as the oldest modern human since in a vague sense it looks like the top of a modern human skull,

 

 

And that is part of the problem of your subjective "it looks to me" approach. Experts can tell a lot from just part of a skull, even if to you they look vaguely similar.

[EvanF]

 

 

And that is part of the problem of your subjective "it looks to me" approach. Experts can tell a lot from just part of a skull, even if to you they look vaguely similar.

Yes I understand that, and what the experts can tell from studying the Omo skull is that it is a very thick skull only found in archaic humans.

Experts can tell a lot more if they have the whole skull. They could, for example, do more accurate measurements and comparisons of the brain/skull, which they were able to do with idaltu.

 

For this thread I thought it would be better to focus on the Idaltu skull for comparison, because it's at least semi-complete.

The omo skulls were dated to around the same time as the Idaltu, so they were possibly even the same sub species of archaic human as Idaltu was, as their skull shapes resemble each other.

 

 

My approach to this isn't "subjective" (though from reading just the first page I understand that some people might get that impression.) There has been linked several different objective/quantitative measurements in this thread, and on this page alone.