A re-writing of history, again

[sfs]

Significant question is easy to avoid.

Impenetrable question is difficult to answer.

 

[pshun2404]

Consider the beautifully crafted one piece chlorite bracelet found in the Denisovancave....expertly crafted using a handmade boring tool and then finely polished...clearly more than 40,000 years old…or the lovely ring found nearby that is carved out of solid marble? You can google these artifacts and even see them on You Tube. I mean, how can it be true that homo sapiens emerged and migrated from Africa 40 to 60,000 years ago when they were already in Siberia and already capable of making this expertly crafted Jewelry?

And the Neandertal finds that indicate a very sophisticated knowledge and technology for making their unique type of pitch (see Decoding Neanderthal on Nova) that involved a very intricate and specific process, 100s of 1,000s of years before the accepted human migration scenario. Undoubtedly these were intelligent and socializing human beings.

So even though many University Professors and Public School textbooks still state that "homo sapiens" first migrated out of Africa around 40 to 60,000 years ago, these other elements MUST BE been added in and the hypothesis changed to line up with all the data.

Isn't this the true purpose of objective scientific method to change with the discovery of new facts...if it were not then we would still be stuck on Newtonian Mechanics as an explanation of the Universe.

 

[sfs]

Consider the beautifully crafted one piece chlorite bracelet found in the Denisovancave....expertly crafted using a handmade boring tool and then finely polished...clearly more than 40,000 years old…or the lovely ring found nearby that is carved out of solid marble? You can google these artifacts and even see them on You Tube. I mean, how can it be true that homo sapiens emerged and migrated from Africa 40 to 60,000 years ago when they were already in Siberia and already capable of making this expertly crafted Jewelry?

Why assume only sapiens could make bracelets?

 

[pshun2404]

Why assume only sapiens could make bracelets?

Surely you jest...! You are kidding right?

 

[Speedwell]

Surely you jest...! You are kidding right?

It's a serious question. Can you answer it?

 

[sfs]

Surely you jest...! You are kidding right?

No, I'm not kidding.

ETA: We know very little indeed about the cultural achievements and capabilities of the Denisovans.

 

[Gene2memE]

The evidence that Neanderthals made jewelry (and other complex artifacts like tools and musical instruments) and wore ornamentation and pigment (aka make-up or body paint) is pretty compelling:

Neanderthal bead jewelry made from teeth, ivory and shells: - Live Science article
Palaeoproteomic evidence identifies archaic hominins associated with the Châtelperronian at the Grotte du Renne - original study above article is based on

Evidence for Neanderthal Jewelry: Modified White-Tailed Eagle Claws at Krapina - Croatian Natural History Museum/University of Kansas paper
Neanderthals wore eagle talons as jewellery - Nature article based on above paper

Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neanderthals - UK/Chinese/Spanish/American study on Neanderthal shell jewelry and body paint

There are dozens of other papers showing Neanderthals likely used bones like wolf and bear vertebrae and other objects like antlers and fish scales for ornamentation and burying rituals, as well as body/face paint with natural dyes and ash.

 

[pshun2404]

It's a serious question. Can you answer it?

Yes! They were Denisovans (which were an early variety of Homo Sapien). So now I have one in return. On what could one assume that they who mined the Chlorite, imagined the Jewelry, made this tool for boring, and polished it to a shine were anything but human? Even the most evolved chimps could never do such a thing.

So on what could one assume some other creature could have made these?

 

[pshun2404]

The evidence that Neanderthals made jewelry (and other complex artifacts like tools and musical instruments) and wore ornamentation and pigment (aka make-up or body paint) is pretty compelling:

Neanderthal bead jewelry made from teeth, ivory and shells: - Live Science article
Palaeoproteomic evidence identifies archaic hominins associated with the Châtelperronian at the Grotte du Renne - original study above article is based on

Evidence for Neanderthal Jewelry: Modified White-Tailed Eagle Claws at Krapina - Croatian Natural History Museum/University of Kansas paper
Neanderthals wore eagle talons as jewellery - Nature article based on above paper

Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neanderthals - UK/Chinese/Spanish/American study on Neanderthal shell jewelry and body paint

There are dozens of other papers showing Neanderthals likely used bones like wolf and bear vertebrae and other objects like antlers and fish scales for ornamentation and burying rituals, as well as body/face paint with natural dyes and ash.

Indeed these early homo sapiens, by these trademark skills, is clear evidence they were intelligent HUMAN BEINGS, not ape-ish cave men as portrayed for decades in the indoctrination process.

 

[pshun2404]

The evidence that Neanderthals made jewelry (and other complex artifacts like tools and musical instruments) and wore ornamentation and pigment (aka make-up or body paint) is pretty compelling:

Neanderthal bead jewelry made from teeth, ivory and shells: - Live Science article
Palaeoproteomic evidence identifies archaic hominins associated with the Châtelperronian at the Grotte du Renne - original study above article is based on

Evidence for Neanderthal Jewelry: Modified White-Tailed Eagle Claws at Krapina - Croatian Natural History Museum/University of Kansas paper
Neanderthals wore eagle talons as jewellery - Nature article based on above paper

Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neanderthals - UK/Chinese/Spanish/American study on Neanderthal shell jewelry and body paint

There are dozens of other papers showing Neanderthals likely used bones like wolf and bear vertebrae and other objects like antlers and fish scales for ornamentation and burying rituals, as well as body/face paint with natural dyes and ash.

Grant I really like all these and are going to ad them to my collection but let me ask you...it may be a matter of semantics to some, but I noticed the authors of the article on Proteomic evidence totally avoid calling Neanderthals humans and also makes an erroneous claim (the replacement theory).

The obvious;y successful social sexual interaction between homo sapien Neanadertalensis and the latter homo sapien Sapiens was not only natural since they were almost identical (save a few gross anatomical features) and both fully human, but likely, THUS a blending (absorbtion) was more likely than one being "replaced", though the modern blend was the most successful while these other early varieties eventually did not survive. But that's my interpretation.

As I interpret all I have read they are human and obviously were very wise for that time. So TO YOU were Neanderthals an early variety of sapien (same species)or some additional but non-human hominim species?

Though this question is addressed to Grant I welcome the opinions of others (please give why or what based on)

 

[Speedwell]

Indeed these early homo sapiens, by these trademark skills, is clear evidence they were intelligent HUMAN BEINGS, not ape-ish cave men as portrayed for decades in the indoctrination process.

Your half-remembered version of badly taught science does you no good now. Neither does mixing an ill-defined vernacular term with formal taxonomy make a good argument.

 

[pshun2404]

Your half-remembered version of badly taught science does you no good now. Neither does mixing an ill-defined vernacular term with formal taxonomy make a good argument.

Really speed? I had you pegged for a better man than this. My well remembered version of what many well taught scientists today are leaning towards is gaining more momentum each day. My vernacular term is not ill-defined at all and "formal taxonomy" is a man made system of classification and not any more real than any other (that's why it changes over time). They cannot even find a slot for many things.

 

[Speedwell]

Really speed? I had you pegged for a better man than this. My well remembered version of what many well taught scientists today are leaning towards is gaining more momentum each day.

What exactly is that and what evidence do you have that it is gaining momentum?

My vernacular term is not ill-defined at all and "formal taxonomy" is a man made system of classification and not any more real than any other (that's why it changes over time). They cannot even find a slot for many things.

I stand by what I said, unless you mean to equate "homo sapiens" with "human being."

 

[pshun2404]

What exactly is that and what evidence do you have that it is gaining momentum?I stand by what I said, unless you mean to equate "homo sapiens" with "human being."

One example of the disruption of the classic tree model is offered by scientists like Craig Ventor who see three bases and a subsequent bush. Others are showing how devolution (moving from more complexity to less complexity) also occurs. And still others are admitting no explanation for creatures like triops canciformis who show no prior source organisms yet appear fully formed. There are more but that SHOULD suffice.

According to the authors standard model held by scientists for almost a century (see quote above) these things cannot be (but they are).

And yes all human beings are homo sapiens, and all homo sapiens are human beings.

 

[Speedwell]

One example of the disruption of the classic tree model is offered by scientists like Craig Ventor who see three bases and a subsequent bush. Others are showing how devolution (moving from more complexity to less complexity) also occurs. And still others are admitting no explanation for creatures like triops canciformis who show no prior source organisms yet appear fully formed. There are more but that SHOULD suffice.

According to the authors standard model held by scientists for almost a century (see quote above) these things cannot be (but they are).

Yeah, sure. Such things are only to be expected in science, and none of what you posted is exactly late-breaking news over in the biology department. My original question remains: so what?

Look: I understand that you are trying to make what you think is an important point. But so far all we have is, "Science used to tell us thus-and-so but now its changing and beginning to tell us something else." You really haven't made it clear why you see that as a problem.

 

[Ophiolite]

One example of the disruption of the classic tree model is offered by scientists like Craig Ventor who see three bases and a subsequent bush. .

Astounding! Science refines its theories as new evidence emerges. Who would have thought it? And yet the fundamental concepts of a natural abiogenesis and subsequent evolution remain intact.

Others are showing how devolution (moving from more complexity to less complexity) also occurs.

Astounding! Scientists are still showing "devolution" occurs, just as they did in my palaeontology classes half a century ago. Who would have thought it?

And still others are admitting no explanation for creatures like triops canciformis who show no prior source organisms yet appear fully formed.

Astounding! With less than two centuries of work since the introduction of evolutionary theory there are still things we don't know. Who would have thought it? Maybe that's why we still have so many biologists and biology research projects, because we know there is still so much to learn.

According to the authors standard model held by scientists for almost a century (see quote above) these things cannot be (but they are).

Astounding! You do not seem able to distinguish between a general, simplified, overview that provides a useful framework to operate in and the plethora of richly diverse, hypotheses filled with subtle blends of the definite and the speculative that make up the "coal face" of the working biologist. Who would have thought it?

 

[CherubRam]

As many know, Petralona Man was originally dated to between 70,000 and 700,000 years old based on the surrounding geology. BUT...it made sense that a later human(s) could have wandered into or explored or taken up residence in a much older cave. Since then other dating methods have been applied shrinking the margin on both sides. Recent ESR dating has narrowed it further to be between 160,000 to 240,000 years old.

The problem is that even if we take the youngest possible date so far (160,000 yrs), that still means homo-sapiens were alive and well in Greece 100,000 years before the alleged out of Africa migration 60,000 years ago. There is so much mounting evidence against this incorrect yet accepted timeline (that was taught as established for decades) that I believe it is time they admit they made a mistake and then re-evaluate.

Some scientists who agree have proposed multiple migrations possibly stretching back closer to 200,000 years, but that still does not adequately explain how homo-sapien Neandertalis pre-dates the Petralona skull but at least another 100,000 years or more or the realities of Dali man in Asia (admittedly an archaic homo-sapien possibly 200,000years ago). Conclusion?

The Evolutionary Paleoanthropologist’s spin has simply been wr-wr-wrong, once again, yet taught as correct for many generations. Eventually textbooks and encyclopedias will once again have to be re-written to correct their hypothesis based interpretations and subsequent erroneous conclusions. What are your thoughts?

Evolutionist have made many corrections over the years. Great is the faith of the Atheist.

 

[Speedwell]

Evolutionist have made many corrections over the years. Great is the faith of the Atheist.

I thought the thing about atheists was that they didn't have any faith.

But it has nothing to do with this conversation, which is not about the existence of God.

 

[pshun2404]

Yeah, sure. Such things are only to be expected in science, and none of what you posted is exactly late-breaking news over in the biology department. My original question remains: so what?

Look: I understand that you are trying to make what you think is an important point. But so far all we have is, "Science used to tell us thus-and-so but now its changing and beginning to tell us something else." You really haven't made it clear why you see that as a problem.

because we are convinced by our education (which IMO turns out to be indoctrination) that things that are not really established ARE. Simply in the same honesty you are displaying stop trying to convince people this *%& is true. Frame it all in the appropriate subjunctive mood (could be true, might be true, but we do not know yet...anyway here is how it fits our model) THEN offer the arguments and evidence for AND against this view so students of the subject can be actually objective and make up their own minds.

Sorry to bring up an old subject but its is a great example. All the examples from nature we have ever observed (or in the fossil record) as well as ALL examples done in laboratory tests, show that "speciation" only produces varieties of the same organism. No evidence supports the alleged "established belief" still held by many to be true that speciation is part of the cause (along with Natural selection and small mutation) that brings about the transmutation of fish into amphibians which then became reptiales, and so on up to humans. YET it is that which is taught over and over, generation after generation, in textbooks all over. Why not include the truth? WHy persuade?

As Psychologist William James discovered, that Edward Bernays taught and Josef Geobbels applied to persuade millions, if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, the masses will believe it. The lie can be maintained only so long as the alleged authorities can shield the people from the consequence of unveiling the lie. And when you as the argumentum ad populum (consensus by alleged authorities) it becomes "established" as if true (not open to dissent or questioning). Any who do dissent or question do not get the support of the authorities so the lie continues. Now apply this here.

 

[Speedwell]

because we are convinced by our education (which IMO turns out to be indoctrination) that things that are not really established ARE. Simply in the same honesty you are displaying stop trying to convince people this *%& is true. Frame it all in the appropriate subjunctive mood (could be true, might be true, but we do not know yet...anyway here is how it fits our model) THEN offer the arguments and evidence for AND against this view so students of the subject can be actually objective and make up their own minds.

That's how science is taught in all well-conducted science classes. Why you misrepresent it the way you do hints that you have another scenario which you believe is being unfairly ignored.

Sorry to bring up an old subject but its is a great example. All the examples from nature we have ever observed (or in the fossil record) as well as ALL examples done in laboratory tests, show that "speciation" only produces varieties of the same organism. No evidence supports the alleged "established belief" still held by many to be true that speciation is part of the cause (along with Natural selection and small mutation) that brings about the transmutation of fish into amphibians which then became reptiales, and so on up to humans. YET it is that which is taught over and over, generation after generation, in textbooks all over. Why not include the truth? WHy persuade?

Because it isn't the truth, is the main reason.

As Psychologist William James discovered, that Edward Bernays taught and Josef Geobbels applied to persuade millions, if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, the masses will believe it. The lie can be maintained only so long as the alleged authorities can shield the people from the consequence of unveiling the lie. And when you as the argumentum ad populum (consensus by alleged authorities) it becomes "established" as if true (not open to dissent or questioning). Any who do dissent or question do not get the support of the authorities so the lie continues. Now apply this here.

So it's a "lie" now? Why can't it just be wrong?

More to the point, what is it a lie in aid of?