thoughts on being Human

[pshun2404]

While the earliest Homo Sapiens are claimed to be related to the people of Omo 1 (Ethiopia) from around 195,000 years ago, Mousterian stone tool culture dates to 300,000 years, but some scientists see indicators from as early as 600,000 years – (Bischoff, James L.; Shamp, Donald D.; Aramburu, Arantza; Arsuaga, Juan Luis; Carbonell, Eudald; Bermudez de Castro, J.M. (2003). "The Sima de los Huesos Hominids Date to Beyond U/Th Equilibrium (>350kyr) and Perhaps to 400–500kyr: New Radiometric Dates". Journal of Archaeological Science30(3): 275–80) AND Skinner, A., B. Blackwell, R. Long, M.R. Seronie-Vivien, A.-M. Tillier and J. Blickstein; New ESR dates for a new bone-bearing layer at Pradayrol, Lot, France; Paleoanthropology Society March 28, 2007

It has been shown that this variety of Homo Sapien (pre-dating Omo 1 by over 100,000 years) already had a sophisticated technology for making a specialized pitch from Birch bark that requires a limited margin of specific heat and common knowledge of using this technique in making their spears. We now KNOW they had burial rituals and made ornamentation (unheard of among apes or any of the alleged apemen).

The average cranial capacity was about 1600 cm3, and the average height for males and females was 6 to 6.6 feet tall – (Helmuth H (1998). "Body height, body mass and surface area of the Neanderthals". Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie82 (1))

It is true the DNA shows an over 99.5% match with African based Sapiens, but IMO dating is implying that if one CAME FROM the other then we may have it backwards. ("Neanderthal Genome Sequencing Yields Surprising Results And Opens A New Door To Future Studies" ,Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 16 November 2006)…YET

Despite being reclassified as a human “subspecies” Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (a human imposition onto the data) we have new evidence which shows they were distinct from the African lineage (Hedges SB (December 2000). "Human evolution. A start for population genomics". Nature408 (6813): 652–3)

The Homo Sapien variety we call Neanderthal and the Sapien variety we call Denisovans (both homo sapien equal to if not greater then AND earlier than the “out of Africa line) have unique and distinct Mirochondrial DNA lineages more likely suggesting a three source theory rather than an “out of Africa” one source theory (though this does not exclude the possibility of an earlier single source, it brings into question the former ape to man scenario held by and pushed by many EBs)

In all fairness though we have no actual evidence it is true, the oldest modern African based Sapiens, now conveniently reclassified Sapien Sapiens MAY date back earlier than 200,000 years (absence of evidence not being evidence of absence) but we can only SPECUALTE that it is true at this time.

IMO the out of Africa theory has been completely discredited by the fossil record and recent genetic research, others are coming around to this same position. (“Re-examining the “out of Africa” theory and the Origin of Europoids in Light of DNA Genealogy” Advances in Anthropology, 2_ ,…found at

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

I love this because on pages 84-85 the research team concludes with a view I have long believed and shared and that is “We believe that those arguments upon which the “Out of Africa” theory was based were, in fact, conjectural, incomplete, and not actually data-driven.”

So why is this crumbling hypothesis still being promoted by academia as “the fact” we should all accept and believe? IMO? Because it fits the propaganda machine’s hypothesis! This group controlling the pedagoguery will continue (as James discovered and Goebbels applied) to hammer the unsupported hypothesis based rhetoric into the minds of school children. Thanks be to God that there are actual objective scientists that will step outside the pre-programmed box and just look at the data…

Comments? Thoughts?

 

[Murby]

I was just watching a (2 hour?) documentary on this a couple weeks ago.. Here you go:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33226416
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151116-what-did-the-neanderthals-do-for-us
If I remember the conclusion correctly, they have identified Neanderthal DNA within living humans. The documentary was absolutely fascinating.. I recall the whole birch pitch research as they duplicated the results using egg's and mud to keep oxygen out of the process.

I have it on a flash drive and keep meaning to watch it again..

 

[pshun2404]

Yes Neanderthals and Denisovans were both humans and each had a unique matrilineal source according to Mirochondrial DNA studies...these were in no way semi-ape creatures that mated with humans...they were simply varieties of human separate from the "out of Africa" source...and as far as we can tell their lineages go back much farther than the African "human"...

 

[juvenissun]

Yes Neanderthals and Denisovans were both humans and each had a unique matrilineal source according to Mirochondrial DNA studies...these were in no way semi-ape creatures that mated with humans...they were simply varieties of human separate from the "out of Africa" source...and as far as we can tell their lineages go back much farther than the African "human"...

Were they found all over the earth? Or they just existed in a limited region?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If I remember the conclusion correctly, they have identified Neanderthal DNA within living humans.

Yes; modern non-African humans are estimated to have up to 3% Neanderthal gene sequences, and because these sequences vary between individuals, it's been estimated that up to 20% of the Neanderthal genome be represented in modern humans overall. They've also found human sequences in Neanderthal DNA. But the analyses are still fairly tentative - there seems to have been at least three phases of expansion out of Africa, and a number of different hominin subspecies co-existing and possibly interbreeding. It's tricky distinguishing the shared sequences from a common ancestor from shared sequences due to interbreeding. See 'The Relationship Between Modern Humans and Neanderthals'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... IMO the out of Africa theory has been completely discredited by the fossil record and recent genetic research, others are coming around to this same position. (“Re-examining the “out of Africa” theory and the Origin of Europoids in Light of DNA Genealogy” Advances in Anthropology, 2_ ,…found at

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

I love this because on pages 84-85 the research team concludes with a view I have long believed and shared and that is “We believe that those arguments upon which the “Out of Africa” theory was based were, in fact, conjectural, incomplete, and not actually data-driven.”

So why is this crumbling hypothesis still being promoted by academia as “the fact” we should all accept and believe? IMO? Because it fits the propaganda machine’s hypothesis! This group controlling the pedagoguery will continue (as James discovered and Goebbels applied) to hammer the unsupported hypothesis based rhetoric into the minds of school children. Thanks be to God that there are actual objective scientists that will step outside the pre-programmed box and just look at the data…

Comments? Thoughts?

There's no conspiracy or propaganda machine - the data are inconclusive and open to interpretation. It's been known for some time that 'Out of Africa' hypothesis was way more complicated than originally thought, with evidence of multiple expansions from Africa over about 2 million years, and there are a variety of interpretations. It's currently the most widely accepted hypothesis, but that consensus will change when, or if, new data is sufficiently well validated and falsifies OOA, and/or a better hypothesis is formulated, and in turn becomes widely accepted. The text books and academic curricula will change some time after that. It's likely to be a slow process. That's how science usually works.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Were they found all over the earth? Or they just existed in a limited region?

Denisovan fossils have only been found in a single cave in Siberia. Neanderthals have been found across Europe and the Middle East.

 

[juvenissun]

Denisovan fossils have only been found in a single cave in Siberia. Neanderthals have been found across Europe and the Middle East.

I have heard that Neanderthals have also been found in Asia such as in China and Indonesia. Is that true?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have heard that Neanderthals have also been found in Asia such as in China and Indonesia. Is that true?

It's possible, even likely; there's evidence of Neanderthal interbreeding with ancient Asian humans populations, but I don't know that any Neanderthal fossils have been found there.

 

[juvenissun]

It's possible, even likely; there's evidence of Neanderthal interbreeding with ancient Asian humans populations, but I don't know that any Neanderthal fossils have been found there.

Thanks.
Any estimation on the peak population of Neanderthals?

 

[smaneck]

In all fairness though we have no actual evidence it is true, the oldest modern African based Sapiens, now conveniently reclassified Sapien Sapiens MAY date back earlier than 200,000 years (absence of evidence not being evidence of absence) but we can only SPECUALTE that it is true at this time.

The theory was never that Homo Sapiens dated back only to 200,000 years ago but rather that the common ancestor of all of us alive today lived 200,000. There were likely plenty of Homo Sapiens whose DNA we did not inherit.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks.
Any estimation on the peak population of Neanderthals?

Sorry, I've no idea. Try an internet search engine.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry, I've no idea. Try an internet search engine.

Were Neanderthals originated from one small area, and spread out? My guess is no.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Were Neanderthals originated from one small area, and spread out? My guess is no.

It depends precisely what you mean. For a species or sub-species to evolve and acquire distinctive traits, it needs to start with a population that is interbreeding, so that the characteristic genetic changes are distributed thoughout that population. Given the lack of transport options in those times, that implies a population with a relatively restricted geographic distribution. The population as a whole may have moved over time, but would have occupied a relatively small area at any particular time. The most likely scenario would be a small group that became geographically, and so reproductively, isolated from the ancestral population.

Given those constraints, it's hard to see how Neanderthals would not have originated in a small area and subsequently spread out - although, as mentioned, that area may not have been fixed, so that the descendants of the original group might have ended up far from the starting point of their ancestors. But once the population grows or spreads beyond interbreeding range, groups become genetically isolated from each other, and begin to diverge by selection and genetic drift, becoming distinct genetic populations in their own right.

 

[juvenissun]

It depends precisely what you mean. For a species or sub-species to evolve and acquire distinctive traits, it needs to start with a population that is interbreeding, so that the characteristic genetic changes are distributed thoughout that population. Given the lack of transport options in those times, that implies a population with a relatively restricted geographic distribution. The population as a whole may have moved over time, but would have occupied a relatively small area at any particular time. The most likely scenario would be a small group that became geographically, and so reproductively, isolated from the ancestral population.

Given those constraints, it's hard to see how Neanderthals would not have originated in a small area and subsequently spread out - although, as mentioned, that area may not have been fixed, so that the descendants of the original group might have ended up far from the starting point of their ancestors. But once the population grows or spreads beyond interbreeding range, groups become genetically isolated from each other, and begin to diverge by selection and genetic drift, becoming distinct genetic populations in their own right.

Would the migration of a species to a much wider area also demands the increase of population of that species?
I would say yes.
So, wherever Neanderthal was originated, its population MUST became significantly large for them to migrate to all places of the earth.
My impression is that the population of Neanderthal was never large. But the distribution of them is significantly wide.

Am I right?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Would the migration of a species to a much wider area also demands the increase of population of that species?

Not necessarily. A highly specialised population that became too dense for comfort in one area might try to spread out to relieve the pressure and find conditions in the new area(s) unsuitable, causing a significant thinning of the migrating population. But on the whole, I would expect that a highly adaptable species, such as intelligent bipedal apes, would generally be able cope with all but the most extreme environments, so I would expect them to increase in number.

So, wherever Neanderthal was originated, its population MUST became significantly large for them to migrate to all places of the earth.

They were adapted for and are found at relatively high latitudes, so it's unlikely that they spread to all places on Earth, but they were successful enough to achieve quite a wide range; so yes, that seems likely.

My impression is that the population of Neanderthal was never large. But the distribution of them is significantly wide.

Am I right?

Your Google-foo is weak. In a few seconds, 'size of neanderthal population' produced a slew of informative results, for example, Wikipedia.

I'm not an expert in Neanderthal populations, nor am I a Google front-end.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes; modern non-African humans are estimated to have up to 3% Neanderthal gene sequences, and because these sequences vary between individuals, it's been estimated that up to 20% of the Neanderthal genome be represented in modern humans overall. They've also found human sequences in Neanderthal DNA. But the analyses are still fairly tentative - there seems to have been at least three phases of expansion out of Africa, and a number of different hominin subspecies co-existing and possibly interbreeding. It's tricky distinguishing the shared sequences from a common ancestor from shared sequences due to interbreeding. See 'The Relationship Between Modern Humans and Neanderthals'.

At first we were told and taught only one around 30 to 40,000 years ago, then they changed up and recently texts have declared two migrations one about 130,000 years ago (but the Neanderthal and Denisovan humans were already there)...now some are creating a third, much earlier migration (even prior to the 195,000 former limitation for human divergence)...and of course they must if they want to keep pushing the accepted favored theory...

One thing I believe we can say now with confidence is that these other two groups were not just different hominins or intelligent bi-pedal apes....but HUMAN beings (merely a different variety).

 

[pshun2404]

The theory was never that Homo Sapiens dated back only to 200,000 years ago but rather that the common ancestor of all of us alive today lived 200,000. There were likely plenty of Homo Sapiens whose DNA we did not inherit.

Yet the Neanderthal humans (clearly NOT intelligent bi-pedal Apes) were already making tools and using a very specific ancient industrial technique for a pitch to hold their spear heads on as early as 300,000 years ago!?! How can "the common non or semi "human" or sapien "ancestor" not arrive until 100,000 years later then already extant "sapiens"? This logic does not follow the data...IMO it is hypothesis based conjecture....

 

[smaneck]

Yet the Neanderthal humans were already making tools and using a very specific ancient industrial technique for a pitch to hold their spear heads on as early as 300,000 years ago!?! How can "the common non or semi "human" or sapien ancestor not arrive until 100,000 years later?

Keep in mind that tool-making begins over two million years with Homo Habilis. Here is a comparison of the bone structure of a Neanderthal and a Homo Sapien Sapien. Yes, they are likely the same species because otherwise they couldn't interbreed and have fertile offspring, but the differences are still pretty striking.

And btw, there was nothing 'semi' human about our common ancestor. She was fully Homo Sapien Sapien. And she lived 200,000 years ago, not 100,000. Homo Sapiens Sapiens remained in Africa for some time because they were not as suited to the glacial areas as were Neanderthals. They don't migrate to Europe until about 40,000 years ago, although they can be found in places like Australia and tropical Asia much earlier. Here are the skeletal difference between Neanderthals and Homo Sapien Sapiens.

http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/neanderthal neandertal muscular muscle apeman rickets bones fossil 3.jpg

Neanderthals were uniquely suited for the Ice Age. They lived on a much richer meat diet and their stoutness gave them greater warmth. They had three times the upper body strength of modern humans which is why their rib cage is so wide. The alternative to the "out of Africa" theory, btw, is that Homo Erectus all over Afro-Eurasia evolved into Homo Sapiens. But the DNA evidence does not support that theory. Besides, how would they all have evolved pretty much the same?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yet the Neanderthal humans (clearly NOT intelligent bi-pedal Apes)

They were bipedal, they were apes (as are we), and give every indication of intelligence. What makes you think they were clearly not?