Notices
Results 1 to 54 of 54
Like Tree10Likes
  • 1 Post By Ken Fabos
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 2 Post By gonzales56
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 1 Post By Ken Fabos
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By Paleoichneum
  • 1 Post By sculptor

Thread: Hominins are older than we thought.

  1. #1 Hominins are older than we thought. 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Interesting article in New Scientist, paper edition 24 November, page 34.

    It would appear that the age of the human lineage has to be revised. Previously, from the genetic molecular clock, it was believed that chimps and humans separated their lines about 6 million years ago. This was embarrassing, since several fossils were found, clearly with characteristics related to hominins, which pre-dated this split. eg. Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus.

    No longer a problem. It appears that the split was between 7 and 13 million years ago, with a "best guess" of about 8 to 10 million.

    We now have a nice clear cut lineage, with chimps and humans splitting around 8 million years ago (plus or minus a bit), while Sahelanthropus appeared about then, and Ardipithecus around 6 million years ago. Australopithecus, which is widely considered the first to be clearly related to the human lineage, appeared about 4 million years ago, and is much evolved towards human characteristics.

    The new dating also changes the estimates for the "out of Africa" movement of Homo sapiens. It appears our ancestors left Africa around 100,000 years ago, which fits beautifully with the dating of the first human skeleton found outside Africa, in Israel, and dated to that time.

    All in all, quite a revelation.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    what's the rationale behind the new estimate ?


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Marnix

    My reply is from New Scientist, since I am not a geneticist.

    The re-evaluation was based on an altered estimate of mutation rate. Initially, the estimate was 75 mutations per genome per generation, and that came from the number of different mutations from chimps versus orangutan. Since it was estimated that they split 10 to 20 million years ago, that gave a rough and ready calculated estimate. The more recent estimate is based on a direct measurement of mutations from generation to generation, and is estimated at 36 per genome per generation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    The earliest evidence of stone tipped spears has also been pushed further back in time by another 200,000 years to 500,000 year ago. The broad sweep of our evolutionary history may not change too much but more details are going to get clarified.
    msafwan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    At least now there'll be less argy bargy when people come up with very early dates for some things. There was a huge kerfuffle here when someone dated some artifacts/cave art/something at over 60000 years old. The biggest challenge was to the dating techniques themselves, which some creationist types were eagerly pushing into the 'you can't trust any' bin.

    Now the discussions and disagreements can focus on the real problems.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Yeah.

    I quite like the idea that the last three species of large hominids are Homo sapiens. About 500,000 years ago, Heidelberg Man was present, and then Neanderthal, and finally modern man about 200,000 years ago.

    However, some paleoanthropologists claim that Heidelberg was a sub species of Homo sapiens - that is Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, and so was the Neanderthal - that is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and finally Homo sapiens sapiens.

    I like this version. It seems to make more sense, especially when we see that all three types have brains similar in size to modern humans. It means that we can look for advanced tool making back to 500,000 years ago.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Previously, from the genetic molecular clock, it was believed that chimps and humans separated their lines about 6 million years ago. This was embarrassing, since several fossils were found, clearly with characteristics related to hominins, which pre-dated this split. eg. Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus.No longer a problem.
    not sure if there was such a huge problem even with the more recent estimate - as far as i'm aware Ardipithecus dates from deposits more recent than 5 million years, and the case for Orrorin and Sahelanthropus being on the human lineage was always debatable
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Yeah.

    I quite like the idea that the last three species of large hominids are Homo sapiens. About 500,000 years ago, Heidelberg Man was present, and then Neanderthal, and finally modern man about 200,000 years ago.

    However, some paleoanthropologists claim that Heidelberg was a sub species of Homo sapiens - that is Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, and so was the Neanderthal - that is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and finally Homo sapiens sapiens.

    I like this version. It seems to make more sense, especially when we see that all three types have brains similar in size to modern humans. It means that we can look for advanced tool making back to 500,000 years ago.
    I think that this terminology question boils down to "What is a species?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Yeah.

    I quite like the idea that the last three species of large hominids are Homo sapiens. About 500,000 years ago, Heidelberg Man was present, and then Neanderthal, and finally modern man about 200,000 years ago.

    However, some paleoanthropologists claim that Heidelberg was a sub species of Homo sapiens - that is Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, and so was the Neanderthal - that is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and finally Homo sapiens sapiens.

    I like this version. It seems to make more sense, especially when we see that all three types have brains similar in size to modern humans. It means that we can look for advanced tool making back to 500,000 years ago.
    The one thing that we do know though is that at least 4 or 5 sister groups (sub species if you like) that lived between 30 and 150 thousand years ago are the ancestors of all modern humans.

    Now we either are the product of splits and crosses of many hominid groups/populations, or we are the product of one direct and single line descending from only one hominid group/population at a time. The DNA evidence tells us that we are the product of multiple hominids and not the product of one single hominid line/population.

    Are we part neandertal, part denisovan, part antecessor, part heidelbergensis, part idaltu, part erectus and a few parts other hominid? If we are the products of mixing and crosses then trying to classify one or the other as homo sapiens "whatever" (the ancestors and/or brothers and sisters of modern humans) and others not homo sapiens "whatever" just shows that science is about dead in this field and its personal agendas and political agendas that are ruling the day.
    Moontanman and westwind like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    The earliest evidence of stone tipped spears has also been pushed further back in time by another 200,000 years to 500,000 year ago. The broad sweep of our evolutionary history may not change too much but more details are going to get clarified.

    Were these spears reliable? If they were as shown in the pictures, they seem to be made for a single use. Once thrust skillfully and forcefully into the body of the escaping prey, would the pointed stone come out of the body along with the haft?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    why wouldnt they?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    There is archaeological evidence for re-working stone spear tips. That is, putting a new edge on them. This suggests they are reusable.
    Moontanman likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    uday yadav @10 - I'm not sure that the manner of attachment shown would be typical - I'm not sure if it has historical precedents but if the people doing the experiment were competent it seems likely. The binding looks poorly done and doesn't appear to attach to anything - trying to make the spears look "primitive"? Maybe the other side has haft running further than the base of the stone tip and the binding wraps around it. Also, my understanding is that spear tips were often deliberately made to detach easily to prevent breakages of the valuable stone tip from a wounded animal thrashing around or landing on the haft.

    We shouldn't presume those ancestors were incapable of doing a neat and functional job making a tool of high value. Even so it is likely that tips were often lost and broken, although those that ended up deeply lodged in prey were probably recoverable; it would be the misses that would result in losses.
    Moontanman likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    why wouldnt they?

    Stone is short in length. There is not enough space to bind the stone to stick firmly. Naturally found adhesives and sinew, untreated, would not help keep the short stone firmly tied to the stick.

    The sharpened stone looks more like a meat/skin cutter than a dependable weapon. Cut the big animal in pieces to divide among the group.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    There is archaeological evidence for re-working stone spear tips. That is, putting a new edge on them. This suggests they are reusable.

    YES. Sharpened stone was rare asset. One would not risk losing it in the body of an animal that had succeeded in running away. The made up spear in the picture cannot hold the stone to it.

    Shape and size of the sharpened stone suggests cutting the animal in pieces.

    They might be reusable as meat cutter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To uday

    The article I read on this topic showed a photo of the reworked spear tip. It has been carefully reworked into the exact shape of a spear tip, which would seem to be a strange thing to do if it was going to be just for cutting meat. I think you are probably correct in suggesting that lots of spear tips would come off the spear and stay in the animal, and that the tip would be recovered, mostly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    uday yadav @10 - I'm not sure that the manner of attachment shown would be typical - I'm not sure if it has historical precedents but if the people doing the experiment were competent it seems likely. The binding looks poorly done and doesn't appear to attach to anything - trying to make the spears look "primitive"? Maybe the other side has haft running further than the base of the stone tip and the binding wraps around it. Also, my understanding is that spear tips were often deliberately made to detach easily to prevent breakages of the valuable stone tip from a wounded animal thrashing around or landing on the haft.

    We shouldn't presume those ancestors were incapable of doing a neat and functional job making a tool of high value. Even so it is likely that tips were often lost and broken, although those that ended up deeply lodged in prey were probably recoverable; it would be the misses that would result in losses.
    Sharpened stone with cutting edge in the body of prey is less killing than haft still attached to that stone.

    Deliberation in binding for certain results, would need far more skill than firm binding of the haft to the longer stone. If he misses the aim, stone edge may get broken against rough ground but once inside the soft flesh the stoneís edge is as safe as in a womb.

    Human used stick to its maximum utility. Stone throwing with accuracy and not randomly. He was clever enough to choose certain stones for throwing for best results. When he decided to bind them together or occurred to him to bind them together, he would choose longer stones to make spears. Once he understood the necessity of firm binding of longer stone to the yet longer haft, he would never fail in preparing the same.

    Longer stone spears are not needed to be evolved from smaller ones.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To uday

    The article I read on this topic showed a photo of the reworked spear tip. It has been carefully reworked into the exact shape of a spear tip, which would seem to be a strange thing to do if it was going to be just for cutting meat. I think you are probably correct in suggesting that lots of spear tips would come off the spear and stay in the animal, and that the tip would be recovered, mostly.
    The exact shape of a spear has longer rear for firm binding.

    The stone in the animal that remains attached to the haft is more killing and more recoverable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    However, some paleoanthropologists claim that Heidelberg was a sub species of Homo sapiens - that is Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, and so was the Neanderthal - that is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and finally Homo sapiens sapiens.

    I like this version. It seems to make more sense, especially when we see that all three types have brains similar in size to modern humans. It means that we can look for advanced tool making back to 500,000 years ago.
    That was the version used by virtually all anthropologist, during my time at my last university-circa late 70s

    I had thought that the shorter versions were just lazy journalism.
    seriously
    Last edited by sculptor; December 8th, 2012 at 10:47 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To uday

    The article I read on this topic showed a photo of the reworked spear tip. It has been carefully reworked into the exact shape of a spear tip, which would seem to be a strange thing to do if it was going to be just for cutting meat. I think you are probably correct in suggesting that lots of spear tips would come off the spear and stay in the animal, and that the tip would be recovered, mostly.
    couple years ago, I shot a 12 point buck----(heavy sucker, damned near wore me out dragging him up to the shop where i butchered him)
    anyway
    behind/inside of, his left shoulder blade was a perfect arrowhead (steel, of course)------(it seemed that he had broken off the arrow shaft, but the head stuck)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    as/re
    The stone in the animal that remains attached to the haft is more killing and more recoverable.
    nothing is sharper than the edge of a stone projectile point.
    leave that in the animal, and each step he/she
    takes cuts muscle and nerve
    follow
    and you get to butcher an animal without any up front and personal fighting

    I would prefer a design for spear points that would allow the stone tip to remain in the body of the prey, and that likely means, easily detachable from the shaft.

    So, uday, I suspect that your above may be missing something vital to stone age hunters
    .......................
    ps
    uday
    I advise you to stop using overlarge bold fonts.
    My first reaction is always to ignore screaming.
    Then, after reading everything else, I might or might not get back to it.
    Moontanman likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Whether the makers and users preferred the tips to be firmly attached or weakly to allow it to detach might depend on how vulnerable to breakage and how valuable and difficult to replace. Not everyone had ready access to quality flint or obsidian - extending the useful life of something highly valued and hard to replace may have been a factor.

    I admit I don't recall where I read about spear tips being deliberately made to detach easily and won't insist that it was a common practice. The attachment method shown looks different to images I've seen of hafted paleolithic tools that mostly involved a haft that ran up both sides of the tip and were neatly bound; it does look poorly done. Whether the very earliest hafted stone tools were a follow on from a longer tradition of hafted tips of bone or other material is another question but I wouldn't be surprised.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Yeah.

    I quite like the idea that the last three species of large hominids are Homo sapiens. About 500,000 years ago, Heidelberg Man was present, and then Neanderthal, and finally modern man about 200,000 years ago.

    However, some paleoanthropologists claim that Heidelberg was a sub species of Homo sapiens - that is Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, and so was the Neanderthal - that is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and finally Homo sapiens sapiens.

    I like this version. It seems to make more sense, especially when we see that all three types have brains similar in size to modern humans. It means that we can look for advanced tool making back to 500,000 years ago.
    The one thing that we do know though is that at least 4 or 5 sister groups (sub species if you like) that lived between 30 and 150 thousand years ago are the ancestors of all modern humans.

    Now we either are the product of splits and crosses of many hominid groups/populations, or we are the product of one direct and single line descending from only one hominid group/population at a time. The DNA evidence tells us that we are the product of multiple hominids and not the product of one single hominid line/population.

    Are we part neandertal, part denisovan, part antecessor, part heidelbergensis, part idaltu, part erectus and a few parts other hominid? If we are the products of mixing and crosses then trying to classify one or the other as homo sapiens "whatever" (the ancestors and/or brothers and sisters of modern humans) and others not homo sapiens "whatever" just shows that science is about dead in this field and its personal agendas and political agendas that are ruling the day.
    The other possibility is that we inherit all of our "sapien" traits from a single line of pre-sapiens primates, and they later intermarried with hominids. Probably the sapiens traits, at least the intellectual part, were valuable enough that they were highly selected for.

    Just imagine a bunch of hominids hunting and gathering. One day along comes a sapiens who can make cave drawings, organize better hunts, and coordinate the efforts of multiple gathering groups so they form a larger collective tribe.

    Probably that guy's going to get the chance to mate with more than one of the females.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Yeah.

    I quite like the idea that the last three species of large hominids are Homo sapiens. About 500,000 years ago, Heidelberg Man was present, and then Neanderthal, and finally modern man about 200,000 years ago.

    However, some paleoanthropologists claim that Heidelberg was a sub species of Homo sapiens - that is Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, and so was the Neanderthal - that is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and finally Homo sapiens sapiens.

    I like this version. It seems to make more sense, especially when we see that all three types have brains similar in size to modern humans. It means that we can look for advanced tool making back to 500,000 years ago.
    The one thing that we do know though is that at least 4 or 5 sister groups (sub species if you like) that lived between 30 and 150 thousand years ago are the ancestors of all modern humans.

    Now we either are the product of splits and crosses of many hominid groups/populations, or we are the product of one direct and single line descending from only one hominid group/population at a time. The DNA evidence tells us that we are the product of multiple hominids and not the product of one single hominid line/population.

    Are we part neandertal, part denisovan, part antecessor, part heidelbergensis, part idaltu, part erectus and a few parts other hominid? If we are the products of mixing and crosses then trying to classify one or the other as homo sapiens "whatever" (the ancestors and/or brothers and sisters of modern humans) and others not homo sapiens "whatever" just shows that science is about dead in this field and its personal agendas and political agendas that are ruling the day.
    The other possibility is that we inherit all of our "sapien" traits from a single line of pre-sapiens primates, and they later intermarried with hominids. Probably the sapiens traits, at least the intellectual part, were valuable enough that they were highly selected for.

    Just imagine a bunch of hominids hunting and gathering. One day along comes a sapiens who can make cave drawings, organize better hunts, and coordinate the efforts of multiple gathering groups so they form a larger collective tribe.

    Probably that guy's going to get the chance to mate with more than one of the females.
    Except that neither the neandartals nor the hominids they crossed with survived, only the mixed offspring did, and it is also believed that it is neandertal men who bred with the other hominid females, not the other way around.

    This suggest that neandertal men were the ones who traveled/invaded or commonly killed or out performed the other hominid men, bred with the other hominid women, and the cross produced offspring that even neanderthal men could not ultimately compete with.
    Last edited by gonzales56; December 7th, 2012 at 08:02 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I'm reasonably certain that none of my ancesters for millions and millions of years went extinct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I'm reasonably certain that none of my ancesters for millions and millions of years went extinct.
    Oh? and what do you base that on?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwNbwPVFkSc
    Today aborigines hunt kangaroos with spears. These spears are sharpened sticks only. They donít fasten stone with edge to it.
    I think sharpening the stone and then fastening it to a haft is lengthy process to prepare a spear.
    Sharpened stick is a spear far easily made . Sticks are in abundance unlike stone for sharpening.
    Stick sharpening and stone sharpening, both techniques human might have learnt about same time.
    Stick for hunt killing. Stone for cutting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    [QUOTE=sculptor;374225]as/re
    I would prefer a design for spear points that would allow the stone tip to remain in the body of the prey, and that likely means, easily detachable from the shaft.

    That is bullet, detachable from rifle. Your preferred design is byproduct of my post 10.



    [QUOTE=sculptor;374225]
    So, uday, I suspect that your above may be missing something vital to stone age hunters
    Please tell this to Masais and aborigines who still can hunt kill with sharp sticks. Sharp point that penetrates the body and stick shaft that hangs on it, making the spear more killing and more recoverable.
    It should be called Stick-stone Age if ever stone is necessary to add.


    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    ps
    uday
    I advise you to stop using overlarge bold fonts.
    My first reaction is always to ignore screaming.
    Then, after reading everything else, I might or might not get back to it.
    I didnít use bold font.
    We share computer time at home.
    At 59, I wanted my posts easily traceable. I thought of color font but that seemed more screaming. So I decided on font size 3. Hereon I will use 2 and see if it is OK.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    This may be of interest.

    It is known that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago but scientists are not sure where on the continent they first arose as a distinct species. The latest evidence points to the southern tip of Africa. Archaeologists working at Pinnacle Point identified stone tools and a red pigment used in ritualistic ceremonies which they believe could only have been used by humans showing "modern behaviour".
    First humans 'lived at southern tip of Africa' - Science - News - The Independent
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwNbwPVFkSc
    Today aborigines hunt kangaroos with spears. These spears are sharpened sticks only. They don’t fasten stone with edge to it.
    I think sharpening the stone and then fastening it to a haft is lengthy process to prepare a spear.
    Sharpened stick is a spear far easily made . Sticks are in abundance unlike stone for sharpening.
    Stick sharpening and stone sharpening, both techniques human might have learnt about same time.
    Stick for hunt killing. Stone for cutting.
    Try hunting anything larger than kangaroos with a wood-tipped spear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    This may be of interest.

    It is known that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago but scientists are not sure where on the continent they first arose as a distinct species. The latest evidence points to the southern tip of Africa. Archaeologists working at Pinnacle Point identified stone tools and a red pigment used in ritualistic ceremonies which they believe could only have been used by humans showing "modern behaviour".
    First humans 'lived at southern tip of Africa' - Science - News - The Independent
    I am living right where it all began.
    Moontanman likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwNbwPVFkSc
    Today aborigines hunt kangaroos with spears. These spears are sharpened sticks only. They donít fasten stone with edge to it.
    I think sharpening the stone and then fastening it to a haft is lengthy process to prepare a spear.
    Sharpened stick is a spear far easily made . Sticks are in abundance unlike stone for sharpening.
    Stick sharpening and stone sharpening, both techniques human might have learnt about same time.
    Stick for hunt killing. Stone for cutting.
    Try hunting anything larger than kangaroos with a wood-tipped spear.

    You are very right in that. Wood-tipped spear is not dependable weapon when hunting bigger and carnivorous animals. Only dependable weapon is sharpened stone firmly fastened to the haft.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I'm reasonably certain that none of my ancesters for millions and millions of years went extinct.
    Oh? and what do you base that on?
    lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I'm reasonably certain that none of my ancesters for millions and millions of years went extinct.
    Oh? and what do you base that on?
    lol
    So no serious reply then.
    Moontanman likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    seriously
    your ancestors didn't go extinct
    and you are the proof thereof

    not extinct, just evolved
    ............
    jeez
    that was intended as a joke
    a little light hearted humor
    Ken Fabos likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Threads here don't run longer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    southern africa
    also appears to be the place wherein were the largest of the homo sapiens heidelbergensis (close to 7 ft) with the largest brains (1800 cc) lived.
    archaeologically, as/re the homo and sapiens lines, a darned interesting place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Sorry Sculptor

    That is not correct. Homo sapiens heidelbergensis was not taller than we are, and those in Europe were actually shorter. Similarly, the brain was about 10% smaller than in modern man.
    Evolution of Modern Humans: Homo heidelbergensis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    skeptic
    for europe fersure
    so far------------taller than the later (after 70,000ybp die off) neanderthalensis
    but nothing of that giant size found(in western and southern europe)

    however
    prof Berger U of Witwatersrand, has found some interesting bones that may be telling a story of "giantism" in heidelbergensis.
    "According to Professor Lee R. Berger of the University of Witwatersrand, numerous fossil bones indicate some populations of Heidelbergensis were "giants" routinely over 2.13 m (7 ft) tall and inhabited South Africa between 500,000 and 300,000 years ago."
    Ancient Hominids

    and the eastern neanderthalensis earlier than the die-off seem to have been taller and more gracile than the later european cousins who comprise the greater part of our knowledge base

    drawing a picture from a few bones is invariably problematic
    and extrapolating an entire sub species from an isolated pocket is even more problematic

    or
    I could be wrong(again)
    (if you ain't never wrong, congratulations, you've stagnated)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Sculptor

    There will be more variation among those populations than a few fossils can show. I am not quite so concerned about height. However, your statement about an 1800 cc brain size does not gel. If European Heidelbergs had 1200 cc brains, then 1800 is well outside normal variation within one species. It does not compute.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    skeptic
    I don't recall the article wherein the 1800 cc was claimed, but within that article was the disclaimer that larger brain size might go along with larger body size without drawing any further conclusions(or some wording to that effect)

    if I recall the location of that article, I'll post it.
    meanwhile
    what we don't know we should assume is greater than what we do know
    so keep an open mind and a keen eye

    meanwhile
    here's one that shows up to that stated
    http://archive.ndsj.org/classes/evas...ebquestKEY.pdf
    Last edited by sculptor; December 10th, 2012 at 04:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    skeptic
    I don't recall the article wherein the 1800 cc was claimed, but within that article was the disclaimer that larger brain size might go along with larger body size without drawing any further conclusions(or some wording to that effect)

    if I recall the location of that article, I'll post it.
    meanwhile
    what we don't know we should assume is greater than what we do know
    so keep an open mind and a keen eye

    meanwhile
    here's one that shows up to that stated
    http://archive.ndsj.org/classes/evas...ebquestKEY.pdf
    why are you using someones unreferenced homework assignment as evidence for you assertions?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    oops
    and
    i couldn't find the article citing the large craniums
    so
    lets call that one a mistake

    I'm fairly certain that I was wrong once, when
    I thought that I had made a mistake
    but I hadn't
    so
    I was wrong about being wrong

    is this #2?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Sculptor

    We all make errors. That is a good reason why people on science forums are wise enough to keep calling for references. I find it a very useful discipline. Keeps me on my toes. I am just as prone to making errors, and some mighty bad ones, as anyone else, and checking references keeps me on the straight and narrow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Yeah.

    I quite like the idea that the last three species of large hominids are Homo sapiens. About 500,000 years ago, Heidelberg Man was present, and then Neanderthal, and finally modern man about 200,000 years ago.

    However, some paleoanthropologists claim that Heidelberg was a sub species of Homo sapiens - that is Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, and so was the Neanderthal - that is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and finally Homo sapiens sapiens.

    I like this version. It seems to make more sense, especially when we see that all three types have brains similar in size to modern humans. It means that we can look for advanced tool making back to 500,000 years ago.
    The one thing that we do know though is that at least 4 or 5 sister groups (sub species if you like) that lived between 30 and 150 thousand years ago are the ancestors of all modern humans.

    Now we either are the product of splits and crosses of many hominid groups/populations, or we are the product of one direct and single line descending from only one hominid group/population at a time. The DNA evidence tells us that we are the product of multiple hominids and not the product of one single hominid line/population.

    Are we part neandertal, part denisovan, part antecessor, part heidelbergensis, part idaltu, part erectus and a few parts other hominid? If we are the products of mixing and crosses then trying to classify one or the other as homo sapiens "whatever" (the ancestors and/or brothers and sisters of modern humans) and others not homo sapiens "whatever" just shows that science is about dead in this field and its personal agendas and political agendas that are ruling the day.
    The other possibility is that we inherit all of our "sapien" traits from a single line of pre-sapiens primates, and they later intermarried with hominids. Probably the sapiens traits, at least the intellectual part, were valuable enough that they were highly selected for.

    Just imagine a bunch of hominids hunting and gathering. One day along comes a sapiens who can make cave drawings, organize better hunts, and coordinate the efforts of multiple gathering groups so they form a larger collective tribe.

    Probably that guy's going to get the chance to mate with more than one of the females.
    Except that neither the neandartals nor the hominids they crossed with survived, only the mixed offspring did, and it is also believed that it is neandertal men who bred with the other hominid females, not the other way around.

    This suggest that neandertal men were the ones who traveled/invaded or commonly killed or out performed the other hominid men, bred with the other hominid women, and the cross produced offspring that even neanderthal men could not ultimately compete with.
    The cross-breed children surviving is no surprise because the likelihood of pure-blooded members of either group going generation after generation after generation without ever once choosing to mix with a member of the other group would be small.

    The dominant genes will probably assert themselves after just one generation.

    I don't know why you think Neanderthal men are strong candidates here. Neanderthals are almost exclusively found in small groups, not large groups. Also there's little if anything artistic found in their digs. That indicates a Neanderthal male would not have the leadership traits needed to do what I was describing.

    In historical human societies, leaders were allowed to have a lot of wives. Even in modern society, a wealthy or influential man can spread his genes pretty far and wide. I'm just extrapolating from that. The intellectual traits that define "sapiens" would also have made a man possessed of those traits very powerful and influential.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Yeah.

    I quite like the idea that the last three species of large hominids are Homo sapiens. About 500,000 years ago, Heidelberg Man was present, and then Neanderthal, and finally modern man about 200,000 years ago.

    However, some paleoanthropologists claim that Heidelberg was a sub species of Homo sapiens - that is Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, and so was the Neanderthal - that is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and finally Homo sapiens sapiens.

    I like this version. It seems to make more sense, especially when we see that all three types have brains similar in size to modern humans. It means that we can look for advanced tool making back to 500,000 years ago.
    The one thing that we do know though is that at least 4 or 5 sister groups (sub species if you like) that lived between 30 and 150 thousand years ago are the ancestors of all modern humans.

    Now we either are the product of splits and crosses of many hominid groups/populations, or we are the product of one direct and single line descending from only one hominid group/population at a time. The DNA evidence tells us that we are the product of multiple hominids and not the product of one single hominid line/population.

    Are we part neandertal, part denisovan, part antecessor, part heidelbergensis, part idaltu, part erectus and a few parts other hominid? If we are the products of mixing and crosses then trying to classify one or the other as homo sapiens "whatever" (the ancestors and/or brothers and sisters of modern humans) and others not homo sapiens "whatever" just shows that science is about dead in this field and its personal agendas and political agendas that are ruling the day.
    The other possibility is that we inherit all of our "sapien" traits from a single line of pre-sapiens primates, and they later intermarried with hominids. Probably the sapiens traits, at least the intellectual part, were valuable enough that they were highly selected for.

    Just imagine a bunch of hominids hunting and gathering. One day along comes a sapiens who can make cave drawings, organize better hunts, and coordinate the efforts of multiple gathering groups so they form a larger collective tribe.

    Probably that guy's going to get the chance to mate with more than one of the females.
    Except that neither the neandartals nor the hominids they crossed with survived, only the mixed offspring did, and it is also believed that it is neandertal men who bred with the other hominid females, not the other way around.

    This suggest that neandertal men were the ones who traveled/invaded or commonly killed or out performed the other hominid men, bred with the other hominid women, and the cross produced offspring that even neanderthal men could not ultimately compete with.
    The cross-breed children surviving is no surprise because the likelihood of pure-blooded members of either group going generation after generation after generation without ever once choosing to mix with a member of the other group would be small.

    The dominant genes will probably assert themselves after just one generation.

    I don't know why you think Neanderthal men are strong candidates here. Neanderthals are almost exclusively found in small groups, not large groups. Also there's little if anything artistic found in their digs. That indicates a Neanderthal male would not have the leadership traits needed to do what I was describing.

    In historical human societies, leaders were allowed to have a lot of wives. Even in modern society, a wealthy or influential man can spread his genes pretty far and wide. I'm just extrapolating from that. The intellectual traits that define "sapiens" would also have made a man possessed of those traits very powerful and influential.
    That is not how the genetics work. 1-4% neandertal dna from 70-100 kya cannot be the result of a few crosses being introduced into a pure bred species.

    Modern humans only have between 1.8 and 12% of their dna that is "modern" (that has been acquired over the last 150ky from our "human" ancestors). Any and all the other DNA is not "modern", it is not our "species". We know some people get 1-4% of that DNA from neandertals.

    At 10 generation humans roughly only have 12% genetic ancestors out of 1024 genealogical ancestors. This means that if the cross took place just 10 generations ago the humans today with 4% neandertal genetics would have needed to have roughly 300-400 pure bred neandertals out of 1024 of their genealogical ancestors in order to have 4% neandertal genetics in them. Add in the 6% for denisovan, 2-4% for other hominids, and 1 or 2% for a hypothetical "modern human" and the crossing events are well understood to not be simply "a few breedings now and then." It is impossible.

    The drop off in genetic contribution is swift and for genetic ancestors to be within modern humans today the breeding events 10s and 10s of thousands of years ago had to be very high, important and their offspring had to create their own groups and the others had to vanish.

    For modern humans to have 1-4% neandertal genetics, the vast majority of their genetic ancestors over the last 10 generation had to have 1-4% as well... Then those people 10 generation back, most of their genetic ancestors had to have between 1-4%, etc, etc, all the way back to the first population that was within ten generation of the first crosses that were comprised of 300-400 pure bred neandertals, 400-500 pure bred denisovans, 100-200 other hominids and 100-400 another hominids some people mistakenly refer to as "modern humans".
    Last edited by gonzales56; December 19th, 2012 at 11:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I am a little confused with this percentage juggling.

    My question is how much DNA did we share with the Neanderthals to begin with? Is the difference greater than say, the difference of Sapiens and the Chimpanzee?

    How many genes are different in actual functionality?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    We share 96% of our genes with chimps, though this is a rough estimate.
    Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

    The statement that we share 4% of our genes with neanderthals is a bit confusing. I have not really worked it out myself. The genes shared with neanderthals is actually more like 99%.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I am a little confused with this percentage juggling.

    My question is how much DNA did we share with the Neanderthals to begin with? Is the difference greater than say, the difference of Sapiens and the Chimpanzee?

    How many genes are different in actual functionality?
    The actual DNA that are shared with chimps is well below 96%. It is around 20-30%. You have to keep in mind that shared genetics have to come from a common ancestor between both humans and chimps, and the suggestion that 96% of our DNA has not changed over the last 5-7 million years is just false. We are not 96% identical to chimps. The 96% comes from a generic relationship in genes, not a match to genetics, and in this regard, generically, we have the "same" genes as every mammal living on the planet.

    Man and mice "share 99% of their genes

    When one looks at genes generically, say the genes for eyes, of course every mammal "shares" that/those genes, but when that banana is peeled back, the genetics are far more different, they are not the same. . Same for limbs, tails, etc.. there are roughly 30,000 genes, but there are roughly 3 billion bases in human DNA and each base order, or sequence, determines the information available for building and maintaining everything.

    What misleading political motivated scientist will do is make claims about chimps and humans based on a generic gene count and NOT the DNA. They will do this when comparing humans to humans too, but the claims are for political statements and politics, not for scientific understanding/purpose.

    You have to know and understand when people are talking about a generic relationship/similarity in the 30,000 genes or when they are talking bout the complete genome/DNA and its sequencing.
    Last edited by gonzales56; December 19th, 2012 at 08:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Not correct, Gonzales.
    We share 96% with chimps, plus or minus a small margin of error.
    That is genuinely the same genes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    We share 96% of our genes with chimps, though this is a rough estimate.
    Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

    The statement that we share 4% of our genes with neanderthals is a bit confusing. I have not really worked it out myself. The genes shared with neanderthals is actually more like 99%.
    When dealing with our relation to neandertals most scientist do not talk in terms of a generic gene relationship. What they tend to do, overwhelmingly, is give percentages based on the 3 billion bases and the sequencing of those bases.

    Humans are also not just 1-4% identical in actual base pairs and the sequencing of them, that is not what the 1-4% means. What the 1-4% means is that some humans have 1-4% more identical bases pair sequencing that is identical to neandertals than other humans have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Not correct, Gonzales.
    We share 96% with chimps, plus or minus a small margin of error.
    That is genuinely the same genes.
    Not genuinely, generically. Are genomes, our DNA, our 3 billion bases and their sequencing, is not 96% identical to chimps. Our DNA/Genome is about 20-30% identical to chimps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I think I can guess where you got the wrong information, Gonzales. About 30% of human and chimp proteins are identical, and you may have read this as only 30% of genes are the same. No. it is roughly 96% of genes that are the same.

    Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I think I can guess where you got the wrong information, Gonzales. About 30% of human and chimp proteins are identical, and you may have read this as only 30% of genes are the same. No. it is roughly 96% of genes that are the same.

    Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I am not talking about different proteins, although the fact that human DNA/Genes are producing different products/cells based on composition and function than chimps ought to tell you that the DNA/Genes are not identical. Similar yes, but, not identical.

    I will try to explain this to you again..

    If you look at the DNA/gene sequencing concerning the eyes of mammals, one can say they are similar but, one cannot say they are identical. When one looks at our genes only about 20-30% of those 25,000-30,000 gene's sequencing will be identical to chimps. When you hear or read people claiming that the DNA is 95% or 98% identical, they are talking generically, They are not saying that 95% or 98% of the genes between humans and chimps are identical. That is not the case. Again, only 20-30% of our 25,000-30,000 genes are identical.

    We can tell and see differences between chimp genes, neandertal genes, modern human genes, etc... And we can do so because the sequencing in those different genes are different, they are not the same. This is how we know that at least 1-4% of the DNA eurasian have in them today comes from neandertals. This is how we know that up to 6% denisovan DNA is found within some modern populations today.
    Last edited by gonzales56; December 21st, 2012 at 04:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    It seems to me that from this study we should be able to get fairly close to the time hominims acquired the abilities of sapiens.

    Chromosome fusion
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. A thought.
    By Max Time Taken in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: July 5th, 2011, 10:15 AM
  2. Just a thought
    By eldhosepg in forum Physics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: June 12th, 2011, 02:58 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: February 17th, 2010, 06:03 PM
  4. just a thought
    By vince in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 7th, 2009, 06:02 PM
  5. New York to mandate older buildings refits for efficiency
    By Lynx_Fox in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 26th, 2009, 03:56 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •