Jawbone discovery pushes birth of humanity back by 400000 years
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
There are plenty of traces, no? Tools, weapons, art, burials?
Well, the earliest artistic artifacts, according to the always reliable Wikipedia, was found in a cave that they dated to about 100,000 years old (the cave, not the artifacts). Even so, there is apparently "no record" of art before the Middle Stone Age, before which humans apparently existed for hundreds of millennia. I just find it odd that humans, with roughly the same intelligence if you take the full picture of evolutionary history, existed for 700,000 years, and only in the last 6,000 learned to group themselves into cultures and civilizations. You think of all the history of civilization to date, and it's all contained in the past 6,000 or so years. Prehistory is frankly a relative mystery because we evidently didn't do much. Seems off to me.
Civilization relies on dependable access to food in such abundance that not everyone has to spend their lives gathering just enough to get by. This is a relatively new thing.
It is off, in fact.
It is one of the so called big mysteries and anybody who comes up with alternatives to natural evolution is labeled conspiracy theorist or nut job by biased/stupid people.
Whatever happened, happened fast, too fast for the standard Darwinian evolutionary process.
The main issue is that all same size species on earth took millions of years to evolve very little bone wise from the Cambrian explosion onward, however humans pop up in the fossil record in just a few 100,000's of years completely different from anything else.
Before that nothing even closely similar, and do not believe the ape natural evolution fairy tale.
Apes are as different from us as a cat is different from an elephant, ..... actually more then that.
To this day the evolutionists that supported that absurdity cannot find the natural habitat that is required for that hypothesis to even be considered.
Natural evolution works through adaptation to a particular natural habitat over a very long period of time.
No Habitat that would explain a change from an ape to a human= no natural evolution.
The truth is that we are still investigating this, and we do not know just yet, but we will know eventually.
Jeff - "Apes are as different from us as a cat is different from an elephant"
By the way Jeff; FYI: humans ARE apes.
"Crank magnetism is a term...to describe the propensity of cranks to hold multiple irrational, unsupported or ludicrous beliefs that are often unrelated to one another."
BTW Nyarlathotep, Humans are just claimed/labeled to be apes by propaganda in the 70's, there is no evidence that we are.
Just because Darwin postulated the idea that we evolved from them 50+ years ago(only taken seriously 10 years later) and still not supported by evidence except contradictions to this day.
Go educate yourself about what science is, instead of repeating outdated things which have no scientific grounds.
Jeff - "Humans are just claimed/labeled to be apes by propaganda in the 70's, there is no evidence that we are.Just because Darwin postulated the idea that we evolved from them 50+ years ago(only taken seriously 10 years later)"
Just a side note: Your time line is rather cranky also, Darwin has been dead for more than 130 years.
An other side note:
"by propaganda in the 70's"
the propaganda was in the 70's not Darwin.
Where did I say darwin was in the 70's?
“The [great apes] form a taxonomic family of primates, including four extant genera: chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan), gorillas (Gorilla), humans (Homo), and orangutans (Pongo).”
The reason why we are classified as an ape? Because we share multiple physical characteristics with these other genera that we simply don't with any others. We are more closely physically related to them than any other taxonomic family. If someone WANTS to reclassify man as a "special creation", they will need to prove it, like any other woo-peddler out there. It is honestly fucking sad that it even needs to be said, but we have more evidence for a progressive evolution to man than we do fucking gravity. No talking points that are asserted without evidence, give me peer-reviewed scientific evidence that another position is worth serious consideration, or keep on trolling elsewhere.
You give me the evidence that exceed gravity evidence.
With your flawed logic, since we are much closer to a rat then a bacteria if only rats and bacteria existed apart from us.
Then we classify us as rats.
We are so different then apes that we cannot even survive where they thrived.
Try sending a naked human in deep jungles and forests without knowledge of fire, etc, like the apes, and see how similar we are.
It be lucky they survive the night.
The apes had natural evolutionary traits that allowed them to be the kings of the world in their time.
Its really like comparing rats with elephants on the survival scale of the natural physical capabilities.
It is much more reasonable to say that we are a class of its own.
What labels we give are human interpretation, but any honest inquiry shows that apes and us are miles apart when it comes to the physical body.
Do you classify a rabbit and a cat as the same because they look similar.
The difference between apes and humans are bigger then that.
Just because you have a different opinion then me, on what label we should give to a specie, does not make me a troll.
So please take that back or this discussion is over.
Travis gave a pretty good answer, as usual. You should listen. Failing that, go and read some of the literature which explains it. Your ignorance is shocking, and is not showing you in a good light.
Thanks for your enlightened opinion, if i ever need it I will ask, don't worry.
In the meanwhile you think i trolled there too?
i do not want to appear in good light, i acknowledged that apes is what we are currently labeled.
But science demands that we challenge it to be scientific.
But instead of being dogmatic about it like a sheep like Travis here, I decided to be scientific about it and did my own research.
guess what? we are that far different from an ape, that it is not even funny anymore.
Show me some evidence that contradicts this, instead of an argument of authority like Travis did and maybe, just maybe i consider you for a reply.
All papers I found all use Darwin assumptions in his paper and build on it.
None truly give any evidence that our bones match the apes in the least.
You can ask an anthropologist about it.
"Why there isn't a single bone in an ape that matches to that of a human?"
The answer would be, yes that is true but you see, through "evolution" the bones changed too, and here we are.
In the end, there is no evidence that this evolution actually occurred, that from a bone twice as thick as ours, somehow, someway, reduced it size with some unknown evolution because of an unknown habitat in a very short period of time.(the opposite of how natural evolution works)
Please find me the evidence of that?
Go and do what I told you to do, and then you'll understand it.
I read many papers on this subject, if my ignorance is so shocking enlighten me on which part.
Since all you can do, is say baseless accusations I will ignore your comment until you can explain yourself in a decent manner.
"Try sending a naked human in deep jungles and forests without knowledge of fire, etc, like the apes, and see how similar we are."
Try plunking someone from, say, Malta in an uninhabited area, say, above the Arctic Circle, and see how similar they are to an Aleut.
So you are agreeing with me that a naked human without knowledge has no place in a habitat like the jungle or the Arctic Circle.
Our body do not show sign of adaptation(evolution) from those habitats.
An ape does, he has the hair to protect him from cold, the night vision eyes to hunt at night, the appendix to eat practically anything you could find in a jungle.(eg grass)
The ape has earned those natural traits from millions of years of evolution/adaptation to those environments.
Whatever happened to us, it is not explained by adaptation or evolution, even if evolution played a part in it, it was not the major factor since the habitat required to make such a huge transformation has not been presented yet by those who claimed this hypothesis.
It is humble to accept the fact that we do not know yet what happened, rather then being arrogant and claim something without evidence.
Here I am not the one making the claim, the guys who claimed that we evolved from Miocene apes are.
(not including Darwin since with the evidence he had at the time, it was a sound hypothesis to make)
I'm just asking for evidence that quite frankly Darwin himself admitted in the paper(origin of man) there weren't at the time.
He did estimate that at the rate of fossils being found(at the time), that in some 10 years the fossils to support his hypothesis would be found.
The fossils would show a linear progression from a Miocene ape to a Cromagnon(human) with sight changes per fossil.
he also stated that if those would not be found, then his hypothesis would be wrong.
Well a 100 years passed, not 10 and still no fossils to show that.
I'm just looking for the truth here, and even though most people here don't like it, the truth is that we do not know yet.
Wishful thinking is not science and can only hinder progress.
Jeff - "The fossils would show a linear progression from"
Evolution is not a linear process.
Evolution is not.
Where did I claim that?
Equivocation exploits the ambiguity of language by changing the meaning of a word during the course of an argument and using the different meanings to support some conclusion.
I said Human evolution from a Miocene Ape postulated by Darwin in his paper claims that in 10 years we will find the fossils(in the fossil record) that would show a gradual/linear transition/progression from a Miocene ape to a human/cromagnon.
Which means that u will find fossils dated correctly with a slight change every step of the way from Miocene ape to Human without jumps in the way.
Miocene Ape feet are completely different then human feet, the bones are not only twice as big but have a different function completely.
This huge "evolution" is not explained in the fossil record, at one time you have the ape bones and POP humans bones work differently.
No linear explanation of change in bones structure over a few fossils, you only find apes with one structure and humans with another.
Dam why am I wasting my time explaining it to YOU is beyond me.
As if you even care to debate this.
Jeff - "The fossils would show a linear progression from"
Jeff - "No linear explanation of change in bones structure over a few fossils"
If you don't think evolution is a linear progression, then why do you keep demanding that the fossil record be linear?
"You give me the evidence that exceed gravity evidence."
We actually know the cause and drives of evolution, we don't actually know what causes gravity. Is it a particle or a wave? We have never been able to determine any such mechanisms for gravity, we only know that it is tied to mass and density, and little beyond that.
"With your flawed logic, since we are much closer to a rat then a bacteria if only rats and bacteria existed apart from us.
Then we classify us as rats."
Here are the classifications we SHARE with rats right now. We are both collectively defined as gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.
If all that were around were us, bacteria, and rats; we SHOULD be classified more closely to rats than bacteria. Unfortunately, due to your own personal incompetence in taxonomy and classification, you would likely still dispute the facts regardless. Facts, quite unfortunately, take a solid back-seat to whatever ham-brained pseudo-scientific nonsense you might have picked up that day.
"We are so different then apes that we cannot even survive where they thrived."
Dogs cannot survive where the arctic grey wolf does, they are still related, your argument is utterly vapid.
"Try sending a naked human in deep jungles and forests without knowledge of fire, etc, like the apes, and see how similar we are.
It be lucky they survive the night."
There are tribes of people in those areas which survive fine, though they do have fire, and would consider you an idiot.
"The apes had natural evolutionary traits that allowed them to be the kings of the world in their time."
Nope. Especially not the flat plains of the savanna, which appears to be the habitat that we evolved in.
"Its really like comparing rats with elephants on the survival scale of the natural physical capabilities."
It is also like comparing chihuahuas with wolves, house-cats to lions, or any other number of examples. Your talking points fail, utterly and completely. Peer reviewed literature or GTFO.
"It is much more reasonable to say that we are a class of its own."
No, that would be stupid.
"What labels we give are human interpretation, but any honest inquiry shows that apes and us are miles apart when it comes to the physical body."
Have you ever heard of genetics? I know it is a long shot, but if you can manage to comprehend it, it will open entirely new avenues of confirmation for evolution that you apparently need.
"Do you classify a rabbit and a cat as the same because they look similar."
They shares some classifications, and do not share others. They are classed based on what they are the closest relative to, physically and genetically, much like we are.
"The difference between apes and humans are bigger then that."
No, and that is utterly retarded. The difference between humans and apes is the same as the difference between Los Angeles and California, because humans are apes. Your inability to recognize that we fall under the classification of ape, by definition, is simply astounding to anyone with a proper education.
For example, “Primates” are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle. Add not having a prehensile tail to that list, and you have a goddamn ape.
"Just because I you have a different opinion then me, on what label we should give to a specie, does not make me a troll."
No, your patent dismissal of one of the most comprehensively established facts in the history of all science, based on some of the worst arguments of all time does that. You would be a troll, in this regard, whether I agreed with you or not.
"So please take that back or this discussion is over."
This discussion was as good as over with my last post, your argument is a bucket with no bottom and cannot hold ANY water, you are just too belligerent to admit the bucket is empty yet. You are quite welcome not to respond, I would recommend it, as the more you argue this subject the less intelligent you will appear. You have yet to even make a significant argument and have already been made an absolute fool of, this does not appear to be an argument you have the capacity to manage.
A blast from the past
Jeff - "I̲ ̲a̲m̲ ̲U̲f̲o̲l̲o̲g̲i̲s̲t̲, and think that the Sumerians were describing some advanced civilization in their definition of gods or sons of gods...I think the human being were designed just like the Sumerian said in their tablets."
First it was probability, then it was physics, now it is biology...
You forgot calculus (remember when Jeff told us that 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = infinity?).
As I said before: crank magnetism. Or as I phrased it before I learned that term: 'crazy don't exist in a vacuum'. When you find a crank in subject A, you can bet your bottom dollar they will be cranky in many unrelated subjects.
I did forget about that, I probably blocked it out because it was too painful. I tend to do that when it is something so insipid it threatens to cause an aneurysm...
I also seem to recall him saying that the elongated skulls found in a few sites were an indication of alien visitations or some such. Don't remember how far back that one was...too lazy to root through all those pages of posts to find it.
Thanks for sharing the blast from the past. That was... ehm... an eye opener.
as I said, take back your troll accusation if you wish to continue debating with me.
This is a Troll
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.
Which part of what i said even hinted at me being a troll or provoking readers into an emotional response for my own amusement?
Do quote please, if you want a reply.
"...if you want a reply."
I don't want anything, in particular. I don't honestly care.
Jeff, you should look at branching theory in Mathematics and Computer Science. It proves neither proposition neccessarily has to be the case
Jeff has already demonstrated that he can't sum a series, so I think you are barking up the wrong tree there.