At what age man become a human

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by timojin, Aug 19, 2015.

  1. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,663
    Modern man features appear 1.84m years ago
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,445
    I do not believe I would say that a homo erectus had modern features, so I disagree.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,644
    It's common for writers to use the single word "human" only for our species: Homo sapiens, which emerged around 200KYA. Earlier members of the genus Homo are usually referred to with a qualifier, such as "premodern humans," "earlier species," or more elaborately "pre-sapiens humans."

    Nonetheless, you will encounter writers who regard all members of our genus as "humans," referring to Homo habilis, for example, as "the earliest human species."

    Not to mention, Homo neanderthalensis lived in Europe at the time when the sapiens first arrived there. Evidence indicates that the two species managed to get along, possibly because their anatomy gave each species a few traits of its own that the other regarded as a useful contribution to the mixed-species community. It's abundantly clear that the Neanderthals interbred with the sapiens, leaving a small but easily identifiable bit of Neanderthal DNA in the descendants of the earliest migrants to Europe: the Cro-Magnon and later the Celts, the first wave of Indo-Europeans.

    It seems not only unfair but also confusing, not to count the Neanderthals as "human," since so many of us "modern humans" have bits of their DNA.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,445
    Agreed but saying that Homo Erectus, which was the dominate hominid 1.8 million years ago, has modern man features is a real stretch in my opinion!
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    21,728
    I think he might be referring to recent discovery in the Philip Tobias Korongo site at Olduvai Gorge:

    A fossil specimen unearthed at the Philip Tobias Korongo site, Olduvai Gorge, could be the oldest ‘anatomically modern’ human hand bone, says an international team of scientists led by Dr Manuel Dominguez-Rodrigo, of Complutense University in Madrid, Spain.

    The specimen, labeled Olduvai Hominin 86 (OH 86), is part of a little finger or ‘proximal phalanx.’

    “Assuming that the assignment of OH 86 as a fifth proximal phalanx is correct, it must also derive from a left hand,” Dr Dominguez-Rodrigo and co-authors wrote in a paper published in the journal Nature Communications.

    The remarkable thing about the bone is that it belonged to a previously unknown hominin species that lived over 1.84 million years ago, alongside hominins Paranthropus boisei and Homo habilis.

    “OH 86 represents the earliest human-like hand bone in the fossil record, of a size and shape that differs not only from all australopiths, but also from the phalangeal bones of the penecontemporaneous and geographically proximateOH 7 partial hand skeleton (part of the Homo habilis holotype),” the scientists wrote.

    The overall size of the bone is within the range of modern humans and chimpanzees, as it is the case of other hominins except Australopithecus sediba. In terms of relative length, it is in the midrange of humans and the upper range of gorillas, but below chimpanzees and monkey.

    According to the scientists, these results lead to the conclusion that OH 86 represents a hominin species different from the taxon represented by OH 7 (Homo habilis), and whose closest form affinities are to modern Homo sapiens.

    “However, the geological age of OH 86 obviously precludes its assignment toHomo sapiens, and ambiguity surrounding the existing potential sample African Homo erectus hand bones also prohibits its confident assignment to that species at this time.”

    But as the article also states, similarities in certain features, such as the human male pelvis being similar to that of Homo erectus, just indicates similarities in regards to proportion.
     
  9. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,644
    Only if you don't bother comparing him to his ancestors. He is much more similar to us than to them.

    A quick look at the skull of his closest ancestor, any of the Australopithecus species, will reassure you that he's a lot more like us than like them. Their brain, for example, is only 1/3 the size of ours.
     
  10. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    It's fairly accepted now that "we" are 200k years old and not 40k yo like it was earlier believed. Too bad that it will end in less than 100 years...
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,044
    species:
    a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus . E.g., Homo sapiens sapiens, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens denisovans, and, most likely, Homo sapiens heidelbergensis.
    If we could all interbreed, then we are all one species.
    True?
     
  12. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    Well no... I would say that the easiest way to "create" new species is actually interbreeding... Then comes spontaneous or provoked mutations. Heterozygozity is the key to healthy individuals and evolution. One could even say that any creature is actually a specie on its own. We just use different "species names" to categorize and simplify things.
     
  13. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,663
    I like your statement
     
  14. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,663
    If we are not the same specie we would not reproduce . I believe it was established Neandertal and modern main interbreed , so we have in our own time human with Neandertal gene, otherwise it would be like interbreeding a horse and a donkey were it stops at a mule , which does not reproduce itself.
     
  15. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    Do not forget the transgenic area which is basically extended interbreeding.
     
  16. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,663
    Let me be the devils advocate . could you explain the transgenic area.
     
  17. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    The devil needs no advocate... but YOU need a dictionary

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,644
    No. It's quite common for members of the same genus but different species to be able to interbreed. Go to a pet shop and look at all the odd-looking macaws, cockatoos or African grey parrots that were created by cross-breeding members of closely-related species.

    It's not even limited to cross-breeding by aviculturists. The rose-breasted grosbeak of the eastern USA and the black-headed grosbeak of the western USA encountered each other when the colonists eventually cut down the massive forests on both sides of the Mississippi River, and replaced them with crops that both species enjoyed eating. Today there are hybrid grosbeaks clear over on the other side of the Rocky Mountains, in California.

    Donkeys have been bred to horses: the offspring are called mules. They also crossbreed with zebras.

    Camels and llamas, wolves and coyotes, polar bears and brown bears--hybridization happens all the time. Sometimes in the wild, but more often in captivity... if only because the two species in the wild often do not live close to each other.
     
  19. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,663
    Is that your excuse , instead giving an explanation ? You have used a word to impress me ,. but apparently you did not know what you wanted to say?
     
  20. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    Seemed obvious to me... and I never try to impress people... except maybe my wife, just to see her amazing eyes widening. Can't wait to see the same in the ones of my children

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,044
    FR
    Producing fertile offspring is the definition of a species.
    Mules don't count.
    We do know that sapiens sapiens has successfully bred with sapiens neanderthalensis, and sapiens denisovans, sapiens idaltu
    So we are all members of the species homo sapiens, just different subspecies.
    ................
    Heidelbergensis remains in doubt.
     
    Walter L. Wagner likes this.
  22. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,663
    Neandertal was my cousin and he was as modern as African man even mor so , He had to create for himself
    winter clothing , the African man was almost naked .

    Neanderthal artist revealed in a finely carved raven bone


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Comparing the Neanderthal artefact (inset) with modern imitations (main image) is proving enlightening
    Francesco d'Errico

    By Sam Wong

    A bone from a raven’s wing with seven regularly spaced notches carved into it is the strongest evidence yet that Neanderthals had an eye for aesthetics.

    Evidence that Neanderthals used pigments, buried objects alongside their dead, and collected bird feathers and claws had been taken as signs of behaviours that were once considered unique to our species of Homo sapiens.

    But interpreting the motives of ancient humans based on their relics is fraught with difficulty. Incisions in bones and stone objects could be the result of butchery or other practical activities, rather than artistic engravings.

    “It has been proposed that talons and big feathers were used as personal ornaments, but in reality we don’t have any direct evidence that this was the case,” says Francesco d’Errico of the University of Bordeaux, France.

    Read more: Ice age fashion showdown: Neanderthal capes versus human hoodies
    So, d’Errico and colleagues looked for a new approach to interpret a raven bone aged 38,000 to 43,000 years old, found at a Neanderthal site in the Crimea.

    Five of the seven notches carved into it are parallel, with a similar depth and shape, suggesting they were cut with the same tool. But notches 2 and 6 look different: they are shallower and angled slightly obliquely.

    D’Errico thinks these two notches were most likely added later to fill in gaps in the original sequence and create a more regular pattern.

    “The interest of these little fragments is that these notches cannot be interpreted as cut marks during butchery,” he says. “They’ve been made by to-and-fro movements; they are too deep and too regular just to be cut marks.”

    One possibility is that the notches were to make the object easier to grip: some bone tools appear to have been modified for this purpose.

    But the even spacing suggests aesthetic reasons. “We tried to find a way to assess how regular they were and whether a Neanderthal could look at them as a regular pattern,” says d’Errico.

    Read more: Did Neanderthals use feathers for fashion?
    First, the team considered a concept from evolutionary psychology, the Weber fraction. Studies show that there is a limit to our ability to perceive small differences, such as the spaces between lines. If the variation is less than 3 per cent, we tend to think the lines are equidistant.

    Using this principle, d’Errico argues that notches 2 and 6 are needed for the sequence to be perceived as evenly spaced.

    To look for more evidence, the researchers asked volunteers to carve evenly spaced notches on turkey bones using stone tools like those the Neanderthals had. The patterns they created were very similar with equidistant spacing. “When you compare it with modern human variability in producing the same type of notch on a bird bone, you see that there was a will by the Neanderthal to make them equidistant,” says d’Errico.

    He thinks it’s possible that the pattern was symbolic, perhaps as a mark of ownership, but such explanations remain speculative. “Some meaning could be attached to it, but of course we don’t know whether this was symbolic,” he says. “At least it was aesthetic, otherwise they wouldn’t have done it that way, putting such attention to make the notches so regularly spaced.”

    https://www.newscientist.com/articl...t-revealed-in-a-finely-carved-raven-bone/amp/
     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,044
    seeing the notched bone
    I was reminded of musical instruments
    wherein rubbing a small stick over the notches produces a warbling sound.
     

Share This Page