At what age man become a human

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

  1. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,541

    The Hs-sapiens and Hs-neanderthal split keeps getting pushed back. It now appears to have been 750.000+ years ago or more. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-human-species-emerged-700-000-years-ago.html Another article from teeth studies show the same age for pre-denisovan/neanderthal split from sapiens. I'll post it when I copy it from the recent Discover magazine in which the article is printed.

    Since Hs-sapiens and Hs-neanderthal could successfully interbreed (and boy did they when they got back together!), they (we) are the same species.

    I would imagine the first humans (people that look like us) arose twice as far back, i.e. about 1.5 million years ago, forming numerous races, most of which races died out, or were assimilated as the neanderthals and denisovans were assimilated.

    Their footprints show up as well. http://www.everythingselectric.com/happisburgh-footprints/


    What is interesting is that we have very little evidence for those billions of people that once lived hundreds of thousands of years ago. During the past million years that they were spreading over the globe, the oceans rose and fell several hundred meters, a half-dozen times or more. Any settlements that were near the moderating influence and good-food of the oceans would have been ground to sand as the ocean rose and the waves pounded, only to recede again at the height of another ice-age.

    It is only for the last few thousand years that we have evidence of those more recent civilizations, though there are hints of other civilizations that preceded the last ice-age.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    I am repeating myself and convincing myself . The Neanderthal man must have been more advanced technological then the man from Africa.
    1) He survived in cold environment that means making clothing
    2) Save food for bad weather, same as other animals do
    3) would not be surprised he must have been acquainted with fire .
    4) must have seeked shelter from cold , while African man could live in a sabana.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,541
    pre-humans used fire. so yes, neanderthal had fire.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,477
    Ah, yes, the Polar Bear shops you see in cold places attest to the insurvivability of cold environments without clothing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252

    Ha Ha ha very funny, our human fur are you comparing with the polar bear ?
    I believe if human organism reaches 30 C we die , so try go out at - 20 C see how long will you survive.
     
  9. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    No, this is not correct. In fact, it's quite common for members of closely related species (i.e., in the same genus) to produce viable offspring. Yes, many of these hybrids are unable to reproduce--either with another hybrid like itself, or with a different hybrid, or simply with a member of one of the original species. The USA and Canada, for example, have a huge population of hybrid wolf-coyotes, and dog-coyote hybrids are fairly common in the Los Angeles region, where the coyotes have learned to carry their tails upright in order to convince everyone that they are just dogs.

    Yet on the other hand, there are plenty of third-generation hybrids.
    Again, this is simply incorrect. Yes, the hybrid offspring of a horse and a donkey cannot breed. IIRC, this is because the two species have a different number of chromosomes, which almost invariably prevents viable offspring.

    But there are plenty of counterexamples. It's not easy to perform DNA experiments with mammals, but aviculturists do it all the time with birds--especially the psittacines (the parrots and related species). They've got fourth-generation macaws with DNA from several different (but closely related) species and they look like they were designed by someone on LSD.

    And I'm sure that by now everyone has seen photos of the ligers--lion/tiger hybrids.
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,477

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No, I'm not comparing - just being facetious.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,943
    The ones that lived in cold climates must have developed some technology to live there, just like Homo sapiens also developed specific technology to deal with their environment, even if they lived in Africa.
     
  12. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252

    Yes I can see the esquimo made clothing and the Brazilian jungle man developed a horn for his dick so mosquito will not attack it > They both come through the Bering strait.
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,243
    This is new to me.

    I'd always understood that 'ability to breed' defines species.
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,201
    Why do you think 'clothing' is a sign of modernity or advancement?

    Neanderthals adapted to their environment, just as hominid species had done in the past and present. To listen to you, would you assume that neanderthals who lived in warmer regions of Asia, were somehow less modern than their European counterparts because they may not have used clothing or animal skins to keep warm?

    The use of tools and making tools pre-dated neanderthals, so I don't exactly understand what you mean by that.

    If they were, they may have still been alive...

    So did other hominids. What's your point?

    And they didn't survive. They became extinct.

    They weren't the only ones who saved food, timojin. Hominids had been cooking food and thus preserving it long before Neanderthals or Homo sapiens.

    Neanderthals were acquainted with fire. As were hominids that came before them.

    Other hominids also sought shelter from the weather. Says nothing about their being more modern. Homo sapiens also used caves and whatnot to seek shelter from the environment.

    Homo heidelbergensis for example, were probably the first hominid species to build shelters. They came before homo sapiens and neanderthals.

    So I don't exactly understand what point you are trying to make here.

    What?

    The koteka's are not to protect from mosquitoes. Honestly, where and how do you come up with this rubbish?

     
  15. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,541
    You have a very 'linear' approach.

    They did not become 'extinct'. They assimilated in the face of larger numbers of Hs sapiens invading their territory, successfully interbreeding, producing viable offspring (which is the definition of being in the same species). They are very much alive, now existing as Hs-sapien/European-Asian (about 90% of the extant Hs-sapien population).

    There is a distinction between 'extinction' and 'assimilation'. 'Extinction' is when a lineage fails to reproduce and produce offspring, dwindling to zero.
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,201
    The cross breeding events were few and far between. Europeans carry what? Less than 3% of their DNA? If that even?

    Neanderthals faced an extinction event. Certainly, a portion of the population carry a minute amount of their DNA, just another portion of the world's population carry Denisovan DNA, and some groups carry yet another unknown DNA from a yet to be discovered hominid species, for example, but to suggest that these species of hominids are not extinct would be a tad far fetched.

    A large proportion of the human population on Earth carry archaic DNA. Those species are extinct and in some cases, yet to be discovered.

    And no, they did not assimilate. There is no evidence of a maternal lineage of neanderthal DNA. As such, all they have found in the current human population has been from paternal lines. Assimilation would indicate a level of cohabitation. There is no concrete evidence that they were playing house. There is evidence of a few breeding events, which resulted in human females becoming pregnant, but these were not really that many. No evidence of the gene flow occurring in the other direction. Assimilation would mean that said gene flow would go both ways.

    They are extinct. Just as Denisova are extinct, just as the other archaic hominid species our ancestors had sex with and became pregnant to, are extinct.

    If we were to use your definition of extinction, than the Woolly Mammoths were not extinct because they are so closely related to Asian elephants. But they are extinct, despite the fact that Asian elephants carry their DNA and are so closely related to them.

    The minute amount of archaic DNA we carry from extinct species does not mean that those species continue to live on. They are no more. They can no longer reproduce. What they left us is so minute and so varied, pretty much adaptation measures for certain environments. And in some instances, what they left some with aren't that helpful...

    Unless of course having the genes for a higher chance of type 2 diabetes, as one example, is an example of 'neanderthals being alive inside of us'...

    We carry various genetic materials from other archaic hominid species, as well as those of our hominid ancestors. It is why we are so genetically similar in regards to archaic species. Do they live on in us? Sure, if you wish to be romantic about it. But the reality is that they are extinct and what they passed on is minute and simply joins the soup that is the human population that came before us..
     
  17. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,541
    Exactly correct, averaging around 2%, ranging from 1-4%, for Neanderthal.

    You touch upon a topic I've mentioned before; it appears to me that the sex was primarily Hs-sapiens male with Hs-neanderthal female. They were sex slaves. Not exactly the happy home life. Indicative of a dominating race, with larger numbers, taking advantage of a smaller-population race. But this was hardly 'few and far between' so far as the sex was concerned, to have so much neanderthal DNA now in our genome. Instead, likely at every opportunity, the Hs-sapien would have sex with Hs-neanderthal. There weren't enough women to go around, however.

    That is why we also don't see neanderthal y-chromosome -- they weren't allowed sex with sapien women, and were instead killed (or if there was sex, the male offspring, carrying a neanderthal-y, was killed).

    So who was the civilized society?
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,201
    Ermm no. You could not be anymore wrong.

    The gene flow came from neanderthal males to Homo sapien females. There is no evidence of the gene flow going the other way, by which I mean from Homo sapiens males to neanderthal female. Absolutely none.

    I am certain that you have evidence to back up such a claim.

    Because that is an extraordinary claim. So I would suggest you back it up with some evidence.

    No evidence of that either.

    No one knows how these few events occurred. Or when and what circumstance. You are literally creating a fantasy at this point.

    It would only have needed a few hundred mating events. Frankly, even that seems generous as there weren't that many humans around back then.

    Populations were much smaller back then. Much, much smaller. And these mating events appear to be rare.

    Again, fantasy.

    The genetic transfer came from male Neanderthals to human females. No one knows how these events took place or why. Just as no one can know for certain of how many females were around back then, or males for that matter. You seem to be spinning this modern take from movies like Planet of the Apes and other such movies to formulate these claims.

    Huh?

    Where are you getting this from?

    Because the science does not back this up at all..

    No evidence of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has been found in modern humans.[11][12][13] This would suggest that successful admixture with Neanderthals happened paternally rather than maternally on the side of Neanderthals.[14][15] Possible hypotheses are that Neanderthal mtDNA had detrimental mutations that led to the extinction of carriers, that the hybrid offspring of Neanderthal mothers were raised in Neanderthal groups and became extinct with them, or that female Neanderthals and male Sapiens did not produce fertile offspring.[14]

    Can you please stop with the weird and bizarre fantasies you have conjured?

    Please?

    If you wish to postulate on said fantasies, perhaps you should take them to alternative theories or something.

    Because you are making some bizarre claims that have absolutely no basis scientifically and you seem to be imagining these scenarios that run counter to what they have actually found. If you keep doing it, I will moderate you.
     
  19. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    No, that is absolutely incorrect. Wolves and coyotes, for example, interbreed commonly, and their third- and fourth-generation descendants are just as healthy as the original species.

    As an aviculturist, I can also assure you that many species of birds do the same thing. There are third- and fourth-generation hybrid macaws with riotous plumage that makes them rather expensive pets.
    As I noted before, the reason that many species can crossbreed, but are unable to create a second-generation hybrid, is that the original first-generation hybrid simply doesn't have the right arrangement of chromosomes.

    Your explanation is simply wrong. Sorry!

    Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis were cross-breeding for thousands of years--probably since the Cro-Magnon population (sapiens) walked up from Western Asia and discovered their kinfolk (neanderthals) in already well-established communities. With so many fossils to study, it's clear that each species regarded the other as distant relatives, and they continued to cross-breed and live in dual-species communities until the warming climate became too hostile for the Neanderthals.
     
  20. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Most writers set it at 5%.
     
  21. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,541
    The science says otherwise: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160407132318.htm

    If neanderthal males were impregnating sapien females, the male offspring would pass on the neanderthal y-chromosome. No neanderthal y-chromosome has, to date, been found in modern people (possibly there might be exceptions not yet found).

    The absence of the neanderthal mt-dna is because the females of the sapien-male and neanderthal-female mating did not survive. Hence, no modern mt-dna from neanderthals, either.

    Those two science facts strongly imply sapien males had sex with neanderthal females, and the male offspring were welcomed into the sapien clan, but the female offspring were killed.

    What you deem as 'fantasy' is simply filling in between the lines in a reasonable fashion. No, I was not there. Neither were you.

    By occam's razor, the simple explanation for the absence of neanderthal y-chromosome, and neanderthal mt-dna, is that the sapien men killed the neanderthal men, took their women, and kept the male descendants of their matings, but not female descendants. This is in keeping with known sapien behavior when 'advanced' sapiens meet 'lesser' sapiens in more modern times, as well.
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,201
    You didn't read your own link, did you?

    The Y chromosome is lacking from Neanderthals is because of an apparent lack of males being born from these mating events, or surviving long enough to then breed - ie, their genes simply did not follow on and survive and were bred out.

    Nowhere does it say that human males were mating with Neanderthal females. On the contrary. They assert that it was Neanderthal males mating with human females, but that there could be an issue of incompatibility, resulting in a lack of male off-spring..

    That is what you linked was all about.

    It's the males who appear to have not survived and they suspect that it is because of the fact that the male genes are incompatible, which would result in human females naturally aborting the males during pregnancy.

    Please read your own link.

    So now you are changing it to the male offspring being killed from your previous post?

    You not only completely changed tack, but you also misrepresented and/or misunderstood your own link and you continue spouting these fantasies with absolutely no proof whatsoever.

    See, the difference here is that I am relying on scientific findings. You are writing fantasies that look like something out of a dodgy sci-fi/fantasy book.

    You have failed to provide anything to support your argument, you keep changing your argument, what you do post actually does not support what you are saying at all.

    Filling in the lines should not and does not entail re-writing history and ignoring science because it doesn't fit into your preferred ending. You are not stating anything factual or proven. You are making things up as you go. Stop doing that please. This is not the place for it. I will not ask a third time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There is no scientific evidence to any of this.

    This isn't the fantasy sub-forum.
     
  23. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,541
    The neanderthals and their ancestors were in Europe/Asia for about 500,000 years before sapiens arrived. During that time, there were numerous ice-ages of cooling and warming. They survived all prior warmings when the sapiens were not around. I seriously doubt that the warming of about 12,000 years ago of the last ice-age warming caused their demise of about 30,000 years ago, when the sapiens were then on the scene.
     

Share This Page