New Homo Species?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Walter L. Wagner, Feb 16, 2017.

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

    Messages:
    2,494
    There are lots of videos showing the long skulls of the Paracas culture. It appears that some of the elongated skulls are natural, not from cranial deformation techniques. Preliminary DNA appears to show the mt-dna is more ancestral than the homo/neanderthal split circa 500 kya.

    Is this a new species? Or is it another relative of ours in the same species, along the lines of neanderthal and denisovan? Where did they come from? Suggestions are that they are responsible for the pre-inca megaliths of Peru. Likely wiped-out by the homo sapiens sapiens (inca) that moved in?


    http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...s-paracas-elongated-skull-released-incredible

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,435
    Coinky-dink? Hmmm...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    2,494
    Foerster's is bigger. double a H.s.sapiens' cranial volume. Also, not a slope-back as in cranial deformation.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    9,403
    Looks like you got sucked into a hoax! The story is apparently as real as the Indiana Jones movie.
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,435
    I did not know that. I was just bein' a smartass.
     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,957
    double?
    huh wut?
     
  10. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    evidence? I've seen dozens of videos showing elongated skulls that are not of the cranial-deformation type. this includes infants/neonates as well as late-term still-birth mummies, showing elongated skulls. Are they all hoaxes? how so? is the mt-DNA evidence a hoax? how so? Evidence they are hoaxes, please.
     
  11. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,827
  12. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    Around 300 of the amazing skulls were found by Peruvian archaeologist Julio Tello in 1928 in an elaborate graveyard.
    But there still remains a mystery over the shape of the Paracas skulls.
    Cranial deformation changed the shape of a skull, but in normal cases did not alter other features.
    However, the Paracas skulls have other unusual features and are the biggest elongated skulls ever found.
    Author and researcher LA Marzulli told Ancient Origins: "There is a possibility that it might have been cradle headboarded, but the reason why I don’t think so is because the position of the foramen magnum is back towards the rear of the skull. ...
    Samples were taken from hair and bone powder, taken drilling deep into a skull's foramen magnum.
    They were then sent to three labs in Canada, and two in the US, for tests.
    Geneticists were told the samples were from an ancient mummy, to avoid any preconceptions.
    The skulls were now found to have European and Middle Eastern Origin, raising questions over when man first travelled from Eurasia to the Americas, as they are 2,000 to 3,000 years old.
    Paracas is a desert peninsula in Pisco Province on the south coast of Peru.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...Elongated-Paracas-Skulls-could-change-history

    The above is from the rpenner links.
    As indicated in the first post, they appear to be 'human' with human DNA. The earlier (2014) test indicated mt-DNA different than H.s.sapiens/neanderthal, and likely from an earlier split than the 500 kya neanderthal/sapiens split. The 2016 test indicates European/Middle-East chromosomal DNA. Clearly 'human' with unknown origins.

    The evidence indicates the skull is entirely different from sapiens/neanderthal from birth, and not due to cranial deformation (which was a common practice around the globe).

    One wonders if there is some type of chemical that could cause pre-natal skull-elongation (along the opposite lines of zika-virus causing skull-shortening). But the other oddities of the skulls appear to place it outside the norm of human (neanderthal/sapiens) skull variations. The videos of the still-birth mummies with greatly elongated skulls precludes 'boarding' for cranial deformation, and indicates some other 'process'; either natural or artificial (chemical).

    Looking forward to further DNA work.
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,435
    No! Zika Virus causes microcephaly, an underdevelopment of the brain. There's no "opposite" to it, any more than there's an "opposite" to Thalidomide that might grow super-long limbs.
     
  14. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,403
    Deleted
     
  15. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    the article itself does not.

    but hey, that's the link rpenner gave as his 'debunking' link. from the wikipedia article he cited: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conehead_skulls
    which reads in part:
    It was claimed in 2014 that tests showed the skulls' DNA contained mutations that did not match any known human or primate DNA samples.[6] The test results were announced by Brien Foerster, assistant director of the Paracas History Museum and a prolific author on pseudoscientific subjects who had previously collaborated with pseudohistorian David Hatcher Childress; according to Rachel Chase, Foerster has little in the way of relevant scientific qualifications but runs a tour company and was a regular on the very unscientific History Channel show Ancient Aliens, the museum is a private company owned by a man with no scientific qualifications, not an academic institution, and the results were announced not in a peer reviewed journal but on Facebook.[7] Suspiciously, the geneticist who supposedly conducted the tests refused to own up and his or her identity was kept secret by Foerster.[1]

    Later tests contradicted the earlier results, but were still promoted as upsetting ideas about the population of the Americas.[8] Foerster also suggested that the people may have migrated from the Caucasus.[1] Foerster rejected claims that the skulls could have been formed by skull binding, claiming that the volume of the skull was too large to have been produced by deformation.[1]

    It is the reference [8] that I copied in the above link.

    Foerster himself is NOT saying they are 'foreign planet alien' like others might from some fringe sites; rather he is saying they are likely middle-eastern origin (as he has some other stuff with red-hair, etc. that shows middle-east DNA from mummies of that region), from a culture that predates the inca.

    Foerster is primarily known for his extensive videos of the pre-inca megalithic structures of Peru, etc. showing a high-technology for stone-work (the famous Cuzco/Sachsayhuaman walls, etc. that are built upon by the incas). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cusco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_architecture

    His apparent working hypothesis is that a culture existed circa 12 kya in s. america that developed exquisite stone-work by unknown technique, which was then devastated, with the area re-populated by the inca of more modern times circa 1 kya (whose descendants are modern-day people of Peru). He's found these elongated skulls throughout that region. Some show cranial deformation, but the larger ones do not; almost like they were trying to look like the natural long-skulls by doing cranial deformation.
     
  16. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    Zika also causes a small skull, not just a small brain in a normal-sized skull. One simply wonders if there is something one could eat that would effect pre-natal skull development, causing an elongation.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,435
    Indeed, but if one is going to invoke unevidenced wonderment, why not just jump straight to aliens?
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2017
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  18. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,827
    I'm not a biologist, but I got to imagine that, common to all vertebrate development, skull and contents size go hand-in-hand as a matter of course for the same reason our legs are long enough to hold the tibia. Embyros grow all tissues in proximity to each other and influencing each other so the distinctive shape of the human skull did not have to evolve completely separately from human brain size — there were no hopeful monsters with huge skulls waiting to evolve large brains.
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,435
    Yah, I think WW was missing the point there. Microcephaly causes underdevelopment of brain WITH commensurate small skull volume (didn't think that really required explaining.)
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    21,663
    It is head shaping, usually by binding the child's head from birth. And it was practiced around the world.

    The earliest written reference we have of artificial cranial deformation comes from Hesiod, a Greek poet who lived between 750 and 650 B.C. In his book of mythology, The Catalogues of Women, Hesiod referred to a tribe from either Africa or India called the “Makrokephaloi” (or “Macrocephali”), which roughly translates to “the big heads.”

    Hippocrates, the father of Western medicine, also mentions the Macrocephali in his work, On Airs, Waters, and Places, which was written around 400 B.C. Not only did Hippocrates mention the Macrocephali, but he got their techniques right. Rather than making the people mythological, Hippocrates tells us their methods, and their reasons: “They think those the most noble who have the longest heads … after the child is born, and while its head is still tender, they fashion it with their hands, and constrain it to assume a lengthened shape by applying bandages and other suitable contrivances …”

    And it is not only European authors who found the practice amazing. Xuanzang, a Chinese Buddhist monk and traveller, whose 17-year journey to India inspired the Chinese classical novel Journey to the West, reported on the form of the practice he came across in modern-day Xinjiang, in Western China. Xuanzang speaks of the people of Kashgar, where ”children born of common parents have their heads flattened by the pressure of wooden boards …”

    No.

    Not a new species or a relative..

    It was simply head binding. And it occurred in Africa, Australia, the Pacific Islanders, Asia, Europe and the Americas.. It was a fairly widespread. For various reasons, from religious reasons, to status.

    Across the Americas, in various tribes, infants had their heads bound and shaped by their parents. Both the Mayans and the Inca shaped their children’s skulls, as did the Choctaw and the Chinookan tribes in what is now the United States. Their reasons must have been the same, to allow for the child to fit into the fabric of their societies, and to signify class. For the Maya, it also held a religious significance.

    According to Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo, a Spanish chronicler of the conquest of the Americas, a Mayan explained: “This is done because our ancestors were told by the gods that if our heads were thus formed we should appear noble …”

    Two different styles of artificial cranial deformation were prevalent in Mayan culture, and indicated the wearer’s rank. Those who were destined (or hoped) to hold some position of high status, were given what is referred to as “oblique deformations,” which resulted in a high, pointed head shape. However, the general populace could only use an “erect deformation,” which led to a rounded skull shape, with flattening on the sides. Whether these shapes were in imitation of a jaguar’s skull, to show prowess, or in the shape of the maize god, to symbolise fertility, is a matter of debate among historians and archaeologists.

    Artificial cranial deformation was also recorded amongst the remains of people as far distant as Australia and the Caribbean islands. But it’s not just an ancient practice. It still occurs in some of the world’s more remote outposts.

    The shape of the head did not increase cranial volume for those who had their heads shaped that way.

    While early European observers of the practice in France and in Eastern Europe reportedly pitied children whose heads had been bound, subsequent research has led experts to believe that cranial modification has no impact on cognitive function, nor is there a difference in cranial capacity. According to a 2007 paper in the journal Neurosurgery, “there does not seem to be any evidence of negative effect on the societies that have practiced even very severe forms of intentional cranial deformation.”

    It would help if you did not refer to woo woo sites and conspiracy sites.

    Babies are often born with their heads deformed like that. It is actually quite common. The head often becomes deformed while making its way through the vaginal birth canal.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It usually resolves itself within a short period of time, from a few minutes to a few days.

    "Following a vaginal birth, the baby's head is fairly elongated and cone-shaped, and parents are immediately worried that's the way the kid's head is going to be forever," says Steven P. Shelov, MD, chairman of pediatrics at Maimonides Medical Center in New York City, and director of the Maimonides Infants & Children's Hospital.

    But Shelov says not only will the head shape change (usually within 48 hours or less), but that cone shape you see at birth is quite normal.

    "The bones of the skull of a newborn are intentionally mobile. The birth canal is tight, and the bones are meant to give, allowing the head to pass through, which is what actually causes that elongated shape," says Shelov. It is the pressure on the head coming through the canal that gives the baby the cone head shape which will resolve in a few days. Babies born via C-section do not usually display much of the cone head shape.


    Some children require these special helmets that reshape the head if it does not return to normal and for some babies, they have another underlying condition that requires more extensive medical intervention (such as a fused skull, or where the helmet does not return the head back to a normal shape).

    It is quite conceivable that a newborn who dies shortly after childbirth, or even a miscarriage in the later stages of pregnancy in ancient times before the advent of modern medicine and where mummification was still practiced, would see mummies today of these babies with elongated or deformed heads. Because they would have been mummified and the skull would not have had time to go back to a normal shape.

    So no, they are not a new species. Babies born that way are more often than not, born that way because of the very tight squeeze of being pushed through the vagina.

    It would depend on how they are bound and from where on the head they are bound. For example:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It is not hard to imagine that this child's cranial features would be dramatically altered by how tightly the head has been bound. Look at the shape of the baby's forehead, the way in which it pushes it back like that to the point where the baby's eyebrows are pulled right back and makes the baby's lower eye sockets look like they are about to pop out. Look at the shape of the neck, well, the back of the neck.
     
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    21,663
    Homo sapiens also bred with other hominid species. Not just Neanderthals.

    Ya. It's called trying to pass something the size of a small melon through a birth canal..

    No chemical alteration needed there. Just lots of pain and pushing and squeezing the little suckers out of the vagina.

    Childbirth causes skull elongation. Google 'cone head new born babies'.. You will be astonished! Or you may believe that it is a whole new breed of 'hoooman!'.. Take your pick..

    And women are encouraged to increase their intake of folate prior to and during pregnancy to help with their baby's brain development and to reduce the risk of some developmental disorders. Nothing to do with cone head skulls!
     
  22. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494

    Yes, H.s.sapiens also mated with neanderthal, denisovan, and others.

    These videos do not look like the coneheads from the wikipedia link you provided. not at all.

    pre-natal:
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...3E501FF67654420B8B133E501FF67654420&FORM=VIRE

    infant:
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...75E6814C6E48929717DE75E6814C6E48929&FORM=VIRE

    adult:
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...7BB4DC8DD052B4637D527BB4DC8DD052B&FORM=VRDGAR
     
  23. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
  24. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    21,663
    Because not all bound their heads the same way? Because the cone head of a fetus will vary and differ because of how said baby comes through the vaginal birth canal?

    As for the videos you linked.. A foetus born with a cone head! Ye God's, new species!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Did you miss the links I provided that clearly explains why babies are born with cone heads and the explanation that if the child dies in childbirth or immediately after, then of course it will be buried or mummified with a cone head as a result?

    And you are linking videos from a guy who believes in bigfoot?

    Keep this up and I am moving your thread down to the Fringe sub-forum.
     
    Dr_Toad and origin like this.

Share This Page