Human evolution Mind News

Humans in Germany 1 mya?

Spread the love

From Popular Archaeology:

Now researchers Günter Landeck and Joan Garcia Garriga report, for the first time, evidence of early human butchery in the form of cut marks on animal bones and intentional hammerstone-related bone breakage. These human-modified bones were recovered in a small faunal subsample excavated from levels with simple ‘Mode 1’ stone tools. The butchered assemblage was found during fieldwork and surveying of ancient riverbanks and channel erosion sediments. The report authors state that the frequent occurrence of butchery traces on bones of large-sized herd animals, such as an ancient species of Bison, may suggest that the early human occupiers of the site had an enhanced need for meat because of changes resulting in a depletion of nutritive plants in winter. The study authors further note that early access to the carcasses before they were consumed by other carnivores made it possible for the early humans to acquire a sufficient amount of meat for subsistence. More.

Doubtless a good find. But what is the precise relationship between the claim that these were “humans” and insistence of “different human species” in other reports? Recently one Darwin defender sniffed that the definition of “species” has been a conundrum for 300 years.

If so, that’s bad news for his point of view; worse, the news is starting to get out. No shame in not knowing, but insisting on being the expert while not knowing is pride preceding a fall.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Are human groups extinct if their genes live in us?

“Speciation” means what exactly? No one can define it but it is the basis of Darwinian evolution.

Meat eating speeded human face evolution?

and

Stasis: Life goes on but evolution does not happen much

Follow UD News at Twitter!

One Reply to “Humans in Germany 1 mya?

  1. 1
    goodusername says:

    News,

    If so, that’s bad news for his point of view; worse, the news is starting to get out. No shame in not knowing, but insisting on being the expert while not knowing is pride preceding a fall.

    I’ve even seen the “species problem” brought up in grade-school level science textbooks, so I’m pretty sure the news is plenty out there. And I’ve never seen anyone that considers themselves an expert on what constitutes a “species”.

    It’s hard to tell what your point is. I guess it’s that a theory of how species form should have a clear definition of “species”?
    But the difficulty of defining and drawing solid lines between ”species” is what we would expect if speciation is via a gradual process of divergence. It would be bad news for such a point of view if it were always easy to draw definitive lines between species. That would point to something else going on.

    There’s a similar difficulty is defining “language”. Estimates vary wildly among experts on the number of languages in the world in large part because of disagreements as to what constitutes a “language”. (One humorous definition I’ve heard is “A language is a dialect with an army and navy”). Is this a problem for the theories of how new languages gradually form? No, because this is precisely what we would expect considering how linguists believe most languages form.

Leave a Reply