Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sima cave people not exactly Neanderthals, researchers say

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From ScienceDaily:

“What makes the Sima de los Huesos site unique,” Arsuaga said, “is the extraordinary and unprecedented accumulation of hominin fossils there; nothing quite so big has ever been discovered for any extinct hominin species — including Neanderthals.”

“This site has been excavated continuously since 1984,” Martínez added. “After thirty years, we have recovered nearly 7,000 human fossils corresponding to all skeletal regions of at least 28 individuals. This extraordinary collection includes 17 fragmentary skulls, many of which are very complete.”

From this, they deduce that

“We think based on the morphology that the Sima people were part of the Neanderthal clade,” Arsuaga said, “although not necessarily direct ancestors to the classic Neanderthals.” They were part of an early European lineage that includes Neanderthals, but is more primitive than the later Pleistocene variety.

Critically, many of the Neandertal-derived features the researchers observed were related to mastication, or chewing. “It seems these modifications had to do with an intensive use of the frontal teeth,” Arsuaga said. “The incisors show a great wear as if they had been used as a ‘third hand,” typical of Neanderthals.”

The work of Arsuaga et al. suggests that facial modification was the first step in Neandertal evolution. This mosaic pattern fits the prediction of the accretion model.

This story is interesting from the perspective that it is written as if it were some kind of history when it is at most guesses based on fragments, and the next team reporting may well say something quite different.

Fascinating if you don’t take it too seriously.

Here’s a handy guide to the complexities surrounding human evolution: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution)

and

The Little Lady of Flores spoke from the grave. But said what, exactly?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
There is no grand conspiracy keeping evolutionary theory afloat. It is not a theory in crisis
It is not a theory because there is no such thing as evolutionary theory. At least I have never seen one and I have been reading about this for over 15 years. Please tell anyone just what the theory is supposed to be. Darwinian evolution and all its modern variations is not a theory either. They are at best speculations that have been proven inconsistent with scientific findings. So before you prattle more, you should tell us just what you believe and the basis for your beliefs.jerry
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Joe You do realize that you are asking us to prove something that you will always find a way out, right? No matter what we show you, it can be turned around and argued "how do you know it's random?" If you can conduct an evolution experiment and predict what mutation will happen in any given environment over and over again then you will have evidence that it's not random.JLAfan2001
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
as to: “We stress that these results do not indicate that the cladistic methodology is flawed," And yet, as I learned in Matzke's attempted refutation of Stephen Meyer's 'Darwin's Doubt', severe prejudicial 'flaws' are built into the foundation of cladistic methodology:
A One Man Clade - David Berlinski July 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html 'Between 1978 and 1981, Nature published a remarkable series of letters about Cladistics and the reliability of evolutionary claims. ,,,Patterson and his allies treated Darwinian evolution as something that could be questioned. “They could do perfectly well without it,” he told me, in one of my interviews with him.' - Tom Bethell https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/we-need-to-fire-the-facts-and-get-different-facts-or/#comment-503165 November 1981 Presentation at the American Museum of Natural History By Colin Patterson – Audio CD and Annotated Transcript Excerpt: Here are a few of Patterson’s famous comments that you can now listen to and read in their full context: “But it’s true that for the last eighteen months or so, I’ve been kicking around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas.” “,,,last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long.” ,,, I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. The question is this: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true?”... ,,,evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics.” - Patterson worked at the British Museum of Natural History in London, was one of the leaders of the philosophy of biological systematics known as "transformed cladistics." http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/audios/c010.htm
Seeing as the fossil record is not nearly as conducive to Darwinian claims as you would like it to be, you go on to try to bolster your case by claiming ERV's make your case compelling. Yet, ERV's are hardly anything for a Darwinist to get excited about.
Refutation Of Endogenous Retrovirus - ERVs - Richard Sternberg, PhD Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrEOe2E0Euc Sternberg, R. v. & J. A. Shapiro (2005). How repeated retroelements format genome function. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 110: 108-116. Retrovirus in the Human Genome Is Active in Pluripotent Stem Cells - Jan. 23, 2013 Excerpt: "What we've observed is that a group of endogenous retroviruses called HERV-H is extremely busy in human embryonic stem cells," said Jeremy Luban, MD, the David L. Freelander Memorial Professor in HIV/AIDS Research, professor of molecular medicine and lead author of the study. "In fact, HERV-H is one of the most abundantly expressed genes in pluripotent stem cells and it isn't found in any other cell types. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133930.htm Transposable Elements Reveal a Stem Cell Specific Class of Long Noncoding RNAs - (Nov. 26, 2012) Excerpt: The study published by Rinn and Kelley finds a striking affinity for a class of hopping genes known as endogenous retroviruses, or ERVs, to land in lincRNAs. The study finds that ERVs are not only enriched in lincRNAs, but also often sit at the start of the gene in an orientation to promote transcription. Perhaps more intriguingly, lincRNAs containing an ERV family known as HERVH correlated with expression in stem cells relative to dozens of other tested tissues and cells. According to Rinn, "This strongly suggests that ERV transposition in the genome may have given rise to stem cell-specific lincRNAs. The observation that HERVHs landed at the start of dozens of lincRNAs was almost chilling; that this appears to impart a stem cell-specific expression pattern was simply stunning!" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121125192838.htm Retroviruses and Common Descent: And Why I Don’t Buy It - September 2011 Excerpt: If it is the case, as has been suggested by some, that these HERVs are an integral part of the functional genome, then one might expect to discover species-specific commonality and discontinuity. And this is indeed the case. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/retroviruses-and-common-descent-and-why-i-dont-buy-it/
In fact, the entire 98.5% genetic similarity myth of Darwinists is crumbling as our knowledge of genomics increases:
Using ENCODE Data for Human-Chimp DNA Comparisons by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.* Excerpt: In 2013, I published a research paper in which chimpanzee chromosomes were sequentially sliced into different sets of small pieces so that the algorithm could optimally compare them to human chromosomes. In so doing, I found that the chimpanzee genome was only about 70 percent similar to the human genome overall.7 More research is needed to show specifically how the new wealth of publicly available ENCODE data can be used beyond basic studies of human-chimp DNA similarity—incorporating lincRNAs and vlincRNAs to further highlight human uniqueness. Research using three large datasets produced by the ENCODE project is now underway at ICR for the purpose of addressing these questions. In a concurrent study, I am also comparing human protein-coding regions to those in chimpanzees. In combination, these new analyses will provide a much more detailed picture of what makes humans unique and will further demonstrate we are not evolved apes. http://www.icr.org/article/7856/
Then there is the little problem for you in that you have no empirical evidence that body plans are reducible to mutations in DNA:
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video https://vimeo.com/91322260 Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,, ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009)
bornagain77
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
JLAfan2001- If there were positive evidence for unguided evolution I would still be an evolutionist. So what evidence do you think you have found?Joe
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart is correct. There is no grand conspiracy keeping evolutionary theory afloat.
Perhaps it is all the hot air, then. No one can model unguided evolution. No one can say what predictions are borne from it other than change and stasis. Unguided evolution is a useless heuristic. What is the theory, anyway? I know Darwin had something but nothing ever came of it. What else is there?Joe
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
And Biologos constant deceptions, fabrications and persistent misunderstandings of the bible is what I find maddening. I find theistic evolutionists “ethically challenged”. I noticed yo never addressed this in your previous comment. I also fight against bad science but also fight against your theology. Biologos and Discovery Institute are two sides of the same coin. Both deceivers. Tell me that you have never had to read more into scripture and add what the text was never meant to say in order to reconcile evolution. Either you did that or you view the bible as full of errors in which case you are lying to yourself to continue to think it should have any more merit than other myths.JLAfan2001
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart is correct. There is no grand conspiracy keeping evolutionary theory afloat. It is not a theory in crisis and nobody is making money at the expense of a better theory out there.Jimpithecus
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
JLAFan2001. I was, perhaps, harsh in my response but I saw invective and responded. We, at BioLogos believe in the God of the Bible. We also recognize that science should never be used to try to "prove" that God exists or does not exist, but should be evaluated on its own merits. You are quite correct that I find many instances of what I find "ethically challenged" outpourings from the DI and I am not the only one that has found this. I am currently reading Science and Human Origins and have found it maddening in its subtle deceptions, fabrications and persistent misunderstandings of how evolution actually works. None of this either supports or negates the existence of God. That is a faith issue. My purpose here, as it is elsewhere, is to show where they are getting the science wrong. If we don't approach the science correctly and honestly, that is a bad witness. It is against that that I fight.Jimpithecus
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
"The thing is though, that is the nature of tertiary education. I should think everyone studying for a doctorate would be looking for an ‘angle’, a small angle, but not a paradigm leap. You know nothing about research if you think that any of them would not jump at the chance of being responsible for a paradigm shift. Darwin's theory was one of these. The new synthesis was another. Neutral theory is yet another. Each of these met with initial resistance but were eventually accepted as the best explanation at the time. In spite of ID's attempts, it is nowhere close to being another paradigm shift simply because it's emphasis has always been on cherry picking points that it thinks are contradictory to evolutionary theory.Acartia_bogart
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
It should read "Darwin killed god."JLAfan2001
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Jimpithecus I'm not a troll. I'm just someone who is tired off all the BS thrown at us from ceationists, IDists and theistic evolutionists. You show that Luskin is dishonest in his science. You and the others from Biologos are dishonest in your theology and you KNOW it. You twist the bible to show people that evolution and christianity are compatible. IT IS NOT. You just can't put a new spin on texts that the historical church took as literal and say "see, all fixed". Either one distorts the science or one distorts the theology. Stop tricking others into believing your lies. Darwin killed go. Accept it, Jim. humbled You are correct. I gave up my faith when I found the evidence for evolution. I'm a Nihilist now. I found that creationists were liers too with the science. All christians are liers and deserve to be ridiculed. Creationists were right about one thing, though. Evolution kills faith and that's why you people keep others indoctrinated against it's "evil".JLAfan2001
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
In that last comment, I put the ending emphasis tag in the wrong place. It should have been after the end quotation mark in the quote from the October article. Sorry about that.Jimpithecus
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 From the Oct 21, 2013 article a bit further down: "The study also finds that the potential human ancestors discovered in Europe are morphologically closer to Neanderthals than to modern humans. This suggests the line leading to Neanderthals arose around 1 million years ago and the divergence of humans took place much earlier than previously thought. Other studies have placed the divergence around 350,000 years ago." This matches the genetic information that suggests that the split between modern humans and Neandertals likely occurred as a result of the migration of post Homo erectus hominins out of Africa to southern Europe. As far as Casey's quote is concerned, in his argument to establish "common design," he consistently ignores the shared mistakes and, more importantly, shared ERV fragments. That case, alone, is extremely compelling. From the Collard and Wood paper, a bit further down: "We stress that these results do not indicate that the cladistic methodology is flawed, or that primate craniodental data are problematic for phylogenetic reconstruction at all taxonomic levels. Rather, our results show that the type of craniodental characters that have hitherto been used in hominin phylogenetics are probably not reliable for reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of higher primate species and genera, including those among the hominins" What is specifically being explored here is at the lower taxonomic levels. We are reconstructing phylogenetic relationships within one genera, and a late surviving set of related species, to boot. Luskin, as he often does, only quoted the part of the paper that suited his purposes and conveniently ignored that which did not. With regard to the corollary mentioned, given the above quote, they are clearly writing of the higher taxonomic levels.Jimpithecus
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Ab said ..."I’m afraid that some people will not accept evidence placed before them." I couldn't agree more Ab ;) no matter how many times Darwinian nonsense is refuted, no matter how many failed predictions are made, no matter how many cover ups and fraud we witness, you simply will NOT accept the evidence placed before you. You also said "I don’t have any problem with people believing in a god. I only have a problem when they ignore all evidence that may be in conflict with their belief." I would also like to point out that blind faith, belief and commitment to evolutionary miracles and magical natural processes, can and do cause the Darwin faithful to "ignore all evidence that may be in conflict with their belief." as well. The Darwin faithful are NOT exempt !!humbled
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
JLAfan2001, are all of your comments going to be derisive and nasty. Why should we regard you as anything other than a troll?Jimpithecus
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
JLAfan2001 said September 20, 2012 at 2:38 pm "...I apologize for the tone of my initial post. I’m not really a Darwinist as my messages would imply. I’m just a struggling christian who is trying to come to terms with the evidence for evolution." http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8766 So JLAfan2001, I see you opted NOT to take Dr Wile's advice "to investigate these issues more thoroughly". Seems you've simply given up and converted from one religion to another, very said indeed. So any God believing person is now stupid, really? I think some growing up is in order.humbled
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Jimpithecus #6: 'From the Science Daily story: “What makes the Sima de los Huesos site unique,” Arsuaga said, “is the extraordinary and unprecedented accumulation of hominin fossils there; nothing quite so big has ever been discovered for any extinct hominin species — including Neanderthals.” How, exactly, do you interpret this as “fragments?”' Exactly, as, an extraordinary and unprecedented accumulation of .... hominim fragments (fossil fragments).Axel
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Jimpithecus #1: For crying out loud, it might well be, as your anguished complaint seems to suggest, a hurtful case of lese-majeste towards, presumably, your clan, but really...! 'It is research based on a huge cache of human fossil material.' 'Fossil material'? You mean 'fossil fragments', don't you? 'and represents decades of investigations.' What possible relevance does that have? A tribe of your simian ancestors (according to your own preferred pedigree) might spend decades studying them, but they would still remain a large collection of fragments. Or some very gifted anthropologists might do so for decades, but they would still remain a large collection of fragments. 'Over 2200 papers have been written on the material from this suite of caves.' During my brief flirtation with tertiary education during the late sixties, T S Eliot was The Man for Shakespearian criticism, the most fashionable commentator. Poor old Skeat, who'd been doing so well, since the late eighteen hundreds, was apparently passe. However, I don't think you need to be a particularly insightful judge of character to realise that Eliot, as well as an anti-semite, like Shakespeare, was also a fascist sympathizer, and would not have come close to possessing the magnanimity and breadth of human empathy that Shakespeare displayed. But here's the thing. It was clear to me that people just followed the latest fashions in literature in universities, just as slavishly as they might have, 'haute couture', as students of fashion at an Art College. They might still be paying homage to Eliot as the premier Shakespearian critic. And I very much doubt that the sum total of human knowledge or understanding of the Sima people is a function of the multiplicity of people searching for an illuminating fossil. The thing is though, that is the nature of tertiary education. I should think everyone studying for a doctorate would be looking for an 'angle', a small angle, but not a paradigm leap. 'If you are going to be insulting, at least do some research first.' See above.Axel
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
" So, why haven’t you made fun of Jimpithecus for the idiot that he is? He may accept evolution but he would accept other things in the bible that go against science like miracles and the dead rising. So, have it." I don't stoop down to name calling just because I disagree with someone. When you do that you just detract from your own argument.Acartia_bogart
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
"I don’t have any problem with people believing in a god. I only have a problem when they ignore all evidence that may be in conflict with their belief." WTF? That's anyone who believes in god. All evidence is in conflict with their beliefs so you must have a problem with everyone who believes in god. So, why haven't you made fun of Jimpithecus for the idiot that he is? He may accept evolution but he would accept other things in the bible that go against science like miracles and the dead rising. So, have it.JLAfan2001
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
I only have a problem when they ignore all evidence that may be in conflict with their belief.
I have never had that problem. But I believe you do. This remark is an example of it.jerry
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
On a totally different note, how do you contact the site admin about a website problem?
Denyse reads most of the comments on her posts as do other authors. So just post the problem on an OP or two and it will probably get forwarded to the right person and get answered.jerry
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
"All people who believe in god regardless of wether they believe in evolution or not is the enemy. Be consistent." I don't have any problem with people believing in a god. I only have a problem when they ignore all evidence that may be in conflict with their belief.Acartia_bogart
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
As to the Accretian Model. from The Accretian Model of Neandertal Evolution Jul 2001 abstract on accretian model Abstract: The Accretion model of Neandertal evolution specifies that this group of Late Pleistocene hominids evolved in partial or complete genetic isolation from the rest of humanity through the gradual accumulation of distinctive morphological traits in European populations. As they became more common, these traits also became less variable, according to those workers who developed the model. Its supporters propose that genetic drift caused this evolution, resulting from an initial small European population size and either complete isolation or drastic reduction in gene flow between this deme and contemporary human populations elsewhere. Here, we test an evolutionary model of gene flow between regions against fossil data from the European population of the Middle and Late Pleistocene. The results of the analysis clearly show that the European population was not significantly divergent from its contemporaries, even in a subset of traits chosen to show the maximum differences between Europeans and other populations. The pattern of changes, over time within Europe of the traits in this subset, does not support the Accretion model, either because the characters did not change in the manner specified by the model or because the characters did not change at all. From these data, we can conclude that special phenomena such as near-complete isolation of the European population during the Pleistocene are not required to explain the pattern of evolution in this region. On a totally different note, how do you contact the site admin about a website problem?MrCollins
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
I think the OP was trying to point out how tiring it is to hear and see the evolution of theories. 2200 is a lot of papers and doesn't mean that there isn't lots of research and information there. It's the conclusions and dissemination of the information getting put through the opinion filter that get's frustrating. perhaps as BA77 implicated, they are just versions of the same species. But, that's just the evolution of my own theories.MrCollins
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Aren't Neanderthals and Denisovans just another variety of modern humans. Is there any indication that they could not inner breed with a modern human? I have Neanderthal DNA in me as do most people of the world. And if they are just another variety of human, what is the significance of the find? Interesting, yes, but of what significance?jerry
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Jimpithecus You are a theistic evolutionist working with Biologos. This makes you just as stupid as any creationist. You seem to think that you can reconcile your bible tales with evolution. The only way you can do that is by twisting what you read in there. That's intellectual dishonesty too. I noticed that Acartia_bogart didn't scold you for your religious beliefs like he has for others here. I guess it would be a case of "the enemy of enemy is my friend". All people who believe in god regardless of wether they believe in evolution or not is the enemy. Be consistent.JLAfan2001
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: “Our expectation was that it would be a very early Neanderthal,” Dr. Meyer said. But the DNA did not match that of Neanderthals. Dr. Meyer then compared it to the DNA of the Denisovans, the (80,000 year old) ancient human lineage that he and his colleagues had discovered in Siberia in 2010. He was shocked to find that it was similar. “Everybody had a hard time believing it at first,” Dr. Meyer said. “So we generated more and more data to nail it down.” The extra research confirmed that the DNA belonged on the Denisovan branch of the human family tree. The new finding is hard to reconcile with the picture of human evolution that has been emerging based on fossils and ancient DNA. Denisovans were believed to be limited to East Asia, and they were not thought to look so Neanderthal-like.,,, “Now we have to rethink the whole story.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-oldest-human-dna-yet-found-raises-new-mysteries.html?ref=science&_r=1& Researchers decode complete genome of extinct humans (Denisovans) from a fossil finger bone - February 2012 Excerpt: The big news, of course, is that there probably wasn’t a separate Neandertal or Denisovan “species” just a different group of humans.,,, The genetic difference between Neandertals and Denisovans is roughly as great as the maximal level of variation among us modern humans. https://uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/researchers-decode-complete-genome-of-extinct-humans-denisovans-from-a-fossil-finger-bone/bornagain77
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
From the Science Daily story: "What makes the Sima de los Huesos site unique," Arsuaga said, "is the extraordinary and unprecedented accumulation of hominin fossils there; nothing quite so big has ever been discovered for any extinct hominin species -- including Neanderthals." How, exactly, do you interpret this as "fragments?"Jimpithecus
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
As to another extensive study of fossil teeth, we find no evidence of the last common ancestor before Neanderthals and modern humans,,
No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests - Oct. 21, 2013 Excerpt: The article, "No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans," relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins -- humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,, They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match. "None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor," Gómez-Robles said. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131021153202.htm Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: So the researchers constructed an evolutionary tree based on 129 skull and tooth measurements for living hominoids, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans, and did the same with 62 measurements recorded on Old World monkeys, including baboons, mangabeys and macaques. They also drew upon published molecular phylogenies. At the outset, Wood and Collard assumed the molecular evidence was correct. “There were so many different lines of genetic evidence pointing in one direction,” Collard explains. But no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological trees could not be made to match15 (see figure, below). Collard says this casts grave doubt on the reliability of using morphological evidence to determine the fine details of evolutionary trees for higher primates. “It is saying it is positively misleading,” he says. The abstract of the pair’s paper stated provocatively that “existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable”.[10] http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/following_the_evidence_where_i047161.html#comment-9266481 Human Origins, and the Real Reasons for Evolutionary Skepticism - Jonathan M. - December 9, 2012 Excerpt: "Cladistic analysis of cranial and dental evidence has been widely used to generate phylogenetic hypotheses about humans and their fossil relatives. However, the reliability of these hypotheses has never been subjected to external validation. To rectify this, we applied internal methods to equivalent evidence from two groups of extant higher primates for whom reliable molecular phylogenies are available, the hominoids and paionins. We found that the phylogenetic hypotheses based on the craniodental data were incompatible with the molecular phylogenies for the groups. Given the robustness of the molecular phylogenies, these results indicate that little confidence can be placed in phylogenies generated solely from higher primate craniodental evidence. The corollary of this is that existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/human_origins_a1067181.html
Moreover, Neanderthals are now strongly suggested to be merely 'kissing cousins' to humans:
New method confirms humans and Neanderthals interbred - April 8, 2014 Excerpt: Technical objections to the idea that Neanderthals interbred with the ancestors of Eurasians have been overcome, thanks to a genome analysis method described in the April 2014 issue of the journal Genetics. http://phys.org/news/2014-04-method-humans-neanderthals-interbred.html Neanderthal Myth and Orwellian Double-Think - Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. - 2012 Excerpt: Modern humans and Neanderthals are essentially genetically identical. Neanderthals are unequivocally fully human based on a number of actual genetic studies using ancient DNA extracted from Neanderthal remains. The DNA data fully confirms the numerous anatomical studies performed on a wide variety of skeletal remains found in diverse geographical regions across Europe and the Middle East. The anatomical data not only shows that Neanderthals had fully human bone structure, but larger brains and more robust features. In fact, to the uncritical observer, they appear superior to modern humans. http://designed-dna.org/blog/files/3455fa8d785a887abd8316c1505a8b8c-33.php Neanderthals behaving like us - Dec. 2013 Excerpt: This fascinating insight into community life is worthy of our attention because the group members were Neanderthals. For too long, they have been portrayed as pre-human and have been used to buttress evolutionary stories about the origins of mankind. However, archaeological evidence discussed here (and here) suggests that these stories are embellished with evolutionary spin. The evidence shows that Neanderthals are human cousins and deserve quite a different place in history. Unfortunately, this truth about Neanderthals has been missed in the past because the presumption of evolutionary transformation has constrained the minds of researchers. They illustrate the maxim: "if we don't look for it, we won't find it." Another recent finding that is related to this theme is that a Neanderthal community in Italy organised their cave in a way that is recognizably human. The punchline is the same: here are "close cousins" that do not deserve to be called pre-human. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2013/12/03/neanderthals_behaving_like_us
bornagain77
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply