Hallmarks of humanity in the culture of ancient man

10 Replies to “Hallmarks of humanity in the culture of ancient man”

1. 1
   bornagain77 says:

   December 22, 2012 at 1:48 pm

   Actually it is not all that surprising that Darwinists would loudly protest that they (earliest humans) were clothed in the film, Darwinists have been trying to fictitiously dumb down and ‘apeify’ human ancestry for as long as Darwinism has been around:

   “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.”
   Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),

   The Ape To Man Drawings – Another Blatant Deception of Evolution – video
   http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4236845

   The problem of forcing the fossil evidence into a preconceived Darwinian narrative is found to be is widespread and pervasive in the field of paleo-anthropology:

   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/2.....67181.html

   Artistic renditions of supposedly primitive ape-men are even more ripe for abuse by Darwinists than the fossil evidence is:

   Paleoanthropology
   Excerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
   “Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist’s conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it…. Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.”
   http://conservapedia.com/Evolu.....thropology

   “National Geographic magazine commissioned four artists to reconstruct a female figure from casts of seven fossil bones thought to be from the same species as skull 1470. One artist drew a creature whose forehead is missing and whose jaws look vaguely like those of a beaked dinosaur. Another artist drew a rather good-looking modern African-American woman with unusually long arms. A third drew a somewhat scrawny female with arms like a gorilla and a face like a Hollywood werewolf. And a fourth drew a figure covered with body hair and climbing a tree, with beady eyes that glare out from under a heavy, gorilla-like brow.”
   “Behind the Scenes,” National Geographic 197 (March, 2000): 140

   Further notes:

   Earliest humans not so different from us, research suggests – February 2011
   Excerpt: Shea argues that comparing the behavior of our most ancient ancestors to Upper Paleolithic Europeans holistically and ranking them in terms of their “behavioral modernity” is a waste of time. There are no such things as modern humans, Shea argues, just Homo sapiens populations with a wide range of behavioral variability.
   http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....umans.html

   Geometric Principles Appear Universal in Our Minds – May 2011
   Excerpt: Villagers belonging to an Amazonian group called the Mundurucú intuitively grasp abstract geometric principles despite having no formal math education,,, Mundurucú adults and 7- to 13-year-olds demonstrate as firm an understanding of the properties of points, lines and surfaces as adults and school-age children in the United States and France,,,
   http://www.wired.com/wiredscie.....-geometry/

   Children Act Like Scientists – October 1, 2012
   Excerpt: New theoretical ideas and empirical research show that very young children’s learning and thinking are strikingly similar to much learning and thinking in science. Preschoolers test hypotheses against data and make causal inferences; they learn from statistics and informal experimentation, and from watching and listening to others. The mathematical framework of probabilistic models and Bayesian inference can describe this learning in precise ways.
   http://crev.info/2012/10/child.....cientists/

   Darwin’s mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. – 2008
   Excerpt: Over the last quarter century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as “one of degree and not of kind” (Darwin 1871).,,, To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (PSS) (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain,,,
   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18479531

   “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
   Anthropologist Ian Tattersall
   (curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

   Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride’s Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His – Casey Luskin – August 31, 2012
   Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we’ve seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,,
   The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,,
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63841.html

   Homo erectus: A Highly Intelligent Seafaring Boatbuilder? – Casey Luskin – August 21, 2012
   Excerpt: The point of all this is that other members of our genus Homo don’t represent unintelligent, non-human, ape-like forms. They looked a lot like us, and there’s increasingly good evidence that they thought a lot like us too. As I recently discussed, some scientists even suggest that Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and Homo sapiens were really just the same species. When our genus Homo appears in the fossil record, it does so abruptly, very different from previous forms, and without evolutionary precursors.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63351.html
2. 2
   bornagain77 says:

   December 22, 2012 at 1:54 pm

   related notes:

   “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage
   http://www.geneticarchaeology......lieved.asp

   DeWitt’s digital manipulation of skull 1470 – August 13, 2012
   Excerpt: The skull as presented in the news websites has some significant issues that suggests that the facial reconstruction is seriously off.
   http://www.uncommondescent.com.....kull-1470/

   “One famous fossil skull, discovered in 1972 in northern Kenya, changed its appearance dramatically depending on how the upper jaw was connected to the rest of the cranium. Roger Lewin recounts an occasion when paleoanthropologists Alan Walker, Michael Day, and Richard Leakey were studying the two sections of skull 1470. According to Lewin, Walker said: You could hold the [upper jaw] forward, and give it a long face, or you could tuck it in, making the face short…. How you held it really depended on your preconceptions. It was very interesting watching what people did with it. Lewin reports that Leakey recalled the incident, too: Yes. If you held it one way, it looked like one thing; if you held it another, it looked like something else.”
   Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, Second Edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997), p 160
3. 3
   vjtorley says:

   December 22, 2012 at 9:25 pm

   Humans began wearing clothes 170,000 years ago, according to a University of Florida news report:

   A new University of Florida study following the evolution of lice shows modern humans started wearing clothes about 170,000 years ago, a technology which enabled them to successfully migrate out of Africa.

   Principal investigator David Reed, associate curator of mammals at the Florida Museum of Natural History on the UF campus, studies lice in modern humans to better understand human evolution and migration patterns. His latest five-year study used DNA sequencing to calculate when clothing lice first began to diverge genetically from human head lice.

   Funded by the National Science Foundation, the study is available online and appears in this month’s print edition of Molecular Biology and Evolution. “We wanted to find another method for pinpointing when humans might have first started wearing clothing,” Reed said. “Because they are so well adapted to clothing, we know that body lice or clothing lice almost certainly didn’t exist until clothing came about in humans.”

   The data shows modern humans started wearing clothes about 70,000 years before migrating into colder climates and higher latitudes, which began about 100,000 years ago. This date would be virtually impossible to determine using archaeological data because early clothing would not survive in archaeological sites.

   The study also shows humans started wearing clothes well after they lost body hair, which genetic skin-coloration research pinpoints at about 1 million years ago, meaning humans spent a considerable amount of time without body hair and without clothing, Reed said.

   The study is available online here.
4. 4
   Mung says:

   December 22, 2012 at 9:57 pm

   The data shows modern humans started wearing clothes about 70,000 years before migrating into colder climates and higher latitudes, which began about 100,000 years ago.

   So how did putting on clothes increase reproductive rates?

   Seems to me they would hinder it =p
5. 5
   Mung says:

   December 22, 2012 at 9:58 pm

   Man, I bet we could come up with some evolutionary just so stories for that!
6. 6
   bornagain77 says:

   December 22, 2012 at 10:08 pm

   Well mung, I’m still waiting for the ‘just so’ story from Darwinists for this transition:

   Man’s sexual reproduction relies on ‘hydraulics’ whereas chimpanzees have an actual bone involved in their reproductive system:

   Ian Juby’s Chimp compared to Man sexual reproduction video – (plus Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve in the first place?) – video
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1VWQEnnwM

   Related notes:

   Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, – Jan. 2010
   Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content,” found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content,” showing “extraordinary divergence” where “wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.”,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,,”
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....shows.html

   A False Trichotomy
   Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”
   http://www.uncommondescent.com.....richotomy/

   Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected – Jan. 2010
   Excerpt: “The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes.
   http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html

   The evolutionary scientists of the preceding paper offered some evolutionary ‘just so’ stories of ‘dramatically sped up evolution’ for why there are such significant differences in the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans, yet when the Y chromosome is looked at for its rate of change we find there is hardly any evidence for any change at all, much less the massive changes the evolutionists are required to explain.

   CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS
   Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry.
   http://www.reasons.org/interpr.....lutionists

   Theory of the ‘Rotting’ Y Chromosome Dealt a Fatal Blow – February 2012
   Excerpt: “the sequence of the rhesus Y, shows the chromosome hasn’t lost a single ancestral gene in the past 25 million years. By comparison, the human Y has lost just one ancestral gene in that period, and that loss occurred in a segment that comprises just 3% of the entire chromosome”, “,,,earlier work comparing the human and chimpanzee Ys revealed a stable human Y for at least six million years. “Now our empirical data fly in the face of the other theories out there. With no loss of genes on the rhesus Y and one gene lost on the human Y, it’s clear the Y isn’t going anywhere.”
   http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....154359.htm
7. 7
   Mung says:

   December 22, 2012 at 10:40 pm

   BA77:

   Well mung, I’m still waiting for the ‘just so’ story from Darwinists for this transition:

   Man’s sexual reproduction relies on ‘hydraulics’ whereas chimpanzees have an actual bone involved in their reproductive system:

   Well then. You’re saying chimps have a constant boner?

   So if as a developing human I didn’t have one, I might reproduce more if I could hide that fact under clothes!
8. 8
   Davem says:

   December 23, 2012 at 1:22 am

   I wonder why we lost all that hair but retained eyebrows?
   Did the ones that had no eyebrows die out, because, when it came time to throw the spear at the attacking predator, dust got in their eyes?
9. 9
   timothya says:

   December 23, 2012 at 2:36 pm

   “Naturists complained” . . .

   Looks like the original poster is pulling your leg.
10. 10
    Robert Byers says:

    December 24, 2012 at 3:40 am

    people first wore clothes and later migrated from Babel. only after going primitive did they lose interest in clothes.
    By the way the evidence is in biology.
    Surely men have more body hair then women because we were more undressed .
    Women were more sedate and less in the climate as men and so more hairless.
    Save on the head where they needed more hair relative to the size of their head.
    The types of hair growth on people indicate a clothed folk and not a naked ape.