Posted on 01/12/2012 5:17:15 AM PST by Renfield
Ping
“I coulda been a contenda”.
It was probably so gradual they’ll never pinpoint it. Rather like there aren’t really clear boundaries between races.
“Hominid” of the month contest.
It would help if they discussed brain volume as determinative of human categorization.
.
I don’t care how African they were, NONE of them would qualify for the NBA ~ just too short.
The problem with brain volume is that it’s only one attribute amongst many that seems to constantly vary with these proposed ancestors of man. If you look at all the key traits together, there’s no clear progression at all. So, if you arrange your hereditary tree based on brain volume, then examine another trait, such as the tooth arrangement, or ability to walk upright, you will find that your tree is out of order with regards to those other traits.
I think you make my point for me.
If you through out all “proposed ancestors of man” with insufficient brain volume, you eliminate a lot of “proposed ancestors”.
ya...it upsets a lot of apple carts, but tough!
I think you make my point for me.
If you throw out all “proposed ancestors of man” with insufficient brain volume, you eliminate a lot of “proposed ancestors”.
ya...it upsets a lot of apple carts, but tough!
did we used to have tusk?
It is like trying to pinpoint the exact location your walk through the forest became a walk through the swamp. There was no line, the forest just gradually becomes more and more swampy until you are no longer in a ‘swampy forest’ but more in a ‘foresty swamp’ and eventually - all swamp.
Looking for an exact line of demarcation, looking at your footprints and saying “this step was in a forest, but this step was in a swamp” - is sort of silly - but people like things to fit into neat little boxes, despite this often being inapplicable to reality.
“Omo I and II (195,000 years ago)”
Obviously this whole article is part of the Omo agenda.
|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
Thanks Renfield. I'll be hiding behind the chair if anyone needs anything. |
|
|
|
|
If they declare the earliest Homo Sapien, what then? Who was his mate....or hers?
Reading this I remembered my walk through the Koch brothers evolution exhibit at the Smithsonian. Near the end of a large string of skulls showing the gradual changes over 6 million years was a 12,000 year old skull classified as a homo sapien. I looked at this and said to myself, absolutely no way. It didn’t even look like Neanderthal. In fact it looked most like Heidelburgensis which died out much earlier than Neanderthal and was probably a precursor.
These “robust” skulls were from a site, Kow Marsh, in Australia, and have really fouled up the anthropoligical arguments in that continent. My theory, these were a Heidelburgensis remnant of people on the Australian continent from many, many thousands of years ago (perhaps from the low water period of the previous ice age, not our more recent one). The link below carries some of this argument, and also has a detailed theory as to why we have 1 to 4% Neanderthal genes, but no Neanderthal mitochondria, whereas the Neanderthal thus far studied (admittedly very few specimens) have no homo sapien genes.
http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.