About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Subduction Zone]

Again, human history has been recorded in fairly distinct writing for about 5,000 years. But humans of the homo sapien type have supposedly been around for much, much longer. According to the Smithsonian Institution, about 300,000 years. (That's a long time in comparison to 5,000 years.) Now in the context of things, writing has developed rather quickly supposedly within the past 5,000 years rather than maybe 200,000 years. Do you think that maybe the writing was there but disintegrated before the 5,000 years or so? There was no notice of any species changing recorded by those capable of writing (not gorillas evidently) their history. But I'm pretty sure some reason for that will be given. Like no need -- no records needed of transactions...Insofar as signs of a distant fish ancestor, this does not mean that humans evolved by natural selection from fish. It means that there are certain signals connecting us, including from plants and soil. Like we have skin, fishes have skin. Again -- You may say it means we "evolved" by natural selection from fish. I am saying that is not verification (not proof, of course) that we evolved from some sort of fish, even though we haven't seen fish evolving to anything else except in theory. Of course, for all these years (200,000+?) there has been interest in these things for a couple of thousand years, and in more subjective detail theoretically within the past hundred years or so. Interestingly I find that we do all come from the soil one way or another. No emergence of life could be without soil and water. I won't speak of breath now. Granted that Lucy may not have been too smart, but "homo sapiens" supposedly have been around for -- ?? 200,000 years?

As to a sign of our fishy heritage I was thinking about the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Its pathway made sense for fish, but when our ancestors left the water and their gills were repurposed the nerve was too vital to be thrown away. so now signals that go to our larynx start in our brain, then go down and loop around our heart and then back up to the larynx. It is even worse for giraffes.

And yes, Homo sapiens have been around for at least 200,000 years. For writing we first needed trade and then eventually cities were formed and most likely for keeping records for trade writing arose. But that is anthropology and I do not really know too much about that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Until now we have discussed mostly geology and I don't know of good YouTube geology 101 courses that would answer your questions.
But if your interest is in human evolution, I know just the source you are looking for:
https://www.youtube.com/c/GutsickGibbon

Erica is an evolutionary anthropologist and I think she is good at explaining. Look for the shorter videos first in which she explains why certain YEC arguments don't hold water.

Did I mention to you that I don't hold YEC opinions?

 

[YoursTrue]

As to a sign of our fishy heritage I was thinking about the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Its pathway made sense for fish, but when our ancestors left the water and their gills were repurposed the nerve was too vital to be thrown away. so now signals that go to our larynx start in our brain, then go down and loop around our heart and then back up to the larynx. It is even worse for giraffes.

And yes, Homo sapiens have been around for at least 200,000 years. For writing we first needed trade and then eventually cities were formed and most likely for keeping records for trade writing arose. But that is anthropology and I do not really know too much about that.

(I used to love to read anthropology books in my spare time in college. I found it fascinating.)
So, regardless of our--humans--makeup, it has been said many times by those who profess to know that writing has entered the picture only within the last 5,000 years. So here is my point regarding the natural selection in this area, mankind of the homo sapien kind is said to have been in existence for 200,000 years. So now it is obviously reasonable that when "homo sapiens" first appeared, they probably didn't know much more than whoever their predecessors were in the sense of writing, keeping records, making shoes, clothing, etc. Would you agree with that as an assumption? (And, of course, are their predecessors really known?)

 

[YoursTrue]

As to a sign of our fishy heritage I was thinking about the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Its pathway made sense for fish, but when our ancestors left the water and their gills were repurposed the nerve was too vital to be thrown away. so now signals that go to our larynx start in our brain, then go down and loop around our heart and then back up to the larynx. It is even worse for giraffes.

And yes, Homo sapiens have been around for at least 200,000 years. For writing we first needed trade and then eventually cities were formed and most likely for keeping records for trade writing arose. But that is anthropology and I do not really know too much about that.

Going back to the trade idea, can you guess that the "homo sapiens" got gradually smarter, such as trading whatever they had for food or something else? By the way, do scientists know how many homo sapiens started the species (is it a species?) to begin with? And from what?

 

[Heyo]

Did I mention to you that I don't hold YEC opinions?

You didn't before. I presumed that you are from your interest in dating methods. Debates with OEC usually take an other route.

 

[Heyo]

Going back to the trade idea, can you guess that the "homo sapiens" got gradually smarter, such as trading whatever they had for food or something else? By the way, do scientists know how many homo sapiens started the species (is it a species?) to begin with? And from what?

You really need a structured evolutionary biology course. You are way over your head in this judging by your questions.
Yes homo sapience is a species. No, there is no way to tell with how many individuals the species started. It isn't even a question as biologists don't look at individuals in that context but at populations. And there is no way to definitively say when an individual is a sapience or a heidelbergensis, the shift is gradual.

Imagine a horizontal axis as a timeline. Pink is heidelbergensis, orange is sapience.
There is no point where you can say that it switched from one to the other and if you imagine the y-axis as a count of individuals, you see that at any time there are those who belong more to the one species than the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Going back to the trade idea, can you guess that the "homo sapiens" got gradually smarter, such as trading whatever they had for food or something else? By the way, do scientists know how many homo sapiens started the species (is it a species?) to begin with? And from what?

I don't think that it was a matter of them "getting smarter". And I am not an anthropologist. I really do not understand how civilization started. What historians call civilization is a bit biased. They base it on when the time when we have written records. That is when "history" began if you ask me. History is man's account of his past and it could not start until after writing was invented. But "cities" predate history by at least 5,000 years. The best I can do is to refer you to the work of others:

British Library

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did I mention to you that I don't hold YEC opinions?

Yes, but far too often you do use YEC arguments. "Gorillas stay gorillas" is a YEC argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

(I used to love to read anthropology books in my spare time in college. I found it fascinating.)
So, regardless of our--humans--makeup, it has been said many times by those who profess to know that writing has entered the picture only within the last 5,000 years. So here is my point regarding the natural selection in this area, mankind of the homo sapien kind is said to have been in existence for 200,000 years. So now it is obviously reasonable that when "homo sapiens" first appeared, they probably didn't know much more than whoever their predecessors were in the sense of writing, keeping records, making shoes, clothing, etc. Would you agree with that as an assumption? (And, of course, are their predecessors really known?)

Yes, writing is a very recent development. It may have more to do with our ability to rule the world than any other invention. Once we had writing new inventions, new thoughts, and how they worked could be recorded. Man no longer needed to constantly reinvent the wheel so to speak.

 

[Astrophile]

Did I mention to you that I don't hold YEC opinions?

If you don't hold YEC opinions, how do you explain the succession of fossils from the Ediacarian and Cambrian periods to the Quaternary?

 

[YoursTrue]

If you don't hold YEC opinions, how do you explain the succession of fossils from the Ediacarian and Cambrian periods to the Quaternary?

Oh boy I've heard of the Cambrian explosion but I'll have to look up about the other periods.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you don't hold YEC opinions, how do you explain the succession of fossils from the Ediacarian and Cambrian periods to the Quaternary?

P.S. in reference to yec opinions, I do not hold that each "day" of creation is a 24 hour period.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, writing is a very recent development. It may have more to do with our ability to rule the world than any other invention. Once we had writing new inventions, new thoughts, and how they worked could be recorded. Man no longer needed to constantly reinvent the wheel so to speak.

Here we go again. So for 200,000(?) years the progress from...Lucys?--to how long ago was 195,000 years or so. That's one place I'm not buying the ticket...trade or no trade agreements.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but far too often you do use YEC arguments. "Gorillas stay gorillas" is a YEC argument.

I do not know everything YECs believe but I do not believe that the earth was made in several 24 hour days.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone and yes, so far gorillas remain gorillas. Within that so called 200,000 year period of...homo sapiens?? -- gradually maybe getting smarter from their ancestors it took like all that time to develop writing plus figure contracts after 195,000 years? and moreover no written documentation of gorillas becoming something more or different from gorillas? Want to tell me the changes were so gradual? I can only imagine that it took longer than that, according to the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, writing is a very recent development. It may have more to do with our ability to rule the world than any other invention. Once we had writing new inventions, new thoughts, and how they worked could be recorded. Man no longer needed to constantly reinvent the wheel so to speak.

Like much smarter than Lucys. Ruling the world is an interesting observation. As Eve wanted to do and we reap the outcome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone and yes, so far gorillas remain gorillas. Within that so called 200,000 year period of...homo sapiens?? -- gradually maybe getting smarter from their ancestors it took like all that time to develop writing plus figure contracts after 195,000 years? and moreover no written documentation of gorillas becoming something more or different from gorillas? Want to tell me the changes were so gradual? I can only imagine that it took longer than that, according to the theory.

I do not know when gorillas got roughly to their present state. But when it comes to humans the earliest "Homo sapiens" has been pushed back to a bit over 300,000 years, but there are significant difference between it and modern humans.

Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history - Nature.

If you look at the fossil on the left you will see that it has a rather noticeable brow ridge and its skull is more elongated than modern humans. Yet it is "close enough" that it is called Homo sapiens rather than another species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like much smarter than Lucys. Ruling the world is an interesting observation. As Eve wanted to do and we reap the outcome.

Eve was mythical. There never were only two human beings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not know everything YECs believe but I do not believe that the earth was made in several 24 hour days.

I know that. But you still use YEC arguments at times. If you don't like people thinking that you are a YEC then do not use their arguments.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do not know when gorillas got roughly to their present state.

Do scientists know when gorillas and/or bonobos evolved to their present state? After all, aren't they supposed to come from an "Unknown Common Ancestor" of humans, bonobos, chimpanzees maybe?

And significant differences ok. From early humans and now. But nothing maybe about gorilla changing The surmisal is that somewhere down the line there was a "common ancestor," giving way to gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. The question arises as to DNA and dear little Lucy. So let me review if I haven't gone over this before. Was Lucy analyzed for DNA? Perhaps we can start there. Please be patient with me as you have been and thank you for your kind forbearance.