Mysterious species buried their dead and carved symbols 100,000 years before humans

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't start out asking because of anything personal although I have been called ignorant and such things.

When a person doesn't display any apparent understanding of a subject, then recognizing they are ignorant of that subject is not an personal attack. It is an observation.

No one has really answered questions in a way as if they understand what scientists said.

I disagree.

When I quote a scientist that objects to the theory as told of evolution some here jump in to assault the scientist.

If the objection isn't based on evidence or sound reasoning and is merely personal opinion, it is an understandable response. Have you quoted scientists with valid objections to the theory? Are you just referencing scientists that voice a personal opinion? Or are you just hoping that controversy and disagreement in science means that your ideology wins by default?

I am not what some have called me (a science denier) but I thank you all for your answers because it has shown me many things.

Of course you are a science denier. You deny it all the time. That is the basis for your entire position in these discussions. You say "YOU" no longer choose to believe and for reasons that are based solely on ideology.

Is a person that steals $10 from Dick's stack of $100,000 not a thief, because they only took ten dollars and didn't take any money from Jane?

I am also not a Bible "literalist" as others have said. So thanks I truly have learned a lot.

So you don't consider the Genesis to be a literal series of events? There is no evidence that those events occurred literally as described and much that indicates they couldn't occur as described.

Mostly, what I interpret is a person that does not understand science and the specific science, but disagrees for ideological reasons. You don't post evidence and you just disrupt threads by posting numerous empty claims and repetition of denial. You demand evidence, then ignore what is provided, then demand evidence again as if it were never provided.

It is why I cannot find any reason to maintain a discussion with you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Personally I do not believe so. I also don't believe that all the ancient statues of naked women suggest matriarchy and matrilineal religion. Both seem to be wishful thinking to me.

These dead individuals were buried for some reason. We know that Homo sapiens have a history of instituting practices based on belief. It is not wildly out of place to consider that another species of humans might develop that practice for some version of belief system. It is possible that the reasons have nothing to do with the development of a belief system.

I honestly do not know and don't know how you would determine why it was practiced. A lot more evidence needs to be found and this seems unlikely. But the implications of such practices in relation to the evolution of abstract thinking, belief systems and culture are worth exploring.

Keeping in mind that this species did not have the same cranial capacity of Homo sapiens and that cranial capacity is a rough indicator of cognitive ability.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Cousins - derived from the same ancestor _ likely the homo habilis _ maybe even further back.
So far it seems denisovans, Neanderthals, homo erectus, sapiens, all other discovered humanoid species, all have a common ancestor

Humans Evolved From A Common Ancestor That Appeared 6 Million Years Ago

Throughout our evolution timeline, we coexisted with several early human species and descended from a common ancestor 6 million years ago.

www.discovermagazine.com

It would seem, in layman's terms, we all go back to a certain male and female of the hominoid species - a few million years ago. I single it out to one male one female _ when there would be those who would say there were a group of males and females.

I agree that all members of the genus Homo are considered to share a common ancestor. The details remain in need of much more evidence and work to iron out the relationships. While we are the only living member of that genus, we have shared time and space with other species of Homo. Most notably, Neanderthals, but there are others. Some, like Neanderthals, managed to interbreed with us and the evidence for that can be found in some of our genomes.

I see that the discussion turns to "Mitochondrial Eve" and Y-chromosome Adam from your final comments. The determinations of that are based on genetic analysis tracing back haplogroups and deriving estimates of the timeframe from molecular clock data and mutation rates.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fossil Lucy of Ethiopia supposedly is 3 million years old..... My studies very greatly from yours

Australopithecus afarensis, Lucy's species

Thanks to an extraordinary fossil called Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis is one of the best-known early human relatives.

www.nhm.ac.uk

The aforementioned "Eve" and "Adam" would be the most recent female and male common ancestors within our species and Lucy would represent an ancestral species in ‎Australopithecus.

It is an examination of two different things. Evolution within the species and evolution within our greater lineage.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your studies.probably do vary. I am an Anthropologist/Archaeologist/Mythologist by schooling and trade.

The fossils of Lucy are old for sure.

But we can't trace all mitochondrial DNA to Lucy (that's never been a goal, what's the point?).

That's why we have a Mitochondrial Eve. Mitochondrial DNA is only passed from Mom to children, allowing us to only trace one half of the family. Same thing with Y chromosomal Adam, it's from Dad to children.

Also, Lucy is not a Homo species. Therefore not considered 'human', yet.

It is really two different subjects. Related, but different.

If only there were DNA available to examine from that long ago. That would be incredible. Doing something similar to the work Svante Paabo has carried out with Neanderthals on a much more ancient relative.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So far, by the way, what I have learned is a bunch of fanciful conclusions based on presumed evidence.

You make this claim as the basis of your denial, but you have never established the validity of this claim. You just repeat it or similar claims as a means of denial.

Your failure to learn, your objection to learning, is not evidence that lends any doubt to the theory or leads to rejection of the theory.

Your claims tell us something about you, but tell us nothing about the science or the subject matter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey, @ChristineM, is this better?
View attachment 78540

You need two sources of light and, apparently, two sources of beverage to do proper cave exploration.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Right -- probably known but not really maybe. Uh huh -- just too many ancestors to chose from. Got it, thanks.

Just more basely rejection in a futile effort to keep doubt alive with no valid reason to doubt.

Just because you go to a doctor or use a computer doesn't mean you aren't a science denier.

 

[Zwing]

You need two sources of light and, apparently, two sources of beverage to do proper cave exploration.

Twenty four noisettes will not fit into one sixteen ounce cup…

 

[Dan From Smithville]

See? This is what I mean -- one scientist claims, "While ants haven't developed writing (though they did invent agriculture long before we existed), they're enormously successful insects. " So it is said ants themselves INVENTED agriculture. Imagine that -- lol -- they invented agriculture before 'we' (humans) existed. I guess the scientist believes ants did not have a need to invent reading and writing. But they are said to have invented agriculture.

Why Haven't All Primates Evolved into Humans?

Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We share a common ancestor and have followed different evolutionary paths.

www.livescience.com

Invented is a word used to describe the fact that some species of ants have a beneficial relationship with some species of fungi. This relationship evolved to the level where some ant species actively cultivate the fungi as a food source. There is no evidence that they experimented willfully using a science they developed to accumulate knowledge they could apply to farming. It is not the best way to describe the relationship, but it is sufficient to show that agriculture is a biological phenomenon that is exploited by species other than humans. For humans, it is more of a cultural practice that forms the basis of civilization along with the employment of fire, stirrups, and other discoveries and inventions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Twenty four noisettes will not fit into one sixteen ounce cup…

Is noisettes French indicating pieces of meat?

 

[Zwing]

Is noisettes French indicating pieces of meat?

No, they are apparently delightful little cups of espresso with steamed milk, having roughly the color of a cappuccino.

 

[danieldemol]

By the way, when 'energy' leaves a plant, it dies. Unless you know better, maybe some plants do not die when energy leaves them. What do you think?

Things often do not have all energy leave them at death in my view.

They wouldn't continue to decompose or be the source of other life if they had no energy at the point of death of the organism in my opinion.

 

[Zwing]

Things often do not have all energy leave them at death in my view.

In fact, hair and nail growth continues for some time after death, so there is some energy fueling that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

These dead individuals were buried for some reason. We know that Homo sapiens have a history of instituting practices based on belief. It is not wildly out of place to consider that another species of humans might develop that practice for some version of belief system. It is possible that the reasons have nothing to do with the development of a belief system.

I honestly do not know and don't know how you would determine why it was practiced. A lot more evidence needs to be found and this seems unlikely. But the implications of such practices in relation to the evolution of abstract thinking, belief systems and culture are worth exploring.

Keeping in mind that this species did not have the same cranial capacity of Homo sapiens and that cranial capacity is a rough indicator of cognitive ability.

I agree with you on all of that.

I can offer an alternate theory based upon tribal leadership and obeisance. The bodies clearly rot and turn into soil like material, so putting them into soil is not so strange. Perhaps to those with a smaller cranium it seems like the deceased desire to be put into soil, since they are turning into soil. Perhaps it seems (to Naledi) like the deceased are ordering the living to bury them. Instead of belief, the burial practice could begin as a way of obeying the deceased.

Another alternate theory is that the soil may seem like a comfort. The dying suffer terribly, but when they stop suffering they begin to turn into soil. So the soil is like medicine or a pain killer. Then the soil is made of those who no longer suffer, so it is a good comforting place. It is cool when the sun is hot, and it is soft. It would not surprise me to hear that Neolidis had used soil on wounds or that they preferred sleeping near the ground or in holes, because they buried their dead.

A third idea is that the soil is made up of relatives who then become trees and food for the children. You and I tend to think of our life cycle as parent->child->parent... The Neolidis may have perceived it more as People->soil->trees->people.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

With the discovery of Homo naledi, there are nine known species in the genus Homo. One extant species--that's us--and eight extinct species. Some of which existed concurrently with H. sapiens in the past.

Obviously, we are considered to share a common ancestry with these species, since all are classified in the genus Homo. Cousins in a sense as stated by @SDavis. The genus has been dated to roughly 2.75 to 2.8 million years ago, with some of the species evolving earlier (more basal) than others. The evidence indicates that H. sapiens evolved about 300,000 to 350,000 years ago. H. neanderthalensis and H. heidlebergensis are sister species evolving from a common ancestor with our species. More basally, H. habilis and H. rudofensis are sister species, branching off early in the history of the genus. Of course, as with any taxonomy, this is hypothetical and new information could add or alter and refine these results.

For those that thrive on the uncertainty of science to maintain their personal gap filler (no proof), the evidence required to support rejection of the relationships will have to be very robust and would consist of more than "I no longer choose to believe it".

I'm not sure where H. naledi fits in this scheme and it is part of that new and continually accumulating information that some claim doesn't exist or is in some way only presumed as evidence.

Keep in mind that I'm an entomologist and not an expert in human evolution. I made this thread to raise discussion of a recent finding, discussion of human evolution and to learn some things myself. I may know some things about evolution, but in human evolution and anthropology, like many, I may not know what I don't know. But I'm open to learning.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree with you on all of that.

I can offer an alternate theory based upon tribal leadership and obeisance. The bodies clearly rot and turn into soil like material, so putting them into soil is not so strange. Perhaps to those with a smaller cranium it seems like the deceased desire to be put into soil, since they are turning into soil. Perhaps it seems (to Naledi) like the deceased are ordering the living to bury them. Instead of belief, the burial practice could begin as a way of obeying the deceased.

Another alternate theory is that the soil may seem like a comfort. The dying suffer terribly, but when they stop suffering they begin to turn into soil. So the soil is like medicine or a pain killer. Then the soil is made of those who no longer suffer, so it is a good comforting place. It is cool when the sun is hot, and it is soft. It would not surprise me to hear that Neolidis had used soil on wounds or that they preferred sleeping near the ground or in holes, because they buried their dead.

A third idea is that the soil is made up of relatives who then become trees and food for the children. You and I tend to think of our life cycle as parent->child->parent... The Neolidis may have perceived it more as People->soil->trees->people.

Those are awesome! Your previous post inspired me to think of hypotheses for burial, but I didn't come up with anything to take as far as you have.

Of course, those are all based on something believed based on observations that are clearly indicated as not well understood by those acting on them. That seems how religion forms. A core of observation and experience with a dash of imaginative belief. None of it requires a great unknown though, but that could come later as this progresses and somebody questions it. That assumes a means of communicating questions that may not have existed for this species. I suppose any communication in them is assumed, but coordinated effort and etching seems to point to some form of communication.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Those are awesome! Your previous post inspired me to think of hypotheses for burial, but I didn't come up with anything to take as far as you have.

Of course, those are all based on something believed based on observations that are clearly indicated as not well understood by those acting on them. That seems how religion forms. A core of observation and experience with a dash of imaginative belief. None of it requires a great unknown though, but that could come later as this progresses and somebody questions it. That assumes a means of communicating questions that may not have existed for this species. I suppose any communication in them is assumed, but coordinated effort and etching seems to point to some form of communication.

I suppose it is the evidence that indicates coordinated effort. Perhaps the bodies just got thrown somewhere by those that got tired of the smell. Not coordinated effort, but frustration.

It could have been done to keep predators away.

Maybe a couple of the sharper members of the group noticed that there were less predators when they didn't leave bodies lying around.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Eh?

View attachment 78446

What's this supposed to mean? I'm not sure it isn't some sort of slight.

But I am thinking I would look awesome in a beret.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your studies.probably do vary. I am an Anthropologist/Archaeologist/Mythologist by schooling and trade.

The fossils of Lucy are old for sure.

But we can't trace all mitochondrial DNA to Lucy (that's never been a goal, what's the point?).

That's why we have a Mitochondrial Eve. Mitochondrial DNA is only passed from Mom to children, allowing us to only trace one half of the family. Same thing with Y chromosomal Adam, it's from Dad to children.

Also, Lucy is not a Homo species. Therefore not considered 'human', yet.

That opens up another question regarding different species of Homo. The question of humanity. It is outside the scope of this thread, but it is worth pointing out our centric view of these things when that may not be warranted.