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

[Dan From Smithville]

For information only. Neanderthal also used to bury their dead (the grave i examined also held grave goods, stone tools too)

I am tangentially aware of this, but it does not surprise me given how phylogenetically close our two species are. Some of the main differences in our two species seem to be traits of strength and cold hardiness found in Neanderthals. We are continually finding evidence of the intelligence of Neanderthals that is similar to our own species in many ways.

 

[The Hammer]

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.

Well yeah, Australopithecus is just one step on the way to the Homo genus. And there are different homo species for sure.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well yeah, Australopithecus is just one step on the way to the Homo genus. And there are different homo species for sure.

I think of some of these other species of Homo as human, but that arises from my personal bias and not from any knowledge I have on the subject. However, just because I am biased doesn't mean that it is incorrect to consider them human. It isn't evidence for or against, but the question remains pertinent. I don't begin to know, but I do find it interesting that other species may have been as human as what I consider for you and I and other H. sapiens.

 

[Audie]

I think of some of these other species of Homo as human, but that arises from my personal bias and not from any knowledge I have on the subject. However, just because I am biased doesn't mean that it is incorrect to consider them human. It isn't evidence for or against, but the question remains pertinent. I don't begin to know, but I do find it interesting that other species may have been as human as what I consider for you and I and other H. sapiens.

Why not. We Sinodonts are quite generous
spirited about accepting other people as human.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

Yes! Or perhaps it was to protect the dead from the predators. Maybe they didn't know whether the dead could feel pain or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why not. We Sinodonts are quite generous
spirited about accepting other people as human.

Then you are Sinodoes and not Sinodonts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes! Or perhaps it was to protect the dead from the predators. Maybe they didn't know whether the dead could feel pain or not.

Not being an expert and mostly guessing and based on the fact that chimpanzees exhibit intelligence and tool use and other traits similar to human emotional responses. Homo naledi having a larger brain than a chimp, I would expect some greater level of cognitive ability. It would depend on the development of the more important regions of the brain that cannot be assessed directly.

I recall a friend of mine relating to me that as a child he was worried that he would never get married, since he didn't know any girls with the same last name as he had. He knew his mom and dad had the same last name and concluded that you must have the same last name in order to marry. So, with limited knowledge, and no direct evidence to determine the cognitive ability of this species, it is certainly possible that some misinterpreted observation might lead to the practice of burying the dead for reasons other than attributing it to some unseen supernatural agent.

 

[Audie]

Then you are Sinodoes and not Sinodonts.

Ha

 

[shunyadragon]

I didn't start out asking because of anything personal although I have been called ignorant and such things. No one has really answered questions in a way as if they understand what scientists said. When I quote a scientist that objects to the theory as told of evolution some here jump in to assault the scientist. 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. I am also not a Bible "literalist" as others have said. So thanks I truly have learned a lot.

It is justified that fellow posters object to your references against evolution. because they reflect a religious agenda, even though a very 'few' questionable scientists object to evolution. By far 99%+ of the scientists of the world endorse the overwhelming evidence for evolution billions of years old.

The problem remains you have made and cited many false and misleading statements concerning the sciences of evolution and demonstrate your lac of knowledge of the basic science.

 

[Audie]

It is justified that fellow posters object to your references against evolution. because they reflect a religious agenda, even though a very 'few' questionable scientists object to evolution. By far 99%+ of the scientists of the world endorse the overwhelming evidence for evolution billions of years old.

The problem remains you have made and cited many false and misleading statements concerning the sciences of evolution and demonstrate your lac of knowledge of the basic science.

Winner frubal with chocolate frosting

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

So I gather from the information presented that these particular ants were drawn to by (? not magic, of course some might say) natural processes and stuck with it. I doubt they learned it and taught it to subsequent generations of ants.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

It eventually dissipates and goes ?? (into the ground? or sea?) I'm just guessing, of course, but it is a fascinating thought that yes, hair and nail growth continues after death.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

lYes, it is said that somewhere somehow homo sapiens interbred with neanderthals somehow (I think that's what I remember reading). I find the conjectures fascinating. Not that I believe them, but fascinating nonetheless because it is really fantasy based on the possibility and the theory of evolution. I was never a fan of Jurassic Park (didn't see it, but I know many who loved it), or Star Trek, or other sci=fi types but I guess people are drawn to the possibilities.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I question the time line and dating process. I also question the analysis of bone fragments. One of the biggest problems I see is that there is no video showing fish (any fish) emerging by evolutionary basis to evolve incrementally to move out of the water entirely except to drink it, I suppose

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I disagree.

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?

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?

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.

That is fine about not maintaining a discussion with me.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually other species pass down knowledge just like we do.

Oh so you do believe that the ants taught other ants to cultivate the earth, is that right? I imagine many here would agree with you.

 

[shunyadragon]

I question the time line and dating process. I also question the analysis of bone fragments. One of the biggest problems I see is that there is no video showing fish (any fish) emerging by evolutionary basis to evolve incrementally to move out of the water entirely except to drink it, I suppose

Based on what evidence do you question these objectively verified scientific evidence for evolution? So far you have not presented any legitimate scientific references to support this.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is fine about not maintaining a discussion with me.

Likewise you have not responded to my posts for specifics based on science to support your rejection of science.

 

[We Never Know]

Oh so you do believe that the ants taught other ants to cultivate the earth, is that right? I imagine many here would agree with you.

Have you never watched a wolf or any other species teach its offspring how to hunt etc?

 

[YoursTrue]

Have you never watched a wolf or any other species teach its offspring how to hunt etc?

Some things are innate reactions or procedures. Similar to bees becoming queen bees. And building hives. It's instinct. That is part of the process, whether you believe in God instilling such things or not.