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

[Heyo]

Who's denying science?

You are from time to time.

Seems like those who think that phrases such as 'maybe, could be, might be, possibly be,' really mean "that's what it is."

Formulating hypothesis is part of the science process. It is perfectly OK to question such hypothesis. Ideally in a form that leads to meaningful experiments.
What you are doing is questioning established results of experiments. And while science never proves a theory and there is always room for doubt, that doubt has to be supported with data. Simple rejection from ignorance, out of discomfort, is not productive.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are from time to time.

Formulating hypothesis is part of the science process. It is perfectly OK to question such hypothesis. Ideally in a form that leads to meaningful experiments.
What you are doing is questioning established results of experiments. And while science never proves a theory and there is always room for doubt, that doubt has to be supported with data. Simple rejection from ignorance, out of discomfort, is not productive.

Right now I have several questions, one of which is the classification of fossils. It is presumed that man, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc., have a common ancestor, is it not?

 

[YoursTrue]

You are from time to time.

Formulating hypothesis is part of the science process. It is perfectly OK to question such hypothesis. Ideally in a form that leads to meaningful experiments.
What you are doing is questioning established results of experiments. And while science never proves a theory and there is always room for doubt, that doubt has to be supported with data. Simple rejection from ignorance, out of discomfort, is not productive.

Right now I have several questions, one of which is the classification of fossils. It is presumed that man, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc., have a common ancestor from which gorillas, etc., came, isn't that right according to the theory?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right now I have several questions, one of which is the classification of fossils. It is presumed that man, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc., have a common ancestor from which gorillas, etc., came, isn't that right according to the theory?

No, you need to watch your language. It is not "presumed". Fossils provide evidence. If one is making presumptions one is not following the scientific method. Hypotheses are formed and tested. The hypothesis of a common ancestor has been tested and confirmed many times in quite a few different ways. The fossils that we find are one source of evidence that we share a common anccestor.

Now, can you think of a hypothesis for your beliefs? How would you properly test those beliefs? That means, what test could you think of that would show your ideas to be wrong? If you cannot do that then your concepts are not only not rational or scientific, you do not even have any evidence for them.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you need to watch your language. It is not "presumed". Fossils provide evidence. If one is making presumptions one is not following the scientific method. Hypotheses are formed and tested. The hypothesis of a common ancestor has been tested and confirmed many times in quite a few different ways. The fossils that we find are one source of evidence that we share a common anccestor.

Now, can you think of a hypothesis for your beliefs? How would you properly test those beliefs? That means, what test could you think of that would show your ideas to be wrong? If you cannot do that then your concepts are not only not rational or scientific, you do not even have any evidence for them.

oh oh, not presumed. that's 'wrong.' ok. So let's see back to the qvestion -- more or less -- that "UCA" (you know what I mean I think by this time by UCA, don't you?) um ... disappeared ... didn't it? Went extinct, SUPPOSEDLY...right? Or is it definitely IYO and other esteemed individuals and composite opinion? Neanderthals -- and more -- evolved from, they say, an "Unknown Common Ancestor," maybe, is that the way it goes amongst scientists?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not sure I understand. Are there really Neanderthals at UCLA?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you need to watch your language. It is not "presumed". Fossils provide evidence. If one is making presumptions one is not following the scientific method. Hypotheses are formed and tested. The hypothesis of a common ancestor has been tested and confirmed many times in quite a few different ways. The fossils that we find are one source of evidence that we share a common anccestor.

Now, can you think of a hypothesis for your beliefs? How would you properly test those beliefs? That means, what test could you think of that would show your ideas to be wrong? If you cannot do that then your concepts are not only not rational or scientific, you do not even have any evidence for them.

First I'd like to discuss your beliefs. And frankly, my dear, I'm about finished with them, you all have taught me all I r really need to know about them. YOU can't even explain them, except to believe the um, not presumptions of scientists, but um -- estimates (? if that's a better word by you) of when and if a really old ancestor of humans existed...See? to you this may prove it, o no, not prove, demonstrate your beliefs, not, of course, presumption. You can believe it -- as the "Unknown Common Ancestor" more or less -- thanks for all the help.

"This is the first ape cranium unearthed from between 10 million and 14 million years ago, and the most complete one discovered from between 7 million and 17 million years ago."
[In Photos: A Game-Changing Primate Discovery]

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure I understand. Are there really Neanderthals at UCLA?

hey, let's be honest here -- you might have neanderthal genes in you so why worry or think about them at UCLA? Unless of course you have a somewhat vested interest in them, who knows? Only a dna test might help, not sure -- you are the expert. I am grateful for the answers I got here -- thank you so much! Enjoy.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure I understand. Are there really Neanderthals at UCLA?

some people may read UCA as UCLA. who knows?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientists make observations and discoveries using the scientific method. Actually having learned what is already known through education, prior work, and their own work, they make hypotheses about those observations and discoveries. Testing this evidence and considering what others have found and tested, they draw conclusions. These conclusions arise from the evidence and are not preconceived, speculative, presumption or conjecture. The evidence isn't forced to fit a pre-conceived conclusion. There is a logic and reason applied to this work so that others can see it. They talk to other scientists in the field. They write all of this up. They let others scientists review the report. They publish so that everyone can see what was done. Their work can be accepted, rejected or challenges on its merits.

It is the same path taken for research in medicine, computers, fossils, evolution, dating, human nutrition, geology, chemistry and on and on and on and on.

If a person disagrees with the conclusions or how the work was carried out, they present evidence to support that disagreement. They don't just say that it doesn't fit with what some dude in a church told them because he doesn't want it to be correct. Cuz it conflicts with what he was told to believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

hey, let's be honest here -- you might have neanderthal genes in you so why worry or think about them at UCLA? Unless of course you have a somewhat vested interest in them, who knows? Only a dna test might help, not sure -- you are the expert. I am grateful for the answers I got here -- thank you so much! Enjoy.

No. That can't be true. My Neanderthal genes are Harvard material all the way.

I'm astounded by some of the posts I've gotten.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First I'd like to discuss your beliefs. And frankly, my dear, I'm about finished with them, you all have taught me all I r really need to know about them. YOU can't even explain them, except to believe the um, not presumptions of scientists, but um -- estimates (? if that's a better word by you) of when and if a really old ancestor of humans existed...See? to you this may prove it, o no, not prove, demonstrate your beliefs, not, of course, presumption. You can believe it -- as the "Unknown Common Ancestor" more or less -- thanks for all the help.

"This is the first ape cranium unearthed from between 10 million and 14 million years ago, and the most complete one discovered from between 7 million and 17 million years ago."
[In Photos: A Game-Changing Primate Discovery]

You still do not understand the difference between beliefs and knowledge. You have mere beliefs You cannot support your beliefs. You have not "learned" anything from me. I have tried to help you but your knowledge is still at about a zero level as demonstrated by your questions. I have explained. You have not made an honest attempt to understand.

And your quote did not come the article that you linked. The linked article is about a primate, a more general classification than "ape". They found two different, but very similar specimens dated 37 and 38 million years ago. One in Asia and one in Africa. That tells us that even back then primates were widespread. It does not say a lot about human evolution. Here is a quote from your linked article:

"The teeth of 37-million-year-old Afrasia closely resemble those of another early anthropoid, the 38-million-year-old Afrotarsius libycus, recently discovered in the Sahara Desert of Libya. Shown here, Afrotarsius (top left), Karanesia (top right), Biretia (bottom left), and Talahpithecus (bottom right) reconstructions shown feeding along the shoreline forest."

Meanwhile, I have been very patient and very polite with you. You on the other hand have been rude and refuse to enter into a proper discussion. This indicates fear on your part.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

some people may read UCA as UCLA. who knows?

It could even be LUCA. Like my friend Luca. Or was that Flicka? Does it really matter? Who knows. If it isn't important enough for the person that brought it up to get it right, it isn't important for me to bother either.

If I was attempting to reject what others have supported with evidence, I think I would show them the courtesy of actually learning what was being discussed. It seems sort of sloppy and closed-minded not to try. Even insulting, but I wonder if that is the real point here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. That can't be true. My Neanderthal genes are Harvard material all the way.

I'm astounded by some of the posts I've gotten.

You may have Neanderthal genes, but you do not have Neanderthal mitochondria. No one has. This tells us that when humans and Neanderthals last interbred and shared genes that we were two different species on the same order as Lions and Tigers. I am sure that as you know that as two species form interbreeding gets more and more difficult. The first "victims" are male offspring. It is not males tigons and Ligers are always sterile. The females are of lowered fertility, but can breed. The lack of Neanderthal mitochondria in humans is a very good indication that we were past that point of separation.

This does not appear to be due to breeding out recently since even early human fossils are lacking in Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA:

No Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans - PMC

The retrieval of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from four Neandertal fossils from Germany, Russia, and Croatia has demonstrated that these individuals carried closely related mtDNAs that are not found among current humans. However, these ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You may have Neanderthal genes, but you do not have Neanderthal mitochondria. No one has. This tells us that when humans and Neanderthals last interbred and shared genes that we were two different species on the same order as Lions and Tigers. I am sure that as you know that as two species form interbreeding gets more and more difficult. The first "victims" are male offspring. It is not males tigons and Ligers are always sterile. The females are of lowered fertility, but can breed. The lack of Neanderthal mitochondria in humans is a very good indication that we were past that point of separation.

This does not appear to be due to breeding out recently since even early human fossils are lacking in Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA:

No Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans - PMC

The retrieval of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from four Neandertal fossils from Germany, Russia, and Croatia has demonstrated that these individuals carried closely related mtDNAs that are not found among current humans. However, these ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I'm pretty sure all my direct male ancestors were fertile. I'm don't have proof or anything like that. It's not like I can name them all, but I feel pretty confident all the same.

 

[We Never Know]

You may have Neanderthal genes, but you do not have Neanderthal mitochondria. No one has. This tells us that when humans and Neanderthals last interbred and shared genes that we were two different species on the same order as Lions and Tigers. I am sure that as you know that as two species form interbreeding gets more and more difficult. The first "victims" are male offspring. It is not males tigons and Ligers are always sterile. The females are of lowered fertility, but can breed. The lack of Neanderthal mitochondria in humans is a very good indication that we were past that point of separation.

This does not appear to be due to breeding out recently since even early human fossils are lacking in Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA:

No Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans - PMC

The retrieval of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from four Neandertal fossils from Germany, Russia, and Croatia has demonstrated that these individuals carried closely related mtDNAs that are not found among current humans. However, these ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Thats a near 20 yr old link.

The reason...2017 link...

"After comparing the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) with that of other archaic and modern humans, the researchers reached a startling conclusion: A female member of the lineage that gave rise to Homo sapiens in Africa mated with a Neandertal male more than 220,000 years ago—much earlier than other known encounters between the two groups. Her children spread her genetic legacy through the Neandertal lineage, and in time her African mtDNA completely replaced the ancestral Neandertal mtDNA."

Neandertals and modern humans started mating early

Ancient encounter completely replaced Neandertal mitochondrial DNA, German bone suggests

www.science.org

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You may have Neanderthal genes, but you do not have Neanderthal mitochondria. No one has. This tells us that when humans and Neanderthals last interbred and shared genes that we were two different species on the same order as Lions and Tigers. I am sure that as you know that as two species form interbreeding gets more and more difficult. The first "victims" are male offspring. It is not males tigons and Ligers are always sterile. The females are of lowered fertility, but can breed. The lack of Neanderthal mitochondria in humans is a very good indication that we were past that point of separation.

This does not appear to be due to breeding out recently since even early human fossils are lacking in Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA:

No Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans - PMC

The retrieval of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from four Neandertal fossils from Germany, Russia, and Croatia has demonstrated that these individuals carried closely related mtDNAs that are not found among current humans. However, these ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I'll have to read further on this, but it makes sense regarding the incompatibility of interbreeding. Even if earlier mating introgressed early modern H. sapien mitochondria into the H. neanderthalensis populations, as evidence of growing incompatibility it still holds up. Matings that occurred much earlier in the evolution of Neanderthals would likely be much more successful. Given the expectation that Neanderthals would be less divergent from the common ancestry with humans during their early evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thats a near 20 yr old link.

The reason...2017 link...

"After comparing the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) with that of other archaic and modern humans, the researchers reached a startling conclusion: A female member of the lineage that gave rise to Homo sapiens in Africa mated with a Neandertal male more than 220,000 years ago—much earlier than other known encounters between the two groups. Her children spread her genetic legacy through the Neandertal lineage, and in time her African mtDNA completely replaced the ancestral Neandertal mtDNA."

Neandertals and modern humans started mating early

Ancient encounter completely replaced Neandertal mitochondrial DNA, German bone suggests

www.science.org

That does not change anything that I wrote. Do you know what mitochondrial DNA is?

 

[We Never Know]

That does not change anything that I wrote. Do you know what mitochondrial DNA is?

It tells the "why"

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll have to read further on this, but it makes sense regarding the incompatibility of interbreeding. Even if earlier mating introgressed early modern H. sapien mitochondria into the H. neanderthalensis populations, as evidence of growing incompatibility it still holds up. Matings that occurred much earlier in the evolution of Neanderthals would likely be much more successful. Given the expectation that Neanderthals would be less divergent from the common ancestry with humans during their early evolution.

That not even early human DNA has Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA in it indicates that it is not a mitochondrial Eve issue. Mitochondrial Eve is an ever moving target. Back then she would be much earlier than our present one. And a million years from now there would likely be one that will be born some time in the future.