Little Foot, the oldest hominid?

Linnaeus

Here's a discovery which I was not aware of before:

www.ibtimes.com/3-million-year-old-ape-man-may-beat-lucy-earliest-human-forefather-1561885

Adam Khor

I believe this is the fossil known as "Australopithecus prometheus". Definitely not the oldest hominid, tho; Ardipithecus is between 4.4 and 5.6 million years old, and I think Australopithecus anamensis is at least 4 million years old.

Linnaeus

Hello Adam,

A bit of confusion: In a Wikipedia article on Ardipithecus, we see the following affirmation: "Originally described as one of the earliest ancestors of humans after they diverged from the main ape lineage, the relation of this genus to human ancestors and whether it is a hominin is now a matter of debate... Esteban E. Sarmiento (of the Human Evolution Foundation, New Jersey) noted that Ardipithecus does not share any characters (sic) exclusive to humans and some of its characters (those of the wrist and basicranium) suggest it diverged from the common human/African ape stock prior to the human, chimpanzee and gorilla divergence".

So, how are we to classify Ardipithecus?

Adam Khor

As a hominid, seeing as all great apes are currently classified as Hominidae. I do suposse you would have an issue with that, though, considering your views on current classification methods.

Linnaeus

Hello Adam,

As you said, I am by no means in agreement with the current classification. Human beings are now inserted into one happy cladistic family with the apes? Well, I am no part of that clade. I'm no monkey's granddaughter, thank heavens. Homo Sapiens might derive from simian ancestors, but that doesn't make us simians, too. Except, of course, for the misguided chimpanzoids who invented cladism!:D

Adam Khor

Linnaeus wrote: »

Hello Adam,

As you said, I am by no means in agreement with the current classification. Human beings are now inserted into one happy cladistic family with the apes? Well, I am no part of that clade. I'm no monkey's granddaughter, thank heavens. Homo Sapiens might derive from simian ancestors, but that doesn't make us simians, too. Except, of course, for the misguided chimpanzoids who invented cladism!:D

Once again we must agree to disagree. I think it makes total sense to classify humans as apes. And why wouldn´t it? Even if clades and families and all taxonomic terms are just convenient ways for us to categorize living things, the similarities are there for anyone to see, and most importantly, DNA does not lie. Chimpanzees are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas, as shown by genetic evidence, it really doesn´t make sense to throw both chimps and gorillas into the same group while we remain proudly apart.

Consider this. Lions are the only social cats. They have very sophisticated social behaviors, they look and act different from other cats to an extent, and they definitely do not perceive themselves as being the same as the other cats if their constant prosecution of them is any indication. Does that mean they are not cats anymore? Nope. Genetically they're very close to jaguars and leopards no matter how different they look on the outside. It just doesn´t make sense to class them as anything other than cats. We could do it, of course; we're the ones obsessed with definitions, but the lion wouldn´t stop being what it is just because we said so. Lions can still breed with jags and leopards, and even with more distant relatives like tigers. If this doesn´t tell you that they're all part of the same group, nothing will. I think the same is true of humans. We may look and act different in the outside, but we still have all of the apes' defining traits, and genetically we are as close as say, lions and tigers.

Problem is we are the sole remaining members of genus Homo, and so we look at our closest living relatives and all we see is differences. They walk on all fours, they're all really hairy and they can´t talk to us in any language we would recognize. So we see them as maybe superior to other animals but still inferior to us.
But there's also a lot of similarities and we seem to ignore those most of the time. Apes can invent tools for varied purposes and teach their young how to go about it. They know which plants of their habitat are medicinal and cure themselves of parasite infestations and other illnesses. They go to war, they form alliances, they form cooperative hunting parties, and the females even trade sexual services for food or protection. They mourn their dead and care for their weak and injured. Even some captive apes have learned to make and handle fire. When taught properly they can learn human language and understand anything said to them either verbally or in sign language depending on what you taught them; if they can´t talk back its only because they're sound-producing organs are shaped differently. Recent studies however indicate they have their own language based on sounds and body posturing. I think it's about time to stop thinking that the other apes are "so much like us" and instead accept that it's us who are a lot like them.

Also to consider; we tend to have this image ingrained in our minds:



in which the primitive state is the knuckle-walking chimpanzee, and then you go all the way up to the modern, civilized, white male Homo sapiens which has long been held as the non plus ultra of living creatures.
But more recent evidence suggests a much different picture. Most of the ape fossils we find belong to apparently bipedal apes. It doesn´t seem like we ever went through a knuckle-walking phase. Instead, we descended from a semiarboreal ape that walked bipedally when on the ground, and chances are high gorillas and chimpanzees did as well. The common ancestor of all three kinds of ape would've been an Australopithecus-like biped, and so in a way, we are the more primitive ones, the ones that deviated the least from our common ancestor.

There's of course the argument of why man has such superior and more varied skills from those of the other apes. I am no expert but I strongly suspect it may be because we are a sort of Frankenstein monster, the product of several ancient hominid species cross-breeding with each other and combining their skill sets and their cultural achievements.
Modern day apes are limited by their rainforest environment; they don´t travel a lot. Maybe if they did, you would see different chimp or orang populations trading knowledge, teaching each other how to make different tools, etc. Our bipedal, open plain-dwelling ancestors did travel a lot and did apparently hybridize with each other, and even when some of them went extinct as pure species, they didn´t dissappear completely; their DNA and their skill sets were integrated into one hybrid species that would eventually be us.
Not unlike the coyote-wolf-dog hybrids that I mentioned recently. We may be witnessing something similar to our own evolution with those animals; and when wolves and coyotes are no longer recognisable as separate species, and all we have is those adaptable, dangerous, intelligent hybrids, we will still class them as canids because that's what they will still be.

Linnaeus

Dear Adam,

I would never deny that we are SIMILAR to the higher apes anatomically/physiologically and in certain behavioural aspects. I would never deny that they possess a high degree of intelligence. Nor do I reject our probable descendance from simian stock. But we cannot breed with apes (thank heavens!!!). We are different from them, even from the smartest chimps which wear clothing and use typewriters: oh yes, because they lack that essential factor which makes us HUMAN:the moral conscience, the Categorical Imperative, call it what you will. Apes, like all other mammals, have emotions, and can experience sophisticated feelings such as loyalty and love. But, until I am proved mistaken in this point, THEY HAVE NO SENSE OF SIN, NO UNDERSTANDING OF GOD, NO MORAL AWARENESS. This widely divides the apes from us, just as a gaping chasm would do. Adam, trust me: I am a daughter of Linnaeus, may the Lord bless him. Would you call Linnaeus an ape?:(

Adam Khor

Linnaeus wrote: »

But we cannot breed with apes (thank heavens!!!).

Genetically we are close enough that at least chimpanzees could, in theory, be hibridized with us. Of course no one's eager to give it a try, and the anatomical differences would probably make it impossible to achieve through the usual means. But in a lab, I'd say it would be possible.

Incidentally, there's good evidence that at least orangutans find human women sexually attractive. Go to Borneo and the people living near the rainforest will tell you male orangs kidnap and rape women. And although the same was said of gorillas in the past and it was never confirmed, Biruté Galdikas, the world's top expert on orangutans, actually witnessed an orangutan raping a woman, as described in one of her books (the title escapes me).
There's also another incident I read about in which a female orangutan who was being taught sign language by a caretaker actually took the guy's hand and led him to a secluded spot in the forest where she had built a "nest" like the ones they use for sleeping. The orang then lay on the nest and invited the man to mate with her. Of course he rejected her advances, which resulted in the orangutan becoming sullen and refusing to continue their lessons for a long time afterwards.

Since this later orang was habituated to humans you could say that she was acting unnaturally, but the fact remains that wild male orangs do seem to view female humans as perfectly decent sexual objects.
Unsettling? Yes. But it also shows that at least the apes' own appreciation is that we are not so different from them.

Linnaeus wrote: »

We are different from them, because they lack that essential factor which makes us HUMAN:the moral conscience, the Categorical Imperative, call it what you will. Apes, like all other mammals, have emotions, and can experience sophisticated feelings such as loyalty and love. But, until I am proved mistaken in this point, THEY HAVE NO SENSE OF SIN, NO UNDERSTANDING OF GOD, NO MORAL AWARENESS.

I think the concept of sin is very unique to humans, but I disagree when it comes to apes lacking a moral conscience. There's been experiments which prove that apes (and monkeys, and rats) have some sort of moral conscience, in that they will refuse to cause harm to other animals even if by doing so they receive a reward. An interesting experiment with chimpanzees proved they have a sense of fairness; the scientist trained chimps to chose between objects of two different colors. If the chimp chose one color, he would get a reward, but the other chimp would not. However if he chose the other color, both chimps would be rewarded. Once the chimp understood this, he chose only the color that would get his partner a reward as well. Similarly, an experiment with capuchin monkeys had them perform a determined action in which they would get a slice of cucumber as a reward. However, at some point one of the capuchins was given grapes as a reward instead. Upon seeing this the other capuchins would be very upset if they were rewarded with cucumber and would throw it back to the scientist, demanding to be rewarded with the same treat as the other monkeys. So here's a concept of fairness as well.
Then there's the behaviors that occur in the wild such as female apes adopting orphans, caring for the old or the wounded, comforting a fellow ape who's been hurt or frightened by other individuals, trying to make peace when the group is fighting, etc. Captive apes also show that they know some things are wrong; when you teach them sign language they use it to lie and to cheat, yet if they are caught they express shame and regret. Apes who know sign language will certainly tell you if something is "good" or "bad".

I'm sure there's individual variation of course but let's face it, there's plenty of people with stunted morals out there. The most brutish of apes is still not as depraved as the worse of our species, and I'm sure you'll agree with me on that.

Linnaeus wrote: »

T Adam, trust me: I am a daughter of Linnaeus, may the Lord bless him. Would you call Linnaeus an ape?:(

Probably not to his face

Seriously, tho... I don´t see why it's such a terrible thing. I've been ashamed of being human far more often than I've been of being a primate. At least apes mind their own business without making life impossible for the rest of creatures.

Wibbs

It's an interesting debate. I'd be somewhat in the middle. Yes I would put us down as a great ape, broadly speaking. I would also classify us an extremely unusual animal. About the most unusual that has ever come along.

I think the "we're basically smarter apes" idea popular today is springing from a rejection of the Abrahamic(and others) religious concept that man is lord over the animals. The pendulum went the other way, that we're no different really, just another bauble on the tree of life(or worse we are seen as the nasty apes). For me the pendulum has swung a little too far.

Genetics, the fashion de jour, seems to back it up. I don't think it does, or at least the populist kind. The difference between us and chimps on a genetic level is pretty large. Far larger than the "closest living relatives" spiel would have you believe. IMHO the 98% the same is clearly a nonsense. For a start chimps(and other apes) have an extra whole chromosome and the Y is quite different. They also have much longer telomeres. And no we couldn't produce hybrid young, not by a long shot, not without serious genetic intervention(and even then). Hell, we could have young with Neandertals and Denisovans, but even so successive matings reduced fertility right down because of the genetic distance between us. Consider this too, if you take an native African chap and a native European, the latter could have 4% of his DNA made up of non modern human DNA. Indeed the African chap would have his own non modern stuff in the mix that the European wouldn't and a Papuan could have more than 8% non modern in the mix compared to either of them. Yet we're only 2% different to a chimp? Eh wut?

And thats before we come to culture. Sure apes have culture of a kind, as did Neandertals, but nowhere close to modern humans. We stand out as unique among hominids, never mind apes.

One thing makes us stand out a mile. Humans are masters and latterly understanders of our own evolution.

Linnaeus

Dear Adam,

As for the possibility of humans producing offspring with apes, I agree with Wibbs that this would be genetically impossible. And even if possible, it would wreak havoc on the intellectual/emotional makeup of the progeny. It was risky enough for Cro Magnon to mate with Neanderthal, a considerably diverse species, without causing a retrograde evolutionary process.

As for apes feeling sexually attracted to humans, well, I've observed stranger things than this: years ago I saw a large MALE dog try to mount a young man who was stooping down to pick up some papers. Bulls have been known to "ravish" willing ladies. When an animal is feeling lusty, any partner of approximately his/her dimensions may suffice.

As for morality, the higher the species, the more ethical impulses it is likely to experience. But this is a "morality" on a different plane from ours, linked not to spirituality or reverence for a deity, but instead to an innate sense of solidarity or sympathy for one's own kind. Apes, especially females, often treat their mothers with the greatest respect and tenderness. However, as for apes' idea of good and evil, I would say that they have no such concepts. In experiments done with the famous chimpanzee Washoe, when this little simian wished to express the word "bad" she invariably used the sign language for "dirty, nasty" in a physical sense. "Good", to Washoe, meant "pleasant, nice". No moral connotations here, only sensory or sensual impressions.

I do agree with you completely that man, in spite of his superior intelligence and conscience, can behave more savagely than any beast. Animals, when they kill, do so for self-preservation. Human beings, alas, all throughout history have often killed for perversity or pleasure.

Linnaeus

Dear Wibbs,

You've made some very keen comments here. Yes indeed, man is a unique creature. Clearly fundamentally different from all other living beings, in that he is, as you stated, the only one with an awareness of his own evolution and the power to comprehend all which this implies.

Adam recently remarked that perhaps Homo Sapiens is the result of a series of genetic experiments. It often seems to me that God has created humans more than once, has "tried them out" in different time periods and in different environments, has instilled a moral conscience in each and every one of them. I also think that originally, before man learned to sin and go astray from the path of virtue, all animals had moral consciences, too. This may be inferred from the biblical account of Eden, a paradise of perfect bliss and harmony. Whether we accept the Garden of Eden story at face value or as an allegory, evidently man soon lost his primeval innocence, and the animals may have also done so. Which is why the original harmony was lost, which is why we have this dog eat dog, man kill man world today.

Homo Sapiens remains, intellectually at least, the highest creation on Earth. He is a very special being, and seems to have a mission to fulfill. A mission of which he is aware, as no lower forms of life could be.

Yet how many of these superb miracles of creation actually obey their consciences? The power to generate eternal peace is in man's hands. Why, then, does he so often prefer to stain those hands with kindred blood? Not even the fiercest wild beasts kill for the joy of it.

Adam Khor

Not "genetic experiments", hybridization between different hominid species.

Linnaeus

Hello Adam,

When you spoke of man as a kind of Frankenstein monster, it occured to me that, in spite of what you say about cross-breeding among diverse hominids, possibly you suspect what I have thought for several years: that Homo Sapiens Sapiens, that new advanced type called Cro Magnon, was not a spontaneous mutation, hybrid or offshoot of Neanderthal or similar, but indeed A SEPARATE DELIBERATE CREATION. There are many theories today, such as that of the late Zecharia Sitchin, which assert that modern man is the result of a series of genetic experiments by "the gods", or rather, by highly intelligent extraterrestrials in possession of extremely sophisticated scientific knowledge and technology. These alien visitors would have initially mated with , or have artificially inseminated with their own sperm, female hominids or primitive Homo such as the rougher type of Neanderthal. This experiment might have produced the more refined Neanderthal type of which Wibbs kindly informed us. With each experiment, each generation, the hominid/early Homo type would have been improved, until Cro Magnon was achieved.

I personally am of the opinion that this genetic manipulation by "the gods" was not necessary, taking into consideration that a supreme God exists, and that He is perfectly capable of creating new species all by Himself. The biblical account of the creation of man may be just a simplified account of what really happened. At any rate, I would say that Homo Sapiens Sapiens is sufficiently different from Neanderthal and from all life forms that went before to warrant the belief that he is a separate, distinct creation or evolutionary modification, brought about externally by a superior extra-planetary intelligence, possibly even with the admixture of extraterrestrial DNA, if we accept such theories. I do not see how the wonderfully advanced modern type man, so unique as Wibbs is well aware, could have sprung from Neanderthal or any of the hominids.

Wibbs

Linnaeus wrote: »

I do not see how the wonderfully advanced modern type man, so unique as Wibbs is well aware, could have sprung from Neanderthal or any of the hominids.

I'll step quietly away from the gods/alien stuff….. but the above is "simple" enough to explain, or at least try for an explanation. 100,000 years ago we weren't very different at all compared to other hominids. A tiny bit more curious, more far ranging in sourcing materials but that's about it. But that's all that it would take. That small extra spark would quickly become a fire if we were less xenophobic compared to other hominids. We had slightly longer childhoods and adolescence too. More time for "play" and play leads to imagination and that feeds on itself. Add in the larger modern human social networks and ideas spread very rapidly and ideas beget ideas. Neandertals don't have these networks so although they have ideas these ideas die locally. Indeed if we accept the Chatelperronian period as an example of Neandertals copying us(though the jury is still undecided) it came about at a time of many more modern humans in their areas, so transmission of ideas was more likely even with them. It would not take much of a difference at all to start us down the road to full modernity. Oh and it took a long time too, at least 50,000 years.

I use the personal computer as a kinda metaphor in this case. When PC's first became widely available to the general public back in the late 70's, early 80's they were a thing for hobbyists, a toy even, with limited enough real everyday world use. They were a huge leap forward in technology, but were in many ways a technology waiting for more. Just like archaic humans. Then the internet happened. The network happened and the nerd toy became ubiquitous and the biggest shift in information technology since the printing press(never mind the social changes). Take a brand new laptop of today back to 1982 and the capabilities would be amazing, but in actual use? It would still be a glorified typewriter with better graphics. The network is everything. A Neandertal Newton or Einstein or DaVinci is pointless without the social network.

Linnaeus

Dear Wibbs,

Thank you for your very interesting comments. I see that you have wriiten mostly from a sociological point of view, while I have emphasized genetics. Both approaches are valid, and one may shed light upon the other.

Although not strictly genetically incompatible with Cro Magnon, at least for the purpose of mating and reproduction, it still seems to me that Neanderthal was APART from Homo Sapiens Sapiens in several fundamental ways. First of all, in creative imagination. You stated that Neanderthal had ideas, and he certainly must have had; but were these ideas essentially comparable with those of Cro Magnon? The latter produced some of the most splendid works of prehistoric art, and often apparently did so just for the joy of creating. Neanderthal made tools...utilitarian items...and collected certain objects, probably for cult purposes; but the sum total of his creative or decorative art is nil. The ideas he had were practical ones, not necessarily doomed to perish but certainly not destined for a brilliant cultural future.

Secondly, Neanderthal...who may himself have been the result of an early genetic experiment (alien+primitive hominid?)...retained certain anatomical/physiological features of his simian forebears which are completely lacking in Cro-Magnon. The latter is a NEW BREED OF MAN which seems to have appeared suddenly on the scene, from out of the blue. Now, I believe that, after having created nature and its laws, God set an evolutionary force in motion and thus CREATED A LONG SERIES OF LIVING BEINGS THROUGH GRADUAL EVOLUTION, with the intent of increasingly bettering the species. But when Neanderthal appeared, that positive creative process through evolution seems to have reached a standstill, a dead end. Which is why God/the Prime Mover, or whatever we choose to call the Originating Vital Source, found it wise to create a "new drastically improved model"...Homo Sapiens Sapiens...either from scratch, from vital energy not connected to previous hominids, or by means of a gradual genetic dilution of Neanderthal/hominid genes in intermixtures with extraterrestrial DNA. Whatever the case may be...and I am no expert either in genetics or in ET research...one fine day there appeared upon the Earth a brave new being such as had not been seen before. A little less than the angels, the Bible calls him. Modern-type man. With all his virtues and vices. For better or for worse. A unique creature.

Adam Khor

Linnaeus wrote: »

Hello Adam,

When you spoke of man as a kind of Frankenstein monster, it occured to me that, in spite of what you say about cross-breeding among diverse hominids, possibly you suspect what I have thought for several years: that Homo Sapiens Sapiens, that new advanced type called Cro Magnon, was not a spontaneous mutation, hybrid or offshoot of Neanderthal or similar, but indeed A SEPARATE DELIBERATE CREATION.

You completely and totally misunderstood me. I meant Frankenstein monster as in, a genetic composite of several parent species- instead of being descended from one single direct ancestor. I never intended to imply deliberate creation of any kind. Guess it was a poor choice of an analogy on my part.

Linnaeus wrote: »

There are many theories today, such as that of the late Zecharia Sitchin, which assert that modern man is the result of a series of genetic experiments by "the gods", or rather, by highly intelligent extraterrestrials in possession of extremely sophisticated scientific knowledge and technology. These alien visitors would have initially mated with , or have artificially inseminated with their own sperm, female hominids or primitive Homo such as the rougher type of Neanderthal. This experiment might have produced the more refined Neanderthal type of which Wibbs kindly informed us. With each experiment, each generation, the hominid/early Homo type would have been improved, until Cro Magnon was achieved.

I have heard (a lot!) about these so called theories, and (among other things) I find them to be utterly unnecessary to explain human evolution. I think this is just another expression of a deep-seated anthropocentrism. The defenders of this idea just want us to be special somehow, rather than the result of perfectly natural evolution. The fossil record may not be complete, but it does show a normal transition from early hominin species to our own kind. There is no need for aliens to intervene. I will not share my own thoughts on alien life/visitation because it has nothing to do with paleontology, but one thing is for sure; there is absolutely NO evidence of aliens having anything to do with out origins, and most of the so called proof provided by defenders of these ideas can be (and have been) easily refuted.

Linnaeus wrote: »

I personally am of the opinion that this genetic manipulation by "the gods" was not necessary, taking into consideration that a supreme God exists, and that He is perfectly capable of creating new species all by Himself. The biblical account of the creation of man may be just a simplified account of what really happened.

This is a matter of faith and really doesn´t count as evidence for or against anything. Like Wibbs, I would rather not go into theological discussions.

Linnaeus wrote: »

At any rate, I would say that Homo Sapiens Sapiens is sufficiently different from Neanderthal and from all life forms that went before to warrant the belief that he is a separate, distinct creation or evolutionary modification, brought about externally by a superior extra-planetary intelligence, possibly even with the admixture of extraterrestrial DNA, if we accept such theories. I do not see how the wonderfully advanced modern type man, so unique as Wibbs is well aware, could have sprung from Neanderthal or any of the hominids.

I don´t think anyone suggests that modern man evolved from Neanderthals anymore. Still, I don´t see why it's so difficult to believe that we came naturally from other hominids. T. rex was more closely related to hummingbirds and penguins than it was to Allosaurus. Hyenas are more closely related to cats than they are to dogs. And hippos are the closest living relatives to whales. Also, our ears and mouths and jaws are all derived from the gills of primitive fish. Evolution is just cool like that.
I don´t see why Homo sapiens couldn´t be the result of perfectly natural evolution without any need for intervention either alien or divine.

Of course, if reading up on paleontology does not convince us of the amazing things evolution can achieve, then I suposse nothing will.

Linnaeus

Hello Adam,

Perhaps you have misunderstood me. Yes, I personally am a convinced theist; but it was not my intention here to claim categorically that any particular brand of theism/religion provides crystal-clear answers to the enigma of man's appearance. In my last post, I merely stated several theories and points of view, including some of my own intuitions. The "extraterrestrial connection" is intriguing, but does not convince me entirely. There are, however, abundant archaeological and mythological clues which suggest that there is some substance to this theory. At any rate, I believe that man, like the higher celestial spirits, was specially designed because of all created beings, only he and the angels have a spiritual conscience. A mission, so to speak.

Even total atheists, however, may accept the concept of a Prime Mover, a conscious, logical mastermind/vital force which sparked the creation of the universe. They may call this force energy, or nature, or something else. It does not matter. What seems very obvious, at least to me, is that beyond all minds there is a Mind, behind all being there is Being: an eternal, sentient metaphysical Planner. Can anyone imagine a building without a builder, a symphony without a composer? The originator of this orderly universe governed by laws, could not have been Chaos or the blind explosion of a Big Bang.

As for Homo Sapiens Sapiens as a normal, natural transition from earlier hominins: from which hominins, Adam? At the time when Cro Magnon made his debut, Neanderthal was the most derived hominin on this planet. You and I agree that Homo S.S. did not spring from Neanderthal. There is no evidence which I know about of any other direct, advanced ancestor of Cro Magnon. And I can never believe that Cro Magnon developed from the pre-Neanderthal hominids/hominins. MODERN TYPE MAN IS FAR TOO SOPHISTICATED TO HAVE DERIVED SUDDENLY FROM SUCH SPECIES, without a considerable infusion of DNA from higher species. But what higher species? What creature existed on Earth that could have mated with "ape-men" to produce Cro-Magnon? We must not look back to gilly fish or squiggly amebas to find man's IMMEDIATE ancestors...Even constant cross-breeding, for generations, among pre-existing hominins could not, I think, have produced the refined species called Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Evolution does not make such broad jumps.

Adam Khor

Linnaeus wrote: »

The "extraterrestrial connection" is intriguing, but does not convince me entirely. There are, however, abundant archaeological and mythological clues which suggest that there is some substance to this theory.

I'd love to know what clues exactly you're referring to.

Linnaeus wrote: »

At any rate, I believe that man, like the higher celestial spirits, was specially designed because of all created beings, only he and the angels have a spiritual conscience. A mission, so to speak.

Again, this goes into the realm of metaphysics and theology, not paleontology. I have discussed spiritual matters many times with my friends because I, like everybody else I suposse, do wonder about the meaning of everything. But this is not the place to do it I'm afraid, so let's just leave the whole spirits and angels thing aside.

Linnaeus wrote: »

As for Homo Sapiens Sapiens as a normal, natural transition from earlier hominins: from which hominins, Adam?

I'm not going to be so arrogant as to say I have the answer to this. Wibbs knows a lot more about this subject than I do. It does appear that Homo sapiens sapiens appeared in Africa, where there were probably many species of hominins living together and interbreeding. This is why I suggested that perhaps we modern humans are an amalgam of different species, many of which have probably not even been found as fossils yet- or maybe they have and I just have no knowledge of them.

Also, Wibbs mentioned earlier that the very earliest sapiens do look quite a lot like the rest of hominins, so the transitional fossils are out there.

Linnaeus wrote: »

MODERN TYPE MAN IS FAR TOO SOPHISTICATED TO HAVE DERIVED SUDDENLY FROM SUCH SPECIES[/B], without a considerable infusion of DNA from higher species.

Again, Wibbs made a great point earlier about how the sophistication of modern man came only very recently in history. Sure, now that we have spaceships and robots and genetic engineering it seems difficult to believe our humble origins, but if you went back just a few hundred years you'd find lots of people living like they did in prehistoric times.
There still are people living in Pleistocene-like conditions out there. They're not sophisticated, some of them can´t even make fire, yet they're genetically and anatomically the same as modern humans. If you took one of them from their tribe and raised him in a big city, they may very well turn out to be rocket scientists. Like Wibbs said,

"The network is everything. A Neandertal Newton or Einstein or DaVinci is pointless without the social network."

Linnaeus wrote: »

Evolution does not make such broad jumps.

My point is, you probably see the "jump" as being much broader than it really was.

Linnaeus

Adam, for all we know, even the moral conscience may be a product of evolution. So I would not exclude this from the realm of serious scientific discussion.

As for archaeological and mythological clues to the possible intervention of extraterrestrials in man's creation, the literature is so vast that I could never cite it all. You may want to start with the works of Erich Von Daniken who, although he sometimes sets forth extravagant hypotheses, does present a huge quantity of photos and illustrations of archaeological finds which may indicate representations of aliens, spaceships or objects of non-terrestrial origin. Zecharia Sitchin, mentioned in my last post, was also a dreamer but his analysis of Mesopotamian mythology can only make us reflect. Then there is the apocryphal Book of Enoch, which has often been interpreted as the account of an alien mission to the Earth.

Linnaeus

As for sophisticaion, I was not referring to the technical level achieved by Cro Magnon...obviously in the Palaeolithic that could not have been high...but to his keen intelligence, creativity and sensibility, which set him apart.

As for geniuses of any kind among the Neanderthals, I don't think that the way their brains were made would have allowed for more than good old practical common sense. No extraordinary intellectual effervescence is evident among them.

Wibbs, I look forward to info about and photos of the purported transitory fossils. Can we be sure that the earliest examples really represent Sapiens at all?

Adam Khor

Linnaeus wrote: »

Adam, for all we know, even the moral conscience may be a product of evolution. So I would not exclude this from the realm of serious scientific discussion.

You speak of serious scientific discussion, yet you go on about gods and angels and a higher purpose for mankind. Paleontology deals with solid evidence, the fossil record and/or genetic evidence. "Moral conscience" doesn´t leave fossils, so I don´t think it should not be brought into a paleontology discussion.

Linnaeus wrote: »

As for archaeological and mythological clues to the possible intervention of extraterrestrials in man's creation, the literature is so vast that I could never cite it all. You may want to start with the works of Erich Von Daniken who, although he sometimes sets forth extravagant hypotheses, does present a huge quantity of photos and illustrations of archaeological finds which may indicate representations of aliens, spaceships or objects of non-terrestrial origin.

Yes, I feared you would mention Von Daniken. Surprise surprise, I have read a couple of his books. Most of his "evidence" is easily refuted by anyone who bothers to read up a little on whatever civilization he goes on about. He is responsible for lots of disinformation, including the popular idea that the pyramids of Egypt were built by aliens because, according to his own narrow opinion, they just couldn´t have been built by human beings with such primitive technology as the Old Kingdom Egyptians. Never mind that the burial locations of thousands of pyramid workers, many of them bearing the evidence of accidents and strain caused by insanely hard work have long been known by Egyptologists. The defenders of the alien idea just ignore this fact because it doesn´t fit with what they want to be true. This is just one example of many.
I am no scientist myself, but I believe science should be about finding the truth, no matter what it may be; in order to do this it is necessary to put the pieces together, until we can reach a reasonable conclussion. Von Daniken did it all backwards; he came up with a preconceived idea first, and then tried to build the evidence to support it, by cherry-picking the bits that fit his pet theories, and discarding the rest.
Once you start looking at what he discarded, his ideas crumble to nothing.

More to the point; Von Daniken was all for the idea that non-avian dinosaurs and man coexisted at the same time. I fail to see how any self described "amateur paleontologist" could possibly take this guy seriously.

Linnaeus

There is no need to be rude. Boards and forums are for discussion, debate and the civil exchange of opinions. Palaeontology, like all other sciences, can benefit greatly from a multi-disciplinary approach, even if certain fields of study may not seem to have much bearing on palaeontology itself.

I may be just a useless amateur, but I feel that discussing my own and other people's ideas can do no harm. Read my posts carefully, and you will see that I never claimed to be a fanatic follower of either Von Daniken or Sitchin. The former I described as being frequently "extravagant" (which he certainly is), the second as a dreamer. Von Daniken, as I did mention clearly enough, has provided some thought-provoking photos. That's about all he's useful for. Sitchin, somewhat more serious, uses Mesopotamian and other ancient mythologies to demonstrate that the idea of man's creation by "gods, visitors from on high, messengers from beyond the Earth", has been around for a very long time indeed. The creation myths and legends of human beings from all the inhabited continents are full of such concepts. We may use this fact as we see fit.

I don't know if these ideas concerning man's creation bear truth or not. I never claimed that they do; I only said that they might. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy..."

We who seek truth must look for it even in unlikely places. The greatest fool in the world might still have SOMETHING, some morsel of truth, to bestow upon us.

Angels may or may not exist. I postulated their existence (which personally I believe in, but my opinion does not matter here) only to compare them, as beings with a conscience, to man, who certainly possesses such an attribute. I am not trying to impose my beliefs on ANYONE, just endeavouring to discuss certain POSSIBILITIES. If that's unscientific, well, pardon the ignorance of a well-meaning but not categorically rigid researcher. Will not bother you again with my thoughts.

Adam Khor

Linnaeus wrote: »

There is no need to be rude.

Any perceived rudeness is in your mind, and I will not apologize for speaking mine.

Linnaeus wrote: »

Boards and forums are for discussion, debate and the civil exchange of opinions.

Which... I thought is what we had been doing? You can´t expect us to agree on everything. Am I rude for sharing my own opinions?

Linnaeus wrote: »

I may be just a useless amateur,

Your words, not mine.

Linnaeus wrote: »

but I feel that discussing my own and other people's ideas can do no harm.

It certainly doesn´t, but I would still like to keep the discussion as free of theological stuff as possible. I am a moderator for this forum, so you will understand if I feel like it's my duty to keep it from veering too far from its intended subject. If I am being overzealous I expect to be told so by other board members/moderators.

Linnaeus wrote: »

Read my posts carefully, and you will see that I never claimed to be a fanatic follower of either Von Daniken or Sitchin.

I never said you were. I was merely stating my opinion on his work based on what I have read about it. I can´t speak for anyone but myself.

Linnaeus wrote: »

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy..."

I use this quote a lot :B

Linnaeus wrote: »

Will not bother you again with my thoughts.

Alas...

Adam Khor

For all it's worth, here's a "virtual fossil" of what the last common ancestor of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis may have looked like.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/virtual-fossil-created-of-common-ancestor-of-homo-sapiens-and-neanderthals.html