JDL Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I may go to this one too. The topic and timing imply that there will be some sort of groundbreaking release prior publicly establishing the concept of primal humans. If so, it will be a media circus, and there will be mainstream scientists clammoring for a seat at the table. Could be historic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) There are disorders that cause humans to have more or less of the 46 chromosomes. They aren't always obvious or result in fetal demise and are usually associated with the sex chromosomes. I'm familiar with those, but they died in the nursery when they were born at my hospital IIRC, it has been a while. We had an anacephalic baby born. I did not go to see it.I saw enough tragedy, I didn't need any more. I may go to this one too. The topic and timing imply that there will be some sort of groundbreaking release prior publicly establishing the concept of primal humans. If so, it will be a media circus, and there will be mainstream scientists clammoring for a seat at the table. Could be historic. It will be a 3 ring circus. I suspect only fringe media will cover it extensively. I wonder if the others will laugh about it and roll their eyes for a while, at least until a body happens along. The media still remember the Georgia boys,err, idiots. I still feel pain over that disaster. The **MEDIA** never forgets stuff such as that.They were played as fools. Will the BIG names here in this study make them believe it is the real deal finally? I still can't believe it's human. I'm in shock. Edited November 13, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I still can't believe it's human. I'm in shock. You can believe as you wish. Scientists agree and disagree over research all the time. This situation may result in how we define the idea of human, maybe not. I will look at the data and draw my own decisions, but will not embrace the conclusion wholeheartedly unless it makes sense to me. Even when it comes to science, I won't drink the kool aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Amen brother, there are a lot of reasons why the samples might test human initially, but I don't gather that bigfoot is human ( as in like us) when you get further into the sequencing. I think that is what is confusing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I think we're getting into semantics here. Remember there is some controversy over whether Neanderthal is a separate species or subspecies. If this story is legit, I expect these things are further from us than Neanderthal. In any case, if Ketchum claims sasquatch is a human species or subspecies (and her science is good), expect the mother of all firestorms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I think we're getting into semantics here. Remember there is some controversy over whether Neanderthal is a separate species or subspecies. If this story is legit, I expect these things are further from us than Neanderthal. In any case, if Ketchum claims sasquatch is a human species or subspecies (and her science is good), expect the mother of all firestorms. Good call on the Neanderthal perspective. Academics are still divided on that taxonomic issue. Yes there will be contention on the sasquatch issue if things go well for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LissingMinx Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 When dealing with fossil species it is usually nearly impossible to know where the species line really lies. This is why paleoanthropology is such a contentious field full of "lumpers" (like me) and "splitters". Since a definition of species includes an ability to interbreed I would think the nuDNA has proved neandertals were, in fact, a subspecies. And Susie, neandertals brain to body ratio was larger than ours. They weren't hulking, hairy, stupid brutes. They were compassionate people who cared for their elderly, crippled and injured. Google Shanidar or Las Chapelle aux Saints. Fascinating stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) You can believe as you wish. Scientists agree and disagree over research all the time. This situation may result in how we define the idea of human, maybe not. I will look at the data and draw my own decisions, but will not embrace the conclusion wholeheartedly unless it makes sense to me. Even when it comes to science, I won't drink the kool aid. Thank you wudewasa, LissingMinx and Jodie for your stellar advice. Edited November 13, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Anyone else troubled by the fact this is still half a year away? When dealing with fossil species it is usually nearly impossible to know where the species line really lies. This is why paleoanthropology is such a contentious field full of "lumpers" (like me) and "splitters". Since a definition of species includes an ability to interbreed I would think the nuDNA has proved neandertals were, in fact, a subspecies. And Susie, neandertals brain to body ratio was larger than ours. They weren't hulking, hairy, stupid brutes. They were compassionate people who cared for their elderly, crippled and injured. Google Shanidar or Las Chapelle aux Saints. Fascinating stuff Neandertals may have been rather intelligent (brain capacity was around 1500-1600cc, compared to ours of around 1300cc) but they were hulking, hairy, and brutes. Many of the fossil remains of Neandertal include fractures, breaks, etc. in many different parts of the body. Whatever it was they did with their lives, it was physical and vigorous and took a huge toll on their bodies. Also, given their habitation ranges and inability to make fire I'd suspect they had a fair amount more body hair than homo sapiens sapiens. I'd lump Neandertal with the genus homo sapiens, but they were very primitive and very different from ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LissingMinx Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Their injury patterns are most similar to those of rodeo clowns. Not the riders, the clowns. They hunted megafauna up close and personal. That didn't stop them from caring for their old and injured. Brutes they weren't. How hairy were they? We'd all like the answer to that question. Big? at 5' 4" being the tallest recorded, yeah, OK, they were strong as an ox and thickly muscled. Had to be to survive. Neandertal couldn't make fire? Say what? Check your sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 And Susie, neandertals brain to body ratio was larger than ours. They weren't hulking, hairy, stupid brutes. They were compassionate people who cared for their elderly, crippled and injured. Google Shanidar or Las Chapelle aux Saints. Fascinating stuff That interpretation is coming under challenge. Read "Them and Us": http://themandus.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Way to embarrass me in front of parnassus. P: Oh man. I'm really uncomfortable with them saying they're that close to us. With a physical appearance like that, it seems really really hard to imagine it. Parn's theory almost becomes credible... woh! I may have to go to Richland myself!! There are disorders that cause humans to have more or less of the 46 chromosomes. They aren't always obvious or result in fetal demise and are usually associated with the sex chromosomes. The most frequent human trisomy (47 chromosomes) is Down Syndrome, trisomy 21 ie three of the number 21 chromosome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LissingMinx Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Mulder, as far as I know there are no sites with evidence of neandertals cannibalizing sapiens, but I've been out of the loop a while. There is good evidence they did cannibalize other neandertals. One of the problems with "lay people" reading paleoanthropology is they misunderstand terms and the people using them. Dr Arsuaga, for instance, refers to more than one species as "human" including his own antecessor and neandertals. This can cause a lot of confusion. Even so, this does not erase clear evidence they cared for their own when they were unable to care for themselves. They also carefully buried some of their dead. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/462048.stm As for that book, what are the author's credentials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Mulder, as far as I know there are no sites with evidence of neandertals cannibalizing sapiens, but I've been out of the loop a while. There is good evidence they did cannibalize other neandertals. One of the problems with "lay people" reading paleoanthropology is they misunderstand terms and the people using them. Dr Arsuaga, for instance, refers to more than one species as "human" including his own antecessor and neandertals. This can cause a lot of confusion. ... As for that book, what are the author's credentials? The author himself comes from a filmmaking background, but his book is very well researched. Check out the website, which has among other things the first 3 chapters AND a 793 document bibliographical reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted November 14, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted November 14, 2011 Way to embarrass me in front of parnassus. P: Oh man. I'm really uncomfortable with them saying they're that close to us. Why ?? What research & results have you found to make you start to feel uncomfortable with something that has resulted in the research that the people in question have done ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts