Jump to content

" All Human Ancestors Belonged To The Same Species But Just Looked Different "


Recommended Posts

chelefoot

Only laughable to some with respect to Bigfoots.  I think the idea they are "human" has been around as long as the mythology and supported by what we have known a long time in the fossil record about our ancestoral anatomy and culture.  Modern researcher reports (and unintended witnesses) also support that view significantly (albiet some staunch detractors).

I also think the trend, prior to the human modern and ancient genomics and this find, has been to recognize that the many species of hominids cited is probably a result of the archelogists eager to claim such as thier discovery, and any variation played to the hilt....  

On the genomics side ot it... we can trace our common ancestors with  Neandertal (not recalling exactly) 400K BP and almost twice that for Densiova....and that is interesting...in that some humans show a more recent common ancestory with a Neandertal than some other human groups.... 

 

Someone just sent me the paper on these skulls.   so, if it isn't too tough I might have something a little more relevant to say....in a few days...  

 

What paper?

 

Also, I know that Melba has said she is working on the DNA for Brien's skulls. Is this something different???

The university genome center has also agreed to sequence the whole genomes on the Peruvian Mummies. We would like to sequence several. Anyone interested in donating so we can get more of these done asap, contact Brien Foerster or me.

(https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Melba-Ketchum/3590756374461)

 

I see it specifies "mummies"  but I am sure I seen something about her testing the skulls.  I will look for it. I could be mistaken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

kezra this just came out,  I just read the article and not the free PDF, but will eventually (a little backed up on these, tough reading!) anyway.. ...and taken along with the louse studies...the picture is being filled in...thru our parasites..  

http://www.news.wisc.edu/22232

 

 

So it is the simultaneous comparison of near whole genomes that requires the use of bioinformatics and a supercomputer as asked by Chelefoot in another thread I think.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter

 Drew , The wolf skull has an over all broad skull and a some what thicker snout when viewed from above when compared to a thylacine skull from the same view { near the orbital sockets starting position this is visible }, there is also some teeth arrangement and size differences in the rear upper teeth on the wolf skull . 

 

 The wolf skull also has lobe off the back of the jaw bone that the thylacine does not posses.   Here is a link to the photo for reference.  http://u2know.net/uploads/big_8593ed0a0b4d8eab16e51259af7e93a1.jpg

 

 

 

I do agree that they look rather similar  from the side view though.

 

I apologize for the tardy response, the forums where making posting impossible in this thread for me the other day for some unknown reason.

Edited by NathanFooter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

So it is the simultaneous comparison of near whole genomes that requires the use of bioinformatics and a supercomputer as asked by Chelefoot in another thread I think.  

 

I meant a large number of whole genomes simultaneously such as 10-30 or more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have the dna of neanderthals. Dna does say a lot, in fact it says it all. Just as with the Bili ape. They were huge, the size of and some bigger than the gorilla. They nested on the ground like gorillas. Some had the crest like gorillas, yet they looked like chimps. They were puzzled, but dna said it all. They were chimps.

I don't really understand this post. Are you say that the bili ape was huge and crested?. Or that Neanderthals were bigger than gorillas and nested on the ground, with crested heads.

Neither is a chimp.

 

Edited by WV FOOTER
Remove Objectionable Material
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Hello PaddysLad,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_ape

We should all read this. I epecially liked this about the article:

"Behavior toward humans has baffled and intrigued scientists. There is little to no aggression, yet no fear, either. "Gorilla males will always charge when they encounter a hunter, but there were no stories like that" about the Bili apes, according to Ammann. Instead, they would come face-to-face with their human cousins, stare intently in half-recognition, then slide away quietly. Hicks's group later confirmed and somewhat expanded those observations, saying that when they encountered a large group of Bili apes in the deep forests (far from the roads and villages), they not only approached the humans, but also would actually surround them with intent curiosity.[11] Hicks clarifies the issue as follows: the apes within 20 km or so of the roads flee humans almost without exception. The adult males show the greatest fear. Further from the roads, however, the chimpanzees become progressively "naive"."

Kind of sounds like you-know-who doesn't it ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

here is a bump today   http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-rampant-sex-lives-1.14196

 

sometimes it feels like a slow motion reveal...our ancient past...  and this seems to leave a "place" for our ancestor..  as erectus and/or BFs as seen today even....  it just seems given what we know..that to suggest BFs are "apes" (as in any thing other than genus Homo) seems a real, big, stretch...

 

and given Sykes work on Zana, and work not yet  revealed, but with a promise from the publisher (!)...the "unknown" might be known... just not published

 

 we don't yet have genomes for the Hobbit, or RDC people..... hummm!

Edited by apehuman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Nathan. I don't know the difference between any of them, though. But speaking from my blissful position of pre Thanksgiving ignorance, I can imagine it possible that a huge amount of diversity could be possible in a species.  Or genus, anyways. I think of the canine genus, or species, not sure which I mean, which is why I agree with Nathan, I am thoroughly confused by the canines, as some that are very closely related look very different visually, and some that aren't look very similiar visually. So I could imagine it possible that a homo almost sapiens could wind up with the visual characteristics that we attribute to the creature we call Sasquatch. And for my honest Pre-Christmas Disclosure Policy, I kinda personally hope that is what it is. I hope everyone has a Great Thanksgiving and much happiness and good cheer with your Family and Friends. I want to thank everyone in our military or other public service who is serving away from their Family and Friends, and hope you guys have the best Thanksgiving possible where ever you are, under the conditions you find yourself. You are not forgotten. I been there and  like most of yall I think are like me, proud to be doing what you are doing, but the knowledge that there are people who actually appreciate it and understand what you are going through does help, when you are fighting to stay awake and alert on O.P. at two am on a Holiday and the cold wind is biting your face and there aint nothing you can do to make it more comfortable, and you think of everyone having fun and enjoying each others company back home, and you wonder if anyone really cares why you are there, and if anyone appreciates it. And they do. I do. A whole bunch of us do. So, Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Hello peope booger,

 

That was a touching post. May I join you? I know it's off topic but the mood has a hold of me. All my heartfelt wishes for all those who serve and have served. You are remembered, especially this holiday season, and I wish you safe and out of harm's way until your arrival home. And my deepest thanks and respect for your bravery and commitment. Only the best then for all of you.

 

Thank you, people booger, for bringing it up.

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am always most impressed by how scientists forget how the world operates when they get into the narrow crannies of their specialties.

 

I have said for a long time that if one could pluck, at random, a large group of humans from around the world and place them in front of an extraterrestrial zoologist, that zoologist would almost certainly come up with multiple species as the explanation for the variety of appearances.  And it's been fifty years or thereabouts since I read that, were a Neanderthal to don a fedora and a Brooks Brothers suit and step on the subway, he'd likely go unremarked.

 

Bingo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The pendulum swings every time they get a new data point.  In order to get funding they've got to publish results and in order to publish results, they've got to have something significant enough to justify pushing the pendulum, or at least something they can construe as such. 

 

It's all guesswork based on sporadic findings and assumptions based on that relatively limited evidence.  Consensus will change yet again, and then again as we progress.

 

And my signature below says why.

 

Every find requires sweeping conclusions for some reason.  We can never say, well, here's something else, but we're not sure how it relates to the rest yet.

 

Reading the second link of the OP, it's amazing how many things they're theorizing based on the Diamansi find they could have theorized by simply looking around at current human populations.

 

And then there's always the one old school guy who didn't get the memo.  "But wait, this is a misguided thesis.  Of course they're different species.  They look different."

Edited by DWA
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, look at the cultures and you will see large differences. From one perspective,all humans are most definitely not the 'same'. Just as there are class differences which are documented all over the world.

Edited by Wag
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have read so far, BF looks like a monkey when "far away", and human when "up close". That may be why there are 2 contradicting reports on basic looks.

 

Could be feral Neandertal for all we know, because you would see the kind of adaptations we see in them. Heck, humans can act like monkeys if we really want to. We see this all the time if you read the news.

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Acting like a monkey is a far cry from existing in hostile mountainous terrain with no fire, tools or shelter.

If squatch belongs to the genus homo, it would set our knowledge of our own genus on its head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...