The Oldest Dna Evidence Yet Of Humans With An Interesting Twist

[Guest thermalman]

How many times does this field need to be pounded over the head with how little it knows before it abandons its knee-jerk tendency to greet each tiny scrap of additional information with "This Is The New Answer"?

Your own words! Yet it was fine for you and others to jump on the Olympic thermal "head and shoulders" bandwagon, thus contradicting your quote. Just saying and apologizing for any hint of derailment. Back to topic now.

Edited February 3, 2014 by thermalman

[southernyahoo]

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/entire-neanderthal-genome-finally-mapped-amazing-results-001138

 

Seems the mystery hominin rises it's ugly head again.  

 

A super archaic unknown hominin!  Some scientists should really be knocking our doors down looking for it any minute! Strangely I don't feel the need to hold my breath.

[Guest DWA]

One really does wonder - with our prehistory becoming a more incoherent tangle by the week - what it would take to get the mainstream interested in something for which we have one heck of a lot more consistent evidence than we do our prehistory.

 

Particularly given the possibility that it might actually shed light on aspects of it.

[Guest]

@southeryahoo so you have a bigfoot stashed somewhere?

@DWA sorry, there are no bones of bigfoot or DNA.

[southernyahoo]

@Jerry, no , I'm saying that science is setting a precedent that an unknown hominin crossed with our species in the past, and thus opens the door to inquiry about where it went and begs the question of whether it still lives, especially with all the sightings people claim of an extant one today.

 

Other than that, I still want to test my hair sample further, and put it to rest if not from a Squatch.

[Cotter]

there are no bones of bigfoot or DNA.

 

Like anybody could ever know this.

[Guest]

Well, bring em in.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

Like anybody could ever know this.

 

Well, bring em in.

 

A non sequitur if I ever saw one. JM your challenge doesn't correlate with any knowledge of whether or not there are bones.

Edited February 4, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest]

The initial statement was in response to DWA's claim that bigfoot has more evidence than human prehistory, but the latter actually has bones and DNA to work with. So where is bigfoot's?

[Guest DWA]

^^^I don't even really have to open this post to say "quoted for truth."

 

Man, when this critter is confirmed, some folks should just move to Mexico and change their names.

I mean, this is just silly.  It's like sitting next to an astronomer and continually saying, bet you're not gonna discover something until you do!

[norseman]

The initial statement was in response to DWA's claim that bigfoot has more evidence than human prehistory, but the latter actually has bones and DNA to work with. So where is bigfoot's?

What if Bigfoot or a close relative is already established in the fossil record? But not in North America?

Sasquatch is not the moth man or chubacabre......in other words the possibility of its existence is well supported in the fossil record versus a gray giant bug eyed flying devil or a small bipedal blood sucking troll.

[Guest DWA]

The lesser panda's ancestry is in Tennessee; the giant panda's in Spain.

 

There are two viable sasquatch ancestor candidates, fossils and all, at least:  Gigantopithecus blacki and Paranthropus boisei.

 

That they aren't in NA is, as my first sentence shows, irrelevant.  See either one tomorrow and you just saw bigfoot.

 

(Will never understand how they think fossil talk can win this argument.)

[norseman]

It is relevant....... That's why we need to keep digging.

There is also homo heidelbergensis as a possibility as well.

[Guest DWA]

Lesser and giant pandas were confirmed - as were gorilla and chimp, as was orangutan, as are, in fact, most animals - before fossil ancestors were found.

 

And I doubt anyone looking at a sasquatch - or, you know, a bear for that matter - has ever told himself:  this is impossible.  There are no ancestors in the fossil record!  What matters is what is.  Or else I could vouch for the continued existence of TRex, couldn't I?

 

(Of course, we've knocked the props out from under JM anyway.  Two ancestors, at least.)

[norseman]

^^^^^^^

Agreed, but that requires a body. Short of a body.....a finger bone, or leg bone fossil would sure get the ball rolling.