The Oldest Dna Evidence Yet Of Humans With An Interesting Twist

[hiflier]

Hello Incorrigible1,

 

You just gave me an idea.....we need a good Scarecrow thread. I'll bet there are some real fine examples of some creative scarecrow dressings out there.

Hello JDL,

 

It's hard to pin down most of this legendary stuff. Oral history can easily be embellished, BUT! I think in most cases there is a grain of truth behind all legends. It may be an interpretation of the peoples long gone but one has to think that at the root of those interpretations there must be a kernel of reality in each is based on. All conjecture of course but then again, maybe not. Boy do I sound wishy-washy or what! LOL. I must need to start a new thread of some kind or sumpin'

Edited December 6, 2013 by hiflier

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I'm impressed Incorrigible 1, by the scarecrow........  

[Incorrigible1]

Thanks, but the strawman was provided by DWA.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Nice straw man, DWA plussed

[dmaker]

Curious,

 

I'm thinking about all of the European folklore and legends regarding wildmen, wodewose, schrat, giants, ogres, trolls, goblins, and the like.

 

These tales are as pervasive as evidence of other hominids contemporaneous with our distant ancestors seems to be becoming.

 

Certainly much of the detail has been corrupted over time, but the older source material must be available in various archives.

 

I think that it is naïve to believe that these tales do not indicate that competing hominids once existed within our cultural memory and that our folklore regarding them stems from that reality.

Does your explanation also work for unicorns, dragons, fairies, and mermaids?

[Guest DWA]

 

Please, do show where any so-callled spokesperson for "Science," ever spoke such a phrase.

 

THEY DO IT EVERY TIME.

 

This is why new finds don't surprise me, but constantly gobsmack them.

 

They just realign The Now Accepted Human Lineage, over and over, with each new find, making sweeping unwarranted conclusions, rather than saying, which is all they really can say:  Interesting, but we're not sure at all how this relates to the rest yet.

 

As it says in my signature...vvvvv

[Guest LarryP]

^Your way depends on a current opinion and belief system, not by actually having the creature you are sure exists. You claim the problem is solved when public thought finally sways to your belief system, not by the hard fact of the actual creature.

 

Darell, did you actually read the article?

[Guest DWA]

Curious,

 

I'm thinking about all of the European folklore and legends regarding wildmen, wodewose, schrat, giants, ogres, trolls, goblins, and the like.

 

These tales are as pervasive as evidence of other hominids contemporaneous with our distant ancestors seems to be becoming.

 

Certainly much of the detail has been corrupted over time, but the older source material must be available in various archives.

 

I think that it is naïve to believe that these tales do not indicate that competing hominids once existed within our cultural memory and that our folklore regarding them stems from that reality.

 

I don't think there's any question that the 'wildman tradition' is informed by cultural experiences.

 

But I also think that the continued lack of attention to hairy hominoids stems, primarily, from Europeans' convictions that, at least with regard to contemporary times, wildmen are a myth.  The wildman is treated in European culture as myth; my theory is that our forefathers brought that conviction to the New World with them, and it was - and remains - the strongest influence in public attitudes toward these animals.

[dmaker]

^^ Are you suggesting that Europeans had abandoned myth and belief in paranormal in general by colonial times? If so, I might direct your attention to the witch trials of the 17 th century in America. The wildman is treated a myth for good reason as are all other non-existent creatures. 

[Guest DWA]

Well, I'm not aware of biological evidence for witches and ghosts.  They don't leave footprints; they aren't seen where ecologists, wildlife biologists and primatologists would expect them to be if they were real; and they aren't described, consistently, by witnesses across the socioeconomic spectrum in terms that make tentative taxonomic classification easy.

 

Large difference there.

 

Belief is a funny thing.  Look at all the weird things people living otherwise fully in the 21st century believe.

 

I'm saying that wildmen are not real!  can exist hand in hand, utterly harmoniously, with SHE'S A WITCH!  No connections need be made.

[dmaker]

Not aware of biological evidence of witches? How many were drowned or burned? Go exhume some remains and you will have all the biological evidence you can handle of "witches".  While you're at it, please see if you can find a Bigfoot body or two...

[JDL]

For some reason the system is not allowing me to quote folks, so:

 

dmaker, if you provide me with a cave full of unicorn, ecetera, bones, then I would say yes.  So far we only have a cave full of the bones of a genetically distinct hominid - three actually, if you count them and the Denisovans separately, and include the "hobbits".

 

Wildmen were associated with/acknowledged by the older, more nature based beliefs in Europe.  Newer beliefs, competing with those older beliefs, tended to label aspects of the older beliefs as evil.  One sure fire way to be judged a witch would likely have been to consort with wildmen (here consort is defined as claim to have seen one).

 

There are most certainly bones of witches and bones of people who once claimed to have seen wildmen out there somewhere.

 

And I will point out that the particulars of subjective skeptical attitudes towards bigfoot witnesses and their reported accounts are quite similar to the attitudes directed towards putative witches in the middle ages and colonial times. 

 

In fact, it appears to be a grand tradition founded on dismissive, subjective, and intolerant attitudes.

[Guest DWA]

I see no qualitative difference between someone who dismisses the mountain of evidence for sasquatch and someone who believes in unicorns, except that the latter are open and the former cynical.  They are extremes of the exact, precise to the atom same thing.

 

And note once again how the "no it ain't!" is pulling the discussion off topic. But this is the last thing I'll say on it here:

 

If, as the skeptics say, it's impossible to prove a negative, it is illogical to believe in it.

Edited December 6, 2013 by DWA

[Guest LarryP]

dmaker is purposefully avoiding the content of the article, DWA.

 

As long as you continue to engage him about the same old "faeries, "unicorns" and "mermaids" diversions, he doesn't have to address the fact that the scientific "establishment" just got their collective ***** handed to them.....again.

[TimB]

I think part of the problem in evidence in this discussion is the traditional Western European "hierarchy of abilities" judgement attached to the collection of evidence.  Technology and it's development is for sure a valuable attribute for our species but not necessarily the best adaptation to environment.  It's taken centuries of development for us to be able to live in extreme arctic environments successfully, while other species of animals have developed superior adaption much more efficiently.  This is just once example.  

 

 

Superiority is relative to the task at hand.