The Oldest Dna Evidence Yet Of Humans With An Interesting Twist

[Guest Stan Norton]

It just goes to show that people need to stop getting worked up about minor differences in human fossil morphology and get down with the DNA. And believe me, many in the field of human origins have made careers on whether this bone is slightly different to that bone. There is no scientific field more strung out with egos than that of human evolution...

Edited December 6, 2013 by Stan Norton

[salubrious]

^^ 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. 

Apparently the witch trials had a lot to do with ergot fungus infecting the rye harvest.  That was going on in Europe too.

Do we have many large extant animals in North America that are completely absent from the current fossil record?

Whales were for a long time. They finally found whale fossils in Egypt. Not sure if they have turned up in N.A. yet, but of course whales aren't 'in' N.A...

 

As I understand it, a Neanderthal was considerably more powerful than an average human, with about 6x more muscle power. That's pretty significant, enough to make me think about that possible BF connection.

 

We should keep in mind though that we do need more than 50,000-60,000 years for a fossil to form. So if BF has arisen recently as a distinct species, there may not have been enough time for a fossil record.

[norseman]

So...back on topic.

The article was interesting. Could someone explain the Bigfoot connection? As far as I can tell we're talking about extinct populations:

It is possible, for example, that there are many extinct human populations that scientists have yet to discover.

How does that get to undocumented giant ape-men in North America?

Because if this species truly exists we are looking for a logical explanation of its origins?

Not that I think we are dealing with a Homo species, but some of us hold to that.......

[WSA]

One other take-away (as if it needed confirming): Everybody was schtupping everybody else, regardless of their differences. We are all mutts.

[norseman]

Nothing you say makes anything I said 'wrong.'

Evidence appears to be that 'intelligent' life does away with itself before it gets time to leave. At least we haven't seen any evidence that the case is otherwise.

I don't consider 'intelligence' any 'higher' than the fangs of Smilodon or the antlers of the Irish elk. It's one more adaptation...and extinction catches up to them all.

First of all we have no evidence of a earth species smarter than us, past or present.

Secondly, intelligence that invents technology is not on par with a adaptation like a tooth or a antler. Adaptations by natural selection take a very long time to evolve and take just as long to adapt to change........hence the major reason for extinction. Technology on the other hand evolves very quickly and for specific needs or threats facing us.

While we certainly are not immune to a extinction event like a asteroid strike. We sure are in a better place now to deal with the threat than passively swinging in the trees peering out of the canopy and looking at a mushroom cloud over taking us.

This is where your premise is wrong, you make no distinction between us and any other animal. Nor do you make any distinction between invention and adaptation............

[Guest LarryP]

First of all we have no evidence of a earth species smarter than us, past or present.

 

 

 

 

Whales and Dolphins!

[dmaker]

We have evidence that whales and dolphins are smarter than us? Link please? Do we have IQ tests for aquatic mammals? 

[Guest DWA]

I tend not to see invention and adaptation as separate.  Invention is our adaptation, and subject to the same evolutionary constraints as everything else.  We ignore that at our peril.

[Rockape]

<We have evidence that whales and dolphins are smarter than us? Link please? Do we have IQ tests for aquatic mammals?>

 

I once read that dolphins have the intelligence of 7 year old children. Read the same thing about pigs. I have nothing to back that up as factual, other than the quality of your posts.

[Guest LarryP]

 I have nothing to back that up as factual, other than the quality of your posts. 

 

You beat me to it !

 

This all brings us back to, "Stupid is, as stupid does".

 

And I have known Dolphins that were far more intelligent than the vast majority of people I've ever had the misfortune of having to deal with.

[dmaker]

<We have evidence that whales and dolphins are smarter than us? Link please? Do we have IQ tests for aquatic mammals?>

 

I once read that dolphins have the intelligence of 7 year old children. Read the same thing about pigs. I have nothing to back that up as factual, other than the quality of your posts.

So am I a dolphin, a 7 yr old child, or a pig in your scenario?  If I get to pick, I choose dolphin.  I have already been a 7 yr old child and I don't think the life of a pig would be very interesting. Plus there is the whole being tossed around by alleged Bigfeets thing to constantly worry about  

[WSA]

You can really get into the weeds when trying to judge interspecies intelligence. "Intelligence" is in the eye of the beholder, which of course is always us. We will always ask how that animal measures up to the criteria we decide we'll use.

 

You want to talk adaptation and species longevity as a measure? Horseshoe crab, hands down, over humans. 

 

We also do not have a sufficient means of communication with ANY other species that might let us evaluate intelligence on anything approaching an accurate scale AND we choose to put "language" down as a key criteria. How is a mute animal genius to win, huh?   

 

Got to also consider that many other animals, including a BF, might consider us, well, quite dense. If these animals are living in awe of all of our assorted gadgets, they sure are showing remarkable restraint in not fooling around with them when they have the chance. More so than your average chimp, I'd say.

[norseman]

I tend not to see invention and adaptation as separate. Invention is our adaptation, and subject to the same evolutionary constraints as everything else. We ignore that at our peril.

But they are, that's a fact.

Inventions are not constrained to evolutionary processes like adaptations are.

This is why some theorists are freaked out about the "singularity". Artificial intelligence is not constrained to evolution like the human brain is, therefore in a foot race against each other the human brain is outpaced theoretically.

This is a key point and flies in the face of your premise, that inventions like adaptations are constrained by evolution.

[Guest DWA]

Everything is constrained by evolution.  (The singularity is only another piece of evidence of that.)

 

We look at ourselves as special.  Nature doesn't.

[norseman]

How is the singularity evidence of biological evolution?

It represents the death of that natural process......the death of evolution for our species.

And I never said nature views us as special, but our inventions to date are special and unique in natural world.

Unless dolphins or pigs start giving physics seminars in the near future, I don't think that is going to change either