Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: A Safe Place

Topic: Oldest Human Remains (Read 19114 times) previous topic - next topic

Fenrir, RAFH and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • socrates1
Re: Early Hom0 Sapiens?
Reply #25
Even the author Hublin acknowledges that the remains are not homo sapiens.
This scientific thread has been moved to the Alternative Reality section. It is hard on you folks to be exposed to scientific material that you do not like. Time to move on.

Re: Early Hom0 Sapiens?
Reply #26
Oh we can't get a "so be it" this time?

  • Faid
Re: Early Hom0 Sapiens?
Reply #27
So much for the claim of an African homo sapiens 300,000 years ago.
Oh noes! Since the cranial cavity is 'archaic', we cannot say that this is Homo Sapiens! Apparently modern maxillofacial features aren't enough! The Out of Africa theory is DOOMED!

...

Oh wait:

Quote
A partial jawbone bearing seven teeth unearthed in a cave in Israel represents what scientists are calling the oldest-known Homo sapiens remains outside Africa, showing that our species trekked out of that continent far earlier than previously known.
Whoops! :rofl:

So much for "the earliest modern human found in the Middle East". Time to move on! Quick! :wave:
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: Early Hom0 Sapiens?
Reply #28
If people want more material on this and other subjects that I begin posting about, then stop moving them to the Alternative Reality section. No point posting criticisms after they have been moved to this section.

Re: Early Hom0 Sapiens?
Reply #29
Why? What's the difference?

  • socrates1
Omo, Herto and Jebel Irhoud
Reply #30
When you study the material about the Omo, Herto and Jebel Irhoud remains you see that none are homo sapiens. You have to read the material carefully to see that that is the case. Just as I had to read the material about Jebel Irhoud to see that it was not homo sapiens even though that false claim is made in many places.

Re: Early Hom0 Sapiens?
Reply #31
It must be frustrating for Doug that his eternal refusal/inability to deal with refutations of his bullshit precludes his ever being taken as anything but a laughable fuckwit on this forum.

Well, Doug, you made your bed, I hope you enjoy lying in it.  Have you considered making an abject apology to Larry Moran?  Maybe he'll consider revoking his ban of you on Sandwalk.

Re: Omo, Herto and Jebel Irhoud
Reply #32
Maybe people will discuss once this thread is moved to its proper place in ARSE.

Re: Omo, Herto and Jebel Irhoud
Reply #33
Hey you said you were moving on!

  • uncool
Re: Early Hom0 Sapiens?
Reply #34
If people want more material on this and other subjects that I begin posting about
Well, there's your problem.

Re: Omo, Herto and Jebel Irhoud
Reply #35
I totally agree with you, Socrates.  The entire world is in on a conspiracy to make it look like white people descended from black people. Don't buy that shit, man. Don't drink the kool-aid.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Faid
Re: Early Hom0 Sapiens?
Reply #36
Why? What's the difference?

He would totally respond to our points no prob, but he cannot due to his righteous indignation for having his post moved. It's a matter of principle, you see.

Oh well.

The 'Just Pretending' stage is a real bitch.

Time to move on.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Omo, Herto and Jebel Irhoud
Reply #37
Maybe people will discuss once this thread is moved to its proper place in ARSE.
This but ironically
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Omo, Herto and Jebel Irhoud
Reply #38
I totally agree with you, Socrates.  The entire world is in on a conspiracy to make it look like white people descended from black people. Don't buy that shit, man. Don't drink the kool-aid.
You know who were white? Neanderthal, that's who. You know which continent had no Neanderthals? Africa!

Re: Omo, Herto and Jebel Irhoud
Reply #39
How the fuck do I report threads on the mobile site? Could a mod please lump all of sucky's bullshit into one place?
Why do I bother?

  • socrates1
Re: Omo, Herto and Jebel Irhoud
Reply #40
When you study the material about the Omo, Herto and Jebel Irhoud remains you see that none are homo sapiens. You have to read the material carefully to see that that is the case. Just as I had to read the material about Jebel Irhoud to see that it was not homo sapiens even though that false claim is made in many places.
So it is not just you folks that are dishonest. It took me about 10 minutes to find the quote from Hublin indicating that the Jebel Irhoud remains were not homo sapiens*. And yet that false claim appears in many places. No point in trying to have a discussion with people who are dishonest. Presumably the stakes are very high. Time to move on to some other aspect of this.

* and there are a number of dissenting quotes from others
  • Last Edit: January 26, 2018, 01:52:48 PM by socrates1

Re: Omo, Herto and Jebel Irhoud
Reply #41
* and there are a number of dissenting quotes from others
Doesn't that suggest to you that no one is being dishonest? That in fact, as the headline suggested, there is a genuine "debate" about whether or not the remains should be classified as homo sapiens? And isn't it reasonable to have such a debate given the fact that evolution is a continuous process of change rather than a series of discrete steps?

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #42
When you study the material about the Omo, Herto and Jebel Irhoud remains you see that none are homo sapiens. You have to read the material carefully to see that that is the case. Just as I had to read the material about Jebel Irhoud to see that it was not homo sapiens even though that false claim is made in many places.
So it is not just you folks that are dishonest. It took me about 10 minutes to find the quote from Hublin indicating that the Jebel Irhoud remains were not homo sapiens*. And yet that false claim appears in many places.


::)
Quote
No point in trying to have a discussion with people who are dishonest. Presumably the stakes are very high. Time to move on to some other aspect of this.


:wave:

Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #43
BTW, the phrase is "Time to move on to some other aspect of this fascinating topic".

It just doesn't work if you don't say the whole thing. Sorry.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #44
(Pssst! This is where you're supposed to say "you don't have to be sorry")
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Jebel Irhoud
Reply #45
  • Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 07:52:22 AM by socrates1

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #46
Here are images of the Jebel Irhoud remains.
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-scientists-oldest-homo-sapiens-fossils.html
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Jebel_Irhoud_1._Homo_Sapiens.jpg/1200px-Jebel_Irhoud_1._Homo_Sapiens.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4sNIpjvdlj8/TdZ0q4kh9tI/AAAAAAAADwM/INzDBvkMWMk/s320/Jebel_Irhoud.jpg

Here are Neanderthal vs homo sapiens images:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/origins/skulls/sapiens_neanderthal_comparison.gif
https://astrofella.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/neanderthals-vs-humans.png

It is incorrect to say that the facial features of Jebel Irhoud are like homo sapiens.


Funny how your source emphatically says otherwise:
Quote
Perhaps the most striking thing about the Irhoud people was their faces. These ancient people could easily have wandered around in a modern city and passed as one of us--"as long as they wore a hat," Hublin joked. Their faces and tooth shapes were modern, but their elongated skulls looked more like much earlier hominins.
Whoops! Looks like the cows are home...
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #47
Quote
Modern human origins continues to be one of the most hotly debated topics among anthropologists, and there is little consensus about where and when the first members of our species, Homo sapiens, became fully modern.

 https://phys.org/news/2007-03-fossil-human-growth-years.html#jCp
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #48
Quote
Modern human origins continues to be one of the most hotly debated topics among anthropologists, and there is little consensus about where and when the first members of our species, Homo sapiens, became fully modern.

 https://phys.org/news/2007-03-fossil-human-growth-years.html#jCp
Would you say that from the fossils themselves it is clear that the Jebel Irhoud are not homo sapiens?

ETA:
People may find the comments attached to the phys.org article interesting.
  • Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 10:49:28 AM by socrates1

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #49
Hey Socrates just a heads up but this thread is in alternative science