Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 26th, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Human Origins

[A reliable rule of anthropology is that (X) happened a lot earlier than we think today, and subsequent discoveries, like the one below, will prove it.]

Fossils Push Back Bipedalism to 6 Million Years Ago

By E.J. Mundell
Thursday, March 20, 2008; 12:00 AM

THURSDAY, March 20 (HealthDay News) -- Far from being a recent, revolutionary development, the ability to walk upright on two legs began at the dawn of human evolution more than six million years ago, new research confirms.

The first detailed examination of the fossilized thigh bones of a 4-foot tall creature calledOrrorin tugenensissupports the notion that this very early member of the hominin family tree was bipedal, anthropologists say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032002054.html
 
Old March 26th, 2008 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

French anthropologists first discovered the six-million-year-old group of fossil thigh bones, hand bones and teeth in Kenya in 2000. O. tugenesis -- about the size of today's chimpanzees -- lived in an era close to the very origins of human evolution.

"It's right in the time period where we think chimpanzees and humans first split from each other -- about 5 to 8 million years ago," Richmond said.
 
Old March 26th, 2008 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Spain dig yields ancient European

By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News


The lower jaw could be from a female

Scientists have discovered the oldest human remains in western Europe.

A jawbone and teeth discovered at the famous Atapuerca site in northern Spain have been dated between 1.1 and 1.2 million years old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7313005.stm
 
Old March 26th, 2008 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

 
Old March 26th, 2008 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

I would be interested in what some of you think are the real origins of the White race, from these pre-races, so to speak. It appears to me the record is a handful of fossils and lungfuls of speculation. Anyone can take a shard of jawbone and turn it into a theory that surprise, surprise, has white men tracing back to Africa.
 
Old March 26th, 2008 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Remains of Human Ancestors Found

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
March 26, 2008

Excavations in a cave in the mountains of northern Spain have uncovered the oldest known remains of human ancestors in Western Europe, scientists reported Wednesday.

The fossils of a lower jaw and teeth, more than 1.1 million years old, were found in sediments along with stone tools and animal bones that appeared to have been butchered. The remains have been attributed to the previously known species Homo antecessor, a possible ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans.

The discovery is described in the current issue of the journal Nature by a team of Spanish and American scientists led by Eudald Carbonell of the Catalan Institute of Human Paleontology and Social Evolution at Tarragona, Spain.

The scientists, noting that the earliest presence of human ancestors in Europe is “one of the most debated topics in paleoanthropology,” said the site of Sima del Elefante in the Atapuerca Mountains held the “oldest, most accurately dated record” of both fossils and artifacts of human occupation in Western Europe.

Other sites on the continent have yielded artifacts of a roughly comparable age, but no fossil bones. Until now, the earliest remains of Homo antecessor, found in the same mountains, were 800,000 years old. Far to the east, in the republic of Georgia, recent fossil discoveries show that early Homo had moved into parts of Eurasia from Africa about 1.9 million years ago.

“It’s great to have confirmation that there was early human penetration in Western Europe this early,” said Ian Tattersall, a paleonanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Tattersall said in an interview that it was too soon to tell where these cave occupants “fit in the larger scale” of early human settlement in Europe. It is not yet clear, for example, how or if this species was ancestral to later European populations, he said.

Dr. Carbonell’s group conceded that the identification of the fossils as Homo antecessor was provisional. But those living in the cave had been busy making crude tools from chert. A few pieces survived, along with knapping flakes. The animal bones showed cut marks and other signs of processing, including fractures for extracting marrow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/sc...fossil.html?hp
 
Old March 26th, 2008 #7
Francis Playfair
W.N.F
 
Francis Playfair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,063
Francis Playfair
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I would be interested in what some of you think are the real origins of the White race, from these pre-races, so to speak. It appears to me the record is a handful of fossils and lungfuls of speculation. Anyone can take a shard of jawbone and turn it into a theory that surprise, surprise, has white men tracing back to Africa.
I spent a while working on the Island of Santorini. The rules on the island were very strict, non-locals were not allowed to move to the island, except in extreme circumstances, so to allow me to stay on the island I had to work with the archaeological teams at Akrotiri.

It's actually a fascinating island, it's the scene of the largest natural disaster to occur in the history of mankind, and also reputed by many to be the site of Atlantis.

Here's a picture of the island from wiki:



The circular area in the middle of the picture is the caldera, a volcanic feature formed by the collapse of land following the volcanic eruption. They are often confused with volcanic craters. The word 'caldera' comes from the Spanish language, meaning "cauldron".

Before the eruption the island was an almost perfect circular shape, so you only need to look at the image above to see the size and velocity of the explosion.

The impact of the eruption of Santorini was immense, and global.

The climatic effects of the Minoan eruption have been correlated with a frost event recorded in tree rings in the western USA and dated by dendrochronology as 1626 +/- 2 yrs BC (LaMarche and Hirschboeck 1984). Narrow tree rings have also been identified in Irish oak trees from the period 1626 to 1628 BC and attributed to the Santorini event (Baillie and Munro 1988.). These frost events are within the limits of 14C dating of 1615 +/- 17 yrs BC of Santorini vegetation carbonized by the eruption (Hammer et al. 1987).

It is evident that many notable frost ring events recorded in trees correlate with volcanic eruptions, and from the data of LaMarche and Hirschboeck (1984) it appears that approx. 60% of frost ring events correlate with major volcanic eruptions.

On a global scale, this means the climate would have changed for some years, causing colder weather and failed crops, which would have lead to starvation, and massive population movements.

In the Aegean these people movements lead to the rise of the Sea people, who invaded and attacked the then still primarily Caucasian Egypt a number of times in that time period.

Further afield, in the region of the Turanianian plain, soil analysis shows that there was large disruption caused by the volcanic activity, and that there would have been harsh climate conditions, crops would have failed, and that animals would have died.

Basically this Caucasian population would have suffered, and been left with no choice but to move on, or die out.

It is recorded, both by the finds of remains, human and other, and by the dispersal of language, cultures and genetics, that the first option prevailed.

The Caucasian population, or parts of, migrated from the Turanian plains, and moved southward to the plateau of Iran. From this point some stayed put, some moved west and some moved east.

So where am I going with any of this?

The digs were confined to one small area on the island, although everyone knew the best sites were elsewhere.

Why wasn't anyone digging in the other sites?

Because they were buried deep beneath rocks, and debris, at the heart of the caldera, under the sea.

In other words it was hard.

The majority of archeology is done where it's easy.

In Africa one only needs to brush away a little sand, or dirt, to find some old bone, or fossil, where as in Europe, where the landscape is more rugged, where cities have flourished, and where big business has an investment, the digs are rarer, and harder, and this doesn't even begin to consider mans propensity to settle in coastal, or river areas, and so therefore the majority of good European sites would be under water.

Because of the costs involved, and the higher chance of success, digging in favorable areas, the majority of archeology is geared to places like Africa, and theories that give increased importance to this areas.

It's one of the reasons that dates are forever being revised, because the theories are known to be false, but constructed to favor what people want, and therefore when a new tooth, or bone, is found in Europe, they have to reinvent their African theories again.

What is the truth of the origins of the White race?

In reality, all theories aside, no one can be absolutely certain of the origins of our race, although the most popularly held theory is that we probably originated, as a distinct entity, sometime between 40,000 and 25,000 years ago.

During this period of time there were two distinct cultural traditions which entered Europe, the first was the Aurignacian, which arrived shortly after 40,000 years ago. The Aurignacians were the earliest modern humans in Europe, which had previously been inhabited only by Neanderthals. The second was the Gravettian, which displaced the Aurignacian starting about 29,000 years ago.

When the Gravettian cultural explosion began, Europe was still dominated by the Aurignacian culture. However, after 30,000 BP, the climate began falling back into extreme Ice Age conditions which the Aurignacians were not prepared to withstand.

The last of the Neanderthals died off at this time, and it has recently been suggested that the Aurignacians would have perished as well if the Gravettians had not come to their rescue.

The fact that Gravettian lineages provide well over half the genetic endowment of present-day Europeans, while the Aurignacian lines account for only about 10%, may give some indication of the survival advantages of the Gravettian way of life.

Let us look back for a moment to 29,000 years ago. At that time, Europe had already begun returning to full Ice Age conditions, but the newly-arrived Gravettians took the changes in stride, and they continued to flourish, despite the climate becoming increasingly cold and dry.

The majority of the famous "Venus" statuettes were produced between about 24,000 and 22,000 BP, mainly in an area of central and eastern Europe stretching from the Danube to the Volga.

From around 21,000 to 17,000 years ago, glacial conditions grew so extreme that Europe was almost completely cut off from the outside, and this isolation is probably the final piece in the jigsaw, that sees the final steps in the evolution of the modern White man.

However, as the harsh conditions continued, Ice fields spread south from Scandinavia and north from the Alps, and the narrow corridor between them became a bleak polar desert. This created an impassable barrier between eastern and western Europe which destroyed the cultural unity that had endured for thousands of years, so that almost immediately, after that final evolutionary step, the modern White race became divided.

At the absolute peak of the cold, human habitation was reduced to a few relatively temperate refuges, one such refuge was in southern France and northwestern Spain and a second in Italy. A third was in the northern Balkans, and a fourth in the Ukraine.

Eastern Europe held onto much of its Gravettian heritage during this period, so the culture there is described as epi-Gravettian. However, in the extreme west, two new cultures developed -- the Solutrean, about 20,000 years ago, which produced the finest tools of the Late Paleolithic, and the Magdalenian, in which the art of the deep caves reached its peak.

The Solutreans, are now know to have turned to harvesting the resources of the sea as the land became barren, and there is now even serious speculation that they crossed the Atlantic Ocean, working their way along the edge of the ice cap, and introducing the Clovis culture to North America.

When the ice started retreating about 16,000 years ago, people gradually moved north. The first to repopulate the northern European plains were Magdalenian reindeer hunters from southern France, and by 14,000 years ago they had reached England (which was then attached to the continent, due to lowered sea levels), the Netherlands, and Germany. A thousand years later, they had also pushed north into Denmark and southern Sweden and east as far as Poland and southern Lithuania.

By that time, a second wave of expansion had begun spreading northwest from the Dniepr River in the Ukraine, carrying an offshoot of the epi-Gravettian culture of eastern Europe to Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia. From Poland, this culture expanded further into Germany and Scandinavia, ultimately reaching northern Norway and Finland as the Ice Age came to a close about 10,000.

Thus we see the origins of our race, and how it was almost immediately divided, how it developed over a period of up to 10,000 years, isolated from the other branches of it's family, before spreading our and repopulating the continent.

As Europe became reconnected to the rest of the world again, having survived this extreme natural occurrence, that helped to meld and shape us into the people we are today, some of our people also ventured east, and began settling in the vast empty areas they found there, which gave birth to some of the earliest cities, and civilizations discovered by archaeologists.
 
Old March 26th, 2008 #8
notmenomore
Senior Member
 
notmenomore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,174
notmenomore
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I would be interested in what some of you think are the real origins of the White race, from these pre-races, so to speak. It appears to me the record is a handful of fossils and lungfuls of speculation. Anyone can take a shard of jawbone and turn it into a theory that surprise, surprise, has white men tracing back to Africa.

Although there's scant likelihood that any of these theories will ever become generally and sustainably supported as "fact" (or as incontrovertible theory), it still seems to me that both the proclivity of such "anthropologists" as Stephen Gould to offer up continued knee-jerk support for the "African origins" theories and the overwhelming reluctance of WN to accept any scientific theories that claim African origins for modern Homo Sapiens suffer from similar emotional defects.

The "no race but the Human Race" Bolsheviks desire nothing more than to hope (or assume) that they can prove African origins for Homo Sapiens. Their belief systems seem to hold that such "evidence" would somehow "prove" the absurd contention that Whites are both related to and descended from present day African niggers (or at least the niggers' ancestors). "Red and yellow, Black or White," we would all then be "precious in his sight." Of course the big bonus for the academic egalitarians here would be a speciously alleged genetic "identity" of all bipedal life.

An unfortunate offshoot of this ludicrous academic postulate has been the unwarranted sensitivity of Whites to the allegations. A consequence seems to have been that rather than simply discounting some of the absurdities of the academics' claims, WN have tended to embarrass themselves by asserting counter theories that are often equally without substance. It seems almost as if WN find it necessary to develop a substitute belief system (counter to the egalitarian one), rather than simply recognizing the propaganda and leaps of faith required by the egalitarian postulate and redirecting the discussion and research to more plausible scenarios - much as Playfair has done with his summary overview above.

WN should realize that the establishment of (ultimately) African origins to contemporary Homo Sapiens neither logically nor biological serves to establish any racial "kinship" or relationship between the European Whites and the new, subhuman and immature race that is presently aboriginal in the Sub-Saharan African continent. The time-contexts are simply too great to allow for any such connection.

As Playfair points out, the modern European White Race represents the final culling through a severe ice age and eons of marginal existence of a small group of phenotypical Whites that took place only in the most recent 20,000 or so years. Our development is easily shown to have occurred over several millions of years - with a recent culmination and development into our present form. Everything about us represents the final product of a process of natural selection through the most difficult and trying survival process known.

The African Negro, contrariwise, represents a similar developmental process that is of vastly more recent vintage and of incredibly less challenging overall circumstances. I don't need to list the multitude of differences in evolutionary circumstances to arrive at the simple observation that the present genetic (and all other) differences between the White and aboriginal African races represent absolutely the totality of the differences in the evolutionary struggles undergone by these two most separate and distinct races.

Claims of comparison and similarity between Whites and African aboriginals based on allegedly similar origins that existed four to six millions of years ago, when Homo Sapiens himself was but a figment for a future millions of years hence, are equally as ridiculous as claims of racial equality today. Neither have any basis in logic nor in fact.
__________________
No way out but through the jews.
 
Old May 26th, 2009 #9
J.E.
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 204
J.E.
Default


this clip from History of the World may be as true as it is funny. Human beings are the degenerate offspring of sodomite monkeys, their inflamed, swollen brains being the epigenic inheritance of their pervert monkey ancestors.

When a dominant babboon approaches a lower status babboon, the babboon drops it's food. Likewise, masturbation is an evolved form of self-castration, the masturbator 'drops' their genetic material so as not to impregnate any females. The combination of constant shaming of white males in the media, and the flooding of their brain with internet porn, is a calculated cocktail of sexual annihilation. Homosexuality is simply another form of self-castration, as a display of submissiveness, it may be a display to abusive members of their family, their father , or whatever.
 
Old January 23rd, 2014 #10
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

‘Adam’ walked the Earth 209,000 years ago: UK scientists claim the first man lived 9,000 years earlier than previously thought

To calculate age of the Y chromosome, researchers multiplied data on age fathers have their first child with the number of mutations they uncovered

They then divided this figure by the mutation rate of the Y chromosome

Their findings suggest that 'Adam' lived in the same time frame as 'Eve'

Earlier study at Arizona University claimed Y chromosome originated in a different species through interbreeding and dated 'Adam' to be twice as old

By ELLIE ZOLFAGHARIFARD
23 January 2014

Our most common male ancestor, ‘Adam’, has finally got his original birthdate – and its 9,000 years earlier than scientists believed.

UK researchers claim that ‘Adam’ walked the earth 209,000 years ago, contradicting a recent study that suggested the Y chromosome predated humanity.

Their findings puts 'Adam' within the timeframe of his other half 'Eve', the genetic maternal ancestor of mankind.

Our most common male ancestor walked the earth 209,000 years ago - earlier than scientists commonly thought - according to new research from the University of Sheffield

The study, conducted by Dr Eran Elhaik from the University of Sheffield and Dr Dan Graur from the University of Houston, claims to put ‘Adam’ in his rightful place in evolutionary history.

STUDY SUGGESTS ADAM AND EVE LIVED IN AFRICA AT THE SAME TIME

Results of a separate study announced in August last year suggest that Adam and Eve lived in Africa at the same time - but probably never met.

It was previously believed that ‘Y-chromosomal Adam’ and ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ - the most recent common ancestors to males and females - lived at completely different times.

But a study of 69 men from around the world found ‘Y-chromosomal Adam’ walked the Earth between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago, much earlier than previously believed.

It places him nearer to Eve who was around 99,000 to 148,000 years ago the analysis found.

The researchers at Stanford University, California, say it is ‘extremely unlikely’ they were exact contemporaries.

Initial estimates for the male MRCA ranged from between 50,000 to 115,000 years ago.

Geneticist Professor Carlos Bustamante, of Stanford University, California, said: 'Previous research has indicated the male most recent common ancestor (MRCA) lived much more recently than the female MRCA. But now our research shows there is no discrepancy.'

They then divided this figure by the mutation rate of the Y chromosome – or how many years it took on average for the mutation to appear.

‘Of course, we can manipulate each one of these variables to make a finding look younger or older,’ Dr Elhaik told MailOnline.

‘In our paper, we showed the previous study manipulated all these variable to predate the Y chromosome.’

‘We can say with some certainty that modern humans emerged in Africa a little over 200,000 years ago,’ he added.

‘It is obvious that modern humans did not interbreed with hominins living over 500,000 years ago. It is also clear that there was no single “Adam” and “Eve” but rather groups of “Adams” and “Eves” living side by side and wandering together in our world.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz2rIA1ODqi
 
Old February 8th, 2014 #11
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Earliest human footprints outside Africa found in Britain

AFP By Danny Kemp
February 7, 2014

London (AFP) - Footprints left by ancient humans 800,000 years ago have been found in Britain, the earliest evidence of such markings outside Africa, scientists said Friday.

Researchers discovered the footprints, which were left by both adults and children, in ancient estuary mud at Happisburgh in Norfolk, eastern England.

The only older footprints found so far are at Laetoli in Tanzania, at about 3.5 million years old, and at Ileret and Koobi Fora in Kenya at about 1.5 million years, they added.

"This is an extraordinarily rare discovery," said Nick Ashton of the British Museum, who led the research team, which also involved the National History Museum and Queen Mary University London.

The discovery came at an archaelogical site that has yielded several previous discoveries of stone tools and fossil bones, including mammoth remains.

The researchers found the prints at low tide when waves washed away much of the beach sand to explose the silt below.

"At first we weren’t sure what we were seeing but as we removed any remaining beach sand and sponged off the seawater, it was clear that the hollows resembled prints, perhaps human footprints, and that we needed to record the surface as quickly as possible before the sea eroded it away," Ashton said.

The group of early humans that left the footprints appeared to have consisted of at least one male and several smaller people believed to be females and youngsters, the researchers said.

"They are clearly a family group rather than a hunting party," said Ashton.

Analysis of the prints found that they were from a "range of adult and juvenile foot sizes" equating to modern shoe sizes of up to British 7 or 8 (US 8 or 9, European 41 or 42).

The researchers estimated that the height of the ancient humans who left the prints varied from about 0.9 metres to over 1.7 metres (2 ft 11 in to 5 ft 6 in), not far off the height of modern humans.

They were dated at 800,000 years old partly on the basis of the site's geological position beneath glacial deposits, but also because the fossils there come from now-extinct types of mammoth and horse and early forms of vole that were alive at that time.

But the question of exactly what type of ancient humans left their footprints in the sands of time remains a mystery.

They may have been related to people of a similar period in history found in Atapuerca in Spain, assigned to the species Homo antecessor, or Pioneer Man, said Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum.

"These people were of a similar height to ourselves and were fully bipedal," he said.

Homo antecessor apparently became extinct in Europe 600,000 years ago and was perhaps replaced by the species Homo heidelbergensis, followed by the Neanderthals from about 400,000 years ago, and eventually modern humans some 40,000 years ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/earliest-human...184213049.html
 
Old March 15th, 2014 #12
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

'Little Foot' may have been humans' forefather

AFP By Mariette Le Roux, Laurent Banguet
March 14, 2014

Paris (AFP) - A short, hairy "ape man" who tumbled into a pit in South Africa millions of years ago is back in the running as a candidate ancestor for humans, scientists said Friday.

A painstaking 13-year probe has "convincingly shown", they said, that the strange-looking creature named Little Foot lived some three million years ago -- almost a million years earlier than calculated by rival teams.

If so, it would make Little Foot -- so named for the diminutive size of the bones -- one of the oldest members of the Australopithecus hominid family ever found.

And it would bolster the status of South Africa's Sterkfontein cave complex as part of the "Cradle of Humankind", a UN-recognised World Heritage Site.

"Some have said South Africa is too young" to have given rise to modern man, said Laurent Bruxelles from France's National Institute for Archaeological Research (Inrap), who took part in the study.

"We are putting Little Foot and South Africa back in the running."

Another challenger for the title of human ancestor was "Lucy," a specimen of a different strand of Australopithecus -- the genus that had both ape and human features, walked upright, and is believed to have given rise to Homo sapiens, or anatomically modern Man, via Homo habilis.

Lucy's skeleton, uncovered in Ethiopia in 1974, has been dated to about three million years, although as always in fossils, there is a big margin of uncertainty.

"No longer are the Australopithecus of East Africa, like Lucy, the sole candidates" to have been our ancestors, said Bruxelles.

- Age dispute -

Little Foot's age has been a controversial topic.

The Sterkfontein caves, northwest of Johannesburg, do not contain volcanic sediment, as do the east African fossil sites, which is easier to date.

This has caused estimates of Little Foot's age to fluctuate quite drastically -- anything from 1.5 to 4.0 million years, though the most extreme estimates have long been ruled out.

Little Foot's skeleton is the most complete of an Australopithecus ever found.

In 2006, a paper in the journal Science estimated its age at 2.2 million years, based on chemical dating of the layers of stone around the fossil.

Now Bruxelles and a team of French and South African scientists said calcite deposits dubbed "flowstones" that enveloped Little Foot were much younger than the fossil itself.

"The dated flowstones filled voids formed by ancient erosion and collapse," said a statement from the University of the Witwatersrand.

"The skeleton is therefore older, probably considerably older, than the dated flowstones."

Barely a metre tall, Little Foot fell into a 20-metre (66-foot) hole and died, possibly while running from a predator.

The body rolled down a steep slope and came to land with its left arm stretched out over its head.

Over the years, the remains, naturally mummified, were buried under more than 10 metres of sediment and rock, until they were uncovered in 1997.

The discovery of Little Foot was met with great excitement -- estimated at first to be about 3.3 million years old, it would have been a contemporary of Lucy.

But the later, younger, dating threatened Little Foot's place in the human evolutionary picture.

"There is a lot at stake here," said Bruxelles.

"Homo habilis appeared about 2.5 million years ago, which means that Little Foot could not have been our ancestor if it lived later than that."

Robert Cliff, a member of the team that authored the 2006 Science study, told AFP there was no reason to doubt the age of the rocks they measured.

But, he added: "The fact that what we dated was not the fossil itself, may leave open the possibility that the relationship between our (stone) samples and the fossil was more complicated than we thought at the time."

Far older fossils of hominids have been found in East Africa and Chad that predate the known rise of Australopithecus, but their lineage, if any, to our ancestors remains unclear.

The new study appears in a specialist publication, the Journal of Human Evolution.

http://news.yahoo.com/little-foot-ma...144954326.html
 
Old March 15th, 2014 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

New discovery suggests oceans of water beneath Earth’s surface
By Eric Pfeiffer

Graham Pearson holds a diamond that yields new clues about the presence of large amounts of water deep beneath …

There could be an ocean’s worth of water more than 300 miles under the Earth’s surface that equals the known water content across the entire planet. Findings published in the latest issue of the journal Nature show that water was found in a sample of ringwoodite, a stone formed under extreme pressure inside the Earth’s mantle.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...192931291.html

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 15th, 2014 at 09:26 PM.
 
Old March 15th, 2014 #14
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
N.B. Forrest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
'Little Foot' may have been humans' forefather

AFP By Mariette Le Roux, Laurent Banguet
March 14, 2014

Paris (AFP) - A short, hairy "ape man" who tumbled into a pit in South Africa millions of years ago is back in the running as a candidate ancestor for humans, scientists said Friday.

A painstaking 13-year probe has "convincingly shown", they said, that the strange-looking creature named Little Foot lived some three million years ago -- almost a million years earlier than calculated by rival teams.

If so, it would make Little Foot -- so named for the diminutive size of the bones -- one of the oldest members of the Australopithecus hominid family ever found.

And it would bolster the status of South Africa's Sterkfontein cave complex as part of the "Cradle of Humankind", a UN-recognised World Heritage Site.

"Some have said South Africa is too young" to have given rise to modern man, said Laurent Bruxelles from France's National Institute for Archaeological Research (Inrap), who took part in the study.

"We are putting Little Foot and South Africa back in the running."

Another challenger for the title of human ancestor was "Lucy," a specimen of a different strand of Australopithecus -- the genus that had both ape and human features, walked upright, and is believed to have given rise to Homo sapiens, or anatomically modern Man, via Homo habilis.

Lucy's skeleton, uncovered in Ethiopia in 1974, has been dated to about three million years, although as always in fossils, there is a big margin of uncertainty.

"No longer are the Australopithecus of East Africa, like Lucy, the sole candidates" to have been our ancestors, said Bruxelles.

- Age dispute -

Little Foot's age has been a controversial topic.

The Sterkfontein caves, northwest of Johannesburg, do not contain volcanic sediment, as do the east African fossil sites, which is easier to date.

This has caused estimates of Little Foot's age to fluctuate quite drastically -- anything from 1.5 to 4.0 million years, though the most extreme estimates have long been ruled out.

Little Foot's skeleton is the most complete of an Australopithecus ever found.

In 2006, a paper in the journal Science estimated its age at 2.2 million years, based on chemical dating of the layers of stone around the fossil.

Now Bruxelles and a team of French and South African scientists said calcite deposits dubbed "flowstones" that enveloped Little Foot were much younger than the fossil itself.

"The dated flowstones filled voids formed by ancient erosion and collapse," said a statement from the University of the Witwatersrand.

"The skeleton is therefore older, probably considerably older, than the dated flowstones."

Barely a metre tall, Little Foot fell into a 20-metre (66-foot) hole and died, possibly while running from a predator.

The body rolled down a steep slope and came to land with its left arm stretched out over its head.

Over the years, the remains, naturally mummified, were buried under more than 10 metres of sediment and rock, until they were uncovered in 1997.

The discovery of Little Foot was met with great excitement -- estimated at first to be about 3.3 million years old, it would have been a contemporary of Lucy.

But the later, younger, dating threatened Little Foot's place in the human evolutionary picture.

"There is a lot at stake here," said Bruxelles.

"Homo habilis appeared about 2.5 million years ago, which means that Little Foot could not have been our ancestor if it lived later than that."

Robert Cliff, a member of the team that authored the 2006 Science study, told AFP there was no reason to doubt the age of the rocks they measured.

But, he added: "The fact that what we dated was not the fossil itself, may leave open the possibility that the relationship between our (stone) samples and the fossil was more complicated than we thought at the time."

Far older fossils of hominids have been found in East Africa and Chad that predate the known rise of Australopithecus, but their lineage, if any, to our ancestors remains unclear.

The new study appears in a specialist publication, the Journal of Human Evolution.

http://news.yahoo.com/little-foot-ma...144954326.html
"A White paleontologist shows Little Foot's discovery site to his modern Stank Foot descendants."


__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old March 28th, 2014 #15
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

 
Old March 29th, 2014 #16
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Randal Goode
Default

The excellent book, Forbidden Archeology, and Velikovski's Earth in Upheaval should be read by all interested in this subject.
 
Old March 29th, 2014 #17
luftwaffensoldat
Witness to Genocide
 
luftwaffensoldat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Where there are no PAKIS and NIGGERS
Posts: 823
luftwaffensoldat
Default

Out-of-Africa is for nigger-lovers.

I'm a multiregionalist. Humans evolved from 5 geographically separate populations of Homo erectus. Some humans did this earlier than others, which is why niggers, for example, are less evolved than whites.
 
Old April 2nd, 2014 #18
Hunter Morrow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,802
Hunter Morrow
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luftwaffensoldat View Post
Out-of-Africa is for nigger-lovers.

I'm a multiregionalist. Humans evolved from 5 geographically separate populations of Homo erectus. Some humans did this earlier than others, which is why niggers, for example, are less evolved than whites.
The thing is, Out of Africa is presented as scientific, world-wide and world-without-end-amen "consensus" but other countries have multi-regional hypotheses as their scientific consensus and Out of Africa is seen as crackpottery and kook nonsense.

China, for instance, has made numerous genetic and archaeological discoveries in line with multi-regionalism and a large amount of interbreeding with all different sorts of hominids.

There have been bones found that are similar to Homo Sapiens and yet have primitive aspects and share DNA.

DNA has also shown that humans have large amounts of neanderthal and denisovan and other such DNA in them and yet sub-saharan africans have none of that DNA and about 20 percent of their DNA is paleoafrican and NO OTHER RACE has that DNA.

No other race has paleoafrican DNA in it. How does out of Africa account for that?
 
Old March 28th, 2015 #19
EricPowers
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 704
Default

Based on the Scientific evidence I would say early Hominids originated in Africa. So what if we evolved from Ancestors who lived in Africa Millions of Years ago. It would mean that we are more evolved because it is obvious that Europeans and Asians are more evolved than Africans.
 
Old June 11th, 2015 #20
JohnEngelman
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 210
JohnEngelman
Default

The ability to walk long distances on two legs was the first specifically human characteristic. Since then the main factor in human evolution has been the development of higher intelligence.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25 PM.
Page generated in 0.17347 seconds.