|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 9:01:54 GMT
You just post random articles with no care whether they are actually relevant or not. For the fifth time - do you have any evidence to support your claim? The article Clusium cited is a bit odd, it says that the first 'traces' of modern Humans are 90,000 years old, it links to a further article on modern Humans that puts the appearance of modern Humans, in Africa at ~ 150,000 years ago. I think this is the root of the confusion, Clusium thinks modern Humans evolved ~ 90 kya which roughly coincides with the first signs of religion (give or take a few millennia). He/she maybe unaware that there are much older H. sapiens fossils than the ones mentioned. I took the first use of "modern humans" in that article to refer to our particular subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens, rather than the species as a whole. However, you are correct that it is a bit odd. But the root of the confusion is Clusium just isn't very bright. She often makes claims and then attempts to support those claims by linking articles that don't support her position. This is supported by the fact she thinks Gobekli Tepe, at only 11,500 years old, is somehow evidence to support her claim.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jul 1, 2017 9:10:23 GMT
The article Clusium cited is a bit odd, it says that the first 'traces' of modern Humans are 90,000 years old, it links to a further article on modern Humans that puts the appearance of modern Humans, in Africa at ~ 150,000 years ago. I think this is the root of the confusion, Clusium thinks modern Humans evolved ~ 90 kya which roughly coincides with the first signs of religion (give or take a few millennia). He/she maybe unaware that there are much older H. sapiens fossils than the ones mentioned. I took the first use of "modern humans" in that article to refer to our particular subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens, rather than the species as a whole. However, you are correct that it is a bit odd. But the root of the confusion is Clusium just isn't very bright. She often makes claims and then attempts to support those claims by linking articles that don't support her position. This is supported by the fact she thinks Gobekli Tepe, at only 11,500 years old, is somehow evidence to support her claim. Right, but isn't our subspecies H sapiens sapiens more usually called anatomically modern Humans? And (up until the recent find in N. Africa) we appeared/evolved ~200,000 years ago in East Africa? I have to admit I'm quite hazy on the cladisitics of Human evolution.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2017 9:16:02 GMT
Scientific consensus is always modified by new evidence. The dgree to which anything is 'settled' depends on the strength and depth of the evidence. H. sapiens evolution - www.nature.com/news/oldest-homo-sapiens-fossil-claim-rewrites-our-species-history-1.22114 The precise timing and location of H. sapiens evolution has always been under question, the weight of evidence supported the out of Africa theory and probably still does but this new find puts it in doubt or at least complicates the model. This doesn't put Human evolution and common ancestry in doubt though, the over arching weight of evidence supports common ancestry, it's the fine detail that's always up for change. The same with AGW, it's real and supported by the evidence but the detail is always under scrutiny. Ruth, I must respectfully disagree with you. AGW is a joke told too many times.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 1, 2017 9:24:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 10:01:48 GMT
I took the first use of "modern humans" in that article to refer to our particular subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens, rather than the species as a whole. However, you are correct that it is a bit odd. But the root of the confusion is Clusium just isn't very bright. She often makes claims and then attempts to support those claims by linking articles that don't support her position. This is supported by the fact she thinks Gobekli Tepe, at only 11,500 years old, is somehow evidence to support her claim. Right, but isn't our subspecies H sapiens sapiens more usually called anatomically modern Humans? And (up until the recent find in N. Africa) we appeared/evolved ~200,000 years ago in East Africa? I have to admit I'm quite hazy on the cladisitics of Human evolution. True, but I doubt that particular site was attempting to be that exact. Also, if I understand the recent find correctly, the recent discovery may show that Homo sapiens actually first appeared ~ 300,000 years ago. Other than our species being 100,000 years older than previously thought, I don't think this actually changes anything cladistics wise. It won't change our relationship with Neanderthals who will still be the closest relative to Homo sapiens known to have existed nor will it change the current model that says Neanderthals evolved in Europe from a population of Homo heidelbergensis which had itself evolved from Homo erectus. I have, however, read a few less than impressive claims (at least not impressive to me) that state that all three species: H. heidelbergensis, H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis evolved directly from Homo erectus and that H. heidelbergensis was not an intermediary between H. erectus and the two latter species. If this turns out to be true then this would be a change in the currently understood cladistics. However, everything I've read on the topic suggests that Homo erectus was already on the verge of extinction by the time Homo sapiens evolved, or even by the time Neanderthals evolved so, in my opinion, it still seems more likely that Homo heidelbergensis remains an intermediary species but may have evolved into Homo sapiens earlier than previously thought. Of course, those evil scientists could decide tomorrow that there is only one species in the genus Homo and all the supposed species are actually subspecies and it still wouldn't change the evolutionary history or the fact of human evolution. Have I bored you enough yet? Damn gangster science!
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 10:03:53 GMT
Clusium linked that same article and thought it supported her claim. Even when i pointed out specifically what it said she still thought it supported her claim.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jul 1, 2017 15:08:26 GMT
I'm sure the Nazis had a few admirable qualities.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 22:26:47 GMT
Are you illiterate? The earliest man is not even under discussion. We are talking about the latest species and the only one still living and your links show that religion has been practiced for only the last 20% of the existence of that most recent species. Yes, the earliest man is under discussion. I posted earlier that religion has been with us since the earliest time humanity existed. Are you going to support this claim instead of linking articles that say almost the exact opposite?
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 1, 2017 22:41:54 GMT
Are you illiterate? The earliest man is not even under discussion. We are talking about the latest species and the only one still living and your links show that religion has been practiced for only the last 20% of the existence of that most recent species. Yes, the earliest man is under discussion. I posted earlier that religion has been with us since the earliest time humanity existed. Hi Clusium, While religion and proto religions are very old, the humans (homo sapiens) have existed for much much longer than the time religions have existed. You could say that religions played important role during the formative years of civilisation but religions are not as old as humanity. Earlier humans were wild type of people who had very inferior form of communication system and mostly hunted.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 1, 2017 22:54:29 GMT
Yes, the earliest man is under discussion. I posted earlier that religion has been with us since the earliest time humanity existed. Are you going to support this claim instead of linking articles that say almost the exact opposite? Already have. If you don't like them, too bad.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 1, 2017 22:55:54 GMT
Yes, the earliest man is under discussion. I posted earlier that religion has been with us since the earliest time humanity existed. Hi Clusium, While religion and proto religions are very old, the humans (homo sapiens) have existed for much much longer than the time religions have existed. You could say that religions played important role during the formative years of civilisation but religions are not as old as humanity. Earlier humans were wild type of people who had very inferior form of communication system and mostly hunted. That's because they were still in their animal mode. Animals don't have religion.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 1, 2017 23:05:51 GMT
Hi Clusium, While religion and proto religions are very old, the humans (homo sapiens) have existed for much much longer than the time religions have existed. You could say that religions played important role during the formative years of civilisation but religions are not as old as humanity. Earlier humans were wild type of people who had very inferior form of communication system and mostly hunted. That's because they were still in their animal mode. Animals don't have religion. They were not animals in sense of dog/cat. They were humans albeit still not civilised. (Humans are also a sort of animals and belong to mammal category). Let's give an example. All humanity finishes but 100s of children are saved and food provided to them. The children are not taught speech and civilised manners. Do you think they will become animals? Nopes, they will still be humans.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 1, 2017 23:09:32 GMT
That's because they were still in their animal mode. Animals don't have religion. They were not animals. They were humans albeit still not civilised. a)I'm talking in terms of evolution, b)Human beings are animals.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 1, 2017 23:13:05 GMT
They were not animals. They were humans albeit still not civilised. a)I'm talking in terms of evolution, b)Human beings are animals. Of course humans are animals. See my edit above. Evolution is a never ending process and it has always been continuing and will always continue. The only way you may make your point is by dividing humanity between civilised humans and humans before civilisation existed.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 1, 2017 23:19:28 GMT
a)I'm talking in terms of evolution, b)Human beings are animals. Of course humans are animals. See my edit above. Evolution is a never ending process and it has always been continuing and will always continue. The only way you may make your point is by dividing humanity between civilised humans and humans before civilisation existed. Noted. That is my point.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 23:21:49 GMT
Are you going to support this claim instead of linking articles that say almost the exact opposite? Already have. If you don't like them, too bad. No, you're a liar. You linked several articles that disprove your claim. Even if we limit man to only Homo sapiens then we are still talking about at least 200,000 years. Your best link only goes back about 20% of that. I've explained this a half dozen times by now so what part are you not able to comprehend? Show that religion is at least 200,000 years old or have the integrity to retract your claim and admit you were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 1, 2017 23:22:11 GMT
Of course humans are animals. See my edit above. Evolution is a never ending process and it has always been continuing and will always continue. The only way you may make your point is by dividing humanity between civilised humans and humans before civilisation existed. Noted. That is my point. Well, then the recent findings in medical science have shown that humans are born with innate sense of justice and so golden rule could have been a result of human way of thinking. Not necessarily born out of religion. medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 23:23:31 GMT
Of course humans are animals. See my edit above. Evolution is a never ending process and it has always been continuing and will always continue. The only way you may make your point is by dividing humanity between civilised humans and humans before civilisation existed. Noted. That is my point. Your point had nothing to do with evolution and the part of AJ's post that you bolded has nothing to do with your claim. Unless you can show that religion is at least 200,000 years old then your claim is false. Stop trying to lie your way out of it.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 1, 2017 23:29:36 GMT
Already have. If you don't like them, too bad. No, you're a liar. You linked several articles that disprove your claim. Even if we limit man to only Homo sapiens then we are still talking about at least 200,000 years. Your best link only goes back about 20% of that. I've explained this a half dozen times by now so what part are you not able to comprehend? Show that religion is at least 200,000 years old or have the integrity to retract your claim and admit you were wrong. I haven't lied about anything. You asked for sources & I provided them.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 1, 2017 23:30:28 GMT
Your point had nothing to do with evolution and the part of AJ's post that you bolded has nothing to do with your claim. Unless you can show that religion is at least 200,000 years old then your claim is false. Stop trying to lie your way out of it. I'm not lying about anything. You prove that religion is fairly new. The ball is in your court now.
|
|