Thursday, May 28, 2015

Many Groups of Archaic Humans

In 2011 researchers discovered jaw bones and teeth of four individuals in the Afar region of Ethiopia which date to between 3.3m and 3.5m years old. These archaic humans were alive at the same time as other early human groups, suggesting that it may be time to abandon the linear evolution hypothesis. Clearly, there were more archaic humans living in Africa 3 million years ago than has been generally recognized.

Dr Yohannes Haile-Selassie, curator of physical anthropology at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, believes that the growing evidence of archaic human fossils indicates that the early stage of human evolution was complex.



Dr. Haile-Selassie states, "That hypothesis of linear evolution has to be revisited. And now with the discovery of more species, like this new one... you have another species roaming around.




The original study is published in the journal Nature.

The Upper Nile Valley region is likely the point of origin of archaic humans and the idea of a "new species" is another example of having to force material findings into the Darwinian "common ancestry" mold. Just wait until the Rising Star Expedition reports come out about a burial cave near Krugersdorp in South Africa.The large number of individuals found in a tiny underground chamber suggest clan burial. By April 2014, between two localities, 1724 human specimens were recovered and they show a range of anatomical features consistent with modern humans.﻿

Related reading: A Flawed Paradigm; The Dispersal of Archaic Humans; Was Lucy Human?; Getting the Facts About Human Origins; The Northern Range of Archaic Humans; Protruding Jaw a Human Feature; Is Scientific Dating of Fossils Reliable?


nigus said...

And let us not forget Sahelanthropus tchadensis of West Africa.

J Eppinga said...

How can Homo s.s. be asserted to be a subspecies, whereas when there is talk of ancient humans, the genus category is dredged up?

I was taught that a species is a species when, under normal circumstances, it propagates. I know the classic example of the mule is flawed because it is theoretically possible to have a mule that is fertile (though that is extremely unlikely), but even the statistics would draw species boundaries around the horse and the donkey, separately.

Are there Evolutionary Biologists who confess over beers and cigars, that they are privately troubled by the so-called 'Species Problem'? Or is it one of those subjects that is so taboo that beer can't bring it out?

J Eppinga said...

Put another way, how do we look at hominid fossils from South Africa and then from Ethiopia, and declare, "these are separate species" ?

How can they be certain that two such individuals could NOT produce fertile offspring, when paired together? Particularly if the DNA is too degraded to prove that they are genetically incompatible?

Alice Linsley said...

Beer certainly loosens the lips of some biologists and geneticists, and I know many recognize that the branch theory-common ancestry model needs to be jettisoned in light of the substantial evidence concerning the diversity and dispersion of archaic humans. That said, these folks rely on funding from organizations that still promote the Darwinian model, so when they chat in private, they do it carefully.

Humans reproduce only humans. Plants reproduce only plants. Apes reproduce only apes. Genesis says each reproduces according to its own "kind" - that is, essence. This is a more accurate picture of reality.

J Eppinga said...

RE: "..these folks rely on funding from organizations.."

I suspect that the preservation of credibility may be at least one of the reasons why you have chosen not to profit financially off of either of your blogs (JG & BA).


Alice Linsley said...

I hope to profit from the publication of the books, if I can find a publisher bold enough to take a risk with this research. :)

J Eppinga said...

No complaining from me of all people!

If you do, I would like to reserve autographed copies.

Are you familiar with the annual publications of Writer's Digest, '2015 Writers' Market,' and a similar one that that deals with Christian publishers?

Susan Burns said...

As I recall, there is a geological problem with the upper Nile as the point of human origin. DDenden could explain exactly but it has something to do with plate uplift. There is also a problem with a disease that affected all primates with the exception of the human line. The human line must have been isolated during the infection. The question is; where could this possibly be? This airborne disease even infected primates on islands. My theory is the Rift Valley of the Negev as the protected area for evolution. It was hominidae of the papyrus estuarine that were our immediate ancestors. The Sea of Reeds was surrounded by mountains and ocean.

Alice Linsley said...

That would place the first humans in the heart of ancient Eden. Eden, a vast well-watered region, extended from the headwaters of the Nile to the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. This was the paradise of old and the point of origin of Messianic expectation long before we can speak of a people called the Jews.





Susan Burns said...

Tyre is from the Hebrew Tsur. Hatsor/Ester/Easter/Astarte

Tsur is the Rock of Ages and IMO a tor