Ancient history programme

[WILF 44,479]

15 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

It's terrible!......... But I did laugh. It's so wrong it's funny.

I wonder how many you can stock to the acre ? 

[Greb147 6,808]

15 minutes ago, Francie said:

If I read it right, that paragraph says these are our ancestors, an how an what we evolved from? 

Just looks like human skulls, like valuev or mush

Are these exhibits all real, or are they reconstructed, one bit of bone or skull, an the rest "experts" imagination? 

It didn't happen just like this pal you know.

 

[JDHUNTING 1,817]

1 hour ago, Francie said:

I would like to hear someone explain your post mate, if they found valuev then wee mush lol sorry mush, what would be there outcome? 

They'd think valuev type of humans were huge and and brainy and hunted mammoth and the others lived in shrew holes and ate bugs.

 

1 hour ago, Born Hunter said:

The genetic difference between shroom and Valuev will be small compared to any sapien and a neanderthal. It's just not true, especially when you build up a dataset that reduces the statistics.

The 'Homo' in Homo Neanderthalensis literally means 'human'...

That's my point the genetics are similar but the person sttod Infront of you or in the hole would look like two different species. 

I.e Neanderthals are described as thick set etc so how would you describe modern humans who range from 4ft to 7ft and 50lbs to 500lbs and every possible size and shape inbetween

[Born Hunter 17,646]

19 minutes ago, Francie said:

did you have a semi walking through the museum

I'll grant you she was probably the next stage of evolution!

[Born Hunter 17,646]

2 minutes ago, JDHUNTING said:

That's my point the genetics are similar but the person sttod Infront of you or in the hole would look like two different species. 

I.e Neanderthals are described as thick set etc so how would you describe modern humans who range from 4ft to 7ft and 50lbs to 500lbs and every possible size and shape inbetween

But you're reducing taxonomy to literally two variables, you can't do that and get a sensible conclusion. Large Sapiens will have more in common with small and average Sapiens than they will with other Hominid species and subspecies. It's like saying a small coyote is a fox.

The genes that change the appearance of an individual are only part of their genome. It's not the be all and end all. For example there's more genetic diversity in the continent of Africa than there is across the rest of the world and yet we erroneously consider 'African' a race because of the most striking morphological traits that they share on that continent.

[Greb147 6,808]

11 minutes ago, JDHUNTING said:

They'd think valuev type of humans were huge and and brainy and hunted mammoth and the others lived in shrew holes and ate bugs.

 

That's my point the genetics are similar but the person sttod Infront of you or in the hole would look like two different species. 

I.e Neanderthals are described as thick set etc so how would you describe modern humans who range from 4ft to 7ft and 50lbs to 500lbs and every possible size and shape inbetween

Those 500lb humans are mostly fat, their skeletal structure won't be much dissimilar to an average human. 

Of course there are outliers, I mean Robert Wadlow was just about 9ft tall! 

Scientists have enough knowledge though to determine whether it is sapien or not. 

[JDHUNTING 1,817]

16 minutes ago, Greb147 said:

Those 500lb humans are mostly fat, their skeletal structure won't be much dissimilar to an average human. 

Of course there are outliers, I mean Robert Wadlow was just about 9ft tall! 

Scientists have enough knowledge though to determine whether it is sapien or not. 

All I'm simply saying is there is no point saying human X was thick set with a large brain when compared to modern humans when there are plenty humans bigger boned or headed than Neanderthals we might have only found big Neanderthals. There's prob a lot more Chinese skeletons for future generations to dig up than Dutch and no one would find 10,000 Chinese skeletons and think there was a population of  so called the exact same species that was on average half a foot taller and prob 40lb heavier on average. These arent outliers but billions of people.

Edited August 20, 2020 by JDHUNTING

[Born Hunter 17,646]

15 minutes ago, JDHUNTING said:

All I'm simply saying is there is no point saying human X was thick set with a large brain when compared to modern humans when there are plenty humans bigger boned or headed than Neanderthals we might have only found big Neanderthals. There's prob a lot more Chinese skeletons for future generations to dig up than Dutch and no one would find 10,000 Chinese skeletons and think there was a population of  so called the exact same species that was on average half a foot taller and prob 40lb heavier on average. These arent outliers but billions of people.

I think that's an incorrect assumption. As I said, you're reducing the field of taxonomy to very few variables, height and weight, when in truth it takes into account many measurements.

Chinese and Dutch populations can certainly be differentiated but not so much as to make them different species.

[JDHUNTING 1,817]

22 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

I think that's an incorrect assumption. As I said, you're reducing the field of taxonomy to very few variables, height and weight, when in truth it takes into account many measurements.

Chinese and Dutch populations can certainly be differentiated but not so much as to make them different species.

I don't know if I've written something unintentionally but all I'm saying is you can't describe the Neanderthals physical traits (i.e height and bone weight bone thickness etc) accurately from a few thousand skeletons from certain places in the world than you could accurately say modern humans are around 5'6 and 10 stone from a few thousand modern human skeletons. They don't know how big they were or how smart they were genetically as we haven't found all that many skeletons as far as I know.

More along the lines of what you say, by my simple view of things I'd of thought there was enough of a difference between different modern human groups than other things that are considered different species like say a roach and a Rudd compared to a Russian  and an aborigine, and if so then why not a modern European being closer to a Neanderthal than say a African pygmy.

[Born Hunter 17,646]

3 minutes ago, JDHUNTING said:

I don't know if I've written something unintentionally but all I'm saying is you can't describe the Neanderthals physical traits (i.e height and bone weight bone thickness etc) accurately from a few thousand skeletons from certain places in the world than you could accurately say modern humans are around 5'6 and 10 stone from a few thousand modern human skeletons. They don't know how big they were or how smart they were genetically as we haven't found all that many skeletons as far as I know.

More along the lines of what you say, by my simple view of things I'd of thought there was enough of a difference between different modern human groups than other things that are considered different species like say a roach and a Rudd compared to a Russian  and an aborigine, and if so then why not a modern European being closer to a Neanderthal than say a African pygmy.

I understood you to be saying that Dutch and Chinese remains would be considered separate species if we applied the same systems of classification? And I'm saying I think that's wrong. The difference between any modern human/Sapien population is small compared to the difference between Neanderthal and Sapien. Of course the more Neanderthal remains that are found the more accurate our understanding of what the 'average' neanderthal looked like will be but we have sufficient data to be sure they were indeed more different than what Chinese and Dutch people are or whatever. And once you have mapped the genome you can really see if any one sample is indeed an outlier or genetically different enough to likely be a different species. Look at the skulls of different ethnicities and they're all much of a muchness, small differences that identify them but not as significant as the recognised archaic human species/subspecies. Yes they vary is size but that's largely proportionate, not a fundamental change in character.

I've caught roach and rudd but I couldn't tell you much about them so I can't really agree or disagree with that analogy. Someone decided they were different enough to warrant speciation. I understand your point though, but this just comes back to what I keep saying, taxonomy is more than simply height and weight.

[Greb147 6,808]

At some point in time we were closely enough related to bear fertile offspring with the Neanderthal, that should be enough to determine that we are of the same species?

Edited August 20, 2020 by Greb147

[mushroom 12,430]

7 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

They don't. It's just that you only hear about the ones that do.

Do you remember it being widely publicised that archaic human hybridisation roughly correlates with what we would identify as modern racial groups? Ongoing research looking for archaic human genes in modern day humans across the world found that modern Europeans are Sapien-Neanderthal hybrids, Polynesians are Sapien-Denisovan hybrids and sub-Saharan Africans are 'pure' Sapien.

I say 'identify as modern racial groups' because with genetics in mind African, Asian, European etc is a shit way of grouping modern humans into population groups/races. It can still be done of course, we're not all the same as the narrative would like us to believe.

Don't forget the first wave Sapiens... Australian aboriginals, Andaman islands, Borneo, Indonesia etc 

I'm a celt through and through

Edited August 20, 2020 by mushroom

[Born Hunter 17,646]

4 minutes ago, Greb147 said:

At some point in time we were closely enough related to bear fertile offspring with the Neanderthal, that should be enough to determine that we are of the same species. 

If we get into the nitty gritty, whether Neanderthal was a Hominid species or a Sapien sub-species is hotly contested argument. For that matter so is the actual definition of 'species'. Generally these days the production of fertile offspring isn't considered necessary.

Hell, if you really want to open a can of worms, what constitutes a life-form is up for grabs still. Viruses for example go from life to death with the scientific winds!

[Born Hunter 17,646]

7 minutes ago, mushroom said:

Don't forget the first wave Sapiens... Australian aboriginals, Andaman islands, Borneo, Indonesia etc 

I'm a celt through and through

Yeah but in the grand scheme of things the successive waves of Sapiens were too close together to have given time for much divergence to have occurred. Maybe the low tens of thousands of years right? Whereas the hominids that went on to become Neanderthal left Africa hundreds of thousands of years before Sapiens did.

We've established what you are by the THL peer review system. Ketchup will inform you in due course.

[jetro 5,349]

https://www.oughterardcourthouse.com/footprints-on-the-shoreline/?fbclid=IwAR0F78g8BmRJ_k753aON0I7Gu1N46Vk7op7lT4f7nOTsRcOpyMCNADIQ3Ts

This is an event that's been held near me at the moment. It's concentrating on a place that 40mins down the road. It's fairly interesting

Atb j