New thesis on human origins

[gungasnake]

This one may have created 100 years worth of work for sci-fi and fantasy writers...

Compared to other animals, humans have very little genetic diversity, e.g.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/skin-color/modern-human-diversity-genetics

Quote:

People today look remarkably diverse on the outside. But how much of this diversity is genetically encoded? How deep are these differences between human groups? First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse – a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution. For example, the subspecies of the chimpanzee that lives just in central Africa, Pan troglodytes troglodytes, has higher levels of diversity than do humans globally, and the genetic differentiation between the western (P. t. verus) and central (P. t. troglodytes) subspecies of chimpanzees is much greater than that between human populations.

I've read at least one claim that there is less diversity in the entire human race than in a typical group of 40 African monkeys of the same species, although that sort of quote is the kind of thing which you'd never find when looking for it...

This lack of diversity is generally attributed to a population bottleneck of sorts which most scholars place around 45,000 years ago, some claiming there may have been as few as 50 modern humans on the planet at that time. Nonetheless, those claims generally assume some sort of a transition from "early modern humans(TM)" (meaning gracile hominids) to Cro Magnon humans at that time.

Is that really believable, or did Cro Magnon people simply arrive here at that time and begin replacing ALL hominids, gracile and otherwise? One thing scholars all agree on is that whatever caused Cro Magnon people to appear on this planet when they did was not gradual. Danny Vendramini ("Them and Us" wink notes:

Quote:

“The speed of the Upper Palaeolithic revolution in the Levant was also breathtaking. Anthropologists Ofer Bar-Yosef and Bernard Vandermeersch:

Quote:

“Between 40,000 and 45,000 years ago the material culture of western Eurasia changed more than it had during the previous million years. This efflorescence of technological and artistic creativity signifies the emergence of the first culture that observers today would recognise as distinctly human, marked as it was by unceasing invention and variety. During that brief period of 5,000 or so years, the stone tool kit, unchanged in its essential form for ages, suddenly began to differentiate wildly from century to century and from region to region. Why it happened and why it happened when it did constitute two of the greatest outstanding problems in paleoanthropology.”

Likewise Dwardu Cardona ("Flare Star" wink :

Quote:

"Where and how the Cro-Magnons first arose remains unknown. Their appearance, however, coincided with the most bitter phase of the ice age. There is, however, no doubt that they were more advanced, more sophisticated, than the Neanderthals with whom they shared the land. Living in larger and more organized groups than had earlier humans, Cro Magnon peoples spread out until they populated most of the world. Their tools, made of bone, stone, and even wood, were carved into harpoons, awls, and fish hooks. They were presumably able hunters although, as with the Neanderthals, they would also have foraged to gather edible plants, roots, and wild vegetables. The only problem here is that,as far as can be told, the Cro Magnons seem to have arrived on the scene without leaving a single trace of their evolutionary ancestors. (emphasis ours)

Quote:

'When the first Cro Magnons arrived in Europe some 40,000 years ago', Ian Tattersall observed, 'they evidently brought with them more or less the entire panoply of behaviors that distinguishes modern humans from every other species that has ever existed.'"

All of that is consistent with thinking that Cro Magnon man CAME to this planet 45,000 years ago or however long ago that was, and it is not consistent with thinking that man evolved from hominids.

In fact the huge eyes of the oldest groups of creatures on this planet, including dinosaurs and hominids, indicate that this planet was originally an exceedingly dark sort of place. Humans, with the smallest eyes relative to body size of advanced creatures could not have come from such a place.

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=184900



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/neanderthals-large-eyes-led-to-their-downfall-says-study-8532539.html



Those were the kinds of eyes you needed when "darkness was upon the face of the deep"...

Puple Dawn:
http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-death-cult-part-1/a-timeless-age-in-a-purple-haze/

Human/Hominid Non-Relation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe6DN1OoxjE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhFXQHRAzg8

Ganymede hypothesis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p10PiJPEq4
http://cosmosincollision.com

All of this stuff is substantially at variance from 99% of what is taught in schools and also from what you'll find on normal Internet resources. Nonetheless, the stuff they teach plainly doesn't work. For a hominid to have ever evolved into a human, that hominid would need to have:

• Lost his fur while ice-ages were going on.
  
• Lost almost all of his sense of smell while trying to survive as a land prey animal [fatal]
  
• Lost almost all of his night vision in an age when night was the only time of day that there was.
  

If that doesn't sound like a formula for success, then neither should the idea of God creating a creature for a world for which the creature was hideously maladapted. There is nothing in the Bible about God being STUPID.....

Cosmos in Collision does in fact describe the reasons for our planet having been super-dark in ancient times. Kindle is everybody's friend...

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-in-Collision-ebook/dp/B00C4MF8UE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364793440&sr=8-1&keywords=cosmos+in+collision

[HAGD]

the lack of genetic diversity originates from the bottleneck event mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

[IronySandwich]

That's fairly common knowledge at this point, although I'm not sure where the number "50" came from. That number is far to small explain our current genetic diversity (meager though it is), and is also far too small to be viable.

I believe the consensus is that somewhere around 1,000 viable breeders is the absolute minimum that could explain our current situation, with 10,000 being a far more likely number.

[Vannak]

Another thing to remember is that smaller populations evolve faster than large, interconnected ones. So while we were going through out bottleneck we'd expect our divergence from other species to accelerate.

[gungasnake]

Vannak

Another thing to remember is that smaller populations evolve faster than large, interconnected ones. So while we were going through out bottleneck we'd expect our divergence from other species to accelerate.

Not to the point that one day there was nothing but hominids on the Earth and the next day you had Cro Magnon man WITH all of his fancy tools and weapons AND his complex representational art work:



There is no evidence of hominid art on this planet. Punc-eek is not the answer to the arrival of Cro Magnon man in our world.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

gungasnake

Vannak

Another thing to remember is that smaller populations evolve faster than large, interconnected ones. So while we were going through out bottleneck we'd expect our divergence from other species to accelerate.

Not to the point that one day there was nothing but hominids on the Earth and the next day you had Cro Magnon man WITH all of his fancy tools and weapons AND his complex representational art work:



There is no evidence of hominid art on this planet. Punc-eek is not the answer to the arrival of Cro Magnon man in our world.

Consider it took over 2 million years to develop the bow and arrow, and another million to finally get a gun, but cars, planes, jet planes, rockets, scram jet engines, computers, advanced computers, super computers, miniaturized computers were built in the same century.

We went from muskets to bolt action to semi automatic to fully automatic in like 20 years.


Think of everything that will be developed in 10 years, or the next 100 at the current rate of our technology, be it computers and such, compared to not even having them just 100 years ago.

Yes, it's possible to develop technologically that quickly, although not necessarily evolutionarily.