Solomani are missing Uplifted species

Except it doesn't say Homo Sapiens is that million years old. It says that the split in the LINEAGE that led to Neandethal on one side and Sapiens on the other was ~1 million years ago.
The split between neanderthal and sapiens was up to 1 million years ago, therefore sapiens appears...

"New research argues that the age of the skull suggests that the split between our lineage and that of Neanderthals and Denisovans may have happened at least half a million years earlier than previously thought."

Our lineage is sapiens.
The split occurred but it was still an earlier form which took 100s of thousands of years to become Neanderthal and Denisovan on one branch and Sapiens on the other.
Not sure how you are getting that conclusion, the split occured from which neanderthals and denisovans came from one branch of the split and sapiens from the other, which pushes sapiens back up to a million years and also falsifies the out of africa hypotheseis.
 
Last edited:
Who are "they" and what is their motivation?

Talking about that is a one way low passage to ban land, and most people are not emotionally ready or able to resist their conditioning enough to have that discussion. It's also a lot of difficult reading and hours of video watching of subject matter that conflicts with narratives most people have been emotionally conditioned to accept as unquestionable fact. It takes time to do that, time to come to terms with it, and it is not pleasant.

The allegory of Plato's Cave is highly relevant.

It can't even be approached without a political discussion, and even if there were no forum rules, that discussion and the related discussions it would spawn would do nothing but make people angry with each other.

 
the thing is we have no evidence of human civilisations frior to the last ice age

We do, but there's not much of it. The younger dryas was an extremely destructive event. The Richat Structure in Mauritania was scoured down to the bedrock. The best I can think of off the cuff is Dwarka, Gobekli Tepe, and the Sphinx.

nature very quickly destroys evidence, now add world wide catastrophic events and little evidence remains after thousands of years.

Very true. And much of the remaining evidence is reused by later civilizations. In the Greek stories about Atlantis, the Egyptian priests who talked to the Greek historians, (Solon, Herodotus?) mentioned cycles of cataclysmic destruction, of which the Greeks remembered only one.

They don't want you to study this as their narrative falls apart.

Sphinx erosion patterns.

Solutreans.

or could it be the genetic bottleneck of the 74,000 year ago Toba eruption is proof of a civilisation ending catastrophe? Rebuilding from then until the catastrophe at the younger dryas, whatever it was. The start again 12,000 years ago...


 
Not sure how you are getting that conclusion, the split occured from which neanderthals and denisovans came from one branch of the split and sapiens from the other, which pushes sapiens back up to a million years and also falsifies the out of africa hypotheseis.
Two being the relevant one below. If you look at the skull with the LARGE BROW RIDGES that is supposed to be that ancestor to Sapiens it is visibly a different species. Sapiens doesn't have those brow ridges. Our ANCESTOR species still had them.

lin·e·age /ˈlīnij/

noun
noun: lineage; plural noun: lineages
  1. 1.
    lineal descent from an ancestor; ancestry or pedigree.
    "a Dutch nobleman of ancient lineage"

    • Anthropology
      a social group tracing its descent from a single ancestor.

    2.
    Biology
    a sequence of species each of which is considered to have evolved from its predecessor.
 
the Mayan city discovered in Guatemala

There was a great book about a hidden ancient city in Honduras called The Lost City of the Monkey God (same city?). As ancient cities go, it was pretty huge. When people stopped living there, the jungle quickly reclaimed it. They mapped it with LIDAR then sent in robust expeditions. The city was very well preserved because it's in one of the deadliest jungles in Central America.

 
Other hominids didn't have anatomically distinct chins. Then sapiens did.
Which is more or less the point. He is taking an ANCESTRAL species that has clear distinctive anatomical differences and saying its existence 1 MILLION years ago means Homo Sapiens was existing that long ago. A different ancestral species existed then. A very similar (to Sapiens) but not identical ancestral species came into being about 300,000 years ago and is usually considered the beginning of modern humans. He is misinterpreting the facts to be what he wants them to be.

Not to mention China has for a long time been trying to prove that they are the birthplace of Sapiens. This alone is good reason to question it until others can study and confirm independently. Setting out to prove something you decided based on your desires is not good science. Setting out to find out IF what you want to be true is true can be good science if you keep your biases in check, if you can't let someone else do that research.

Just like some British scientists fell for Piltdown man because they WANTED to believe their homeland was the very beginning of humanity. Others fell for Nebraska man because they wanted it to be the U.S.. Me, I'd be shocked if my homeland was the birthplace as there has never been any sign of pre Homo Sapiens here. I'd immediately be questioning it.
 
As well, it's REALLY REALLY important to put our ignorance in context. The fossil record preserves almost nothing.

If it were considered to be an encyclopaedia, we have a few random volumes, which have all but a handful of pages missing, and on which most of the words are redacted. Usually, only a few letters of a word are legible.

Occasionally we find a phrase.
 
Well that would suck. "Your mother is too busy to keep developing you, please hold."
We went Alpaca walking (I recommend it) and it was explained why but I can't remember the details. It is an evolutionary adaptation so the young is born and has the best chance of survival.
 
They can be taught to be literate, try it with a kangaroo...
Serious, non-snide question: if we take a feral-raised child (of which there have been several documented examples) can they be taught to become literate?

I am sure that teaching a kangaroo to become literate is impossible, of course, no matter when you start. But apes have been taught fairly large symbolic languages, in the Chinese rather than European style (symbols mapping to concepts rather than to sounds).
 
Last edited:
if we take a feral-raised child (of which there have been several documented examples) can they be taught to become literate?

It depends on the level of brain damage and/or failure of neural development due to lack of parental care and stimulation.

We went Alpaca walking (I recommend it) and it was explained why but I can't remember the details. It is an evolutionary adaptation so the young is born and has the best chance of survival.

Rabbits can reabsorb their fetuses, iirc.
.
 
Serious, non-snide question: if we take a feral-raised child (of which there have been several documented examples) can they be taught to become literate?

I am sure that teaching a kangaroo to become literate is impossible, of course, no matter when you start. But apes have been taught fairly large symbolic languages, in the Chinese rather than European style (symbols mapping to concepts rather than to sounds).
Not to ape levels, but they have been shown to communicate at roughly the level of dogs. Zoo kangaroos will approach keepers and gesture towards the food containers.

They're also highly social animals and capable of a fair level of problem solving.

In addition, the marsupial brain has developed differently from placentals since they split off sometime during the Jurassic. That may or may not be useful for genetic engineering purposes. It could, however, justify its own research stream. Possibly as an adjunct to a main one working on dolphins or apes. Or dogs.

You could do far worse for uplift candidates.

(And it's not all about the apes. Cetacean and primate ancestors diverged well before anything like a whale or a monkey evolved. And for that matter, Avian intelligence is not in doubt, despite them having diverged from a different lineage than mammals, and later than marsupials diverged from placentals).
 
Last edited:
Which is more or less the point. He is taking an ANCESTRAL species that has clear distinctive anatomical differences and saying its existence 1 MILLION years ago means Homo Sapiens was existing that long ago. A different ancestral species existed then. A very similar (to Sapiens) but not identical ancestral species came into being about 300,000 years ago and is usually considered the beginning of modern humans. He is misinterpreting the facts to be what he wants them to be.
Gutsick Gibbon - this is a Youtube channel. Here is what she writes about herself "I'm Erika, a current PhD student in Biological Anthropology. I have a Masters of Research degree in Primate Biology, Behavior and Conservation with a BSA in Pre-Professional Animal Science and minors in Anthropology and in Biology."

The video linked to is about this particular skull and its position in genus Homo.
 
Gutsick Gibbon - this is a Youtube channel. Here is what she writes about herself "I'm Erika, a current PhD student in Biological Anthropology. I have a Masters of Research degree in Primate Biology, Behavior and Conservation with a BSA in Pre-Professional Animal Science and minors in Anthropology and in Biology."

The video linked to is about this particular skull and its position in genus Homo.
Master of Research? Isn't that like a fancy term for a really good librarian? :P (sarcasm)
 
Back
Top