Fossils of possible new human species found in China

[AquaEyes]

Getting back to the original article, I just thought of something that might lead to some serious re-investigation of what we think we "know" about various collected remains and artifacts -- now that we have evidence of a third type of human that existed at this time, will we have to go back and see if some artifacts not associated with bones are REALLY attributed to the species we think they are? What if some anomalous artifacts were actually made and left by this newly discovered species? Interesting to think about.

 

[AquaEyes]

Funny thing this "creationism"

I remember from the bible
after Cain killed Able and God kicked him out (made Cain leave)
Cain was afraid of being killed by "others"

so if Adam and Eve were the "first"
and Cain and Able were their only children
who were these "others" that Cain was afraid would kill him?

My interpretation of that story was that Adam and Eve were the beginnings of the Jewish people. Embedded within the Jewish religion is that they are a people apart, separated by their special covenant with their God. Their Genesis story might not be about the beginnings of ALL people, but THEIR people. There is mentioning of other gods, other lands, and other people, so nothing precludes these other people from being created in other lands by other gods. But, again, the significance of the story to me isn't whether it is LITERALLY true, but the importance of the MEANING to the people who believe it. Most cultures that I've ever read about have their own creation stories, and they center on how THEIR people came to be.

 

[Henny peeny]

Ponder


If the bible is right or if creation is right can they both be right.

Can it be that creation is true and the fossils they find is from the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve and I don't recall if they (Adam and Eve) was like us then bible doesn't say how intelligent they were. Early man knew how to clothe himself and could think things out maybe they didn't have speech but maybe to talk to God they didn't need to do you always speak to God a allowed I don't peak to the Gods allowed all the time I know they can here me whether I do or don't.

And lets say this yeti Bigfoot or anything else you have heard in this sort of thing well they are always finding a fish or turtle or something that was to be exinted for millions of year and yet there they are alive and kicking (swimming) and they are find NEW species I don't know if this big foot or yeti or anything else people have said they see but I ponder the thought could it be a species we don't know yet it may be very hard to find I heard the snow leopard is very hard to find and not many are so can this be the are many that have say much on a fake and this tents to make people think what is told is fake maybe the people want attention perhaps but could it be possible that there are not many and maybe one day someone WILL see one up close or find something to bind all together and GOD and all with be one(God and science)

I want to believe that all is true and that all will come to pass

Or maybe it will be like planet of the ape one day where the yetis and Bigfoot and all will rule us

OK maybe not I was trying to be funny but I am dead serious of the God and Science to come together one day.

Rhayden

 

[juliechick]

Funny thing this "creationism"

I remember from the bible
after Cain killed Able and God kicked him out (made Cain leave)
Cain was afraid of being killed by "others"

so if Adam and Eve were the "first"
and Cain and Able were their only children
who were these "others" that Cain was afraid would kill him?

The Bible never says that Cain and Able were their only children. Adam and Eve lived over 800 years and produced many offspring. The story doesn't make it clear when Cain killed his brother (how old they were when it happened).

 

[AquaEyes]

Science is limited in its method of understanding the natural world by interpreting natural evidence. Claims made that invoke the supernatural can not be tested, and fall outside the realm of science. Using the scientific method, we can find evidence, draw conclusions, and make interpretations that lead to one form of understanding.

An analogy might be made with imagining an elephant in a room of blind people. Each blind person can use his or her senses to interpret that which is in the immediate vicinity, and draw conclusions from the sharing of information among them all. But if one blind person says it was revealed to him or her by divine intervention the story about why they are in a room with an elephant, the others can't address that assertion based on that which they, themselves, can sense. So it becomes something they really can't discuss further -- they either believe it or they don't. All they can address are the particulars of the story which are amenable to testing.

 

[galanie]

I was hoping no one would bring up Creationism. I wanted to say that I'm not a Creationist, I simply question the timelines but I didn't want to see that expanded upon.

The Blind Men and the Elephant is my favorite analogy when talking another topic. And it does apply here as well. Good one.

 

[GardenerGal]

Well, it was luck, in this case. The cave paintings at Lascaux cave were discovered entirely by accident, by a dog (and its pet teenagers).
http://www.thinkfinity.org/2011-09-12_Lascaux-cave-paintings

As for developing technologies so fast in such a short time.... once a break-through is made, such as the ability grasp objects and to make the mental connection between a sharp point and being able to kill one's prey...the next step is to use a sharp rock shard to sharpen a stick to make a spear, and then to fashion spear tips from the rocks themselves.

So, proto-humans, once they had transitioned from arboreal life to fully bipedal terrestrial life in the high-grassland savannahs of Africa, retaining binocular vision (as it proved beneficial to bipedal high-grass terrestrial survival), finding themselves with their hands free for uses other than climbing and brachiation, gradually began using them to pick up stuff, then fiddle around with stuff, then use stuff as weapons, then use stuff as tools. The brain had to have had an initial "insight factor" to get the ball rolling, so to speak, but once it did, the two things -- the fiddling and the brain development -- fed off each other. The emergence of any mutations that promoted better forms of this (such as a totally opposable thumb) were passed along in the genes due to the superiority of survival of those who possessed them.

And keep in mind that "so quickly" can mean tens- or hundreds of thousands of years, not "next week."

We stand on the shoulders of giants! We continue to have rapid advances in human technologies, and our genetics are probably subtly going along with these changes due to the level of survivability that our technologies give us (medical, in particular). Think about it...electricity "discovered".... sudden boom in technologies from crank-up phones, electric lights and radios, flight... to space flight, robotics, computers and high-speed Internet. My father, born in 1917, has witnessed almost the entire span of those technologies that occurred in the course of a mere 100 years.

I,m sorry, it is just when I hear the phrase "boy we were lucky" I shutter, I believe everything has a contributing factor by an action. Anyways I just find it odd that we developed technologies so fast in such a short time... almost surreal.

 

[GardenerGal]

Excellent insights, AE.
The Jews are descended from Semitic peoples, and their texts and scriptures are a conglomerate of the related ancient Semitic polytheistic religions of their ancestries, which is why there are so many contradictions in the first chapter of their Tanakh (scripture): "B'reisheet" ("In the Beginning," i.e. "Genesis").

That said, I hope we can continue to discuss the original topic and its related spin-offs without getting creationism tangled up with it!

My interpretation of that story was that Adam and Eve were the beginnings of the Jewish people. Embedded within the Jewish religion is that they are a people apart, separated by their special covenant with their God. Their Genesis story might not be about the beginnings of ALL people, but THEIR people. There is mentioning of other gods, other lands, and other people, so nothing precludes these other people from being created in other lands by other gods. But, again, the significance of the story to me isn't whether it is LITERALLY true, but the importance of the MEANING to the people who believe it. Most cultures that I've ever read about have their own creation stories, and they center on how THEIR people came to be.

 

[galanie]

Excellent insights, AE.
The Jews are descended from Semitic peoples, and their texts and scriptures are a conglomerate of the related ancient Semitic polytheistic religions of their ancestries, which is why there are so many contradictions in the first chapter of their Tanakh (scripture): "B'reisheet" ("In the Beginning," i.e. "Genesis").

That said, I hope we can continue to discuss the original topic and its related spin-offs without getting creationism tangled up with it!

 

[DCasper]

I am enjoying following this thread and wonder if anyone has followed the story regarding the cross-breeding between Alaskan Brown Bears and Polar Bears? There have been several killed by hunters which means there are probably many more in the wild. What I am wondering is if the cross- breed bears are sterile, or if they can pass on their genes to another generation? Also, I am wondering if this would be considered "Evolution, Adaptation or Something Else"? I look forward to hearing opinions and statistics regarding this.

Yes, another phenotypic difference attributable to small differences in genes. Polar bears are actually more closely related (on a genetic basis) to their Kodiak bear neighbors than the Kodiak bears are to the grizzlies in the lower 48. Hybrids between polar bears and brown bears show some traits being dominant, and some intermediate traits, in the F1 generation. When interbred, the F1's show offspring with a wider range of variability, some being more brown bear-like and others more polar bear-like. This has happened a few times in zoos, and (at least according to documentation) a few times in the wild. The polar bear, while appearing to our eyes as so distinct from the Kodiak brown bears, might be more the result of a few "loud" genetic differences -- not a lot of genes, but those that have large phenotypic results.