Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-23-2017, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Northern Maine
5,466 posts, read 3,058,463 times
Reputation: 8011

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by good_deal_maker View Post
How can the scientists discuss anything having found only two bones? How can they draw the image of this animal? What are the proves ?

There is a photo of the head of an Graecopithecus freybergi in the article (post #1). The fantasy of the artist is great and the creature looks very clever . So clever that I have no doubts the creature could be able to talk about art, technic, ... even science!
Not only that but they painted pictures of them. Isn't science amazing, is there anything it cannot do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2017, 03:20 PM
 
Location: The High Desert
16,062 posts, read 10,716,913 times
Reputation: 31409
There's science and then there's hyped up imagination of folks trying to sell newspapers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 03:21 PM
 
Location: South Bay Native
16,225 posts, read 27,407,402 times
Reputation: 31495
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0nyxStation View Post
The oldest writings of man trace back to the African-Asian areas of Earth. Europe is continent 3 behind Africa and Asia.
Do you have sources for these claims? I'm curious which 'oldest writings' you are referencing here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
5,699 posts, read 4,916,503 times
Reputation: 4942
Just because there is an ancient hominid that lived in Europe doesn't mean modern humans came from Europe, after all there were the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo Erectus that was living in Eurasia for a very long time, but modern humans still came from Africa, we are not direct descendants of these species but close relatives. There were multiple waves of hominids that migrated into Eurasia, but Africa was always the homeland with the greatest diversity in hominid species.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 04:27 PM
AFP
 
7,412 posts, read 6,886,217 times
Reputation: 6632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Just because some intermediary specie between apes and man was found in Europe doesn't mean it was ancestral to modern humans. It could have been an evolutionary dead-end. More of those are being found, these days. Naturally, a scientist with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences would declare it as the earliest "missing link". Why would anyone expect him to be objective?

Notice the article uses the term "international team" to lend legitimacy to the story. An "international team" made up of Greeks, Bulgarians, and others with a stake in declaring the Balkans the "cradle of man" isn't convincing.


Homo Sapiens Sapiens is estimated to have diverged from a common ancestor with Chimps 5.5 million YBP, that is what the best science currently indicates. It sound likes they found an interesting specimen of an evolutionary dead end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,717 posts, read 24,232,654 times
Reputation: 32891
Some of you seem believe that a news story -- regardless of the source -- is the same as settled science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 05:49 PM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,038,491 times
Reputation: 1916
Since man is a tropical animal essentially, he likely evolved in a tropical or subtropical/warm temperate environment.

Still there are a lot of gaps, twists & turns not to mention the large area to cover in terms of time & space.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2017, 03:04 AM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
24,075 posts, read 32,418,575 times
Reputation: 68222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlwarrior View Post
False and a lie. All DNA traces back to Africa. Some historians are known for changing African history to benefit Europe's image.
Yes. And this reeks of that. And an odious agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2017, 04:10 AM
 
13,496 posts, read 18,174,944 times
Reputation: 37885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Arguing about this seems unrewarding since ten or twenty or one hundred years from now, other new discoveries might render what we know now, obsolete. By 2117 they may have it that all life originated on Miami Beach.
Right. The evolutionary history of mankind is similar to archeology. Just as new discoveries through archeological excavations give us more knowledge of our historical past, and cause us to revise human history; so continual new discoveries will revise the history of the evolution of human beings. It's going to be a bumpy ride for racialists of all stripes (so to speak.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2017, 06:48 AM
 
4,345 posts, read 2,789,972 times
Reputation: 5821
Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94 View Post
Just because there is an ancient hominid that lived in Europe doesn't mean modern humans came from Europe, after all there were the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo Erectus that was living in Eurasia for a very long time, but modern humans still came from Africa, we are not direct descendants of these species but close relatives. There were multiple waves of hominids that migrated into Eurasia, but Africa was always the homeland with the greatest diversity in hominid species.
This is something I don't understand. When I took Biology, they said that fertile offspring could only be produced by members of the same species. e.g, dog and cats don't produce fertile offspring. Horses and mules can breed and produce donkeys but donkeys aren't fertile.

So, by definition I suppose, the offspring of members of two species breeding together are evolutionary dead end.

But, they also say that modern humans, in Europe anyway, contain DNA from Neanderthals. So doesn't that mean Neanderthals are the same species as Homo Sapiens? Maybe they are a race, a race which has been absorbed as it were in the Homo Sapiens mainstream, of humans rather than a separate species?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:11 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top