Posted on 06/21/2015 10:29:47 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Researchers found four teeth in the Qesem Cave near Rosh Ha'ayin (not far from Tel Aviv), and they were astonished at test results that conclude the fossils to be some 400,000-years-old. The significance of this is that it's possible that the origin of prehistoric man is in Israel, and not in East Africa. And an additional surprise is that prehistoric man was mainly vegetarian and not carnivorous.
The cave is 10 meters deep and its surface area is approximately 300 square meters. Researchers have been sifting through it for some 15 years to discover remains from prehistoric times. The ancient teeth were discovered by scientists from Tel Aviv University and other research institutions in the world.
Their examination revealed that they belong to a type of prehistoric man that lived in Israel, and that until now no one knew existed. Science has until now held that humans originated in Africa (Homo Sapiens who developed there about 200,000 years ago.)
Another prehistoric species was the Neanderthal, who became extinct....
(Excerpt) Read more at ynetnews.com ...
What is it with you deniers.
The Pope has spoken.
The science is settled.
The earth is flat.
“A new species”
Rushing to conclusions here. I know many scientists would love to achieve fame by discovering a new species, but this doesn’t warrant it.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
A tribe of people depending on road kill aren’t going to eat meat more than a dozen times in their lives.
Uh oh.
All sciences can be confusing if you don't have enough patience & persistence to study them carefully.
Tontokowalski: "I've read studies that say all humans originated in Africa, some say that other populations rose outside of Africa.
Some say Neanderthal breeding with European populations of early man led to further genetic mutations distinguishing them significantly (and for the better) from populations that did not leave Africa."
There are many hypotheses, and more than one theory, about how pre-humans and early humans developed, migrated and interbred.
Over many years, each new discovery and each new interpretation of old data, has brought one model or another to the forefront of discussion.
If you take the time to bone up on past ideas, then watching new ones unfold can be more interesting.
My point is, these theories are all fascinating, but don't grow too attached to any one of them, because there's every chance over the long term, it'll be overturned.
Tontokowalski: "I think the trend now is that there is no such thing as 'race.' "
What are commonly called "breeds" or "varieties" in nature, we call "race" in humans.
Neanderthals are today thought to be certainly human, but of a different sub-species, meaning still able to interbrede, but not as close as other modern human "races" / breeds.
Tontokowalski: "I don't understand what studies might be slanted because of a desire to separate from African origin, and which may be truth that is being deliberately downplayed because some scholars don't want non-Africa origins."
As of today you can be sure there are some scholars somewhere who defend every recent hypothesis / theory.
"Out of Africa" seems well enough confirmed to withstand an occasional outlier data point, such as these teeth.
But what is not clearly understood is how much interbreding went on amongst the many & various pre-human sub-species and breeds.
So, for more data on that, stay tuned...
Tontokowalski: "Even more unsettling is that both seem to be flatly stated as 'truth' without regard to other possibilities."
No, now you are reading in words which are almost never used in scientific reports -- words like "truth" and even "facts".
Instead, they talk of "evidence" which "suggests" or is "consistent with" or "confirms".
By its nature, science is not so much about "truth" as it is about hypotheses and theories, which are fancy words meaning models, unconfirmed and confirmed.
It happens a lot with professors.
A good example is called the “Lenski affair”
It was interesting.
No such thing as “prehistoric human”.
We have a history of Adam and all his descendants.
That’s an example of a professor not supplying data to an outside mediator.
You think that’s uncommon?
Oh, and when you’re talking about me and my posting history, feel free to ping me as well as it’s poor form to talk about someone without pinging them.
Mitochondrial Eve never existed, it is a modern construct.
I guess the science about where humans originated isn’t so settled after all.
There are lots of modern scavengers which prove the falsity of your assertion. Think hyenas, buzzards, and vultures. Condors are going extinct not because of the National Rifle Association, but because they evolved to eat the carcasses of dead mammoths. When the mammoths all died off, the condors days were numbered. Primitive tribes can easily find dead animals by simply noting gatherings of scavenger birds. A man can easily chase off the birds and keep the remainder of the carcass.
Not surprising; Scripture informs the reader that mankind did not eat meat until after The Flood (The Lord did not permit them to eat meat before then). Thus people living prior to that time would have been vegetarian.
“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”
(Genesis 9:3-4)
Exactly. Tribes of humans wouldn’t have a chance against the animal competition. In the thousands of hours I’ve spent in wilderness country I rarely ran across carcasses that weren’t stripped or rotted beyond nauseum. And that’s with far fewer scavengers in today’s world than existed 400K years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.