Posted on 05/11/2011 7:41:02 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The first humans to reach Europe may have found it a ghost world. Carbon-dated Neanderthal remains from the foothills of the Caucasus Mountains suggest that the archaic species had died out before modern humans arrived.
The remains are almost 10,000 years older than expected. They come from just one cave in western Russia, called Mezmaiskaya, but bones at other Neanderthal sites farther west could also turn out to be more ancient than previously thought, thanks to a precise carbon-dating technique, says Thomas Higham, a palaeoanthropologist at the University of Oxford, UK, and a co-author of a study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1.
The implication, says Higham's team, is that Neanderthals and humans might never have met in Europe. However, the Neanderthal genome, decoded last year2, hints that the ancestors of all humans, except those from Africa, interbred with Neanderthals somewhere. Perhaps humans departing Africa encountered resident Neanderthals in the Middle East.
"DNA results show that there was admixture probably at some stage in our human ancestry, but it more than likely happened quite a long time before humans arrived in Europe," says Ron Pinhasi, an archaeologist at University College Cork in Ireland, who is lead author of the latest study. "I don't believe there were regions where Neanderthals were living next to modern humans. I just don't find it very feasible," he adds.
Time horizon
Carbon dating of stone tools characteristic to humans and Neanderthals, as well as their physical remains, has previously given the impression that the first humans to reach Europe, between about 40,000 and 30,000 years ago, shared the continent with Neanderthals long established there.
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
LOL - “In the good old days, you would have been left as an infant on a windy crag to die...”
I'll just say those Russians would have to accumulate a lot more evidence to convince me Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens didn't overlap in Europe.
Funny... Microscopic fragments of wood are still wood; microscopic fragments of iron are iron; microscopic fragments of copper are copper.....
But you're claiming microscopic fragments of raw meat are not raw meat... Care to tell us how that works or what sort of principle might be involved??
Posted on FR, Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue Here to Stay.
You guys are not going to wish this one away or make it go away by waving your hands and singing "lalalalalalala..." to yourselves.
Blood would be composed of cells with a phospholipid bilayer a cytoplasm and hemoglobin. There is no hemoglobin detected there.
Microscopic fragments of demineralized fossil are exactly that - not “meat” and “blood”. If it was “meat” or “blood” it would test positive for myosin and hemoglobin. The only biomolecule detected so far is fragments of collagen - the number one constituent of bone - and only trace amounts of that.
Sad that your “Young Earth” trump card is such a joker - and you had to lie about it.
I mean, this stuff is real and you're only making yourself look stupid calling people liars for talking about it.
Myosin collagen and hemoglobin can all be readily detected - and yet they are not.
You lie when you say this is “meat” and “blood” when it is demineralized fragments - the only detected biomolecule (the rest is mineral) so far has been collagen.
Meat would have myosin. Blood would have hemoglobin.
All you have are desperate lies! Rather pitiful.
Not “meat”. Not “blood”. Immunoreactivity to protein fragments and collagen fragments similar to bird collagen in sequence.
Now, granted some of the materials found were in somewhat degraded states; nonetheless they should not have been found. The theoretical max possible time limit for those kinds of materials surviving is in the thousands or tens of thousands of years, and not in the millions.
To say that it was “meat” or “blood” is a lie.
It may be a lie you are particularly enamored of - but it is a lie.
So why don't we ever find dinosaur BONE? Why is it always made out of fossil mineral and not collagen bone? And we never seem to see human bones fossilized to the same extent?
If dinosaurs existed within the last six or so thousand years - their bones would still be bones - not minerals - and wouldn't we at least ONCE find them in the same strata - if they co-existed? Why do they always seem to be found under the iridium laced ash layer at the K-T boundary?
Proteins ARE "biomolecules(TM)".... Again they started sequencing dinosaur proteins in 06.
None of the stuff Schweitzer and others have been finding should be there according to evoloser/deep-time theories.
They have detected via immunoassay two other proteins - elastin and laminin.
Dr. Schweitzer says they are millions of years old - and it is really cool that protein fragments can survive that long.
Why the need to lie and say protein fragments amid mineral is “meat” and “blood”? Because you are a Creationist and have to lie about science if you are going to talk about it at all.
So why would God create something “halfway between a chimp and a human” in DNA that is so like human? Do you have an explanation for where these ape-men all fit in? It no doubt is a doozy!!!
Sock it to me!
:)
Not ape men, just apes. Very advanced, extinct apes.
You shouldn't look down on apes, at least not at gorillas. Gorillas could be taught to speak English if they had voluntary control over breathing and some of the ones which have been taught signing check out as having IQs in the 90+ range. That's adequate for a significant fraction of American jobs.
If they were just apes then - 1 to 4% of our ancestry is neanderthal ape.
We too are zoologically apes. We are not even, genetically, the “odd man out”.
Among all the apes living - the two closest in DNA are humans and chimps.
That part of it is wishful thinking on somebody's part. There is zero evidence on the planet of humans and Neanderthals ever having interbred. It's another one of those things where there should be huge amounts of evidence and the fact that nobody can find any says it simply wasn't possible.
Amazing how the scientist is the ultimate source when you think a mischaracterization of his work proves your point, but in his subsequent work he is a nobody.
Do you realize how idiotic that makes you look?
I was hoping you would post the graph near the end of the article, it shows a much wider spread. Could you do that? While gorillas may be very smart, the are even farther from us than the chimps. The subspecies of chimp called the Bonobo, is closer to us than other chimps. I think I saw the figure 1.6% difference as opposed to 2%. They even like to make love face to face, unlike the other chimps.
They start with their end game hypothesis...agenda.. and then seek to prove it. Shouldn't they just seek and then evaluate what they find? The search to prove their hypothesis seems to contribute to a lot of the ridiculous findings.. a. la.... global warming.. which is now referred to as "climate change".
The theories of the possible relationships between modern humans and Neanderthals has changed numerous times in recent decades as new evidence and new techniques have become available. The disagreement among Anthropologists between those who think we are related and those who think we are not is strong and approaches the sort of disagreement that arose among planetary astronomers when Pluto was downgraded from planet to ‘minor planet’ a couple of years ago. True science does not have a ‘party line’, unlike pseudo-science like the global warming true believers.
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.