Thursday, May 28, 2015

Many Groups of Archaic Humans

In 2011 researchers discovered jaw bones and teeth of four individuals in the Afar region of Ethiopia which date to between 3.3m and 3.5m years old. These archaic humans were alive at the same time as other early human groups, suggesting that it may be time to abandon the linear evolution hypothesis. Clearly, there were more archaic humans living in Africa 3 million years ago than has been generally recognized.

Dr Yohannes Haile-Selassie, curator of physical anthropology at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, believes that the growing evidence of archaic human fossils indicates that the early stage of human evolution was complex.

He is quoted in this BBC report: "Historically, because we didn't have the fossil evidence to show there was hominin diversity during the middle Pliocene, we thought there was only one lineage, one primitive ancestor - in this case Australopithecus afarensis, Lucy - giving rise to the next."

Lucy’s species lived from 2.9 million years ago to 3.8 million years ago, overlapping in time with the new species Australopithecus deyiremeda. The new species is the most conclusive evidence for the contemporaneous presence of more than one closely related early human ancestor species prior to 3 million years ago.

Dr. Haile-Selassie states, "That hypothesis of linear evolution has to be revisited. And now with the discovery of more species, like this new one... you have another species roaming around.

"What this means is we have many species that could give rise to later hominins, including our own genus Homo."

Dr Haile-Selassie said that even more fossils need to be unearthed, to better understand the path that human evolution took.

He added that finding additional ancient remains could also help researchers examine how the different species lived side-by-side - whether they mixed or avoided each other, and how they shared food and other resources in their landscape.

This report states that modern humans lived alongside an estimated eight now-extinct species of archaic human populations about 300,000 years ago.

The Upper Nile Valley region is likely the point of origin of archaic humans and the idea of a "new species" is another example of having to force material findings into the Darwinian "common ancestry" mold. Just wait until the Rising Star Expedition reports come out about a burial cave near Krugersdorp in South Africa. The large number of individuals found in a tiny underground chamber suggest clan burial. By April 2014, between two localities, 1724 human specimens were recovered, and they show a range of anatomical features consistent with modern humans.


nigus said...

And let us not forget Sahelanthropus tchadensis of West Africa.

J Eppinga said...

How can Homo s.s. be asserted to be a subspecies, whereas when there is talk of ancient humans, the genus category is dredged up?

I was taught that a species is a species when, under normal circumstances, it propagates. I know the classic example of the mule is flawed because it is theoretically possible to have a mule that is fertile (though that is extremely unlikely), but even the statistics would draw species boundaries around the horse and the donkey, separately.

Are there Evolutionary Biologists who confess over beers and cigars, that they are privately troubled by the so-called 'Species Problem'? Or is it one of those subjects that is so taboo that beer can't bring it out?

J Eppinga said...

Put another way, how do we look at hominid fossils from South Africa and then from Ethiopia, and declare, "these are separate species" ?

How can they be certain that two such individuals could NOT produce fertile offspring, when paired together? Particularly if the DNA is too degraded to prove that they are genetically incompatible?

Alice C. Linsley said...

Beer certainly loosens the lips of some biologists and geneticists, and I know many recognize that the branch theory-common ancestry model needs to be jettisoned in light of the substantial evidence concerning the diversity and dispersion of archaic humans. That said, these folks rely on funding from organizations that still promote the Darwinian model, so when they chat in private, they do it carefully.

Humans reproduce only humans. Plants reproduce only plants. Apes reproduce only apes. Genesis says each reproduces according to its own "kind" - that is, essence. This is a more accurate picture of reality.

J Eppinga said...

RE: "..these folks rely on funding from organizations.."

I suspect that the preservation of credibility may be at least one of the reasons why you have chosen not to profit financially off of either of your blogs (JG & BA).


Susan Burns said...

As I recall, there is a geological problem with the upper Nile as the point of human origin. DDenden could explain exactly but it has something to do with plate uplift. There is also a problem with a disease that affected all primates with the exception of the human line. The human line must have been isolated during the infection. The question is; where could this possibly be? This airborne disease even infected primates on islands. My theory is the Rift Valley of the Negev as the protected area for evolution. It was hominidae of the papyrus estuarine that were our immediate ancestors. The Sea of Reeds was surrounded by mountains and ocean.

Alice C. Linsley said...

That would place the first humans in the heart of ancient Eden. Eden, a vast well-watered region, extended from the headwaters of the Nile to the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. This was the paradise of old and the point of origin of Messianic expectation long before we can speak of a people called the Jews.

"Son of Man, raise a lament over the king of Tyre and say to him: Thus says the Lord God: You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and flawless beauty. You were in Eden, in the Garden of God; every precious stone was your adornment... and gold beautifully wrought for you, mined for you, prepared the day you were created." (Ezekiel 28:11-18)

In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus' true identity is recognized in the ancient island city of Tyre, not on a mountain as in Matthew's Gospel. For Mark, the Messiah’s appearing means the beginning of the restoration of Paradise. Perhaps the evangelist was thinking of this passage from Ezekiel 28. That would explain why Mark makes so much of Jesus’ visit to Tyre.

Tyre was the home of Hiram I, the father of the Tyrian king who helped to build Solomon’s temple. Hiram I was kin to David and sent skilled artisans to help David build a palace in Jerusalem, “the city of the Great King” (Matt. 5:35). Hiram is also known as "Huram" and "Horam", which are versions of the names Hur, Hor and Harun (Aaron), as in Jabal Harun, the Mountain of Aaron. According to Midrash, Hur was Moses’ brother-in-law, Miriam’s husband. Hur’s grandson was one of the builders of the Tabernacle. I Chronicles 4:4 lists Hur as the "father of Bethlehem", a settlement in the heartland of Horite territory.

In other words, the common ancestors of Hiram I and David were Horites, a caste of ruler-priests who anticipated the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15 because their Horite lineage went back to Eden. The Horites believed that the promised Seed of the Woman would be born of their blood and they expected Him to visit them. In Mark 7:24, this expectation was fulfilled when the Son of God visited Tyre, where we are told Jesus “could not pass unrecognized.”

Susan Burns said...

Tyre is from the Hebrew Tsur. Hatsor/Ester/Easter/Astarte

Tsur is the Rock of Ages and IMO a tor