pavelcherepan

I'll try to reason with you one last time. As Ophiolite has pointed out, this discussion is centered around a simple matter of classification with very little scientific value. Not that I think that any kind of classification is without it's scientific merits. A great example of a scientifically invaluable classification was the periodic table. On one hand, Mendeleev simply wanted to classify known chemical elements into a logical and organised structure, but he didn't just do that. The periodic table did organise elements, but it also predicted a lot of elements not known at the time and very soon after the release of the first version of the table there was an explosion in the rate of discovery of new elements. Also it even predicted outer electron shell configurations of elements, thus wandering in the field of quantum mechanics, the discipline that would not appear for another 30+ years. On the other hand we have classification efforts of International Astronomic Union which led to downgrade of Pluto to a dwarf planet. This particular classification decision did not provide any new scientific data, did not change the way we think about the evolution and formation of the Solar System and does not have any prediction power. And Pluto is still there and it's amazing. This was an example of rather poor classification efforts. Not that I care at all whether Pluto is or isn't a planet. If we think about what you're trying to achieve here, your efforts fall much closer to the Pluto example. If we did agree on something (which is very unlikely) would it provide new scientific data? No. Would it have prediction power? No. Would it challenge ways we look at human evolution? Hell, no! The evolution of humans took several millions of years and science is very interested in the entirety of it. There are some milestones that are more exciting than the others, such as finding out exact time of split between Homo and Pan genera and finding some fossils from that period; establishing exact timeline of early hominins moving to predominantly bipedal life and establish accurate paleogegraphical and paleoecological conditions that forced them to such a change and of course accurately map the various waves of migration of hominins and their spreading around the world. And generally trying to discover as much fossil evidence especially for the last 3 million years of history. If you think that we name Cro-Magnon the first human and then suddenly all paleonthological and archaeological expeditions to Africa and Siberia will be canned in favour of digging every single Cro-Magnon skull, you might be delusional. Evolution is a continous process that never stops, but can move at a varying rate. This would usually be due to changes in the ecosystem the species finds themselves in or any other hardships that might have come about. This generally is the case, because in situation with a scarcity of potential mates ones having unusual characteristics as a result of random mutations, can not be avoided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_evolution The time before the emergence of modern of pre-modern humans in Africa was most likely one of the periods of high evolution rate. Sahara was growing, climate was becoming drier and drier at a very fast rate and the habitat was changing rapidly and migration out of the continent presented our ancestors with lots and lots of new challenges, so, yeah, it's very likely that evolution was going rather fast back then, but it wouldn't be the first and the only time that has happened. For example, the change from tree-dwelling life to land-based with bipedal statute and tool use was rather abrupt, Neanderthals did also develop quite fast with their ancestors finding themselves in harsh and unwelcoming frigid Europe. It's indeed a widely accepted view that humans are currently evolving at a rather fast rate, but most of the current evolution is influenced by the increased population density and is mostly focused on various infectious diseases. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32047/title/Are-Humans-Still-Evolving-/ Although this view is contested by many other publications, for example: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v13/n10/abs/nrg3295.html And with fast evolution and trial-and-error ways of it there is a rather high chance that like modern humans can exhibit archaic features, some individuals of H.S. Idaltu could potentially exhibit "modern" features, it's just that finding that unique individual is highly unlikely statistically speaking. This would even further blur the boundaries between modern and archaic H.S. And, finally, the cognitive abilities. These are quite hard to identify quantitatively even in modern populations with IQ test being very common, but rather inaccurate as a generalised tool. It's even harder to figure out what cognitive abilities extinct hominins had. Based on known skulls of ancient humans neuroscientists can estimate which parts of the brain were more or less developed compared to modern men and very-very roughly guess differences in cognitive abilities, but this is largely is still a guesswork. There are obviously some milestones that we can use to quantify growing of cognition - tool use, fire use, cooking, making of clothes, culture, rituals such as burials etc. But yet again these are all very rough estimates. It's not correct to make far-fetching guesses about the cognitive abilities of species we really know very little of. http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17568.short http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1599/2130.short I think that should be enough for now. I really do hope you come back with a more structured and logical argument, because I made an effort writing this and so should you.

It's as you said a mainstream position and it's supported by many a scientist. You are arguing against it so it's your responsibility to substantiate YOUR position. And I don't support any position in this discussion, but having a devil's advocate never hurts.

You have not. Prove that Idaltu didn't have a well-developed culture. Prove that Idaltu lacked creativity and abstract thinking. Let's see how well you fare. You shouldn't forget about Omo as well, since it's also mentioned in the wiki article as an example of AMH and prove all of that for Omo as well. This discussion didn't start off very well, but now it has descended into the crackpottery hell. Just stop repeating that you've "already shown" or "proved" anything. That's most definitely not the case.

Hahaha! Hilarious! You're telling me to read the page a bit? The next paragraph after the sentence you quoted says: Did you just miss it or does it not fit into your agenda? In fact I did read it properly and since first, second and the sentence I just quoted seem to be conflicting, I took the most broad general definition. You might be interesting in reading this paper that discusses complexities of defining the AMH and proposes some statistical and biological definitions for the term: http://in-africa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Pearson-2008-EvAnth-modern-human-morphology.pdf You're contradicting yourself. You've stated it was an opinion on more than one occasion. EDIT: You actually have "opinion" in the discussion title. What you have is not a theory as it's not substantiated by evidence. Also my comment wasn't referring to your idea, but to the way you phrased the discussion title, which is childish and arrogant and not suited for serious discussion. And just for your reference, this is one of my all-time favourite examples of a well-structured and substantiated scientific argument. You can learn a lot from it: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88301-earth-what-is-the-real-age/?p=859953 I don't have to prove anything. You came here with the idea potentially seeking for approval from other members and it's not my job to develop your idea. You have to prove it. So far no one seems to be very impressed with it so take a look at a great example above and prepare a solid argumentation. Ciao!

So far you haven't been able to prove it or provide a clear distinction between 'true' and 'not true' anotomically modern humans. It's either everyone around you is stuck in their ways or you haven't put much effort into proving your point. No, such discussion topics usually indicate a yet another crackpot or simply a very arrogant person who wouldn't listen to what others are saying. And since you said yet again that it's just your opinion, you can't claim that someone else is wrong. Opinion doesn't have much worth in a scientific discussion. It was not an appeal to authority, it's simply an arrogant and childish attitude to create a discussion with such a topic and then expect to be taken seriously. If you want serious discussion then make a serious topic and provide serious arguments, not just opinions. Not true. If you look at the definition on wikipedia you'll see: "The term anatomically modern humans (AMH) or anatomically modern Homo sapiens (AMHS) refers in paleoanthropology to individual members of the species Homo sapiens with an appearance consistent with the range of phenotypes in modern humans." As you see there is no specific requirement for AMH to be a member of H.S. sapiens subspecies, just the species Homo Sapiens, hence H.S. Idaltu fits the definition well. Now, in order to prove your point you need to provide argumentation that will show that H.S. Idaltu is incorrectly identified as subspecies of genus H.S or that their appearance is not consistent with phenotypes present in human population. Then possibly you can get your point across. Come back when you have built up your case.

And yet again I'd like to remind you of the fact that species differentiation is quite subjective, in fact there is like 26 different concepts of the term "species". You can read up more on that here -> Species Problem. For example look at dogs, all of them belong to the same subspecies C. lupus familiaris, but individual differences between various breeds or between dogs and wolves are much greater than that even of H. Neanderthalensis compared to modern man. Yet all of them are capable of producing fertile offsprings with any mix of breeds and so at least some of the definition of being a species works well. It can be your personal opinion to believe that Cro-Magnon is in fact the first human, but there's a good saying about that - "Opinions are like genitals - everyone has them". Also it's generally unwise to create discussions where the title itself claims that a respectable science institution or theory is wrong. That's a good opportunity of getting a lot of angry people in your discussion and getting lots of negative rep.

But let's come back to the fact that Cro-Magnon is not a taxon. So in essence you're saying 'Idaltu has archaic features so I refuse to consider it a first modern man and instead I will take something that is not a distinct taxon and a bit different in terms of size and cranial capacity to modern humans and call it the first modern human'. At least that's what I've understood so far.

No. I just applied your, or rather Dawkins' definition to a skull of H. Sapiens Idaltu. I also get the point that big part of scientific community agrees on classifying it as a subspecies of species homo sapiens, but you object that. So here is a good time to present your ideas as to why it should not be classified as such. Since H. Neanderthalensis are considered archaic, then no. We didn't. Neanderthals had on an average a larger cranial capacity then modern humans and similar to Cro-Magnon skull. And not SOME of them as you claim, it's an AVERAGE value. http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/society/neanderthal-man.html http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/09/neanderthal/

How does being 'historically archaic' (which for some reason feels like a tautology to me) make it more suitable than 'historically modern' for comparison? There wouldn't have been much of evolution going on in some 1-2 thousand generations, so it wouldn't make much difference. The only reason I can see to compare Neanderthal brains with Cro-Magnon is the similar cranial capacity of both "species", both around 1600 cc. OK, but where do you draw the line? For example, H. Sapiens Idaltu is currently considered a subspecies of H. Sapiens, while it very obviously has brow ridges and somewhat sloping forehead, hence by the very definition you just quoted, it's actually an archaic human, right? A bold claim. Care to include some sources? It is indeed. Drawing lines be hard and especially if this chart also included all the regional slightly morphologically different populations, subspecies and all the actual events of interbreeding between different contemporary species. This pretty chart would be such a mess.

I'm not an expert in archaeology, but I have a nagging feeling that there is a perfectly valid reason, why these cultures are considered separate, like the fact that these cover different time intervals or the that tools, techniques, and uses of those tools were different.

I've been wrong, I admit. I went to Scholar and did a search for "cro-magnon culture" without any time limits and it came back with 127 hits, so yeah it does exist in mind of very few, but generally the following tool traditions and cultures are identified in archaeology: thought experiment for my own entertainment was not whether or not Neanderthals would fit into society, but if they did (which they potentially could), do they still deserve to be called a separate species. I probably could've made myself more clear.

Simple? Yeah, right. http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/origins/mousterian_stone_tools.php And this: There is no such thing as "Cro-Magnon culture". Let's do a thought experiment, which, unlike your wild guesswork is a valid instrument of science. Let's assume that cloning technology has gotten advanced enough that we can safely clone humans and scientists secretly cloned a Neanderthal from one of the many available DNA samples. This cloned child gets placed in a foster family and raised like a normal human child, including going to kindergarten, school, socialising with other kids etc. So in this hypothetical situation and given the fact that Neanderthal is essentially anatomically the same as a modern human let's answer some questions: 1) Would this H. Neanderthalensis be able to learn the language and effectively communicate? - Most likely, yes, since vocal chords of Neanderthals are developed as well as modern men. 2) Would this child be able to comprehend idea of culture, society and things that make up modern life? - Most likely, yes, since Neanderthals had culture, burial rituals and lived as a part of albeit smaller society 3) Would this child be able to be at least moderately successful at school - Most likely, yes. The brain size is more than sufficient to store needed information and modern humans lack any significant differences as far as development of different parts of brain is concerned compared to Neanderthals. 4) Would he be able to seamlessly integrate into society? - Most likely, yes. Well, he'd look a bit different - short (*), stocky, with slating forehead, but not so much different that he'd look repulsive. If all of the above are yes, then he'd be able to become a part of human society and eventually find a mate and reproduce. (*) Short part is not essential. Current increase in average height of humans of around 10-15 cm in last 3 centuries is mostly due to better nutrition. Hence if our Neanderthal child would be well fed, he might not be short at all. So, if all of of that is true then it would be rather hard to think of Neanderthals as separate species at all. You can repeat the same thought experiment with other species of genus Homo, for example with your beloved "Cro-Magnons" you'd get rather similar results. With H. Erectus and earlier hominids results would be different significantly, for starters they won't be able to speak properly, except potentially using sign language. This all is to show how rather complicated and arbitrary species boundaries are in human lineage, especially when you start discussing something that is not really a taxon. P.S. You also seem convinced that it's universally accepted that Neanderthals are a separate species, but if you run a search on Google Scholar for the last 5 years you'll get about 3k hits for "Homo Neanderthalensis" and about 1k hits for "Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis", so it's not nearly universal.

Evan, you keep saying that "pictures clearly showing" and "differences are obvious" when comparing pre-modern humans and early modern humans, but despite the fact I've asked you to elaborate earlier, you still haven't explained which features in particular you're referring to. You then go on to say that Cro-Magnon skulls were in fact different from modern human skulls as they had larger cranial capacity on average, so where do you draw the line between modern and pre-modern humans? Say, Neanderthals also had larger cranial capacity than modern humans, but they did have sloping forehead. On the other hand, sloping forehead does appear somewhat often in modern populations too, for example, here's the picture of a Russian boxer, former world champion: This is just guesswork, not science. What is your evidence? This is false. Neanderthals had larger cranial capacity than modern humans on average. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Evolution is a continuous process so it's hard and rather incorrect to try and put some sort of hard boundaries between species especially in a lineage as complicated as genus Homo. *sarcasm* That's an attitude befitting a real scientist! */sarcasm* Well, they are not complete skulls, but a lot of important features have been preserved and such finds are not very common at all. Disregarding these just because they don't quite fit into your line of thinking is just plain wrong. For example, Denisovans were described based on just one tooth and one finger bone fragment. Care to explain why? Explain why (the second bold part)? EDIT: Oh, yeah, and this:

I think it's generally accepted at the moment that on a large scale the space-time is more or less flat, and in order for the light to come back to it's source curvature of space-time must exist.

Hard to see really, but I'd say it looks a lot like garnet almandine. What kind of rock formations did you get it from?

Not true. You can only use gravity assist to increase relative velocity between objects orbiting the same body, i.e. you can use Moon gravity assist to raise your velocity in Earth's FoR potentially to the escape velocity, but once you achieve that you're on the orbit around the Sun moving at about 30 km/s and you won't be able to utilise gravity of the Moon any more. So you still need quite a bit of Delta-v to get to Mars intercept.

They can get somewhat close, but not sure if they can line up perfectly. For example in 1962 Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus (and Pluto as well) were all in the same 95o region, but not lined up perfectly. In fact, if such lining up ever happened, it won't happen ever again unless something drastic happens with orbits of planets. If you take orbital periods of all 8 planets, multiply by 100 (to get rid of decimals), find the least common multiple of these and divide it by 100 again then the period of such an event occurring is a staggering 21,035,804,751,234 years, which is about 1700 longer than the entire life of the Sun for example.

Do you mean 'polar ice caps'? Because you can't have a planet that doesn't have poles, unless it's rotating erratically, that is. Don't think you need them specifically. Earth had multiple periods when there were no ice caps and had plenty of life. No and no. Liquid outer core and solid inner core consisting mostly of iron with some additives like Ni and S (mostly in outer core). Rotation of the Earth creates currents in the liquid outer core that result in magnetic field. Being able to create magnetic field. Being hot. You have to give more details about planet's hydrosphere in particular. This will dictate weather patterns and presence/absence of different climatic zones. This will depend on orbits of said moons

Earth has been losing water since the end of Late Heavy Bombardment and might run out of water in the next 2-3 billion years, well before Sun turning red giant. Most of the atmosphere might go as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth#Loss_of_oceans By the time Sun-like star turns full-on Red Giant, Earth-like planet will be scorched completely with surface temperatures exceeding couple thousand degrees. And there will be lava everywhere. But if your fictional environmental suit can handle those temperatures, then no problem. You can walk on lava without sinking. Not sure I understand. Growth of the star would be a lengthy process spanning millions of years. As for other things: magnetosphere will be no more and radiation of some ridiculous levels. Shuttle will have to have some extremely efficient cooling to not get destroyed. Reasonable number would be >3 solar masses if a black hole is a result of normal star evolution, not some crazy scientific experiment. No. Black holes will rip apart objects well before reaching event horizon due to tidal forces, but that depends on the type of Black Hole. In super massive black holes you might already be inside the event horizon and still not register any effects.

I bet it also caught the following radio transmission: "I'm gonna die here if I have to listen to any more goddamned disco!"

In a nutshell all is because now we have better diagnosis technologies and generally longer life expectancy giving more time for cancer to occur. It takes a while in order for DNA replication errors to accumulate to start growth of malignant tumor and a bit of bad luck too, so if your life expectancy is low you probably won't live long enough for cancer to appear, although it still might happen. Also keep in mind that majority of those cancers would be breast and prostate cancers which have efficient diagnosis methodologies (if not a bit unpleasant) and chances of survival are high. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer

Well, not really. Even if for some strange reason initial water pond on top of basalt column is pentagonal, as weathering continues it will circularise as in the link below: https://theunwittingtraveller.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/img_2106.jpg Pentagonal shape is not very common at all in rocks and minerals and even though you can have crystals growing in a shape of pentagonal dodecahedron, it's quite rare and pentagons are can not be regular as in this pyrite crystal, for example: http://www.matematicasvisuales.com/images/geometry/space/dodecahedron/minerals/DSC_6424_1.JPG I have some doubts about it. Water erosion removes small bits and pieces of material at a time, not chunks of >5 cm across. To have such a piece separate via weathering there should be pre-existing cracking and yet again, while not impossible but it's unlikely to have pentagonal cracks in basalt which is much more likely to have cracks in hexagonal symmetry.

Ophiolite, I've seen many times hexagonal cracking in basalts, but pentagonal symmetry doesn't appear in normal crystal structures (only really known in quasi-crystals) and hence there wouldn't be an underlying structural cause for such a fracturing. Also you can't tile a surface with pentagons in which case it should've been either a mix of hexa- and pentagonal blocks or this shape is simply due to weathering or some other later cause.

How about New Jersey? http://www.northjersey.com/community-news/new-jersey-s-natural-disasters-1.909899