EvanF

Starting on page 5 I went over the objective similarities and differences. Personal perception is not the same as what is evident. Though, through your own personal perception you may not be recognizing what is evidently true. It is evidently untrue that all of them are equally different from each other. The middle two (homo erectus and neanderthal) are extremely similar, with the exception of the neanderthal having a bit larger brain of course. http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter2/fig2-20.jpg By "data" you mean more precise measurements, which, one can still see obvious differences without precise measurements. *Edit* (in response to your reply below) For example, I can look at a chimp and a human being and see the obvious physical differences without doing precise measurements, that wouldn't be "anti science" for me to declare what is apparent and observable. However here is some very precise measurements of Cro magnon1, The idaltu skull (herto) and the Kabwe skull. pg. 6 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca The Kabwe and Idaltu are similar to each other and are very much like Homo erectus/other archaic 'humans.' Cro magnon was 88% similar to modern day humans. While Idaltu and Kabwe were only 70%-50% anatomically similar to modern humans respectively. A pure neanderthal skull is quite similar to the Kabwe and Idaltu skulls. Here is more precise data on the differences between the Neanderthal and modern human brain. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3619466/ "differences in brain morphology have also been noted. For instance, in addition to their (Modern Human's) uniquely globular brain shape [3], it has recently been reported that the temporal pole is relatively larger and more forward-projecting, the orbitofrontal cortex being relatively wider and the olfactory bulbs being larger in AMHs compared with other hominins, including Neanderthals [4]. In addition, Neanderthals show lateral widening but overall flattening of their parietal lobes, whereas AMHs have uniform parietal surface enlargement..." Here's a pic of 3 archaic skulls for comparison( 3rd being the Idaltu(herto) skull which of course in my opinion is falsely considered to be the first 'modern human.')

We aren't talking about a single civilization...We are talking about tens of thousands of years and the difference between cultural evidence of complex symbolism/art and complex tool development. Neanderthals and archaic 'humans' were around for hundreds of thousands of years, yet they did not develop the same kind of culture as the Cromagnon man...What else can you say about that other than Neanderthal/archaic humans were almost undoubtedly not cognitively the same as modern humans who can and do develop mind blowing art and technology in only a few decades...And that's not something that humans just "can" do, it's something that we intrinsically do as a species, (starting evidently around 45,000 years ago.) More advanced tools is only ONE aspect of behavioral modernity/modern human cognitive ability...and of course I've repeated this so many times...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity What other way of judging cognitive ability/intelligence is there apart from looking at the archaeological evidence we have available? It's not like intelligence is necessarily such an ethereal thing...it can be observed. Say you have one student who scores a 130 on an IQ test, can paint like Leonardo Davinci, and creates his own invention for the school science fair...And then you have another student who can barely color between the lines and doesn't even understand or even care about science/technology, which one would you say is evidently more intelligent and innovative? What a silly thing that would be to even ponder. Also in your previous comment you seem to have referred to a picture I posted on page 5, which I'm going go ahead and post again because most people reading this won't have a clue what you're talking about... Anyone looking at these 4 skulls can see the last one looks essentially completely different from the others. The first three while being a little different, still share very similar progressed features over millions of years(,http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter2/fig2-20.jpg homo erectus and Neaderthal look extremely similar)... while Cromagnon1 represents a complete 'deviation' in features, and has no real similarities to the first three. This is evidently the case, saying it's "bias" doesn't even make sense.

"Selections bias"... I am using standard scientific classification of hominid features. My theory isn't based on "bias" it's based on evidence.

Explain why it's "inappropriate." It would only be inappropriate if my position was based on 0 evidence. Saying my position is "against science" is a bit extreme. I think the phrase you should have used is, 'against mainstream opinion.' 'Against mainstream science' would be like saying the earth is flat, or that Newton's laws are all wrong, etc.

Interesting poetry...

To 'speculate' is to make conjecture based on no evidence... I don't think that really defines my position at this point. But I could speculate that having this thread in the 'evolution' section would lead to more individuals who are educated on this subject adding their opinions and knowledge to this topic.

Let me rephrase the question... Is aging an intrinsic built in property of our biology, or is it caused by the properties of the physical universe?...(since "time" is theoretically a property of space.)

So does the body age because *Insert biological reason- DNA deterioration, etc"... Or does the body age because of the 'space-time' of the physical universe?

Why does e=t? Are you saying this 'dimension' explains particle wave duality? Here are two articles you might find interesting. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120926-what-causes-lightening http://phys.org/news/2015-05-physicist-mysterious-anti-electron-clouds-thunderstorm.html

I remember coming across that video about a year ago.... While his reconstruction is quite fantastic and silly, he brings up a few somewhat valid points that aren't usually brought up. One valid thing he brings up in the video is that reconstructions get the eye proportions wrong. Neanderthal skulls have huge eye sockets. Compare this neanderthal skull to Cromagnon 1, Cro magnon man himself having larger eye sockets than modern day humans. Neanderthals had massive eyes, which is something you don't see in so called facial reconstructions. They also had HUGE long faces....many reconstructions make their faces look way too much like short modern human facial proportions. (Neanderthal's teeth are also quite strange.) He theorizes that neanderthals were like 'monsters'...Here's the thing...Neanderthals were inbred cannibals who were very 'archaic' in appearance, so for all practical purposes I suppose the word "monster" could apply? Perhaps like the 'orcs' of archaic Europe? They did have large eyes which presumably evolved because they were more nocturnal than modern humans...which could likely be because they were more carnivorous/predatory than our omnivorous hunter gatherer ancestors. And since he kind of delves into fantasy with his 'monster' reconstruction with the neanderthal having black skin and reptilian eyes, I think the neanderthal would have been more similar to the servants of Necron in the 1980's animation Fire and Ice. (jump to 7:47) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENy82ESS2t4 It's been figured that Neanderthal's went extinct around 40,000 years ago. Is it because they were simply too dumb to survive/find new resources? I don't think that's the case. I think their 'extinction' was directly related to early modern humans (Cro magnons) moving through Europe...I think the very fact that Early humans possibly 'wiped out' the neanderthals to such a complete extent makes me think that they WERE seen as 'monstrous' by Early Humans. Early humans would have to have had some kind of reason for wanting to be that extreme in exterminating the neanderthals.

Altering the genetic code itself presumably takes many generations, but it is possible for a species to 'evolve' very rapidly. http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane "Alter the DNA" isn't necessarily misleading. It's simply saying that the DNA alters in it's function.

http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_132849.asp

Well, I don't really mean the animal consciously chooses to mutate, just that their body has the ability to mutate the genetic code through biochemical signals. But a Human's conscious actions can of course change their genetic code over time(exercise for example changes our DNA)...and who knows...maybe the will power/intent of an animal to survive/adapt is part of what sparks the genetic change itself. But back to the OP... A lot of times students or yourself will ask for evidence of macro evolution, (one creature turning into a totally different creature.) You could mention that Metamorphosis is part of the life cycle for many different organisms on the planet, a caterpillar turning into a butterfly is a good example. There is this idea that "evolution" is a very slow process, but that's not necessarily the case. Genetic mutations in humans or other animals can happen very rapidly. One good example of rapid change to adapt to an environment are peppered moths, who actually developed a completely different color in only a few years in order to adapt to the pollution of their environment.

"Time is what clocks measure." -Albert Einstein

As a teacher, you shouldn't need to 'push' evolution theory, you should teach your students how to question everything and think critically. But it certainly doesn't mean you should replace the well researched theory of Evolution with something like religious dogma. Charles Darwin himself said, "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us..." A scientist doesn't pretend to know how life began or make assumptions based on politics, religion, or emotion...A scientist simply bases their theory on logic and the evidence that is available. When speaking about the fossil evidence, you have to understand that 'macro evolution' is such a grand concept that there isn't perfect fossil evidence of a fish evolving into a cow, for example... But there is significant evidence for Human/hominid evolution. If you want to look through some of the fossils of early hominids then here's a decent Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils And here's a picture of just a few well preserved hominid skulls that show an evolutionary progression over millions of years. First skull-Australopithecus (4 million years ago). Second skull-Homo erectus (2 million years ago). Third skull-Neanderthal (600,000 years ago.) Fourth skull-Cro magnon (45,000 years ago). Now not all of these hominids are necessarily directly descended from each other, but the first three are all very similar and show a clear relation to each other. I'd think a good way to teach elementary Evolution theory is to simply explain that animals have the amazing ability to mutate their genetic code itself in order to adapt to an environment, and over time this can change the whole appearance and nature of a species. Explain that an animal's ability to change it's genetic code is an essential part of life and the survival of a species.

Well yes...That's why they call it RH (RHesus) positive, because the specific person has the antigen in common with a Rhesus monkey.

Bumping-I would appreciate if this thread was moved to the 'Evolution section' instead of "speculations."

Sounds like semantic gibberish. I don't know where you are getting these specific things that qualify as an 'explosion'... "Explosion" just means a violent reaction that results in a rapid release of energy. Watch the video again, it certainly qualifies as an explosion.

So why doesn't Thermite cause an explosion when dropped in water?

Why, or rather, HOW is this the case?

So when you combine thermite and ice there is a reaction that results in a powerful explosion...Here is a Mythbusters episode where they experiment with it... They say that it is a 'mystery' why this explosion happens...Does anyone here have an explanation?

T Advanced technological revolution is basically the best evidence we have of significant neural change/the transition to behavioral modernity. The genetic evidence of rapid genetic change happening somewhere around 40,000 years ago couldn't be any more relevant to my theory. Maybe you need a recap of my theory... The theory is (based on current archeological evidence) that modern humans physically and mentally emerged very rapidly at a date somewhere around 50,000 years ago, as opposed to gradually 160,000+ years ago. If it was gradual, then there would be no rapid genetic change evident when studying human DNA.

That's exactly what it means. That is why the geneticist said, "Their genetic profile is not a good match for any modern human group"... Also, we definitely do not have thousands of human skulls dating over 20,000 years. Cro magnon 1 is one of the few well preserved early modern humans that has been found that dates back that kind of time. Human DNA shows rapid genetic change starting somewhere around 40,000 years ago. The evidence of neural change is based on the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, pay attention man. If humans developed modernity (both physical and mental) in a gradual process (as I assume you believe,) then there would have been no rapid genetic change in human DNA, do you understand?

Behavioral modernity is of course what leads to human civilization. How do you not understand that? Something as advanced as the Aurignacian culture is essentially the groundwork from which a human society would/did evolve from. Idaltu had the same brain size as many males living today. You can't just focus on the smaller modern human variations. Idaltu-like humans in Africa 150,000+ years ago surely had small variations as well. And basing brain shrinkage off of neanderthals wouldn't even make sense because we don't even directly descend from neanderthals, they were a different species. But of course it's not scientific to simply just focus on the general "sheer size" of the brain (like you typically do) and make a conclusion without examining the structure itself. I think you might be misunderstanding this whole thing about brain shrinkage. Researchers don't know what caused it, and many of them are simply comparing modern day humans to a large brained Cro magnon. It's not a study that documents that literally every human brain is incrementally shrinking each year or something. My theory should be easy for you to understand. The indigenous Europeans (cro magnons) represented a unique genetic profile. One of the unique traits they had was a very large brain. Since no modern human group matches the Genetic profile of this indigenous European, that means they do not exist as a distinct group anymore because they interbred with many different human groups. Asians and many other groups all around the world roughly connect to Cro magnons through Haplogroup N. The date researchers say brains started "shrinking" was more around 10,000 years ago coinciding with the agricultural revolution, which of course further coincides with what I'm saying. Researchers speculate it's perhaps because of farming that our brains got smaller... I say it's also because of the farmers themselves... IE large human groups with agriculture migrated into the areas where the big brained groups lived and mixed with them... This caused that unique trait for a large brain to essentially disappear because it became diluted into other groups that had smaller brain sizes.

120,000 years ago with Idaltu? Where is your evidence for that? The earliest indisputable evidence of the beginnings of human pre-civilization/ human society comes from 40,000 years ago in the Upper paleolithic...IE The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Almost everything that marks a sophisticated human culture is represented in artifacts from the Aurignacian culture. It's not subjective. Hominids got larger more complex brains and lost their archaic/chimp-like features. That's literally the story of human evolution. What link can you provide that shows any reputable scientists saying Cro magnons are a hybrid of Neanderthals? That doesn't make sense in any way. Cro magnon 1 doesn't look anything like a neanderthal. Neanderthals were a different species all together. The specimen on the right is Cro magnon 1, who had a 1600cc cranial capacity. The statement that "brain size has been shrinking but our frontal lobes are growing" is kind of contradictory... One part shrinks but the other part grows kind of just sounds like the brain is prioritizing/adapting. Shrinking would imply degeneration. The brains of hominids for over 4 million years just kept getting bigger, so it wouldn't make any sense for our brains to literally be "shrinking," though I supposed it's possible. No other hominids outside of Cro magnon really had a true bigger brain than us. Idaltu falls into the high average of modern humans...Neanderthal had a general brain size larger, but certain parts of the neanderthal brain were smaller like the parietal and frontal lobe, so neanderthal doesn't really qualify. And of course brain size would have varied among archaic humans. The very idea that brain size is shrinking largely originates from scientists in 2010 studying Cro magnon's cranial capacity and comparing it to us. http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/scientists-are-alarmed-shrinking-human-brain-001446 I think what has really happened is what you could call Cro magnon dispersion. Cro magnon's represented a unique genetic type...here's a quote from the article I just posted previously about the 7,000 year old indigenous European http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892 " Their genetic profile is not a good match for any modern group of people, suggesting they were caught up in the farming wave" (IE they interbred with larger groups of agriculture based humans coming from the east and lost their unique genetic profile)... The researches aren't taking into account that this specific genetic trait for a very large brain that certain people had around 20,000-40,000 (give or take thousands of years) has simply diluted through different groups of people mixing together. Brain size varies significantly over different groups and individuals. So say one group of people or parent has a 1400cc brain and the other group is 1200cc...The next generation is 1300cc...and then the trend continues like that...The brain size for the newer generations hasn't literally "shrunk" it's just a matter of genetic variation. What the article says on the DNA change is mostly irrelevant, what's important is the DNA data it is referring to. They don't say anything about what specifically was evolved because that would be such a complicated thing to pin point, but it was obviously something significant and it started around 40,000 years ago. If anatomically modern humans already existed long before 50,000 years, then what was the rapid genetic change that took place? There should be no rapid genetic change in our DNA starting 40,000 years ago according to a 'gradualism' theory. But when you apply my theory around this DNA evidence, it essentially gives an answer...WE are what happened. Modern human cognitive ability is what happened(and it's still happening.)