EvanF

I guess we have evolved a lot in the last few years then...

The DNA evidence shows that we have evolved rapidly starting somewhere around 40,000 years ago, and that we are still evolving.

https://www.wired.com/2007/12/humans-evolving/

In the last 100 years our technology has evolved amazingly.

Modern cognitive ability/the complexity of our brain, has given us essentially unlimited potential.

Our abilities/what makes us unique from other primate and animals is not just evident with modern technology though.

It is evident with all the amazing innovations, society and art the first human civilizations created and then going all the way back to 40,000 years ago with Cro magnon.

The advanced art/culture created by Cro Magnon shows they had essentially the same type of intellectual/creative potential that modern day humans have.

When speaking about this recent rapid evolution/genetic change, there are different factors...One could be anatomical, the other main factor could be neural change.

The anatomic transition from neanderthal-like archaic humans to modern humans (Cro magnons) was very rapid when you look at it in the context of the the millions of years of human evolution.

Cro magnons however did not represent an anatomically UN-evolved, simple form of modern Human at all...They were almost, strangely enough, more evolved than we are in the sense they had a significantly larger brain and no chimp-like features.

And if you look at the skull of an Indigenous European hunter gatherer from only around 7,000 years ago, it's quite similar in it's features to 40,000 year old Cro magnon 1 (just not fossilized.)

(Skull picture taken from this article... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/26/swarthy-blue-eyed-caveman-dna-tooth

The anatomic features from Cro magnon like the large brain size (that we don't have anymore) was probably not lost from anatomic (de)-evolution (which wouldn't make sense)...But from mixing with other tribes of people. Cro magnons/indigenous Europeans were a distinct genetic group that had unique genetic features like dark skin that made them different from modern day 'Europeans.'

The indigenous Europeans around 7,000 years ago mixed with white skinned people (and other groups) coming from the east. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892

So starting around 50,000 year ago with Cro magnon, there doesn't seem to be any major structural/anatomic evolution past that point.

So this suggests that this rapid genetic change/evolution that started happening around 40,000 years ago was not just the evolution of different features past archaic humans, but perhaps some kind of neural evolution that brought about Behavioral modernity.

Something that we can't see by looking at skull's features or general brain capacity, but something that happened within the complex mechanisms of the brain itself.

And this is what made us what we are as human beings.

To play advocate - there is no evidence against it either. It was so long ago it can't be known.

 

As for the development of tools - it could be acquired cumulative learning passed on. The fact that their tools were more sophisticated is not proof of higher or lower intelligence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence

I'm not just talking about tools, I'm talking about all of the artifacts as a whole.

And yes that is evidence of higher intelligence/behavioral modernity.

So you reject the possibility that they engaged in complex story telling, choral singing and dance to an equivalent level of the preservable cave paintings. What is your justification for that rejection?

I mean, you can speculate about all kinds of things. Maybe Neanderthals told stories with a complex language, but there's no concrete evidence that you could base a theory like that on. Neanderthal culture wasn't full of the same kind of complex symbolic expression and creativity that is evident with Cro magnon.

Don't pretend like this didn't start with you purposely lying about evidence and ignoring data.

 

What is it that I am denying? What is cro magnon art supposed to prove? I wasn't stating neanderthals were superior so I don't understand why you would even post that in defense of an argument.

 

 

I never said cro magnon didn't use manganese, again how is this proving anything?

 

How is "utilitarian" the opposite of "diverse"? How do you know this isn't a side effect of denser populations? How can you claim tool complexity is not indicative of relative intelligence between populations and then use it to propagate the concept of superior mental facilities over another when it is convenient for current argument? It's so hypocritical. You are not understanding the subjectivity of the conjectures you have.

 

I think it would be a good idea if I reaccessed your ideas a little better. Which modernity hypothesis do you think fits your idea the best?:

 

"-The Late Upper Paleolithic Model, or Upper Paleolithic Revolution, refers to the idea that, though anatomically modern humans first appear around 150,000 years ago, they were not cognitively or behaviorally "modern" until around 50,000 years ago, leading to their expansion into Europe and Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity#Theories_and_Models

 

 

Here is some more speculative discussion on it if you are truly interested http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95319-neanderthals-built-a-water-reservoir/

 

 

By fit in I mean pay taxes, find a job, live a relatively normal life etc. If I go by brain size alone they would be far more intelligent than modern day humans, but like you said they have slightly different cranial morphologies, which would probably lower their score quite a bit. However they are 300cc above us on the scale so maybe the fact that their brain has such a sheer size difference relative to ours might tip it in their favor.

 

Well they are the same species as us and virtually identical in an anatomical sense, so it isn't really speculative at all. Just because you keep saying it isn't evidence doesn't mean you're right. Like I said it is the closest thing to an IQ test you can get, and the math is pretty sound, with a high confidence rating. I don't really know what else you want me to say to you, take it or leave it.

I'm not sure what I have "lied" about, and as far as "ignoring data," well I've tried to address the majority of what you say. Just bring it to my attention if I haven't.

You made a claim(s) in post #155 that Neanderthals made glue that was, "more sophisticated than anything cro magnon produced"

And that "Neanderthals also had endless evidence of sophistication" and finally that Neanderthals had "ALL" the things listed in the Behavioral Modernity list...

I think you misunderstood what I said about tools...Tool complexity certainly is related to intelligence, but modern human behavior is expressed through more than tools alone.

Cro magnon art is obviously proof of advanced complexity/ modern behavior.

Neanderthal's "utilitarian" culture meaning they lacked the same kind of complexity that is expressed through the symbolism and figurative art that is shown in Cro magnon/modern human cultures.

You're assuming that Neanderthals had dense populations, but that's not the case. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140421-neanderthal-dna-genes-human-ancestry-science/

That's another factor that sets Neanderthals apart from behavioral modernity...they never really had the kind of society/social structure and dispersion that modern humans had that led to large populations. Neanderthals were severely inbred and carried serious diseases because of this. http://phys.org/news/2016-06-inbred-neanderthals-left-humans-genetic.html

The Upper Paleolithic Revolution is of course what I've been talking about this whole time.

H. S. Idaltu was definitely not virtually anatomically identical to modern humans. I mean you can look at the skull and see that, but did you miss the data I linked earlier on this? Idaltu (Herto) is only 70% anatomically similar to modern humans. (Go to pg. 6) http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca

You are pathetic. I just did define it.

 

 

 

What the hell is your point? all of that is irrelevant I provided evidence that neanderthals were behaviorally modern and you failed to debunk them as I showed below.

 

 

- It's not silly, are you really suggesting they swam in freezing water possibly carrying stone tools 12 kilometers off the mainland? Did they get a ride from extra terrestrials? Maybe you should use that "common sense" you were talking about.

 

- Manipulation of Manganese dioxide is far more telling of complex social cognition than pine sap. "The selection and use of manganese dioxide for fire making is unknown from the ethnographic record of recent hunter gatherers. This unusual behaviour holds potential significance for our understanding of Neanderthal cognitive capabilities through the extent of their knowledge and insights. The actions involved in the preferential selection of a specific, non-combustible material and its use to make fire are not obvious, not intuitive and unlikely to be discovered by repetitive simple trials as might be expected for lithic fracturing, tool forming and tool use."Here is a link,Tell me if it doesn't work https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296475941_Selection_and_Use_of_Manganese_Dioxide_by_Neanderthals

 

- It doesn't mater what people are speculating it's obvious it had some kind of complex use. Here is the link for the caves tell me if the link doesn't work again. http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-built-cave-structures-and-no-one-knows-why-1.19975

 

- Yes it is a definition, You're right they didn't make anthropomorphic art like Cro magnons, what's your point? They were still behaviorally modern as I demonstrated multiple posts ago and had to reiterate for you just now. They did have jewelry, they used eagle talons, and feathers for necklaces I literally just showed you. They also used red ochre for body paint. Why are you deliberately lying about evidence and ignoring mine?

 

You are exaggerating, they added bladelets and started retouching there isn't a whole lot they stole, because the tool kits were not that completely different. "However, things began to change amongst the Neanderthals. They began swapping out their Levallois tools for the blades and bladelets the humans made. Before modern humans arrived >50% of tools at a Neanderthal blade site were still Levallois. Afterwards the blades were in the majority. The Neanderthals also adopted a human technique called “retouching”, which was rare in the Mousterian. As the name suggest, this involved “touching up” tools. This kept them sharp so they could keep being used." http://www.evoanth.net/2016/04/19/neanderthals-stole-human-technology/

 

Again this brings me back to the strawman argument. I have never said neanderthals were smarter than us or even the same intelligence. But it's a fact that they would do perfectly fine in a human society. Get that through your thick skull.

 

I have provided solid evidence of behavioral modernity in Idaltu, and neanderthals, showed they were closer to our intelligence than cro magnon, and have demonstrated the position of your argued concept to be subjective, oversimplified, and completely lacking in the necessary evidence to back it up. It's not my fault you have chosen to lie about evidence, misinterpreted my clearly coherent points and ignore my evidence. Anyone who reads this discussion will immediately see the voices of reason within

It's unfortunate you've come to the point of name calling and all out denial.

I take into account and address most of the pieces of evidence you attempt to provide...

While you completely deny the undisputed physical evidence I just posted, and literally your whole response is... "what the hell is your point?"

As far as your neanderthal sailor theory...

If it was an ice age then people could walk across frozen water. Talking 100,000+ years ago, it would be hard to know all the geological variables that could have come into play, like small land bridges that existed between islands.

The manganese dioxide theory is interesting, But the article you linked is again is not definitive but suggesting perhaps they used it to start fires with. Most likely they just used it for body decoration.

But Cro magnons also used manganese and iron oxides to create their cave paintings, taken from the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

"These early humans used manganese and iron oxides to paint pictures and may have created one early lunar calendar..."

Taken from the rest of the Wikipedia paragraph:

"The flint tools found in association with the remains at Cro-Magnon have associations with the Aurignacian culture that Lartet had identified a few years before he found the first skeletons. The Aurignacian differ from the earlier cultures by their finely worked bone or antler points and flint points made for hafting, the production of Venus figurines and cave painting.^[43] They pierced bones, shells and teeth to make body ornaments. The figurines, cave-paintings, ornaments and the mysterious Venus figurines are a hallmark of Cro-Magnon culture, contrasting with the utilitarian culture of the Neanderthals."

*Remember, one of the things on the Behavioral Modernity list is "Diversity and regionally distinct artifacts"...

The link you provided about Neanderthals possibly making "cave structures" is interesting, but again it literally says on the page that researchers are wary of making any conclusions.

Neanderthals had a kind of "jewelry" but not like Cro magnon's...Ripped off animal parts could roughly be considered "jewelry" I suppose.

We could assume that neanderthals could "fit in to modern society"...but again, even if that does seem possible, it is speculation. Remember the link I posted, they were a different species with a different brain structure that suggests they didn't have the same social capacities as modern humans. Also "fit in" is kind of vague.

You're far from providing "solid" evidence of Idaltu's Behavioral Modernity. I don't know how you could honestly believe that. At least you're trying to with neanderthal, though you admit they did not have the same intelligence level as us.

Notice how on the Wikipedia page about properties of Behavioral Modernity, -"Speculative IQ calculations" is not on the list.

 

No you are misunderstanding, You have not drawn a line where behavioral modernity begins or ends you simply assert that it is "truly expressed" 50,000 years ago but only provide one kind of technology as evidence.

 

 

Yes I did, it's not my fault you ignored them. Neanderthals arguably made the first instruments. Neanderthals also had "endless evidence of sophistication and self awareness". The fact you simply keep ignoring the data I'm presenting you makes your argument laughable.

Neanderthals made the boats 50,000 years before homo sapiens http://phys.org/news/2012-03-evidence-neanderthals-boats-modern-humans.html

 

Neanderthals use eagle talons(130,000 years ago) and feathers for necklaces http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045927 http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-wore-eagle-talons-as-jewellery-1.17095

 

Neanderthals made glue from birch tar wax and the method is more sophisticated than anything cro magnon produced. http://www.evoanth.net/2016/05/20/neanderthals-make-spear/ "It’s a good thing that it is easy to transport because it’s ruddy hard to come by. When “boiling” the birch bark to make it the tar itself evaporates. As such, if there’s any hole in your ‘kiln’ all of that precious work will just disappear. It has to be air tight. Given such simple mistakes can lead to the loss of the whole batch, it can take an awfully long time to produce a useable amount. It also means nobody has quite figured out how to make it in an authentic Neanderthal way. Most people – including James – boil the birch in sealed tin cans. Hardly prehistoric."

 

Neanderthals were possibly the first "chemists http://www.nature.com/articles/srep22159

 

"They may have used manganese dioxide to accelerate the combustion of wood. Although manganese oxide at Neanderthal sites has been considered to be for decorative use, recent research points out that substances easier to acquire could have been used and that "With archaeological evidence for fire places and the conversion of the manganese dioxide to powder, we argue that Neanderthals at Pech-de-l’Azé I used manganese dioxide in fire-making and produced fire on demand." MnO₂ lowers the combustion temperature of wood from 350 degrees Celsius to 250 degrees Celsius. Manganese dioxide powder is common in Neanderthal archaeological sites"

 

Neanderthal ancestors also made spears, which shows neanderthals simply lacked the proper anatomy to throw spears, but were intelligent enough to make them http://archive.archaeology.org/9705/newsbriefs/spears.html

 

Neanderthal created very complex and large structures miles underground that some even speculate is a water reservoir. There is evidence to suggest that some stalagmites were heated before being placed. http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-built-cave-structures-and-no-one-knows-why-1.19975 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95319-neanderthals-built-a-water-reservoir/

 

neanderthals hunted big game like mammoths, deer, and bison. This requires language, forethought and complex social units. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31506545/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/neanderthals-made-mammoth-jerky/

 

Behavioral modernity is defined as:

 

• burial
• fishing
• figurative art (cave paintings, petroglyphs, figurines)
• systematic use of pigment (such as ochre) and jewelry for decoration or self-ornamentation
• Using bone material for tools
• Transport of resources over long distances
• Blade technology
• Diversity, standardization, and regionally distinct artifacts
• Hearths
• Composite tools

 

It's irrelevant because it doesn't prove anything. The date doesn't coincide with the beginning's of modern behavior, and the genes affected had more to do with racial differences and population growth than any specfic technological increase. I seriously don't understand the point of this useless correlation you brought up.

 

I'm glad you are trying to provide some evidence now...Though I think we need to clarify what exactly Behavioral modernity means and what it implies.

Behavioral modernity is not necessarily defined by a list, it's defined by abstract thinking and advanced cognitive abilities that represent the intellectual potentials near to what modern day humans have.

Tools do not necessarily equal Behavioral modernity. Tools arise from the need to adapt to an environment. Basic tools alone are not necessarily evidence of modern human capacities. Birds in the Corvin family (Ravens, crows,) are a good example of this. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/new-videos-prove-crows-can-make-complex-tools-that-only-humans-have-made-before/

The contradiction of trying to prove Neanderthals had Behavioral Modernity is that they were not even anatomically modern humans. They weren't even the same species as us.

Modern human cognitive ability is actually a deep concept. It's the very thing that makes us what we are...It's about the very mechanics of our brains and the neural changes that happened that made us unique from other animals on the planet. Modern human cognitive ability separates primitive humans banging rocks together from Lenoardo Davinci being able to create super complex paintings and scientists designing rockets to fly to outer space. Our brain is quite an amazing thing...In fact, the modern human brain is the most complex structure in the universe.

Essentially everything about Cro magnon culture was more advanced than Neanderthal's. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.

Cro magnons had the first known advanced bow and arrows as well as advanced throwing spears (atlatls) And all kinds of complex bone point and hook innovations.

But one good way we can really see the complexity of Cro magnons, is by looking at their art.

This art is as advanced as modern day art. In fact, most of you reading this could probably not carve a stone out like that or re-create that level of painting with primitive tools (on a cave wall no less.)

The oldest anthropomorphized figure in the world comes from Cro magnons, dated 40,000+ years ago known as the Lion man

They were known for creating anthropomorphized figures and paintings. Suggesting some kind of 'religious thought.' In fact the Aurignacian/Cro magnon culture essentially represents the first complex and undisputed evidence of "religion" (for lack of a better word.)

The 'Dolmens' that are found all over Britain are also roughly connected to the indigenous Europeans of antiquity (Cro magnons.) We don't know exactly when they were built, we just know it was a really long time ago.

Neanderthals never came anywhere near this complexity.

It's a modern trend to over-play Neanderthal's complexity by people in archeology, simply to counter-act the previous notions that Neanderthals were dumb.

Now on to your links...

-The idea that neanderthals and other archaic humans were sailing around on boats some 100k- 1 million years ago seems quite silly. There could be different explanations as to how they got to islands instead of, 'they had sail boats.' But this article puts forth a theory, not definitive evidence.

-The link you posted after suggesting neanderthals were possibly the first "chemists" is broken, it just brings me to the home page. And again this just ammounts to more conjecture, using "possibly", "may have" "could have"...The first 'chemists' is quite laughable. Even if they did use manganese for starting fire, that doesn't really make them "chemists."I could go out into the woods and grab some pine sap off a tree to use as fire fuel, but that would hardly make me a "chemist."

-Everyone knows neanderthals made simple spears...it's the most basic weapon technology. Not until Cro magnon did you get advanced well formed ranged weapon technology.

-Your link on the theory that neanderthals made water reservoirs in caves is a broken link...But apart from that you admit it amounts to speculation.

- Neanderthals didn't have all the examples of Modernity anyways. They didn't have figurative art, or really much of any art...If you payed attention to my previous post I mentioned that the Aurignacian (Cro magnon) culture had the undisputed earliest figurative art. Neanderthals had very limited bone technology. Neanderthal did not have very diverse artifacts.

The whole problem with neanderthal tool examples, like I've mentioned, is that there is evidence that they actually stole much of it from modern humans/ cro magnons. Remember, Neanderthals were thousands of years older than Cro magnon they should have had a much more advanced culture if they truley had modern human capacity for innovation...But all of the evidence does not suggest that...If neanderthals were as smart and socially skilled as Cro magnons/modern humans, then Neanderthals probably wouldn't have gone extinct.

The DNA evidence is what it is.

You don't have to understand it.

It shows some kind of rapid genetic change happened in human DNA around 40,000 years ago and is still going, just happening to coincide with the Aurignacian culture and the first human that was anatomically closest to modern humans, Cro magnon 1.

Here is your problem, You're defining "behavioral modernity" as cro magnon behavior (not intentionally) then using cro magnon behavior as evidence of behavioral modernity. This is circular logic, Neanderthals and african HSS hunted big game, fish, other small creatures, had complex symbolism, art, buried their dead, spoke a language, had the ability to plan ahead, and innovated their technology. How the hell are they not behaviorally modern?

 

My point was that the genetic change was irrelevant to cro magnon placement as our ancestor.

 

Cro magnon doesn't have to be a baby for it to be neotenous.

 

You're misunderstanding...Behavioral modernity is not defined by Cro magnon behavior, it's simply first truly expressed around 50,000 years ago in the Aurginican culture coinciding with Cro magnons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian

Your listing things off, but not giving any real evidence of Neanderthal culture like I am with Aurignacian artifacts.

The Aurignacian culture includes, The oldest undisputed musical instrument, The oldest undisputed example of human figurative art, and endless evidence of sophistication and self awareness....That is an example of behavioral/cognitive modernity.

Neanderthals were in Europe for thousands and thousands of years...If they were truly modern they would have developed a culture even more advanced than the Aurginician, but the evidence appears to suggest that the few somewhat advanced things neanderthals supposedly made were simply stolen from Cro magnon's tools/culture anyways.

Whether or not Neanderthal had a language is pure speculation. There is no empirical evidence that we could base that off of. Again, simple tools and even mourning the dead is not evidence of behavioral modernity...Even animals like birds can make decent tools, and many animals are known to mourn dead companions...Elephants and chimpanzees are known to perform types of 'death rituals.'

Speaking of language, neanderthals did not even have (like I've said before) the same kind of brains that we do, the part of the brain modern humans use for language skills (the parietal lobe) was underdeveloped in neanderthals. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/03/13/neanderthal-brains-show-fatal-lack-of-social-skills/#.WAaI2cnTanM

And not to forget a very important thing, is the ability to maintain large populations, this is very important, not just because it shows modernity, but because it plays a big role in evolution.

The genetic change is very relevant to Cro magnon. It's actually really interesting...The rapid genetic changes that the DNA suggests, happen to give the date of the acceleration around the the same time that the Auriginacian culture and Cro magnons(the first modern humans) appeared.

Neoteny means baby like proportions or features in different animals.

Cro magnon was not really "neotenous." I think you might be misunderstanding what that means.

It becomes a vague word if you're just applying it because Cro magnon's brain was big and his features were not archaic.

Someone simply with a large cranial capacity is not neotenous, someone with a small cranial capacity could be netoenous, it's a matter of proportion to the rest of the body. By your logic basically every human being is neotenous if they don't have archaic neanderthal features.

I disagree mere appearance is insufficient evidence. Skulls even in Modern day mankind has numerous visual differences. Do we call them seperate species?

 

This isn't my subject but reading over the thread I have yet to see actual evidence presented. I see a lot of "common sense" based arguments which really isn't science. If there is one thing science has proved. It is common sense can easily fool you.

Read over it again then.

I know it's a clusterfuck of a thread. But I don't want this non-debate type dialogue making it even longer.

Cro magnon is an essential match to H.S.sapiens. We are the same species.

Cro magnon is a Modern Human according to mainstream scientific classification for the last 100 years.

If you want to debate whether or not Cro magnon should be classified as an AMH then you can start another thread about that.

The problem is that it is difficult to tell what is part of your argument.

No it's not.

How about we talk about the rest of the comment, or any of the comments I've made on previous pages, instead of focusing on that one sentence.

One can simply observe the obvious 'match' between Cro magnon 1 and modern day humans by looking at their skulls. That's not my argument itself, that's simply the introduction to my argument.

Seriously? Common sense has no place in science. The methodologies of science were developed in order to overcome the egregious errors that arise when the foolish apply common sense. However, I am not surprised that someone who repeatedly states "It is obvious..." would also think common sense would form a justifiable part of an argument.

Relax.

It's not part of my argument.

I'm simply saying it's easy to see Cro magnon looks almost exactly like us.

That's simply an observation... It's not scientific or un scientific.

Everyone is not identical, but there is a range of variation that Cro Magnons fall outside of.

 

Additionally, what about Idaltu makes it not similar "enough" but leaves Cro magnon as being so? You are arguing that you are not using an arbitrary, but rather an objective, threshold of similarity for comparison, or at least that is the impression that I have been given by your arguments.

 

Why is the the threshold for dissimilarity that includes Cro Magnons as AMH but excludes Idaltu better than the one that does not exclude either or one that excludes both?

 

I reviewed your link. It shows that Cro Magnon 1 is the most similar to modern humans with 88% of measured skull characteristics falling within the range of modern human variation. However, it was most similar out of five skulls that were measured, including two other Cro magnon samples that didn't get above 80%. Additionally, the comparison didn't include Idaltu or numerous other ancestor skulls.

 

In order to establish that Cro Magnon is the first Anatomically Modern Human, you have to do two things:

 

You have to establish a threshold for what is and is not considered anatomically modern, with Cro Magnon falling on the modern side. You must then show that no older population meets the criteria to be consider anatomically modern according to those guidelines.

 

And since you seem to be arguing that this is an objective fact and not just a classification preference on your part, you have to do a third thing, which is to show that the threshold for establishing what is and isn't an AMH has some kind of compelling justification that wasn't driven by just looking at the stats for Cro Magnons and drawing all the lines right there so that they'd be at the outer edge of what is included.

 

You have, at most, attempted to do only the first of those two things in even a vaguely scientific fashion, and even there only after intense prodding. Additionally, the only evidence you have given at all for your position is where it directly lines up with mainstream opinion (that Cro Magnon is anatomically modern) and not at all where your views diverge (that it is the first modern human and that this classification is objectively correct and not merely an arbitrary labeling of convenience).

 

I'm open to being persuaded, but so far most of your evidence has been to insist that you are obviously correct and that everyone should be able to see that. I find this to be less than convincing.

Idaltu is referred to as the "Herto" in the data.

Scientists draw different lines, and have different opinions on where you can draw the 'line' at modern human. However I don't think it's illogical to 'draw the line' around 90%.

You can use common sense and compare Cro magnon to a modern day human skull...they look the same on an essential level.

Idaltu (Herto) is only 70% anatomically similar to modern humans.

But whether or not Cro magnon 1 is a modern human is a different topic, as it's already been classified as one for a very long time.

Wouldn't the first remains that are 100% similar to modern Homo sapiens be the best candidate for the first AMH?

 

If there are anatomical differences, then they aren't anatomically modern humans, pretty much by definition, no?

 

And if we're fudging it, why 90%? That's a rather arbitrary threshold. Why not 95%? Or 85%? And even granting 90%, you haven't shown that Cro Magnons were the first population to fall within that range.

Not even modern day humans are all 100% similar to each other. There is variation between groups of people and individuals.

It's not my opinion that Cro magnon was an AMH, that's mainstream scientific classification...The point of my OP was simply to point out that Idaltu is not quite anatomically modern enough to really be considered the first AMH.

And yes, I've quite clearly shown Cro magnon 1 is the first, and should be considered the first, based on archeological evidence and measurements.

Go to pg. 6 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca

90% Facially similar*

 

We are not talking about extremes but averages, and any person with a head that small probably has the intelligence to reflect it. The average brain size for humans is 1350cc the average for homo erectus was much smaller and their brain structure more primitive.

 

Yes I can, g is the best measure of intelligence we have. Why wouldn't they be on the same level? They came after our common ancestor, they were behaviorally modern and had bigger brains than us.

 

cough cough*

 

Are you mentally challenged? It's a blog that reviews anthropological studies, he almost always sources it too. His opinions are not points of the blogs and in fact he critically analyzes most research he reviews. Don't act like a bitter ass, it's a discussion.

 

The first link was simply to show you that neanderthals had bone tools, I was pertaining to when you had said earlier in the discussion that all they had were rocks.

 

 

When did I ever at any point, say we were not smarter than them? Of course we were. You're arguing a straw man. It says right in the text "This period is good for this sort of comparison because humans hadn’t reached Europe yet. As such they probably wouldn’t be regularly encountering Neanderthals. So any advanced Neanderthal technology couldn’t be explained away as simply them copying the local humans." I was simply showing you that Neanderthals were BEHAVIORALLY MODERN. Talk about emotional.

 

Oh, so you didn't even read it. Well here is the actual study itself: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096424#s3

 

Cro magnon behavior does not equal modern human behavior, that is circular logic. You think I'm trying to downplay cro magnon intelligence relative to neanderthals but I am not.

 

Yes but your article even showed that these genetic changes were affecting a lot of different populations and not just european cro magnons.

 

The evidence does support this idea. When you aren't busy hand waving my ideas you tend to just completely misunderstand them instead.

 

Neoteny is the tendency for a species to retain it's juvenile features. While connected with maturation rates being neotenous is not always associated with being intelligent as is evidence with the khoisan tribe. You pointed to cro magnon's neotenous features (spherical head, lack of prognathism) as proof of anatomical modernity but that's complete bullshit.

"Facial" is a specific measurement. The entire skull is not a facial measurement.

If you want to look at facial length measurement then Cro magnon is basically the only archaic skull that has a short face, as opposed to the archaic human skulls that have very long faces like homo erectus and neanderthal.

You are claiming H.S idaltu was behaviorally modern...based on what evidence? The term behavioral modernity is not based on assumptions based on general brain size, it's based on archeological evidence.

By cough cough you are implying I'm only basing my theory on simple measurements, which is of course evidently untrue as I am basing it on multiple factors.

You are the one who is basing your argument solely off of general measurements.

Human evolution theory and hominid study is largely based on the physical measurements/ differences between hominids. But one thing you probably won't see someone like Richard Dawkins do is try to assume/ make a definitive statement about the IQ of an archaic human that lived almost 200,000 years ago based simply on their general brain size.

In comparison to Cro magnons, neanderthals didn't innovate very much past simple chipped rock tools over many tens of thousands of years, But even if these singular examples of simple bone tools were evidence of complex culture, it's possible it was influenced by Cro magnon's tools.

You really need to find a better source to support your argument because your links are barely even supporting your argument more than mine.

Here's a page from the very source you are using suggesting neanderthals simply stole Modern Human (Cro magnon) technology.

http://www.evoanth.net/2016/04/19/neanderthals-stole-human-technology/

I simply quoted the very article that you linked about neanderthals not being smarter than us humans...

Not only is your source contradicting itself with it's different articles, but now you are.

I'm not making a strawman out of you.

Now you've literally just said Neanderthals were Behaviorally modern...You do realize that's basically saying they had similar/ the same level of intelligence/cognitive ability as modern humans on an essential level.

Of course the genetic changes were affecting a lot of different populations, H.S. sapiens is a world wide species.

Cro magnon does not necessarily equal modern day Europeans, at least not 100%, as I've explained before.

Cro magnons were a group that theoretically emerged from somewhere in Africa and dissipated through different genetic groups including Asians.

Cro magnon is simply the earliest fossil that is closest to a modern human.

Again about neoteny..."juvenile features" refer to the proportions of a baby/small child.

Cro magnon 1 did not have neoteny proportions.

Your logic is as follows- We didn't really evolve past other primates/archaic humans...which just became baby-like. And archaic humans 150,000+ years ago were obviously behaviorally/cognitively modern because calculations.

Mainly, you have to consider the fact that gravitational time dilation is related to a difference in gravitational potential rather than gravitational force. While a difference in gravitational force can be "felt" locally by each clock and thus might cause a mechanical effect on the clock's operation, a difference in potential can not.

An extreme example works would be two clocks at different heights in a uniform gravity field( one that does not change strength with height). Even though both clocks are experiencing exactly the same gravity force and the exact same physical conditions, the higher clock runs faster.

 

Another example involves comparing clocks sitting on the surface of the Earth and the surface of Uranus, the surface gravity of Uranus is slightly less than that of the Earth's, yet a the clock on Uranus would run slower due to being at a lower gravitational potential.

 

This indicates that there is something a bit more abstract than something mechanically altering the clock's operation going on.

I think I might be understanding it a bit more at this point...

But yes, the whole concept of "time dilation" to me seems to be quite abstract and supernatural.

I still don't know if I even believe literal 'time' dilation is what's happening, as blasphemous as that sounds.

Still, it does confirm what you are trying to say, however according to this research cro magnon is still not an anatomically modern human. If your goal isn't showing who the first Human is then what are you trying to prove? I don't expect many fossil's to perfectly resemble us so are you just trying to assert that cro magnon is the latest ancestor we currently have?

 

 

No they aren't. Do you even read all of what I write? The fact that brain size does not have a perfect correlation with IQ means there are obviously other factors, but this is why I simply multiply the differential by the correlation it corrects any overestimate I make. It has a 95% confidence rating and since Cro magnon is the same species as us and virtually genetically identical, they are analogous to big headed white people. Homo erectus did not have similar brain sizes to us, their variation was 750 to 1250cc and the 1250 ones are actually just homo Heidelbergensis which is arguably a completely different species. Not only this but their inner anatomic brain structure was no where near as modern as ours. Plus my Calculations would be irrelevant to them because they are a different species. Both neanderthals and african HSS were behaviorally modern, not saying you think they are dumb but you obviously underestimate them. I have a plethora of research showing this:

http://www.evoanth.net/2012/08/21/human-technology-superior-neanderthal/

 

http://www.evoanth.net/2015/12/10/are-humans-smarter-than-neanderthals/

 

http://www.evoanth.net/2014/05/13/neanderthal-technology-on-par-with-humans/

Thank you, I am aware of this research already, I just wanted to make sure you knew that if you're going to make claims in relation to genetics you should provide evidence pertaining to that subject. It helps your case much more. Unfortunately though this data does not support your conclusions. First the article claims that these mutation rates increased around 40,000 years ago, Didn't cro magnon show up 50,000 years ago? Not only this but you even said that cro magnon probably originated in africa, and I would agree I seriously doubt the french fossil is the very first cro magnon and these specific mutations the researchers are discussing is in pertinence to racial differences in IQ, impulsitivity, fertility, disease etc. It never specifies that major facial changes were happening. Also we left africa 100,000 years ago and while no bodies have been found in certain areas, tools have been and they are modern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations

 

 

You mean like the Israeli skulls? I seriously believe cranial capacity trumps neoteny. These creatures were obviously modern in their behavior they just looked different. This is dumb because i had a really good link that explained why we are so neotenized but I cant freaking find it so here is a different link, that talks about our weird chins: https://now.uiowa.edu/2015/04/why-we-have-chins heres another thing: https://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/pdfs/2008c.pdf

 

If Cro magnon is almost 90% anatomically similar to modern day H.s.sapiens then it is obvious they are most qualified to be considered the first AMH. A lot of the anatomic difference is just because they had larger brains than we do.

There are also plenty of people alive today that have around the same general cranial capacity as Homo erectus. Homo Erectus ranging from 850-1100cc...That roughly fits into the small end of modern day brain size that ranges from 950-1100.

You can't simply type in calculations and assume IQ like that. You are using the correlation between brain size and IQ among modern populations and assuming archaic humans like Idaltu over 150,000 years ago were the exact same on the neural level. There's so much more than simply general brain size. The brain is so complex...you just can't make a definitive statement like that just based on such a simple measurement apart from no other evidence.

This "plethora of research" you linked isn't even proving your point about neanderthals being behaviorally modern. They just amount to opinion pieces written all by the same author "Adam Benton" providing no definitive evidence. At least in the link I provided about neanderthals it gives you a general clue as to how neanderthal's brains were organized in quite a different way than modern humans.

Let's start with your first link...In the very title, it starts off with a question and then admits "there is little evidence."

Sadly he just appears to be "arguing" from a state of ignorance.

There is no question that the Aurignacian (cro magnon) culture was more advanced than neanderthal's...This is the most plausible explanation for neanderthal extinction because they disappeared as soon as Cro magnon moved through Europe.

Neanderthal came up against Cro magnons who had advanced bow and arrows and throwing spears and they simply got wiped out. There are other less logical explanations for neanderthal's disappearance, but that is the most plausible.

Your second link about neanderthals is basically just supporting my argument, in the very TITLE/introduction it literally says, "we were still smarter than them. These allowed us to make all sorts of technological advances"...It goes on to supply some quotes from some researcher saying there was no difference between modern human technology and neanderthal technology, which is of course incorrect.The problem is they conveniently make that statement based on the time period before the Aurginacian culture around 40,000 years ago, IE when there was no real advanced culture. (They are comparing so called "modern human" culture from africa 200,000-100,000 years ago to Neanderthal's, and then conveniently stopping their comparison when the Aurignacian culture appeared.)

And the third link is little more than a joke. It provides little evidence of such a claim that "neanderthal technology was on par with humans"...What is the evidence? They say they made a necklace (out of broken bones.) They made a simple spear. They buried dead people. And then just makes the claim "they were innovative" as if that amounts to evidence. Again, neanderthals were not dumb (I'm assuming) but there is no evidence to suggest that they reached the complexity of Cro magnon/modern human behavior...they were different from modern humans physically and mentally, a different species with different capacities.

About the DNA evidence. This Gene analysis in human DNA is not something that could be pin pointed exactly at 40,000 years ago...it's just can't be that accurate. They just know that somewhere around that time period that Human DNA started to make very rapid genetic changes, oddly enough coinciding with the emergence of the Aurginacian culture/Cro magnon...The DNA is showing that there was some kind of rapid genetic change that seems to have made modern humans into what they are, and not gradual genetic change starting millions of years ago.

You can't just assume any archaic human was "obviously modern in their behavior" unless it is obviously apparent by studying evidence that supports that idea.

I don't know why you keep referring to neoteny...We aren't talking about baby chimps that resemble modern human features in basic shape...(which isn't surprising anyways since they share almost identical DNA with humans.) Cro magnon /AMH do not represent "neoteny"...Cro magnon 1 is not the skull of a baby but an old man. Neoteny is a matter of scale and development, not cranial capacity and evolution.

 

 

1)- Phenotype is not genotype and again neoteny is not equivalent to modernity. Two skulls do not tell the whole story, and it's possible that idaltus and cro mag's physical variation overlapped. I would like the link to that study about the 80% thing, Idaltu had a more similar brain size and intelligence to humans and there are plenty of modern humans with brow ridges and other prognathic features. Truthfully, You may need to knock this off your list of evidence because it is far too subjective and uncertain.

 

2)- The whole point of those IQ/brain size calculations was to show you that intelligence and innovation do not always coalesce. Are you deliberately hand waving away the data I have presented you? Screw it I'll humor you anyway:

 

"A variety of evidence of abstract imagery, widened subsistence strategies, and other "modern" behaviors have been discovered in Africa, especially South Africa. The Blombos Cave site in South Africa, for example, is famous for rectangular slabs of ochre engraved with geometric designs. Using multiple dating techniques, the site was confirmed to be around 77,000 years old. Beads and other personal ornamentation have been found from Morocco which might be as old as 130,000 years old; as well, the Cave of Hearths in South Africa has yielded a number of beads significantly before 50,000 years ago.

Expanding subsistence strategies beyond big-game hunting and the consequential diversity in tool types has been noted as signs of behavioral modernity. A number of South African sites have shown an early reliance on aquatic resources from fish to shellfish. Pinnacle Point, in particular, shows exploitation of marine resources as early as 120,000 years ago, perhaps in response to more arid conditions inland.Establishing a reliance on predictable shellfish deposits, for example, could reduce mobility and facilitate complex social systems and symbolic behavior. Blombos Cave and Site 440 in Sudan both show evidence of fishing as well. Taphonomic change in fish skeletons from Blombos Cave have been interpreted as capture of live fish, clearly an intentional human behavior" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity#Archaeological_Evidence

 

3)- You should provide Dna evidence not archaeological evidence to substantiate your claims of faster mutation rates. There were bottle necks and founder effects going on around 50,000 years ago so that data doesn't really surprise me. Again your anatomical evidence is your weakest point. In this study did they compare complete skeletons or skulls, and did it give equal weight to each characteristic or were some traits considered more important to our overall evolution therefore given more weight in relation to their value?? If it gave equal distribution to each variable trait then it may actually be very inaccurate. Again and for the last time neoteny does not equal genomic relation!

 

Honestly, I gotta go with Idaltu being the first human, he is just far too similar to us in appearance, intelligence, skull size and behavior for me to ignore.

 

1. Idaltu is anatomically only 70% similar to H.S.sapiens. Out of all the ancient human skulls it is one the least similar to modern humans...While Cro magnon is 88% similar. In this link, Idaltu is referred to as the "Herto" skull. (pg. 6) http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca

2.While your IQ calculations are interesting, they are too uncertain to be considered definitive evidence.

Homo erectus also had a similar brain capacity to modern day humans, but I'd imagine you wouldn't assume a 2 million year old proto-human was just as intelligent as us.

Like I've explained with neanderthals, there is more to consider than just general brain size when you're trying to calculate the intelligence/cognitive ability of an archaic human.

It doesn't count as an argument against my theory to simply hand wave away the archeological evidence of behavioral modernity expressed mainly through the Upper paleolithic around 50,000 years ago.

There are small examples of somewhat "modern" behavior in Africa starting around 100,000 years ago...but it's similar to what neanderthals created. Neanderthals and the other arcaic humans had thousands of years to advance their culture and tools, but they stayed around the same. Cro magnon's culture seemed to have come out of nowhere with a fully formed culture...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian

Taken from Richard Klein's 'Anatomy, behavior, and modern human origins'. Journal of World Prehistory. 9: (source linked in the first part of the Behavioral modernity Wikipedia page.)

"it was only around 50,000-40,000 years ago that a major behavioral difference developed. Archaeological indications of this difference include the oldest indisputable ornaments (or art broadly understood); the oldest evidence for routine use of bone, ivory, and shell to produce formal (standardized) artifacts; greatly accelerated variation in stone artifact assemblages through time and space; and hunting-gathering innovations that promoted significantly larger populations. As a complex, the novel traits imply fully modern cognitive and communicative abilities, or more succinctly, the fully modern capacity for Culture. The competitive advantage of this capacity is obvious. Arguably, the development of modern behavior depended on a neural change."

3. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html

http://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/are-humans-evolving-faster/

From Henry Harpending, a geneticist and anthropologist from the University of Utah.

"“We used a new genomic technology to show that humans are evolving rapidly, and that the pace of change has accelerated a lot in the last 40,000 years.

'Harpending and colleagues used a computer to scan the data for chromosome segments that had identical SNP patterns and thus had not broken and recombined, meaning they evolved recently. They also calculated how recently the genes evolved.'

A key finding: 7 percent of human genes are undergoing rapid, recent evolution.

The researchers built a case that human evolution has accelerated by comparing genetic data with what the data should look like if human evolution had been constant:

• The study found much more genetic diversity in the SNPs than would be expected if human evolution had remained constant.
• If the rate at which new genes evolve in Africans was extrapolated back to 6 million years ago when humans and chimpanzees diverged, the genetic difference between modern chimps and humans would be 160 times greater than it really is. So the evolution rate of Africans represents a recent speedup in evolution.
• If evolution had been fast and constant for a long time, there should be many recently evolved genes that have spread to everyone. Yet, the study revealed many genes still becoming more frequent in the population, indicating a recent evolutionary speedup."

We aren't talking about who the first "human" is...Even Homo erectus could roughly be considered the first "human." We are talking about an AMH.

The Idaltu skull actually looks quite different than most modern human skulls. It wouldn't make much sense to consider Idaltu an anatomically modern human, it would be better to consider him one of the first ancestors of modern humans. Go to the chart above I just posted, there are other contenders you can choose from that are more similar to modern humans than Idaltu.

 

 

A quote from wikipedia about Idaltu: "in that their morphology has features, that show resemblances to more primitive African fossils, such as huge and robust skulls, yet a globular shape of the brain-case and the facial features typical of H. sapiens." Maybe Idaltu is simply an earlier form of cro magnon?

 

Well either way no matter how I spin my calculations Idaltu seems to always be closer to modern day humans in intelligence than cro magnon. In my earlier calculations Idaltu was even closer to european's intelligence than cro magnon. If it helps your case at all the new figure of 100 for cro magnon is spot on for european intelligence.

 

I'm aware, but again that just helps my case more than anything. but speaking of dna, Mitochondrial dna tells us our most recent ancestor is from africa, about 200,000 years ago and not 40,000 years ago.

 

 

You haven't? I mean I don't expect you to suddenly change your mind out of nowhere but I do expect you take my criticisms seriously especially if you cannot empirically argue against them. You should be changing your theory to fit the data that i have presented you. I don't necessarily disagree with cro magnons being a direct ancestor but they are not the first AMH.

Idaltu theoretically is an ancestor to modern humans, but Cro magnon could be a different branch of modern humans separate from Idaltu.

Theoretically we all have some kind of common ancestor in Africa, but when you go back that far ancestry becomes kind of nebulous...In other words, did we descend from a single person? That's not likely or we would all be severely inbred...did we all descend from a single small tribe in africa, or was it multiple tribes of archaic humans that split off into different genetic groups?...(Neanderthal being one of them, Cro magnon the other, etc) Not even Europeans themselves all descend from the same genetic tribe, they descend from 3 separate genetic tribes... The 'indigenous' darker skinned Cro magnons mixed with other 'Europeans' who had evolved lighter skin. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892

It's actually possible that Cro magnons represented a distinct group of people that essentially don't exist anymore as a unique genetic group... They interbred into different groups instead of all Europeans simply being the modern day versions of Cro magnons.

If you want to change my mind then you need to argue against the evidence my theory is based on by providing the following:

-Provide a skull older than 50,000 years that is more similar to modern humans than cro magnon. Cro magon is anatomically 88% similar to modern day humans...which is the most similar to H.S. sapiens than any other archaic skull that has been found.

-Provide archeological evidence of behavioral modernity that precedes the upper paleolithic (45,000-50,000 years ago.) This doesn't mean just a stone tool or a bone necklace like neanderthals had, as even chimps and birds can make simple tools. You need to provide evidence of a complex culture that would include things like musical instruments, complex art, complex tools, religious artifacts, evidence of a caring/social community that can support large amounts of people, etc...(IE things that modern humans do.)

- You would somehow need to provide evidence against the fact that human DNA suggests human beings started evolving rapidly to a point around 50,000 years ago, and not gradually starting from Homo erectus 2 million years ago...I tried to show a visual representation of this earlier...The fossil evidence suggests Cro magnon did not evolve gradually from archaic homo sapiens but very rapidly. For example, if you believe Cro Magnon evolved from H.S. Idaltu they were not very far apart in terms of evolution time, but the transition from Idaltu to Cro magnon was a huge deviation (in terms of anatomical measurements, Idaltu was 30% different from modern day humans, and Cro magnon was 12% different from modern humans. I'm not sure the exact %, but that would mean Cro magnon was significantly anatomically different than Idaltu. )

*Edit (about your neanderthal comment.) I never said Neanderthals were dumb...I said they simply weren't as smart as Cro magnons, and didn't have the same kind of cognitive ability as modern humans.

If Cro magnon was not the first AMH then who was?

 

 

Yes, it would be but cro magnon is not a different species than us(at least not according to you) so Cro magnons are basically analogous to big brained europeans.

 

Idaltu actually had bigger brains than modern day humans. If cro magnon didn't in fact originate in europe then I may need to do some tweaks to my calculations.

 

 

Assuming that cro magnon is originally an Africa hominid I recalculated their respective IQ's. Cro magnon is around 100 while Idaltu is around 90. The average African IQ is 80 While the world average is 87 so even then Idaltu is still closer to Modern day humans than cro magnon is regarding intelligence.

 

I think the reason you get downvoted so much is because of your initially arrogant approach to this discussion and it didn't help that most of the people responding to you were simply not informed enough to give you meaningful responses. It simply fueled your fire.

 

Cro magnon is not a different species than us according to mainstream classification.

Idaltu's brain size wasn't necessarily larger than modern day humans...(brain size can vary significantly.) The brain volume for current men usually ranges from 1052.9 to 1500cm...

But of course Idaltu was essentially an archaic human, so he possibly had a similar type of brain structure as neanderthal, at least in terms of the brain not being as advanced/not organized in the same way as modern humans.

"An african hominid" is too broad of a term...(there are theoretically many different 'branches' coming out of Africa.)

I don't even know if most modern day Africans are even closely related to Cro magnon, kind of like how most Africans don't have neanderthal DNA.

I think the DNA sequences have Cro magnons related to Europeans and slightly to Asians...Here's a quote from the wiki page...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon " A mitochondrial DNA sequence of two Cro-Magnons from the Paglicci Cave, Italy, dated to 23,000 and 24,000 years old , identified the mtDNA as haplogroup N, typical of the descendants in Central Asia.^[33] The inland group is the founder of North and East Asians, Europeans, large sections of the Middle East, and North African populations"

Though, a lot of this DNA being spread out so far could of course could be due to interbreeding between different populations.

But yeah...It's unfortunate I got so many down votes, I wasn't really expecting that level of emotion/negativity.

I came out from the start a bit over confident and didn't have the absolute perfect approach (in hindsight,) but I haven't become any less confident in my theory.

 

 

EvanF, perhaps you should have taken the time to look at the profile of this particular person before stating the above?

I might have, I don't remember.

The statement is not about him specifically anyways it's about certain calculations based on relativity possibly not being accurate.

 

 

And there is no reason you would have to.

You sure?

As opposed to time dilation which is almost non existent in terms of noticeable amounts of "time."

I think it's possible a photon/ radio wave traveling through space hitting particles and being affected by different forces could make an impact in travel speed larger than a few nano seconds.

But we don't even fully understand light itself to begin with...there's of course the typical particle-wave duality, but also things like this...http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-just-discovered-a-new-form-of-light

 

 

Is this another example of the old "science doesn't know everything so it doesn't know anything" trope?

Really?

I'm simply saying in a hypothetical experiment you couldn't really account for literally every single force or particle in the universe that would ultimately affect a specific photon's speed as it's traveling through outer space. There are of course unknown properties of the universe. And properties that we don't fully understand yet.

 

 

You cited an article that talked about light traveling through optical fiber.

 

That's perhaps the most pop-science of them all.

I linked two articles. One about an experiment where light was not constant even in a vacuum, and that the so called constant speed of light "should be thought of as a limit rather than an invariable." https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

The site the article was posted on is irrelevant.. What's relevant is the experiment and the fact they listed who performed the experiment (the last one I posted ultimately comes from the NIST.)https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2015/11/nist-team-proves-spooky-action-distance-really-real

What part of we already account for this didn't you understand? You keep trying to find pop media articles to support your case. Yet keep posting articles you don't fully comprehend.

 

The last article being unrelated to the topic

You realize the articles I posted are referring to real experiments, the science websites you are calling "pop media" didn't just make them up.

I never claimed my last article was 100% related, (even though it is related to the topic of the perceived infallibility of Einstein.) I just said you might want to check it out.

You can't just pretend like you can account for every literal change a photon will go through traveling in space, you can only speculate all the small changes in speed it would go through.

A true vacuum is an impossibility

Exactly.

Light isn't constant anywhere because there is no such thing as a true "vacuum."

Even experiments done in "vacuums" have shown that the simplest of things can change the speed of light.

Also there are more properties of the universe than just the two you listed...(as if one could absolutely know something like that anyways.)

Here's another interesting article you might want to read... http://www.iflscience.com/physics/scientists-prove-spooky-action-distance-absolutely-real/

yes we already account for the medium properties of space. This is done via redshift style calculations. More complexely the Sache-Wolfe integrated and non integrated.

 

Scientists have always known c isn't constant in a medium and that space contains particles.

You are referring to outer space as a "medium" but is outer space not the closest thing there is to a true "vacuum?"

Redshift is essentially just the effect that gravity has on light traveling through space...Which was theorized long before Einstein. But I wasn't talking about gravity affecting light anyways.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all