EvanF

Cro magnons are a taxon (homo sapiens sapiens.) It's just that the word 'Cro magnon' is not a taxonomical status. But some might say it should have some kind of different proper title due to the larger brain size, etc. But since Cro magnons were roughly anatomically the same as modern day humans (at least on an essential level,) it's not necessarily a dire need of most scientists to classify 'Cro magnon' as a sub species.

Correct. It's not a scientific argument, it's a statement based on scientific classification. It's quite strange to me why you are asking this again when I just explained this a few comments ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans Most researches agree that Homo Sapiens Idaltu has archaic features, and they even classify it as a sub species because of this. That is why I don't consider it a true modern human. Does that make sense?

Idaltu appears to me to be an archaic homo sapien. Archaic homo sapiens are a subspecies, that are anatomically distinct from modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens.)

That's right! I think you're starting to get it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon Cro magnons (early modern humans) had larger brains than modern-day humans and also archaic homo sapiens. I thought we went over this already? Cro magnons being 45,000+ years old would of course be a more proper comparison to archaic homo sapiens in the theoretically evolution timeline. We can't just skip 45,000+ years and go straight to modern day humans without looking at Cro magnons/ early modern humans.

You simply want me to specify the features that are different between archaic and modern humans? I was just at a loss as to why you would need me to present such basic information. But here it is...From Wikipedia,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans A sentence on Archaics sourced from Richard Dawkin's book , 'The Ancestor's tale'..."Archaics are distinguished from anatomically modern humans by having a thick skull, prominent supraorbital ridges (brow ridges) and the lack of a prominent chin..." Now of course Archaic Homo sapiens have roughly the same brain size as modern-day humans, but I still don't necessarily consider this exactly the same 'characteristic,' because Neanderthals and archaic homo sapiens did not have the same KIND of complex brains as we do. Also, it would be more proper in my opinion to compare Archaic homo sapiens' brain size to Cro magnon's and not to modern day human's brain size, since Cro magnons, while not being biologically 'archaic', were historically 'archaic.' Considering that Cro magnons were the true first modern humans, early modern humans actually did have a significantly larger brain than archaic homo sapiens, it's just that we lost that brain size over time for whatever reason. I realize experts have different opinions on where you draw the line at "modern human." The lines between archaic homo sapiens to 'modern humans' can be somewhat nebulous in the context of evolution theory. But say you have the theoretical timeline of hominids in front you... A few of the main ways to see the deviation to Modern Humans on the 'time line' are things like the prominent protruding 'brow ridge' and receding shape of the chin+protruding mouth. These aren't just arbitrarily considered 'archaic'... these features are identical/very similar to early ape like hominids. Those features are essentially gone in most anatomically modern humans. In my opinion, if it has these 'archaic' chimp like/early hominid features, then it can't really be considered a "modern human"...("Homo sapiens Idaltu" is basically identical to archaic homo sapiens skulls that have been found.)

Well, yes the cultures are separated by large periods of time, but they are mostly from the European Upper Paleolithic. There are also very specific things that passed down through these cultures that stayed the same/ suggest a similar origin. For example the Gravettian and Aurignacian have thousands of years in between them yet they still created what's known as "Venus Figures" or the veneration of some sort of 'Mother Goddess.' The first finds from both the Aurignacian and Gravettian cultures originate from sites in France around the same place where Cro Magnon 1 was discovered (Cro magnon being the named for a cave in France, and the word Aurignacian comes from a town in France called Aurignac.)

That's all you have to say? I have an agenda? I don't even know what that "agenda" would be, much less how it would even be relevant. And yes I realize that the mainstream consensus is that "modern humans" date back to 160,000 years ago based on Homo sapiens Idaltu finds, and I disagree with that consensus... You realize that is literally what this whole thread was about to begin with/ I talked about that in my first post. By the way, did you ever notice that link I gave you about Native Americans being linked to Europeans?...Here it is. http://sciencenordic.com/dna-links-native-americans-europeans Actually the oldest atl atls (spear throwers) come from Europe 30,000 years ago originating with the Cro magnon peoples...so it was essentially unique to them because they invented them. They also used some of the earliest bow and arrows...though it's possible people used very primitive bow and arrows before them, the cro magnon peoples were likely the first to use the bow and arrow effectively and with complex and proper arrow heads+bows. The Châtelperronian, Aurignacian, and the Gravettian could all essentially be considered "Cro magnon" culture, IE culture from the earliest modern humans in Europe. "Cro magnon" is just a term that refers to the cave in which the true first Modern Human skull (Cro magnon 1) was discovered. "Cro magnon culture" is used for lack of a better word because the science world has not given The 'Cro magnon' people a proper name. Because of this you cannot type in "cro magnon culture" and get thousands of results because it's not a proper term for an archeological culture. That doesn't mean there technically isn't a "cro magnon culture," you simply have to do things like type in 'Cro magnon tools' or 'Cro magnon art', etc.

Yeah, that's right. Simple. Neanderthal tools were essentially just sharpened rocks compared to Cro magnon tools that included everything from the first advanced bow and arrow to advanced throwing spears. And yes, there is certainly such thing as a "Cro magnon culture"...there is a distinct culture within basically every group of people, saying, "There is no such thing as Cro magnon culture" is simply silly and ignorant. Neanderthals had no real equivalent in tools to the Cro magnon people, that is likely why neanderthals died out. In military terms, Cro magnons had ranged weapons while neanderthals likely did not. In fact, neanderthals were so anatomically different than Modern Humans, that they didn't even have the same kind of arm structure, making it basically impossible for them to even use throwing spears effectively. http://phys.org/news/2009-01-neanderthal-lacked-anatomical-competitive-edge.html This quote you are using that says the "the lines between Neanderthals and modern humans blur, culturally and even genetically," is simply wrong. Neanderthals had distinctive genetics apart from modern humans. Researchers have even discovered unique genes in humans that come from Neanderthal interbreeding that leads to negative medical disorders/diseases ranging from immune system disorders to Depression. http://www.medicaldaily.com/neanderthal-dna-depression-anatomically-modern-humans-373318 I find it ironic that literally right after you once again accuse me of "guesswork" you propose that we should "assume" that neanderthals could fit into modern society in almost every way. There's no way of knowing man. We can only make a guess that they could. But Neanderthal's lack of complex society, culture/tools, and social skills is likely what led to their demise. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/03/13/neanderthal-brains-show-fatal-lack-of-social-skills/#.V-39C8nTanO As far as Neanderthals being anatomically distinct from modern humans...this is already agreed upon among scientists. It's not even a matter of debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans There has been some debate however whether Neanderthals should be considered a sub species, or an entirely different species apart from homo sapiens. However, just 2 years ago there was new research that further supports the idea that they are indeed a separate species. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/were-neanderthals-separate-species-scientists-say-yes-nose-n252031

That's funny because none of your links have proven anything I've said wrong. You can gather the information I am talking about on the net, it's just that there aren't nearly as many mainstream science articles talking about Cro Magnons as there SHOULD be, compared to the endless articles on neanderthals. Neanderthal culture and tools were not anywhere near as advanced as Cro magnon's. This is a fact. Neanderthals are theoretically older than modern humans so yes their simple stone tools predate modern human's tools, but that was kind of my point to begin with...They had tens of thousands of years to evolve their tools and art, but they never came anywhere close to the culture of the Cro magnon man. The article about Neanderthal "jewelry" again is just proving my point, their jewelry was brutish, made out of bones no less (Neanderthals were cannibals.) The theory that neanderthals taught Modern Humans how to make tools doesn't even make sense. Cro magnon sites show a quite clear superiority and complexity that surpasses neanderthal tools, it would make little sense for a more advanced culture to be taught by a less advanced one. In fact, Cro magnon's higher intelligence/more advanced tools is the best explanation for neanderthal's extinction (they were unable to compete with modern humans and were exterminated.) Far from 'pulling it out of my ass' I am basing it on common knowledge. It's a fact that Neanderthals interbred with Modern humans, and Cro magnons were the main group they would have come into contact with. They 'interacted' with each other for a while before neanderthals died out...And unless Cro magnons were just instantly 'created' out of nowhere, then Cro magnons no doubt are older than 45,000 years, (that's simply the oldest dated remains that have been found.) There are neanderthal skulls with varying different sizes of brains and general shape. To me it seems more than just a coincidence that Neanderthal hybrids happen to have the same average large brain capacity as Cro magnons... (1600cc) Though it could of course be a coincidence. *Edit note*. So I've received -2 Reputation points so far on this comment for some reason. I expected to rustle a few jimmies with this thread, but it's sad that people on a science forum no less have to react so emotionally instead of simply forming a rebuttal.

A few humans here and there with deformities and archaic features is quite irrelevant. It's well known that many humans carry neanderthal DNA for example so it's no surprise that we can find humans alive today with archaic features like that Russian guy (I'm not sure if he has some kind of medical condition.) Certain neanderthals having 1600cc cranial capacities was likely caused by the fact that they interbred with Cro magnons. It's not false. I should have separated them but I included Neanderthals ALONG with archaic homo sapiens in that statement. Archaic homo sapiens averaged around the same general brain size, but slightly smaller than us, and significantly smaller than Cro magnons. Since Cro magnons WERE the modern humans of the archaic world, it would be better to make the comparison with them instead of us. And just because archaic homo sapiens had roughly the same brain size does not mean they had the same exact cognitive ability that we do, that would be an unscientific assumption. I have already linked an article explaining how neanderthal brains weren't as 'advanced' as ours in a few ways, and some parts of their brains were indeed smaller than ours(they had smaller parietal and frontal lobes.) You're the only one doing guesswork. You have done nothing but make the assumption that archaic humans and modern humans were the exact 'same'...You need to elaborate on why you think archaic homo sapiens from 200,000 years ago are the exact same as modern humans despite the fact that they are anatomically distinct from modern humans.

That would be true in a way, but it has little to do with my idea and more to do with the fact that the theoretical evolutionary timeline itself is 'full of horse feathers' in the sense that there is not one thousand different well preserved skulls we can lay out to perfectly examine minute evolution. The theoretical evolution of humans was very rapid, and the very origin of Modern humans is somewhat mysterious... But anyways. You don't seem to be satisfied with the pictures I posted clearly showing how archaic and modern humans were physically different...So I guess I'll have to give you much more specific data. I don't know how you could conclude I was like a Victorian phrenologist simply from posting archeological evidence. Even though scientists don't fully understand everything about the brain, it's simply a fact that the shape and size of the brain indeed plays a role in it's function. That is for example why a dog or a cat or chimp may not reach the same intelligence levels of a human being, but I think you might agree with me that there are differences between chimps and humans, (despite us being similar on the DNA level.) You say it's "erroneous" for me to conclude that Modern Humans were different from archaic homo sapiens, which makes no sense. To me it's silly/unscientific to assume that archaic homo sapiens behaved the same and were just as intelligent as us. Neanderthals and archaic homo sapiens had a similar but slightly smaller brain capacity than modern humans. They had smaller/less advanced frontal lobes and parietal lobes than modern humans. In fact, Cro magnons had even larger brains than we do, their brain size averaging around 1600cc, and larger. (archaic homo sapiens averaged around 1200cc) Here is a small article that goes more into how neanderthals for example had certain parts of their brains that were less complex than modern humans...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/03/13/neanderthal-brains-show-fatal-lack-of-social-skills/#.V-z67MnTanN It's hard to assess everything about archaic homo sapiens and neanderthals, because obviously they aren't around anymore...But we can look at archeological evidence of their tools and art. Here is an example of neanderthal art: And here is one example of Cro magnon artwork If you look at neanderthal tools, they never really changed over thousands of years, they just used sharpened stones. However, when you look at Cro magnon tools/ culture they created everything from clothes and bead necklaces, to Atl Atls(specially shaped sticks used to increase velocity on throwing spears), to advanced bone hooks and bone spear points,(they also invented the first advanced bow and arrow), and they likely even had a kind of religion. So, I've given you a few examples of archeological and scientific evidence suggesting not only the physical differences, but the differences in character between modern humans and archaic 'humans.' In contrast to your simple assumption that there was no difference between them.

It's unnecessary to "quantify" the differences when the physical differences are already apparent. As it's said, "A picture is worth a thousand words."

Even amateurs in evolution theory/ the study of hominids should know the difference between archaic and modern homo sapiens. Archaic homo sapiens are a sub species that are anatomically distinct from modern humans. Now what that means is that they have significantly different features. From an evolutionary perspective, archaic homo sapiens are considered the next level up in evolution from Homo Erectus. Archaic homo sapiens are similar looking to Homo Erectus in skull features, but just with a bit larger brain. The best way to help you understand is to simply compare an archaic homo sapien skull with a modern human skull, which I will do for you. It should be quite easy for you to specify the features that are different between the two. This is an archaic homo sapien skull found in China. This is a "Cro magnon" skull, IE a modern human. http://sciencenordic.com/dna-links-native-americans-europeans Those six skulls actually are quite a good sample of all the hominids that have been found. I could for example link you a wikipedia page that has a bunch of different fossil fragments...but unfortunately there is only a handful of hominid skulls that have been found in good condition, but this picture conveniently lines them up for you. And I don't see how I missed your point? I tried to point out the line you could draw where ape like hominids/archaic humans started to become modern humans.

"Native Americans" are a genetic mix between archaic Europeans and asian populations, so yes indeed many native americans did and could have neanderthal DNA, because they used to live around Europe before migrating to America. If you lined up all the theoretical hominid evolution skulls, you basically COULD draw a line starting at modern humans...It's quite obvious which skulls look more 'ape like.' In fact, I'll go ahead and do that for you.... If you look at these skulls, it's quite clear that the first 4 of them have very similar features, being very chimp like. (The last skull is a cro magnon skull I have edited in,) but the 5th skull and the cro magnon skull represent a certain deviation from the rest that makes them MODERN HUMANS. You could roughly consider the 4th skull to be a "human" (or rather human-like) but it is not a MODERN HUMAN. *edit Also, there would be quite obvious differences between the appearance of a neanderthal and a modern human. A lot of 'neanderthal' skulls you find are hybrids between homo sapiens...but if you look at a pure neanderthal skull it is quite easy to tell they are different, they look roughly similar, but it is not illogical to consider them a different species. Why be sarcastic? The only thing that would be "un scientific" is to make a ridiculous claim about it being the "first modern human" when I can't even see the entire skull. Making assumptions is not scientific. And like I already said in the first post, archeologists already agree that the Omo 2 skull is too thick and archaic looking to be a modern human.

"Human" becomes a nebulous word once we start considering even the earliest hominids to be "humans" they could be more properly labeled as "Human-like." In the context of this conversation I am using "Human" to mean non-archaic homo sapiens, IE Modern humans. If you haven't kept up with recent research on neanderthals, they are no longer considered homo sapiens, but a separate species. You certainly could line up a Homo Erectus skull, a neanderthal skull, a so called "Homo sapiens Idaltu" skull, and a Cro magnon skull, and easily see which one was a modern human. Not all humans even have neanderthal DNA, and the ones that do only have a small amount due to interbreeding. When you said modern humans were a "combination of different species" that's not a very well defined statement... Modern humans were not a creation of neanderthals and other species coming together, but rather homo sapiens were a independent lineage that were simply related to neanderthals kind of like how we are theoretically related to chimps but not directly evolved from them.

Well that's the thing...Since most of the skulls appear to be neanderthal hybrids, there is no real way of knowing what kind of homo sapien they were hybridized with(it could have been archaic homo sapiens)...Neanderthals shared the general territories of Europe with Cro magnons 45,000+ years ago, so it is possible that the modern humans they were cross breeding with were early 'Cro magnons.' These skull findings from israel are a good contender for earliest modern humans, the problem is that they appear to be more like archaic homo sapiens with brow ridges and protruding mouths, etc. Care to be more specific? "Modern humans" are a sub species within themselves (homo sapiens sapiens.) There are simply DNA remnants of different species of hominids like neanderthals within some modern human genetics, but neanderthals were not "humans." Even homo sapiens Idaltu, despite the name, were not really the same as "humans" in terms of being modern humans.

Scientists have recently claimed that the earliest 'modern humans' date back to 160,000-200,000 years ago... Here is the Smithsonian article. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/meet-the-contenders-for-earliest-modern-human-17801455/?no-ist Right off the bat, they get the date for Cro magnon wrong, "30,000 years ago"...When the oldest Cro magnon dates 45,000+ years ago. They are claiming that Omo 1 and 2 are the oldest, but this is quite a bold claim as they are impartial skulls and we can't even see what they really looked like. Secondly most researchers already agree that Omo 2 is too 'archaic' to be considered a 'modern human.' But I am going to disregard both of these skulls anyway since they are incomplete. The second contender is dated to around 160,000 years ago, dubbed "Homo sapiens Idaltu" ^THIS is what they are calling a "modern human"?? It is quite clearly NOT a modern human, and is a VERY archaic form of homo sapien AT BEST, and is a sub species. The third "contender" is the Qafzeh and Skhul fossils from israel...The problem is that they are NEANDERTHAL hybrids, and neanderthals were recently proven to be a SEPARATE species from Homo sapiens. That leaves Cro magnon. The true oldest 'modern human' (that has been found.)

Yes, it would be impossible for scientists and scholars not to mention Cro magnons here and there.

Well, they are a bit different from literal modern humans in that they have a larger brain size and were physically stronger, and their skulls are bit different looking. But I appreciate you answering my question in part, because I just ASSUMED that we had discovered more than just ONE well preserved archaic 'modern human' skull from Europe...

I never said that there is not much research on them, (even if that might be the case.) Cro magnons certainly were a distinct group of Homo sapiens. They are considered anatomically 'modern humans' but they were still quite different from us in a few ways, but they are not seen by most scientists as a separate sub species. I wasn't aware that all of the skulls were simply reproductions? If that was true then it would make sense why they all have that same indention on the forehead, it just leaves the question of why it was on the original skull/what caused it. But I'm pretty sure they have found more than just ONE archaic Cro magnon skull...but that brings me back to my original point... if I try to type in a list of all Cro magnon skulls I get little to no science pages on it? But I can get all kinds of science pages listing neanderthal fossils, etc...

Cro magnons are something the 'science' world doesn't talk about very much for some reason. But we talk about neanderthals and and early hominids all day long. Apart from the strange fact that 'Cro magnons' had significantly larger brains that we do...I've noticed something that I've never had an answer for that maybe someone here can answer... *WHY is there a perfect circular indention on the forehead of almost every 'Cro magnon' skull that has been found?? I can't seem to find a logical explanation. Here are two examples... Here's another example. And a view from the side.