Indeed, how to answer this question? Were we or were not? I believe the following answer may be trueScientists cannot find the "Missing link", i.e. the form that was an immediate ancestor of the original Homo Sapiens, referred to as the Cro-Magnon man; while they found and continue finding remains of many less advanced forms that existed much time before. In the mean time, the remains of this form, the supposed immediate ancestor that evolved into Homo Sapiens, should be met often enough (just like those of Neanderthal, moreover this form, which was not Homo Sapiens' ancestor, existed approximately at the same time): else how could this form engender the Cro-Magnons? Evolution takes many generations, and next generation has more representatives of a species than the previous one. The probability of finding remains increases with the number of generations and beings lived.If scientists cannot find such a form, while they find many less advanced forms, this may mean for %99.9 that this form never existed, and that the original Homo Sapiens was genetically engineered. By whom?

I believe the answer is evident: by certain intelligent beings, of extraterrestrial origin. (If we assume these intelligent beings were of terrestrial origin, i.e. were non-human intelligent species who lived on the Earth and who reached such a level of development that could engineer the Homo Sapiens, then the situation will be yet more complex than with the "Missing link", since no remains of any other intelligent beings for those times were found.

View: Full Article | Source: Pravda.ru

Let me get this straight, because the author states (erroneously) that we can find no "missing link", we are the result of gene-splicing bioengineering by mysterious unnamed aliens - *long drawn-out hysterical horse laugh*. That is really what you would call rock hard evidence.

Cro-Magnon man , an early Homo sapiens that lived about 40,000 years ago. Skeletal remains and associated artifacts of the of the Aurignacian culture were first found in 1868 in Les Eyzies, Dordogne, France. Later discoveries were made in a number of caverns in the Dordogne valley, Solutré, and in Spain, Germany, and central Europe. Cro-Magnon man was anatomically identical to modern humans, but differed significantly from Neanderthals, who disappear in the fossil about 10,000 years after the appearance of Aurignacian and other upper Paleolithic populations. The abrupt disappearance of Neanderthal populations and the associated Mousterian technologies, the sudden appearance of modern Homo sapiens and the associated upper Paleolithic technologies, and the absence of transitional anatomical or technological forms have led most researchers to conclude that Neanderthals were driven to extinction through competition with Cro-Magnon or related populations. Greater linguistic competence and cultural sophistication are often suggested as characteristics tilting the competitive balance in favor of upper Paleolithic groups. Finely crafted stone and bone tools, shell and ivory jewelry, and polychrome paintings found on cave walls all testify to the cultural advancement of Cro-Magnon man.

The archaeological picture changed dramatically around 40-50,000 years ago with the appearance of behaviorally modern humans. This was an abrupt and dramatic change in subsistence patterns, tools and symbolic expression. The stunning change in cultural adaptation was not merely a quantitative one, but one that represented a significant departure from all earlier human behavior, reflecting a major qualitative transformation. It was literally a "creative explosion" which exhibited the "technological ingenuity, social formations, and ideological complexity of historic hunter-gatherers."

The appearance of fully modern behavior apparently occurred in Africa earlier than anywhere else in the Old World, but spread very quickly, due to population movements into other geographical regions. The Upper Paleolithic lifestyle, was based essentially on hunting and gathering. So successful was this cultural adaptation that until roughly 11,000 years ago, hominid’s worldwide were subsisting essentially as hunter-gatherers.

In the Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia, or the Late Stone Age as it is called in Africa, the archaeological signature stands in strong contrast to that of the Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age. It was characterized by significant innovation:

* a remarkable diversity in stone tool types
* tool types showed significant change over time and space
* artifacts were regularly fashioned out of bone, antler and ivory, in addition to stone
* stone artifacts were made primarily on blades and were easily classified into discrete categories, presumably reflecting specialized use
* burials were accompanied by ritual or ceremony and contained a rich diversity of grave goods
* living structures and well-designed fireplaces were constructed
* hunting of dangerous animal species and fishing occurred regularly
* higher population densities
* abundant and elaborate art as well as items of personal adornment were widespread
* raw materials such as flint and shells were traded over some distances

Homo sapiens of the Upper Paleolithic/Late Stone Age was quintessentially modern in appearance and behavior. Precisely how this transformation occurred is not well understood, but it apparently was restricted to Homo sapiens and did not occur in Neanderthals.

Investigation of the patterns of genetic variation in modern human populations supports the view that the origin of Homo sapiens is the result of a recent event.

Studies of contemporary DNA, especially mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which occurs only in the cellular organelles called mitochondria, reveal that humans are astonishingly homogeneous, with relatively little genetic variation.

The high degree of similarity between human populations stands in strong contrast to the condition seen in our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees. In fact, there is significantly more genetic variation between two individual chimpanzees drawn from the same population than there is between two humans drawn randomly from a single population.

Furthermore, genetic variation between populations of chimpanzees is enormously greater than differences between European, Asian and African human populations.

Very interestingly, while Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens were distinguished from one another by obvious anatomical features, archaeologically they were very similar. Hominids of the Middle Stone Age of Africa (H. sapiens) and their contemporary Middle Paleolithic Neanderthals of Europe had artifact assemblages characterized as follows:

* little variation in stone tool types, with a preponderance of flake tools that are difficult to sort into discrete categories
* over long periods of time and wide geographical distances there was general similarity in tool kits
* a virtual lack of tools fashioned out of bone, antler or ivory
* burials lacked grave goods and signs of ritual or ceremony
* hunting was usually limited to less dangerous species and evidence for fishing is absent
* population densities were apparently low
* no evidence of living structures exist and fireplaces are rudimentary
* evidence for art or decoration is also lacking

I don't know about 'ALIEN' intervention though...

Then again we regularly use breeding to achieve desirable characteristics in some animals.

“hypothetically” If some intelligence visited earth 10's of thousands of years ago, and needed a more “Domesticated” Human, they might engage in some kind of breeding program to get the desired characteristics...

I have wondered myself if fishing, or specifically the omega acids essential for brain growth found in fish, could have been responsible for the development of higher tools and art, etc in Homo sapiens.

On November 1, WorldCatch News Network reported that eating fish could enhance your baby’s intelligence, particularly before and just after he or she is born. A study from the University of Connecticut found that some fish are high in a certain chemical that is vital to brain and nerve cell growth in fetuses and newborns. The research reports that babies can’t make enough docahexanoic, or DHA, a fatty acid that helps the brain develop. So they must take whatever their mothers give them, either through the umbilical cord or by breast-feeding after they’re born. Women who eat cold-water species, like salmon, trout, sardines and tuna, give their babies a better chance of maximizing brain-tissue development. Other fish high in the chemical are herring, swordfish and mackerel. by the way, Baby formula is not fortified with DHA.

If correct, the infusion of fish into the diet, may have at least “Theoretically” (trying to keep this as PC as possible, I want to keep the science elite off my back...) HELPED increase the intelligence of the species. IMHO