Yes I am sure.


Of course my mom thinks I was much older 6 months old.


but she also said that when i was 2 days old I was trying to hold the girls hand in the crib next to mine at the hospital.


I even remember the shadows of the nurses and doctors moving around

Cro-Magnon (IPA: [kʀomaɲɔ̃] or anglicised IPA: /kɹəʊˈmægnən/) is one of the main types of Homo sapiens of the European Upper Paleolithic. It is named after the cave of Crô-Magnon in southwest France, where the first specimen was found.

The term falls outside the usual naming conventions for early humans and is used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe, though also a specific (but very frequent) subtype among their fossil remains.

Cro-Magnons lived from about 45,000 to 10,000 years ago in the Upper Paleolithic period of the Pleistocene epoch. Cro-Magnon were anatomically modern, only differing from their modern day descendants in Europe by their more robust physiology and slightly larger cranial capacity.[3] Of modern nationalities, Finns are closest to Cro-Magnons in terms of anthropological measurements.[4]

They had a balanced diet of meat, grain, wild carrot, beetroot, onion, turnip and other foods.

Surviving Cro-Magnon artifacts include huts, cave paintings, carvings and antler-tipped spears. The remains of tools suggest that they knew how to make woven clothing. They had huts, constructed of rocks, clay, bones, branches, and animal hide/fur. These early humans used manganese and iron oxides to paint pictures and may have created the first calendar around 15,000 years ago[5].

The flint tools found in association with the remains at Crô-Magnon have associations with the Aurignacian culture that Lartet had identified a few years before he found the skeletons.

The Cro-Magnons must have come into contact with the Neanderthals, and are often credited with causing the latter's extinction, although morphologically modern humans seem to have coexisted with Neanderthals for up to 60,000 years in the Levant[6] and for more than 15,000 years in France[7].

================================================================================
================


This is your link


Next time read you link before calling me wrong. Cro-magnums did not become us.

And if you bothered to notice it clearly says it is a form of Homo sapiens. Now what species do you belong to? It is just a sub species.

and if you read neanderthal you will read the same thing problem is niether of them became us. We were already around when cro-magnums showed up on the scene. We were around 150,000 years ago. Cro-Magnons lived from about 45,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Let me see if I can help clear things up. I doubt it, but I will try.



Link

This is the difficulty in trying to discuss a scientific topic with folks that dont have a scientific background; its like talking two different languages.

Maybe we have to spell this out for you.

Ok, so modern man belongs to what specie? Homo sapiens
And Cro-magnons are classified as what specie? Homo sapiens
Very good class!

That wiki article (that you may have gotten the time period from) I can see is slightly unintentionally misleading in the sense that it states that "45,000 to 10,000 years ago." As I will agree it does segue way mentally into the idea that we were around 150,000 years ago and that these Cro Magnons popped up in the record between 45,000 to 10,000 years ago.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansi.../cro_magnon.htm

Recent research over the past 20 years or so, however, has led scholars to believe that the physical dimensions of so-called 'Cro-Magnon' are not sufficiently different enough from modern humans to warrant a separate designation. Scientists today use 'Anatomically Modern Human' (AMH) or 'Early Modern Human' (EMH) to designate the Upper Paleolithic human beings who looked a lot like us, but did not have the complete suite of modern human behaviors.

*SNIP*

So Why Don't We Still Call Them Cro-Magnon?
The more we learn about early modern humans, the less we feel confident about the early classification systems we developed more than 130 years ago. The term Cro-Magnon doesn't refer to a particular taxonomy or even a particular group located in a particular place. The word is not precise enough, and so most paleontologists prefer to use Anatomically Modern or Early Modern Humans.

SUB SPECIES. Look it up. Though it is debatable whether it is even that it however is Homo sapiens, just like you.

Neanderthals are Homo neanderthalis.


So no it is not the same thing.

The Neanderthal (IPA: /niːˈændəɹθɔːl/, also with /neɪ-/, and /-tɑːl/), or Neandertal, was a species of the Homo genus (Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis)[1] which inhabited Europe and parts of western and central Asia. The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 350-500 thousand years ago.[2] By 130,000 years ago, complete Neanderthal characteristics had appeared and by 50,000 years



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal



I have asked this in the past please do your home work before calling me an idiot. Yes I read the whole thing whether or not they are is still in debate but it seems that we have some of their genes meaning that they are.

gieco calls them cave man.

How about we get crazy and mix things up even further and say that we and hence these superflously named 'Cro magnons" are homo sapiens sapiens and that Neanderthals are Homo sapiens neanderthalis?

Or do we just leave it at Homo sapiens and homo Neanderthalis?

Taxonomy sux

Cro-Magnon (IPA: [kʀomaɲɔ̃] or anglicised IPA: /kɹəʊˈmægnən/) is one of the main types of Homo sapiens of the European Upper Paleolithic. It is named after the cave of Crô-Magnon in southwest France, where the first specimen was found.

Because once again you missed part of the statement.
The problem with sapien sapien is we will breed with anything.

The same Wiki article which you copied and pasted above (Post #52), says that Europeans are descendents of the Cro-Magnons. Although the Cro-magnon culture vanished about 10,000 years ago, the PEOPLE left descendents. Any two Europeans will have a common ancestor about 400 years back. In 10,000 years, the entire genetic complement has been reshuffled many times. If the Cro-Magnons left ANY descendents, we (you and I personally) are among them.

The term "Cro-Magnon" is vaguely defined and does not refer to a specific culture or distinct genetic population, but only Ice Age Homo sapiens living in Europe. If any humans alive today (and that means modern Europeans) are descendents of Ice Age Homo sapiens living in Europe, then Cro-Magnons, or at least, their decendents, still survive. Greetings, Cuz.

Doug

Sorry to be filling a thread with cut and paste, but anyways:

http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/introduction.shtml

It was once thought that Modern Man (Homo sapiens sapiens) began with the arrival of Cro-Magnon man in Europe about 40,000 years ago. However, current thinking, based on archaeological finds and genetic studies of mutations of mitochondrial DNA in populations of different people of the world, is that Modern Man evolved in Africa about 190,000 years ago, moved into the Middle East by 120,000 years ago, then into Asia, and on to Australia at least 60,000 years ago. This was at a time when Neanderthal Man was the dominant hominid in parts of Europe. Modern Man later moved into Europe about 40,000 years ago and into the American continent about 14,000 years ago.


Really there were other anatomically modern humans in other parts of the world, from which many of us are the descendants. So personally I find the overwhelming interest in cro-magnum a little lopsided. I always think of him as "PI Crow" anyways lol.

So basically, it is likely some of us are related to crow, there are always multiple migrations that take place - but he is only a little part of the larger story Daniel.

I agree. The best I can say is that cro broke off from the mainstream and then got reobsorbed. The neanderthal was also obsorbed by modern man at least the ones that weren't killed off. There is one skeleton of a kid that backs me up on this. I think it was found in spain don't remember.


Of course if we were able to breed with them then they weren't really a different species. By the way modern man who live above the artcle circle require 6000 calories a day to survive assuming that they don't live in modern houses. I got this off of survival man. The modern house part is my assumption not his.

Daniel,

Please Google "Species Concepts" or read these

Defining a species
Defining a Species part II
Species Concepts

Good luck Daniel.

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.



Under the second definition there aren't 9 races but 9 species of humans.

Transitional forms like darwin said should exist in the millions, they ought to be fossils, showing things for example, half human half monkey. No such fossils exist, and those presented as transitional forms can easily be refuted, and its usual deliberate mis information about those fossils and huge lumps of assumptions on which their base their conclusions, pretty much like the whole theory.

What evolutionists love to do is present this idea that, adapting to a new climate or land is evolution. like some of the posts which indicate that through mutations and such things the differences occured. DNA itself is merely information, and it does not change nor does it mutate. Evolution is a complete and utter joke and the biggest and most successful theory to ever fool the mass population. A theory, which is taught as though its fact.

That is complete and utter nonsense. First off there are many indisputable transitional form fossils. Secondly fossils are rare and fossilisation only occurs under specific conditions so the fact that we have some is astounding anyway.
Secondly DNA does change this is a fact. Evolution is also a fact and has been observed.
Thirdly go and learn the meaning of the term theory in a scientific context before making such statements as it makes you look uninformed about the subject.

Find me one academic text book which says evolution fact and not theory. Darwin said there should be millions, infact we should be totally inandated with transitional forms, millions of them, of the millenia, they should be every where we look. Half man, half monkey, etc. There are non. and this something i have debated over many years with academics and non academics.

Secondly DNA, is information, encapsulated in a physical form in strand. What it contains is information and the latter does not evolve, the letters which we use to decipher it, dont change, they have always been the same, and its their order and setup through out many life forms on earth, which differentiates their status and what they are. Evolution on a micro or macro level does not happen.

Theory in scientific thought or in the case of evolutions is, many different theories, regarding differents aspects, which come together to form and overall umberella theory on the subject evolution. Manipulation of evidence and outright false creation (fossils etc) to perpetuate and propagate a theory, which supports capatalism and individualism at its core, it mere creation based on amatuers biologists fanciful assertions was simply propagated in early stages as something which can be used against the church etc.

At the end of the day, a theory is a theory, by nature assumption, all be it, allegedly based on sound scientific evidence.

Find me one academic text book which says evolution fact and not theory. Darwin said there should be millions, infact we should be totally inandated with transitional forms, millions of them, of the millenia, they should be every where we look. Half man, half monkey, etc. There are non. and this something i have debated over many years with academics and non academics.

Secondly DNA, is information, encapsulated in a physical form in strand. What it contains is information and the latter does not evolve, the letters which we use to decipher it, dont change, they have always been the same, and its their order and setup through out many life forms on earth, which differentiates their status and what they are. Evolution on a micro or macro level does not happen.

Theory in scientific thought or in the case of evolutions is, many different theories, regarding differents aspects, which come together to form and overall umberella theory on the subject evolution. Manipulation of evidence and outright false creation (fossils etc) to perpetuate and propagate a theory, which supports capatalism and individualism at its core, it mere creation based on amatuers biologists fanciful assertions was simply propagated in early stages as something which can be used against the church etc.

At the end of the day, a theory is a theory, by nature assumption, all be it, allegedly based on sound scientific evidence.

Firstly you are confusing evolution with the theory of evolution. The two are not entirely the same thing. It is important to actually know what you are debating before you debate it.
Darwin was not exactly up to date with modern biology and geology. We know fossilisation is rare. However we do have real transitional fossils. We have for example a wonderful fossil history for cetaceans (helped by the fact that fossils are easier to produce in a marine environment than a terrestrial one). We can see through this the progression from land based ungulate carnivore to marine and the genetic evidence backs it up. Hence the closest relatives to cetaceans are goats and sheep in both the fossil history and in genetics.
Where did you get you idea's about DNA from. What the hell do you think cancer is? It is caused by mutations in DNA. Virus alter DNA. You are beyond wrong here.
Virus
Cancer
Micro evolution is also a fact and has been observed as is speciation (the creation of a new species from an old one).
Micro-evolution
Speciation

Erm how does evolution support capitalism????? Seriously where do you get this nonsense? Where does it attack the Church?????
A theory is NOT an assumption sorry. Go back and learn.

Heres some reading you may want to do, Ozi. I think you'll find that the Qu'ran and Evolution are entirely compatable... lest you fail in that just like the Biblical Literalists:

Transitional Fossils
List of Transitional Fossils
This is one of my favorite transitional fossils
Evolution of Whales
Evolution of the Horse
Human Evolution

And heres a link you also may want to consider reading:
Theistic Evolution
While I don't believe in Theistic Evolution, it seems to be all the rage with religious organizations that, you know, don't want to look like a bunch of these.

You should already know my stance on Wiki, i dont accept evidence from such unregulated sites with no professional or academic cedibility.

As for the mutations on cancer and the DNA etc. Funny how your happy to show mutations which are non beneficial, well thats the nature of mutations, they dont enhance a specie, they cause problems, and you call it evolution.

When i return from my soccer game i will entertain you to real evidence and science, by credible evolutionists and non evolutionists, on speciation, mutation, DNA, rNA you name it.

There are no beneficial mutations, and by the way the ones you will bring up, I already know, so go head, im hoping you do.

::shrugs:: Ok, Ozi, I was just providing these for your reading. No need to get hostile. And I never said mutations were beneficial, or detrimental for that matter. They're just mutations. But when you get back from your football match, please feel free to post your side of the debate.

P.S., on a side note, since when do Brits call football "soccer"?

Soccer is actually and abreviation of the sports full name, Association football.



Ozi: How about some scientific papers then.
Chelionian cladistics.
Or Universities.
From land to water.

Regarding Wiki Ozi, it lists it sources and hence is a good place to begin, follow the source and research from there.
It is btw more reputable than most sites and is regulated.

I did not know that. Ha ha, interesting.

The problem is that humans don't change to fit the environment. We change the environment to fit us.


By the way do not tell me that light skin is evolution to adapt to less sunlight.

because there are groups of people who live further north or south than the eurapeans do who are dark skinned. and according to science they have lived there longer.

Does that go with the mormon belief that darker skin = lineage of sin?

I'm going to let Mattshark or Cimber do the honors on this one because I'm no geneticist.

Yes However these no longer apply to anyone.


what latitude do the chinese live at. What latitude do the north american indians live at. What latitude do the Zulus live at. (I believe they are some of the darkest people on the planet.)

what latitude do the eskimos live at.

People always have a preconceived notion that skin color correlates with where a given group of people live. Its not incorrect to have this preconceived notion because there is, in fact, a correlation, however there is another important force at work here, one that can be reduced farther than geography. This 'force' is called diet.

Its as simple as this. The whole reason Eskimos have kept darker skin, is because of their diet, which happens to be rich in Vitamin D. This means they don't depend on sunlight for it, rather from the foods they eat.

Read the works of Jablonski and Chaplin for more information.

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/facul..._color_2000.pdf

The bible is real and so is the Lord because you read about it?? So the bones we find in history is not enough for you to believe because you can see it with ones eyes??

Hi Matt!!
So......... where does this begin and end if Cro-magno dude is Human and yet physically its obvious that we came from monkeys. In histroy is there a time frame as to that particular change?? The round about instant!
Science has chemical evidence, the Bible is here say.

i) "Transitional forms like darwin said should exist in the millions"

They do exist in the millions, every organism is "transitional" to the preceeding and following generation. The problem is that we have only scratched the surface when it comes to fossil collecting, most of the fossil record remains buried and undiscovered. The other problem is that most "transitional" fossils are indistinguishable when viewed on a narrow time scale, changes at the "species" level can be extremely subtle, or not preserved at all on the fossil.

ii) "for example, half human half monkey. No such fossils exist"

No I don't imagine there is a "half human half monkey" fossil out there, I don't think I need to point out the glaring error(s) in that statement. There are fossils out there however that do show combinations of traits from more primitive and more advanced ones. Take "Lucy" for example:



Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html

To say that no fossils exist that show a transition between a "primitive" and more advanced form, simply is incorrect.

iii) "those presented as transitional forms can easily be refuted"



http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=whence-whales

Please feel free to refute these "transitional" fossils.

Can I throw a monkey wrench into the whole marcoevolution theory. What if when God made the Earth he made man first and modeled the animals after man.

This could explain why whales have five digits in their front flippers.

Lets look at Lucy and her immidiate ancester. The ancester had a bigger brain but did not walk upright.

Not really. For a start it is a fact that cetaceans have been around a lot longer than humans.

How the hell is a Sponge modelled after a human anyway?

if it is that humans came last yes your right.


Sponge=human intestinal tract.

That notion would go directly against what's contained in Genesis, you know. Coming from someone who seems to believe quite heavily in the Bible and its creation story, this is an odd suggestion....

I would agree that we are pretty darn handy at modifying our environment - yet there are always variables we can't control, or we try to but haven't to date been entirely successful. I have read that there are certain genes that seem to offer some protection to HIV that have been gaining in frequency. It mentions it here, but the whole article is quite fascinating.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-...l-evolving.html

It also discusses how our modification of the environment may lead in terms of evolution.


Like Cimber said skin colour generally follows the environment, but if you take into consideration other factors - things still make sense:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576599_4/Race.html

"In support of this argument, many populations of tropical areas—where solar radiation is most intense—do have dark skin. For example, indigenous people in tropical Africa, Australia, and parts of India and the South Pacific have very dark skin. However, inhabitants of tropical Central and South America have much lighter skin than these populations. Although the reason for this difference is debated, native Central and South American populations usually live in forest areas, where shadows from trees considerably reduce their exposure to solar radiation. Moreover, forests are very humid, a factor that also decreases the intensity of ultraviolet light. Thus, African Pygmies and, to a lesser extent, other Africans who also live in forest areas are lighter in skin color than Africans who live in unforested areas. Darker skin is more often observed in tropical savannas and deserts."

Think of this as well Daniel, if you take a train trip from Moscow to Shanghai – along the way look at the different skin colours and features – is there a sharp divide? Nope blends….slowly over the train ride you will notice subtle shifting of colours and features. What do you think that alludes to?



Using God as an explanation always throws up more questions than it answers.



What are you saying? That therefore evolution isn't happening? Something to do with bipedalism?

Evolution meanders in response to a variety of factors - humans could get smaller brains etc and would that mean that we weren't the predecessors? No wouldn't do anything of the sort.

Also here is a silly example I made up for ya. It just shows how there are so many factors involved in finding fossils etc that you really have to think of many variables when discussing and working out lineages.

Imagine if in the future people dug up a Norse man from 1500s and an Australian girl from 2000. What would be the general inferences? Well Norse man is bigger, longer limbs, perhaps a bigger brain to weight ratio. So are we going to infer that further back you go populations were bigger and we are now decreasing in size? Well admittedly you would want to have a more to work with to come up with conclusive answers.

So what do we do? Throw our hands up – nope we see how this information fits in with things we can observe now – such as sexual diamorphism. Also environmental factors pertaining to the life of Norse man and the life of Australian girl, look at what other variables were at play et cetera et cetera et cetera. I admit new finds sometimes appear anomalous, but all they usually do in the long run is increase the complexity and depth of understanding we have. It never reverses into Genesis.

We can also see other peices of evidence that give us confidence we are on the right track with our studies of the past. Such as DNA analysis – complements the picture – so does the ‘evolution’ of stone tool kits. THEY ALL FIT TOGETHER AND TELL THE SAME STORY. Multiple strands, compare, contrast - past, present tell the same story. Even the study of languages fits in with DNA analysis and archaeological finds.

So you may say ‘Lucys ancestor had this" (where is that info from btw?!??Are you talking about Mr Furphy Contraversy himself, Homo rudolfensis?)

But what you are looking at really is general trends - of many things as well as brain size. If we examine the femur throughout evolution - it may meander backwards and forwards in size relative to rest of body etc etc. But there are usually general trends. The more things we find, the more it fills in the picture. It is not absolute by any means, but what we have now FITS THE EVIDENCE BEST.(if you want I will explain the brain size/weight/ratio/evolution thing in more detail, it certainly is an interesting general trend with pretty neat implications) Who doesn't love that our brains have gotten bigger, I ask!

So, to be honest we are still filling in the picture with human evolution - but no little snippets of information throw a spanner in the works. These little snippets you throw up all have explanations or are not the break of evolution that you think they are. But I think it is great you take an interest in them! It is a fascinating subject, hey

by Belle:

I'm just curious, how is not accepted? I think I can see how things may have popped up, maybe by interbreeding. From our knowledge of how we see the appearance of neanderthals, and seeing some of the characteristics today in some people, I really believe that this is true.

by Mattshark:
Is it not also a self-correcting site?

by Danielost:
I have a problem believing in this. Like how? Can we make the climate warmer, when it is colder? I always thought we changed ourselves by putting warmer clothes on. Changing the environment is like making it rain or making it stop raining, or snowing or what have you.

I wish you have a reference source for this. I think of the First North Americans, (Native Americans and Native Canadians) and I have always thought, that they have lived in the North American continents, (Canada and the United States) far longer than Caucasians and African Americans and such. Then again, from what I understand through reading and such, they also are not native of the area as well. They also migrated, from what I have read, to the North American continent, through what was once land connecting Russia and the state of Alaska. Granted their skin tone may have not changed through the years, but there might be other reasons for that, but their genetic makeup may have come from wence they originally came from.

by Cimber:

And that too! *sheepish grin*

The thing is, if it's assumed that 'we' just appeared, and other species what have you, died out, did they just appear too? If they didn't just 'appeared', how is it we are special, and just cannot have ties to previous inhabitants?

That doesn't really work. The cell structures are not related, Also some sponges produce a skeletal structure.

What about Jelly fish? Spiders? Millipedes? Crabs? Flat worms?

Physiology goes completely and utter against that idea.

I don't know. I just what if we had it backward.

I know, I was just showing the problems in the idea.

I have a problem believing in this. Like how? Can we make the climate warmer, when it is colder? I always thought we changed ourselves by putting warmer clothes on. Changing the environment is like making it rain or making it stop raining, or snowing or what have you.
==============================================================================


I never said how much of the environment we changed. It took the aborignies thousands of years to fit into their environment. We can do it in 6 weeks. Ie the weather wise anyways. Or making a desert bloom like utah, or isreal.

I wish you have a reference source for this. I think of the First North Americans, (Native Americans and Native Canadians) and I have always thought, that they have lived in the North American continents, (Canada and the United States) far longer than Caucasians and African Americans and such. Then again, from what I understand through reading and such, they also are not native of the area as well. They also migrated, from what I have read, to the North American continent, through what was once land connecting Russia and the state of Alaska. Granted their skin tone may have not changed through the years, but there might be other reasons for that, but their genetic makeup may have come from wence they originally came from.

================================================================================


The scientific reason for light skin is the absorption of vitamin D. vitamin D comes from the sun.


By the way The Eskimos eat the same kind foods that the white skinned Laplanders eat.

I have always thought of the lower animals as test subjects.

The most successful organisms around. Why test subjects which are so much more successful?

The successful ones are. The unsuccessful ones are extinct

I was referring to the success compared to other extant species. Those lower animals are the most successful animals around. There are more beetles than any other animal.