Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

'Enigma Man' may be new human species

81 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Peter B
...There's a fourth candidate, but as all we have is a finger bone, we'll wait on that one...

So this would be a case of Mother Nature giving us the finger?

(Running away and hiding now...)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

No pun should be that accurate!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silent Trinity

Clearly a line that has developed in isolation from the mass of the evolving human race, clearly with different variables at play. Fascinating discovery though!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

What I wonder about is what decides that these hominids are to be considered species of their own as opposed to races of humans? 11,000 years really isn't that long ago relatively speaking, I wonder what the key differences between them and us were, did they have the power of speech to the degree we do, would they have been able to produce fertile offspring with humans like Neanderthals were, things like that.

Yeah, it is strange how close they are to us. I always, naturally, recall the 8000 year old shoes found in a cave in Missouri, fashions not unlike our own. In a world some consider not much over 6000 years old, ya just have to sit back and watch the battle for our perceptions on what is history and what is real. The battle for what we think is so clear to see.

What if they didn't need speach because they could connect on a telepathic level? The Aborigines are much like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

For the purposes of clarification, the reason these five skulls are significant is because they indicated that the multiple African hominids we knew of were not actually separate species. Rather, the African line seems to be a single branch, with neanderthal, florensis, and now possibly Dmanisi (not officially named yet) as separate branches. There's a fourth candidate, but as all we have is a finger bone, we'll wait on that one.

So, yeah, this is a surprise to anthropologist, but it is because they were thinking that rudolfensis, habilis, and ergaster, were separate species, where now the evidence seems to point to all of them being one and the same (I believe habilis has seniority in terms of name). Multiple human species has been the mainstream opinion (or "dogma", if you are of that persuasion) for a bit over 50 years.

And the ones ofiound in Western China? Got a perception control for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

What if they didn't need speach because they could connect on a telepathic level? The Aborigines are much like this.

Canadian Aboriginals?

You are not referring to Australia. They are not telepathic, but only have oral records, which is where some confusion might kick in with regards to that claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

I am not responsible for your misreading of my post.

MiSREADING, Umberto Eco. LOL!

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

And the ones ofiound in Western China? Got a perception control for that?

I find that confusing, is that not exactly what Aquatus explained with

For the purposes of clarification, the reason these five skulls are significant is because they indicated that the multiple African hominids we knew of were not actually separate species

??

It does not breach any lineage claims, I find the claims that it is amazing they lived until only 11,000 years ago more perplexing, as has been pointed out, this is the case with the Flores Hominid as well, and the Palau People whose remains of at least 25 miniature humans were discovered in 2008, lived between 1,000 and 3,000 years ago. I am still perplexed at how this upsets any current models of lineage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I am not responsible for your misreading of my post.

MiSREADING, Umberto Eco. LOL!

So I take it you cannot back your claim that I referenced?

Your words, if you are having a personal conversation with yourself, not sure how you expect me to know that, I am not the one here claiming telepathic abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Honestly, I think we have to ask the question: Did they really die out? If they are so close to us, why are we not finding their burials or more of their bones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

So I take it you cannot back your claim that I referenced?

Your words, if you are having a personal conversation with yourself, not sure how you expect me to know that, I am not the one here claiming telepathic abilities.

First of all, I have to tell you that I am friends with an archeologist who believes there is more than one mitochondrial Eve. Said there may be one in Australia, one in china, and one in Africa. So I was running on that information. Because that makes sense to my mind with very limited knowledge on this area of study, I still view things from her point of view, so trusted she is. Science has yet to admit to that. But I assume it will come in the future. This woman is not a dummy, tho I am sure you would have others believe she is. And that is where perception control comes into play, now isn't it?

Amend, I think science is admitting the there may be no "bottleneck" into only one mitochondrial eve.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

First of all, I have to tell you that I am friends with an archeologist who believes there is more than one mitochondrial Eve. Said there may be one in Australia, one in china, and one in Africa. So I was running on that information. Because that makes sense to my mind with very limited knowledge on this area of study, I still view things from her point of view, so trusted she is. Science has yet to admit to that. But I assume it will come in the future. This woman is not a dummy, tho I am sure you would have others believe she is. And that is where perception control comes into play, now isn't it?

Genetically that's going to be hard for your archaeologist friend to justify since Mitochodrial Eve, Haplogroup L, is the origin of all extant maternal haplogroups around the globe. Which means that such haplogroups as S and P, as an example of Australian haplogroups, descend from L.

There is nothing for science to "admit to" since all haplogroups are either one of the groups of Hg L or descend from L3 (in the case of all non sub-Saharan African lineages).

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Genetically that's going to be hard for your archaeologist friend to justify since Mitochodrial Eve, Haplogroup L, is the origin of all extant maternal haplogroups around the globe. Which means that such haplogroups as S and P, as an example of Australian haplogroups, descend from L.

There is nothing for science to "admit to" since all haplogroups are either one of the groups of Hg L or descend from L3 (in the case of all non sub-Saharan African lineages).

cormac

OK, again, I, with humility, say that I know very little about this. My impression remains, since I KNOW this woman and I don't KNOW you.

That is not a challenge to your knowledge base. It is a matter of proximity and personal experiences.

How do you factor in this?

http://www.eurekaler...m-eoa121708.php

Earth's original ancestor was LUCA, not Adam nor Eve

University of Montreal and University of Lyon research study on origins of life in Nature

That is was not the warmer climates that birthed man.

or this: http://www.eurekaler...a-hyc030413.php

Human Y chromosome much older than previously thought

A newly discovered Y chromosome places the most recent common ancestor for the Y chromosome lineage more 100,000 years before the oldest known anatomically modern human fossils

These are all too interesting to cherry pick, some in support of your premise:

http://search.eureka...rset=iso-8859-1

I find this one interesting too:

http://www.eurekaler...ol-nc060309.php

New 'molecular clock' aids dating of human migration history

Researchers at the University of Leeds have devised a more accurate method of dating ancient human migration – even when no corroborating archaeological evidence exists.

Or this one, which makes me think of the initial piece of research here:

http://www.eurekaler...c-cga072913.php

Common genetic ancestors lived during roughly same time period, Stanford scientists find

"Despite the Adam and Eve monikers, which evoke a single couple whose children peopled the world, it is extremely unlikely that the male and female MRCAs were exact contemporaries. And they weren't the only man and woman alive at the time, or the only people to have present-day descendants. These two individuals simply had the good fortune of successfully passing on specific portions of their DNA, called the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial genome, through the millennia to most of us, while the corresponding sequences of others have largely died out due to natural selection or a random process called genetic drift."

The writer gives an either/or here: a "die out" (?) due to only two possibilities: natural selection or genetic drift. However, what if there is another possibility, or more, like natural selection to a totally unacknowledged, unknown, climate and environment? I mean, the writer is using words like "most" and "largely", which leaves room for other possibilities.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

OK, again, I, with humility, say that I know very little about this. My impression remains, since I KNOW this woman and I don't KNOW you.

My understanding comes from reading the actual papers dealing with various genetic tests performed and, where I feel clarification is needed, actually emailing and receiving replies from the institutes or persons responsible for same. I'll take a verified geneticist's/institutes word on the subject over some unknown archaeologist any day.

cormac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

First of all, I have to tell you that I am friends with an archeologist who believes there is more than one mitochondrial Eve. Said there may be one in Australia, one in china, and one in Africa. So I was running on that information. Because that makes sense to my mind with very limited knowledge on this area of study, I still view things from her point of view, so trusted she is. Science has yet to admit to that. But I assume it will come in the future. This woman is not a dummy, tho I am sure you would have others believe she is. And that is where perception control comes into play, now isn't it?

Amend, I think science is admitting the there may be no "bottleneck" into only one mitochondrial eve.

Fair enough, thanks for telling me where it came from. I may have mentioned to you that some of my family is Indigenous, and I have a firsthand exposure to the people and culture, and have done for many decades. As such, I do feel qualified to comment on Indigenous references and claims.

I have no idea who the woman is, but hasn't that study already been carried out, and didn't it show we are all out of Africa? China has been championing the idea of a separate hominid lineage for quite some time now - the Out of Asia theory, but the path your colleague seems to be treading sounds more like the multiregional hypothesis? The global genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities proved the Africa Hypothesis including Australian Indigenous, which seems fairly sound to me? I am not saying she is wrong, I have no idea what path she is really taking, but from what you are saying she seems to be treading over old ground - is there something that makes that option viable? If there is, I am sure it would be very interesting information.

If the multiple mitochondrial eve is is correct, should the fossil record not offer more hominid diversification? This find seems to tie the lineages in, not separate them, as such, would this not go against your friends research? As Aquatus stated- these five skulls are significant because they indicate that the multiple African hominids we knew of were not actually separate species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

How do you factor in this?

http://www.eurekaler...m-eoa121708.php

Earth's original ancestor was LUCA, not Adam nor Eve

LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) is the ancestor for ALL LIFE. This predates by a ridiculous margin any discussion such as the current one dealing with humans.

or this: http://www.eurekaler...a-hyc030413.php

Human Y chromosome much older than previously thought

A newly discovered Y chromosome places the most recent common ancestor for the Y chromosome lineage more 100,000 years before the oldest known anatomically modern human fossils

This deals with Y Chromosome DNA and not Mitochondrial DNA so has no bearing on Mitochondrial Eve. Nice swerve though.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

Fair enough, thanks for telling me where it came from. I may have mentioned to you that some of my family is Indigenous, and I have a firsthand exposure to the people and culture, and have done for many decades. As such, I do feel qualified to comment on Indigenous references and claims.

I have no idea who the woman is, but hasn't that study already been carried out, and didn't it show we are all out of Africa? China has been championing the idea of a separate hominid lineage for quite some time now - the Out of Asia theory, but the path your colleague seems to be treading sounds more like the multiregional hypothesis? The global genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities proved the Africa Hypothesis including Australian Indigenous, which seems fairly sound to me? I am not saying she is wrong, I have no idea what path she is really taking, but from what you are saying she seems to be treading over old ground - is there something that makes that option viable? If there is, I am sure it would be very interesting information.

If the multiple mitochondrial eve is is correct, should the fossil record not offer more hominid diversification? This find seems to tie the lineages in, not separate them, as such, would this not go against your friends research? As Aquatus stated- these five skulls are significant because they indicate that the multiple African hominids we knew of were not actually separate species.

For the multiple mitochondrial eve idea to be correct geneticists should be seeing examples of mtDNA haplogrouop L originating simultaneously in multiple regions. Thusfar nothing of the sort is anywhere near in evidence whereas the extant evidence supports an OOA physical AND genetic origin for Homo sapiens.

cormac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

For the multiple mitochondrial eve idea to be correct geneticists should be seeing examples of mtDNA haplogrouop L originating simultaneously in multiple regions. Thusfar nothing of the sort is anywhere near in evidence whereas the extant evidence supports an OOA physical AND genetic origin for Homo sapiens.

cormac

I amended a post. Did you read that amendment? Certainly you know more than I. I concede.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Or this one, which makes me think of the initial piece of research here:

http://www.eurekaler...c-cga072913.php

Common genetic ancestors lived during roughly same time period, Stanford scientists find

"Despite the Adam and Eve monikers, which evoke a single couple whose children peopled the world, it is extremely unlikely that the male and female MRCAs were exact contemporaries. And they weren't the only man and woman alive at the time, or the only people to have present-day descendants. These two individuals simply had the good fortune of successfully passing on specific portions of their DNA, called the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial genome, through the millennia to most of us, while the corresponding sequences of others have largely died out due to natural selection or a random process called genetic drift."

The writer gives an either/or here: a "die out" (?) due to only two possibilities: natural selection or genetic drift. However, what if there is another possibility, or more, like natural selection to a totally unacknowledged, unknown, climate and environment? I mean, the writer is using words like "most" and "largely", which leaves room for other possibilities.

This is the part I wanted you to see.

How do we really know there was a die out? Do we assume that?

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

OK, again, I, with humility, say that I know very little about this. My impression remains, since I KNOW this woman and I don't KNOW you.

That is not a challenge to your knowledge base. It is a matter of proximity and personal experiences.

How do you factor in this?

http://www.eurekaler...m-eoa121708.php

Earth's original ancestor was LUCA, not Adam nor Eve

University of Montreal and University of Lyon research study on origins of life in Nature

That is was not the warmer climates that birthed man.

I am no expert either, but this seems to champion the emerging idea that perhaps life started underground?

The discovery of extremophiles, beginning in the 1960s, has caused scientists to reassess how life began on Earth. Numerous types of bacteria have been found deep underground, an area previously considered a dead zone (because of lack of sunlight) but now seen as a clue to life's origins. In fact, the majority of the planet's bacteria live underground

LINK

or this: http://www.eurekaler...a-hyc030413.php

Human Y chromosome much older than previously thought

A newly discovered Y chromosome places the most recent common ancestor for the Y chromosome lineage more 100,000 years before the oldest known anatomically modern human fossils

These are all too interesting to cherry pick, some in support of your premise:

http://search.eureka...rset=iso-8859-1

I find this one interesting too:

http://www.eurekaler...ol-nc060309.php

New 'molecular clock' aids dating of human migration history

Researchers at the University of Leeds have devised a more accurate method of dating ancient human migration – even when no corroborating archaeological evidence exists.

Or this one, which makes me think of the initial piece of research here:

http://www.eurekaler...c-cga072913.php

Common genetic ancestors lived during roughly same time period, Stanford scientists find

"Despite the Adam and Eve monikers, which evoke a single couple whose children peopled the world, it is extremely unlikely that the male and female MRCAs were exact contemporaries. And they weren't the only man and woman alive at the time, or the only people to have present-day descendants. These two individuals simply had the good fortune of successfully passing on specific portions of their DNA, called the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial genome, through the millennia to most of us, while the corresponding sequences of others have largely died out due to natural selection or a random process called genetic drift."

The writer gives an either/or here: a "die out" (?) due to only two possibilities: natural selection or genetic drift. However, what if there is another possibility, or more, like natural selection to a totally unacknowledged, unknown, climate and environment? I mean, the writer is using words like "most" and "largely", which leaves room for other possibilities.

Again, as we find our lineage to be more and more diverse with each new finding, such as the Red Deer People, would this not be an almost expected discovery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Or this one, which makes me think of the initial piece of research here:

http://www.eurekaler...c-cga072913.php

Common genetic ancestors lived during roughly same time period, Stanford scientists find

"Despite the Adam and Eve monikers, which evoke a single couple whose children peopled the world, it is extremely unlikely that the male and female MRCAs were exact contemporaries. And they weren't the only man and woman alive at the time, or the only people to have present-day descendants. These two individuals simply had the good fortune of successfully passing on specific portions of their DNA, called the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial genome, through the millennia to most of us, while the corresponding sequences of others have largely died out due to natural selection or a random process called genetic drift."

The writer gives an either/or here: a "die out" (?) due to only two possibilities: natural selection or genetic drift. However, what if there is another possibility, or more, like natural selection to a totally unacknowledged, unknown, climate and environment? I mean, the writer is using words like "most" and "largely", which leaves room for other possibilities.

This is the part I wanted you to see.

How do we really know there was a die out? Do we assume that?

Heck the writer even admits that Adam and Eve are not the only genetics that are present today. He just says that they are the ancestors of MOST of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

I am no expert either, but this seems to champion the emerging idea that perhaps life started underground?

The discovery of extremophiles, beginning in the 1960s, has caused scientists to reassess how life began on Earth. Numerous types of bacteria have been found deep underground, an area previously considered a dead zone (because of lack of sunlight) but now seen as a clue to life's origins. In fact, the majority of the planet's bacteria live underground

LINK

Again, as we find our lineage to be more and more diverse with each new finding, such as the Red Deer People, would this not be an almost expected discovery?

Then what if a part of the linage chose to stay underground and adapt to that environment? Would the underground environment allow for the evolution of man or at least partly man?

Living underground, what research there is on it, alters our circadian rhythm. I don't know if we have had long enough studies to determine how we would adapt.

She lost weight, ate less, lost track of time, was deficient in Vitamin D.

https://en.wikipedia...tefania_Follini

Just some thinking on Vit D:

-Vitamin D is a group of fat-soluble secosteroids responsible for enhancing intestinal absorption of calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphate and zinc.

-

Vitamin D is a nutrient found in some foods that is needed for health and to maintain strong bones. It does so by helping the body absorb calcium (one of bone's main building blocks) from food and supplements. People who get too little vitamin D may develop soft, thin, and brittle bones, a condition known as rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults.

Vitamin D is important to the body in many other ways as well. Muscles need it to move, for example, nerves need it to carry messages between the brain and every body part, and the immune system needs vitamin D to fight off invading bacteria and viruses. Together with calcium, vitamin D also helps protect older adults from osteoporosis. Vitamin D is found in cells throughout the body.

How deep in the cave was this handsome man-like found?

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

How do we really know there was a die out? Do we assume that?

Levels of genetic diversification drop around the time geological evidence suggests the Toba Supervolcano erupted and changed environmental conditions. The two seem interconnected, and the level of diversification suggests that humans may have been reduced to a population of about ten thousand, the Cheetah is another example of a population that has been through a severe bottleneck, followed by a prolonged period of interbreeding, you probably know this already considering your profession and qualifications, but skin grafts between unrelated Cheetahs do not reject due to the low genetic variability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

The writer gives an either/or here: a "die out" (?) due to only two possibilities: natural selection or genetic drift. However, what if there is another possibility, or more, like natural selection to a totally unacknowledged, unknown, climate and environment? I mean, the writer is using words like "most" and "largely", which leaves room for other possibilities.

This is the part I wanted you to see.

How do we really know there was a die out? Do we assume that?

We're not actually limited to just two possibilities as we now know that climate is also a driving force in the development of our genetic makeup.

There was a "die out" in the sense that all currently living humans are directlly descended from mtDNA haplogoup L. Any haplogroup/groups that existed contemporary to/prior to the origin of Hg L ceased to exist over time as a distinct haplogroup, but Y Chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups are not the only genetic evidence we have as there is also nuclear dna to take into account. This could include areas that are neither Y Chromosomal (paternal) descended nor mtDNA (maternal) descended but could incorporate portions of DNA from earlier but non-specific groups of humans.

cormac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Then what if a part of the linage chose to stay underground and adapt to that environment? Would the underground environment allow for the evolution of man or at least partly man?

Living underground, what research there is on it, alters our circadian rhythm. I don't know if we have had long enough studies to determine how we would adapt.

Sorry, perhaps I have read you wrong, I was speaking of very early life, nothing that had come close to a primate.

If we were to live underground, it would not be an entire existance. like Moles we would still use circadian rhythm to determine when it is safe to venture up to forage and gather?

But like I say, I was not expecting this discussion to include animals, just microbial species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.