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

regeneratia

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.

Yes, I realize the misconception on my part. i have been reading about it quite a bit now.

I am thinking now about the man in red deer cave, whose diet at least consisted of some deer.

But how often do you suppose they emerged to hunt? How deep in the cave did they live?

What if they ate their own, indicating that there may have been a large number of them, without the indications of burials or corpses left? Why have we not found more of these type of "man"'s bones, unless they did something with the dead in areas or concepts we have not imagined yet?

If they are cave dwellers, again how deep in the cave system did they live? If they didn't get enough VIT D, how would they have adapted to that, if we supposed they didn't actually die out? Would they require so much Vit D?

I would love to know what their rods and cones where in the eyes. Interested in the shape of the eye sockets. I would love to know how they remodeled bones, if they lived mostly in caves.

I just don't accept the ready assumption that they died out. How do we really KNOW they died out? Is there a way to prove it?

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

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

You are right, I am thinking if we have more sapiens, we should have more "other" species according to fossil finds to date?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

You are right, I am thinking if we have more sapiens, we should have more "other" species according to fossil finds to date?

As it stands now from a genetics standpoint there is sufficient enough difference between Homo sapiens (us), Homo neandertalensis and Denisovans that neither of the latter two are included as "sapiens" amongst many researchers, leaving us the only extant member of our species. As to other species, named or otherwise, we still have representatives via physical remains such as the Red Deer People, Homo neandertalensis, Denisovans, the Omo 1 and Omo 2 peoples (skulls were different), Herto remains, Skhul and Qafzeh (Israel) skulls and whatever species was responsible for the Gawiss cranium. Which means that there is far more that we don't know about humans that what we do know.

Edit to include Homo sapiens idaltu as well.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

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

I think we should state that all currently KNOWN living human are directly descended from mtDNA.

I always say this: as of the mid-90's, when I discovered the research, we double our scientific knowledge every three to five years (probably far more rapidly now). We have to admit that there is more we don't know, regardless of what we already know, than what we DO know.

I mean, recently, they found an ocean in the middle of the earth. Can we assume that it was there a long while before we discovered it? Or because we didn't know about it, it didn't exist?

http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

As it stands now from a genetics standpoint there is sufficient enough difference between Homo sapiens (us), Homo neandertalensis and Denisovans that neither of the latter two are included as "sapiens" amongst many researchers, leaving us the only extant member of our species. As to other species, named or otherwise, we still have representatives via physical remains such as the Red Deer People, Homo neandertalensis, Denisovans, the Omo 1 and Omo 2 peoples (skulls were different), Herto remains, Skhul and Qafzeh (Israel) skulls and whatever species was responsible for the Gawiss cranium. Which means that there is far more that we don't know about humans that what we do know.

Edit to include Homo sapiens idaltu as well.

cormac

OH, Yes, finally someone admits that modern science does not know it all, and I consider you quite knowledgeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

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.

I am a nurse. I didn't know that. Great thinking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Yes, I realize the misconception on my part. i have been reading about it quite a bit now.

I am thinking now about the man in red deer cave, whose diet at least consisted of some deer.

But how often do you suppose they emerged to hunt? How deep in the cave did they live?

What if they ate their own, indicating that there may have been a large number of them, without the indications of burials or corpses left? Why have we not found more of these type of "man"'s bones, unless they did something with the dead in areas or concepts we have not imagined yet?

If they are cave dwellers, again how deep in the cave system did they live? If they didn't get enough VIT D, how would they have adapted to that, if we supposed they didn't actually die out? Would they require so much Vit D?

I would love to know what their rods and cones where in the eyes. Interested in the shape of the eye sockets. I would love to know how they remodeled bones, if they lived mostly in caves.

I just don't accept the ready assumption that they died out. How do we really KNOW they died out? Is there a way to prove it?

I am sure there is misconceptions on both sides, it emerging information, one would have to spend more time than you and I have combined no doubt to stay on the leading edge.

All valid and interesting questions, I too would love to know those answers.

I suppose they might have lived on in some remote part of the world, but I don't know how where or why, all other species that competed with us died out, I just don't know where this group might be hiding. There seems very little left behind, I am not sure why one might expect them to remain to this day and age.

The photos of the excavation do not show all that much, they show daylight, but the descriptions say the bones were found in Limestone, so the pictures do not depict the find as such, but they are not the only ones, two caves near Beijing (Tianyuan Cave) have unearthed another unusual find - giving rise to the hypothesis that early hominid interbreeding might have been more prolific than originally thought

Link - Fossil human traces line to modern Asians

New technique

The team managed to extract genetic material from an ancient leg bone found in 2003 at the site of Tianyuan Cave outside Beijing.

They managed to extract the type of DNA found in the nuclei of cells (nuclear DNA) and genetic material from the cell's "powerhouses" - known as mitochondria.

They used new techniques that can identify ancient genetic information from an archaeological find, even when large amounts of DNA from soil bacteria are also present.

Analysis of the person's DNA showed that they were related to the ancestors of present-day Asians and Native Americans. But the analysis showed that this individual had already diverged from the ancestors of present-day Europeans.

Which seems further supported by a find in Nigeria:

LINK - Skull points to a more complex human evolution in Africa

Scientists have collected more evidence to suggest that ancient and modern humans interbred in Africa.

Reanalysis of the 13,000-year-old skull from a cave in West Africa reveals a skull more primitive-looking than its age suggests.

The result suggests that the ancestors of early humans did not die out quickly in Africa, but instead lived alongside their descendents and bred with them until comparatively recently.

The results are published in PLoS ONE.

The skull, found in the Iwo Eleru cave in Nigeria in 1965, does not look like a modern human.

It is longer and flatter with a strong brow ridge; features closer to a much older skull from Tanzania, thought to be around 140,000 years old.

To have such diversity might indicate that yet many more species are to be found yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

I think we should state that all currently KNOWN living human are directly descended from mtDNA.

I always say this: as of the mid-90's, when I discovered the research, we double our scientific knowledge every three to five years (probably far more rapidly now). We have to admit that there is more we don't know, regardless of what we already know, than what we DO know.

I mean, recently, they found an ocean in the middle of the earth. Can we assume that it was there a long while before we discovered it? Or because we didn't know about it, it didn't exist?

http://www.livescien...ered-earth.html

Considering that the physical remains for Homo sapiens date us to c.200,000 BP and genetic evidence for mtDNA haplogroup L date to the same timeframe there is no evidence for anyone belonging to a haplogroup that predates haplogroup L.

cormac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

I am sure there is misconceptions on both sides, it emerging information, one would have to spend more time than you and I have combined no doubt to stay on the leading edge.

All valid and interesting questions, I too would love to know those answers.

I suppose they might have lived on in some remote part of the world, but I don't know how where or why, all other species that competed with us died out, I just don't know where this group might be hiding. There seems very little left behind, I am not sure why one might expect them to remain to this day and age.

The photos of the excavation do not show all that much, they show daylight, but the descriptions say the bones were found in Limestone, so the pictures do not depict the find as such, but they are not the only ones, two caves near Beijing (Tianyuan Cave) have unearthed another unusual find - giving rise to the hypothesis that early hominid interbreeding might have been more prolific than originally thought

Link - Fossil human traces line to modern Asians

New technique

The team managed to extract genetic material from an ancient leg bone found in 2003 at the site of Tianyuan Cave outside Beijing.

They managed to extract the type of DNA found in the nuclei of cells (nuclear DNA) and genetic material from the cell's "powerhouses" - known as mitochondria.

They used new techniques that can identify ancient genetic information from an archaeological find, even when large amounts of DNA from soil bacteria are also present.

Analysis of the person's DNA showed that they were related to the ancestors of present-day Asians and Native Americans. But the analysis showed that this individual had already diverged from the ancestors of present-day Europeans.

Which seems further supported by a find in Nigeria:

LINK - Skull points to a more complex human evolution in Africa

Scientists have collected more evidence to suggest that ancient and modern humans interbred in Africa.

Reanalysis of the 13,000-year-old skull from a cave in West Africa reveals a skull more primitive-looking than its age suggests.

The result suggests that the ancestors of early humans did not die out quickly in Africa, but instead lived alongside their descendents and bred with them until comparatively recently.

The results are published in PLoS ONE.

The skull, found in the Iwo Eleru cave in Nigeria in 1965, does not look like a modern human.

It is longer and flatter with a strong brow ridge; features closer to a much older skull from Tanzania, thought to be around 140,000 years old.

To have such diversity might indicate that yet many more species are to be found yet?

Yeah, they are thinking that some environmental issue severed the genetic relations for a long duration and then they came together at a far later date.

Flatter nose means colder environment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Considering that the physical remains for Homo sapiens date us to c.200,000 BP and genetic evidence for mtDNA haplogroup L date to the same timeframe there is no evidence for anyone belonging to a haplogroup that predates haplogroup L.

cormac

Yes, I have to agree with that. I amend my thinking. However, what if that 11,000 year old Red Deer Cave fella was from a line branching off sometime, I don't know, less than 100,000 years ago? Is there a possibility that they went to live deeper into the cave system, eventually adapting to that environment? Again, would love to know about the eyes of the reddeercave fella.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

As it stands now from a genetics standpoint there is sufficient enough difference between Homo sapiens (us), Homo neandertalensis and Denisovans that neither of the latter two are included as "sapiens" amongst many researchers, leaving us the only extant member of our species. As to other species, named or otherwise, we still have representatives via physical remains such as the Red Deer People, Homo neandertalensis, Denisovans, the Omo 1 and Omo 2 peoples (skulls were different), Herto remains, Skhul and Qafzeh (Israel) skulls and whatever species was responsible for the Gawiss cranium. Which means that there is far more that we don't know about humans that what we do know.

Edit to include Homo sapiens idaltu as well.

cormac

They are largely archaic though aren't they? I expected we might see more modern species so to speak? Ones that lived alongside us to the bitter end? There are more finds than one realises though, I had simply overlooked many of those examples, my own error, and had never heard of the Gawiss cranium, thanks for that.

We have enigmas Like Mungo Man as well, dated at 68,000 years, he seems to be the right guy in the wrong time, and substantiated by other finds, shame we have to leave them in situ, which cost an entire adult skeleton to erosion. I understand the tribal traditions and all, but it seems more important to the entire world that we learn what the past can tell us as opposed to relying on hearsay. I think that one skeleton could tell us more about Australia than the entire Dreamtime recollection.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Also some thinking, with regards to Vit D and the red deer cave fella.

Um obviously the skull was the most solid of the fella's bones. Lack of Vit. D would soften the bones, prevent bone remodeling with calcium (because you need D to uptake the calcium into the bones for remodeling). Also you need Vit D for muscle mass. So I personally believe these people, if they spent most of their time in the cave, would have eventually been more far more slight. Maybe the very reason why they died off, if they died off.

We do know now that it only takes a few generations to mutate to survive a new environment. They should have had time to adapt to living in a cave, but they wouldn't look as bulky as the reproductions now.

Just my thinking on this. Certainly open for faulty thinking. I am no expert.

had to stop and play a game of some motorcycle thing with my son. I am not sure I want to teach him to drive. Scary thought.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

OH, Yes, finally someone admits that modern science does not know it all, and I consider you quite knowledgeable.

I do not think many who promote science here consider it to be a correct and total container of knowledge, as far as I know it is fluid, and subject to change at any valid evidence, which is why we have peer review. Modern science certainly does not know it all, it provides the best answer with what we know right now from the foremost minds in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

They are largely archaic though aren't they? I expected we might see more modern species so to speak? Ones that lived alongside us to the bitter end? There are more finds than one realises though, I had simply overlooked many of those examples, my own error, and had never heard of the Gawiss cranium, thanks for that.

We have enigmas Like Mungo Man as well, dated at 68,000 years, he seems to be the right guy in the wrong time, and substantiated by other finds, shame we have to leave them in situ, which cost an entire adult skeleton to erosion. I understand the tribal traditions and all, but it seems more important to the entire world that we learn what the past can tell us as opposed to relying on hearsay. I think that one skeleton could tell us more about Australia than the entire Dreamtime recollection.

Well those bones, if they didn't have adequate Vit D and much muscle mass, would be easily decomposed. Or the increased muscle mass would have provided enough weight to keep the bones remodeling, because increased wt bearing keeps calcium in the bones. But then, if so, more of the skeleton would have been found.

Edited by regeneratia
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I am a nurse. I didn't know that. Great thinking.

Yes, you have mentioned that, again the fault be mine, I overstepped a bit, although I am sure you have seen your share of skin grafts, the unique traits of the Cheetah would be more a classroom, or Veterinary persuasion. I just assumed you might have seen that as you seem rather diverse in every subject that you look at, which sometimes I agree, with, sometimes not. ;) But you do have a broad knowledge base leading to my assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

I do not think many who promote science here consider it to be a correct and total container of knowledge, as far as I know it is fluid, and subject to change at any valid evidence, which is why we have peer review. Modern science certainly does not know it all, it provides the best answer with what we know right now from the foremost minds in the field.

Thank god it is fluid. I celebrate that. I always want to know more. Just cannot get enough of knowing more.

Yes, you have mentioned that, again the fault be mine, I overstepped a bit, although I am sure you have seen your share of skin grafts, the unique traits of the Cheetah would be more a classroom, or Veterinary persuasion. I just assumed you might have seen that as you seem rather diverse in every subject that you look at, which sometimes I agree, with, sometimes not. ;) But you do have a broad knowledge base leading to my assumption.

I am broadly educated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Well those bones, if they didn't have adequate Vit D and much muscle mass, would be easily decomposed. Or the increased muscle mass would have provided enough weight to keep the bones remodeling, because increased wt bearing keeps calcium in the bones. But then, if so, more of the skeleton would have been found.

Sounds quite reasonable, it would be interesting to follow the discovery and see if such comes to light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Thank god it is fluid. I celebrate that. I always want to know more. Just cannot get enough of knowing more.

I could not agree more, I may differ in my views to yours, but I feel the goal is common. To learn as much as one can in a lifetime.

I am broadly educated.

I always thought your expertise was quite specific but your interests broad, but then again, we do not speak often. Congrats on your recent achievements I did read about that yesterday in another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Sounds quite reasonable, it would be interesting to follow the discovery and see if such comes to light!

No, I misstepped on that one. Increased wt. bearing keeps calcium in the bones, But does not increase bone remodeling. You use calcium to buffer your serum pH. If it was a mainly meat diet, the blood on reddeercaveman would be more acidic, which again would lead to lighter bones, ... unless they had a way to counter with a foods that alkalinized the blood, like citrus or raw veggies. It is cold environment, right? Where red deed cave is?

I could not agree more, I may differ in my views to yours, but I feel the goal is common. To learn as much as one can in a lifetime.

I always thought your expertise was quite specific but your interests broad, but then again, we do not speak often. Congrats on your recent achievements I did read about that yesterday in another thread.

Thank you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Above the equator. Lack of water may not have been an issue. And maybe seasons rarely changed. Where red deer cave is located. Wonder what the climate was like back then, in the Guangxi Zhuang region. 11,000 years ago. I thought the cave was more north and west. Must have confused it with another discovery in china.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

Yes, I have to agree with that. I amend my thinking. However, what if that 11,000 year old Red Deer Cave fella was from a line branching off sometime, I don't know, less than 100,000 years ago? Is there a possibility that they went to live deeper into the cave system, eventually adapting to that environment? Again, would love to know about the eyes of the reddeercave fella.

If that were true, then he would still be a genetic descendant of Haplogroup L and considering his location would fall into only a handful of such descendant groups such as Hg B, C or F for example. Even if he'd lived a portion of his time within the caves he'd still have to go foraging outside in order to bring in the Red Deer from which he is named. It wouldn't have been an exclusively cavern type lifestyle.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Yeah, seems like that would be true. Pretty lush environs as it appears today. Not too cold. Don't know where the poles were 11,000 years ago, but today the area probably sees little temp changes, most likely some monsoons or something. I don't know. I just have to explore more.

http://www.tripadvis...ns.html#MAPVIEW

Saw some photos of the area. https://en.wikipedia...ms_hatched).svg

I am getting tired. 2am, central. Not my usual bedtime. Losing my typing skills, if I ever had any.

Good night all. there is minor personal passion to find out about this glorious new fella.

Amend:

this is closer to red deer cave than Nanning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laibin

says the area was settled 30,000 years ago.

Edited by regeneratia
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

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?

The recreation of the Red Deer people looks somewhat like some of the recreations of Almas seen in Asia.

Could be a few still running around?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

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

Nope. I don't often indulge in politics when it comes to science. What you see is what you get.

Why exactly you see conflict where there is none is baffling to me. You keep coming up with these new discoveries in science and then use them to claim that scientists hate new discoveries. You keep accusing scientists of being static and unchanging, and you support it by quoting scientific opinions that are decades out of date. This isn't the first time it's happened.

Like it or not, science is indeed fluid. Dogma plays a very small and almost entirely isolated role, one which is usually measured in the years a particular member has influence in the academic arena (and often, not even that long). Dogma most certainly does not dictate mainstream opinion. How could it? No one advances in science by blindly agreeing with current scientific knowledge. At best, that just keeps you in the same place. The only way to advance is to further knowledge, or if you are particularly ambitious, make new discoveries. The ultimate dream, of course, it to entirely overturn current mainstream thought. Such an achievement would grant you academic immortality. There isn't a student alive who doesn't dream of taking their place next to the great names in scientific history, the names that re-wrote entire textbooks and changed the course of human development.

Don't hate on scientists or science so much. They aren't all that different from you. The only difference is that they don't treat their opinions as data, whereas you do (in other words, you are doing what you are accusing them of doing). Chances are your anthropologist friend isn't claiming there where multiple mitochondrial eves; rather, you just misunderstood her. Same with the "oceans" found deep in the earth (they aren't oceans. They are rocks with water molecules in their molecular structure). Misunderstanding science isn't bad, but it shouldn't be used as a foundation to accuse scientists of things they aren't guilty of.

Anyhow, the skull found in western China is the tentatively labelled homo dmanisi, the Red Deer cave skulls.

Edited by aquatus1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SaraT

No, no. I've seen that person on the Tube. He mumbles to himself in the corner whilst the rest of the passengers stay far away.

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.