Wow another "extinct animal found"

http://news.yahoo.com/found-whale-thought-extinct-2-million-years-012037398.html


Yep love our scientists ~yes i am being sarcastic~

There is hope for all crypto species yet.

Hang on to that article for the next time some know-it-all naysayer says "Where are the fossils?" lol This thing is living and has no fossil record either lol

Yea I noticed that too
LOL

Tzieth wrote:Hang on to that article for the next time some know-it-all naysayer says "Where are the fossils?" lol This thing is living and has no fossil record either lol

Or maybe not since their fossil record is well documented and is even mentioned in the article?

Article wrote:To understand how the pygmy whale fit into the lineage of whales, Marx and his colleagues carefully analyzed the skull bones and other fossil fragments from pygmy right whales and several other ancient cetaceans.

Also this species is endangered but no one considered it to be extinct and someone even saw a pod of about one hundred of them in 2007. The family of whales called cetotheres was thought to have ended in the late Pliocene era but a 2012 study of the pygmy right whale suggests it should be placed in the Cetotheriidae family instead of Balaenidae as it had previously been classified. Note that Cetotheriidae was originally a 'wastebasket' taxon for baleen whales that didn't fit neatly anywhere else and has only been cleaned up in recent years so it's always been a bit of a muddle. The article's title "Found: Whale Thought Extinct for 2 Million Years" was pretty misleading since the 'discovery' was just a taxonomic redefinition. That sort of thing happens all the time - researchers 'discovered' a new species of african elephant in 2010 when they reclassified the subspecies Loxodonta africana cyclotis as Loxodonta cyclotis.

Squatchy Sue wrote:

Tzieth wrote:Hang on to that article for the next time some know-it-all naysayer says "Where are the fossils?" lol This thing is living and has no fossil record either lol

Or maybe not since their fossil record is well documented and is even mentioned in the article?

Article wrote:To understand how the pygmy whale fit into the lineage of whales, Marx and his colleagues carefully analyzed the skull bones and other fossil fragments from pygmy right whales and several other ancient cetaceans.

Also this species is endangered but no one considered it to be extinct and someone even saw a pod of about one hundred of them in 2007. The family of whales called cetotheres was thought to have ended in the late Pliocene era but a 2012 study of the pygmy right whale suggests it should be placed in the Cetotheriidae family instead of Balaenidae as it had previously been classified. Note that Cetotheriidae was originally a 'wastebasket' taxon for baleen whales that didn't fit neatly anywhere else and has only been cleaned up in recent years so it's always been a bit of a muddle. The article's title "Found: Whale Thought Extinct for 2 Million Years" was pretty misleading since the 'discovery' was just a taxonomic redefinition. That sort of thing happens all the time - researchers 'discovered' a new species of african elephant in 2010 when they reclassified the subspecies Loxodonta africana cyclotis as Loxodonta cyclotis.

Same as Sasquatch... Technically many cousins on file match Bigfoot type creatures. But then the record "stops".

As for Taxonomy.. It's a farce. There are only two reasons for it. #1 To prove or justify the Theory of Evolution.(Which is why it is ever changing) #2 So some scientist can get his name on discovering the same damned creature that was already discovered because it differs a little bit in bone structure. This is no different than labeling Caucasoids, Negroids and Mongoloids as three separate species. H. Neanderthalis and H. Heidlebergis have the exact same proportions.(As in frame) The bones of both match except for little differences here and there. The major difference being H. Heidlebergis was much taller and shared some traits with H. Erectus. This is like a Chinese Men's Gymnastics Team dying in a plane crash. And then a U.S. Basketball team also dies in a plane crash. 100,000 years later they are uncovered by Whale People who have sense evolved and are having a Hell of a time, tracking their own fossil record. But they label these two groups as far removed species of whatever genus they make up for us.

Take H.Erectus and H.Floresiensis. They are almost EXACTLY the same. Except H. Floresiensis was a max of three feet tall. This was a dwarfed Erectus. (So Pygmies are also a separate species?) yet it outlived Neanderthal (According to fossil "Record") and could still be living today, if Oreng-Pendeck is H. Floresiensis. (Persoally I think Almas are Neanderthals and our own "Marked Hominids" could be H.Heidlebergs)

Note: I changed my username, I didn't realise someone else had almost the exact same name already.

Tzieth wrote:As for Taxonomy.. It's a farce. There are only two reasons for it. #1 To prove or justify the Theory of Evolution.(Which is why it is ever changing)

... except the practice of grouping individual species into families predates Darwin's On the Origin of Species by at least 4,500 years ...

Tzieth wrote:
#2 So some scientist can get his name on discovering the same damned creature that was already discovered because it differs a little bit in bone structure. This is no different than labeling Caucasoids, Negroids and Mongoloids as three separate species. H. Neanderthalis and H. Heidlebergis have the exact same proportions.(As in frame) The bones of both match except for little differences here and there. The major difference being H. Heidlebergis was much taller and shared some traits with H. Erectus.

Gosh, it's almost as if Homo neanderthalensis evolved from Homo heidelbergensis which evolved from Homo erectus.
Divergent skeletal morphology (or the lack of) isn't the only basis for taxonomic rankings, and if one species evolved from another they'd necessarily have morphological similarities. Also palaeontologists recognise that creating a taxonomic hierarchy based on fossil records alone is incredibly difficult and therefore every assignation is hypothetical and open for debate.
It could be argued that H. heidelbergensis was a paraphyletic species and that H. neanderthalensis was just a subspecies if you didn't take geographical or reproductive isolation into account but you'd need to cite some good sources to make that stick.

Tzieth wrote:Take H.Erectus and H.Floresiensis. They are almost EXACTLY the same. Except H. Floresiensis was a max of three feet tall. This was a dwarfed Erectus. (So Pygmies are also a separate species?)

Pygmy species are obviously separate species or subspecies if they're naturally occurring. If there was only one specimen you might be able to argue that it could be a microcephalic individual from another species but we've found nine partial Homo floresiensis skeletons so it's fairly clear that they were reproductively separate from similar hominims which is enough to classify them as a separate species.
(Artificial modern 'pygmy' breeds like pygmy pigs are a different matter altogether.)
By the way, I'm using Ernst Mayr's definition of a species. It's obviously not a 100% perfect definition but it's certainly good enough for forums discussions. Which definition are you using??

I did not realize there was more than one definition of "Species". But Pygmy's come in human as well... You can call them "Sub-humans"

I am fully aware that taxonomy predates Darwin, however the Greeks were not repeatedly reassigning things to meet an agenda. However, I do believe in micro-evolution.

The point I was previously trying to make was that fossil record is meaningless especially to genus Homo. When skeptics go to that "Where are the fossil's, I think we have them. Look at us. How many humans have died during the dark ages and all the past wars? You would think we would be up to our necks in corpses if it worked that way. We buried our own and burned our enemies. We burned our own during the plagues. Some cultures strictly burned their dead. Who's to say the other cousin's did not do the same? (Aside from the fact that it takes a near miracle to create a fossil anyway.)

Tzieth wrote:I did not realize there was more than one definition of "Species". But Pygmy's come in human as well... You can call them "Sub-humans"

I would call them an ethnic group. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Tzieth wrote:I am fully aware that taxonomy predates Darwin, however the Greeks were not repeatedly reassigning things to meet an agenda.

The Greeks were always reassigning things - Aristotle applied his own system which was refined by Theophrastus which was refined by Pliny the Elder etc etc.. Taxonomy has been reassigned and refined pretty much constantly from way back then to the modern day, that's how it works. No one ever promised that the taxonomy would be set in stone and never changed.
In modern days any proposed taxonomical change would also have to be put under peer review before it gained any acceptance. If you think that some sort of worldwide 'agenda' could bypass the peer review system that would require that pretty much every palaeoanthropologist in the world was part of some huge conspiracy and I think that's passing beyond the scope of this discussion.

Tzieth wrote:
The point I was previously trying to make was that fossil record is meaningless especially to genus Homo.

Palaeoanthropologists have found over 6,000 hominin fossils or partial fossils so they've built up a fairly robust model of the evolution and global dispersion of the genus Homo over many millions of years. The fossil record looks to be fairly meaningful to me and I didn't find your point about morphological similarities between species to be that compelling. If you want to think it's meaningless that's your choice but I've got 6,000 dead hominins to back up my story.

Tzieth wrote: When skeptics go to that "Where are the fossil's, I think we have them. Look at us. How many humans have died during the dark ages and all the past wars? You would think we would be up to our necks in corpses if it worked that way. We buried our own and burned our enemies. We burned our own during the plagues. Some cultures strictly burned their dead. Who's to say the other cousin's did not do the same? (Aside from the fact that it takes a near miracle to create a fossil anyway.)

Are you saying that the reason there's no fossil records or recent skeletons for Bigfoots or Yetis or Yowies is that they had Bigfoot wars and Yeti wars and Yowie wars and burnt all their dead? Or that every Bigfoot died of plague and was burnt by other Bigfoots? Has there even been any evidence that Bigfoots and Yetis and Yowies use fire? What about all the Bigfoots and Yetis and Yowies that died accidentally and remotely and the others couldn't perform funeral rites for them? I'm sorry dude but that hypothesis just isn't making much sense. Maybe we need to start a new thread to discuss it in greater detail.

Additionally, archaeologists and anthropologists have also unearthed H. sapiens skeletons for the dark ages and every other period you mentioned, even the cultures which burnt their dead.

Squatchmaster G wrote:I would call them an ethnic group. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Thank you for making my case lol. So why call H. Florensis a sub-species?

Squatchmaster G wrote:The Greeks were always reassigning things - Aristotle applied his own system which was refined by Theophrastus which was refined by Pliny the Elder etc etc.. Taxonomy has been reassigned and refined pretty much constantly from way back then to the modern day, that's how it works. No one ever promised that the taxonomy would be set in stone and never changed.

This was not unified science. This was a matter of one guy disagreeing with another and changing things around to make a name for himself. (Same crap as today)

Squatchmaster G wrote:Palaeoanthropologists have found over 6,000 hominin fossils or partial fossils so they've built up a fairly robust model of the evolution and global dispersion of the genus Homo over many millions of years. The fossil record looks to be fairly meaningful to me and I didn't find your point about morphological similarities between species to be that compelling. If you want to think it's meaningless that's your choice but I've got 6,000 dead hominins to back up my story.

6,000 eh? I think you are meaning bone fragments and not species? Millions of years? lol Homo habilis/ Homo rudolfensis (They still argue whether or not it's the same creature) date back an estimated One million, nine hundred-thousand years. That is as far back as they can confirm genus homo. anything prior are apes. But lets get back to these fragments. Very little complete skeletons, differences that could simply be ethnic, and the constant debates over whether or not some of these "different" hominids could be the same one. Those that are obviously different have absolutely no direct link according to the rules of Macro-evolution. You do not just go from having a Sagittal crest to a sagittal keel with no transition in between. Like I said before, the ones that do show what could be a transition are still being debated over whether or not they are not trying to relabel two or three of the same creature. If this is a strong case for evolution, than pygmies are not Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens. This is what backs up your story?

Squatchmaster G wrote:Are you saying that the reason there's no fossil records or recent skeletons for Bigfoots or Yetis or Yowies is that they had Bigfoot wars and Yeti wars and Yowie wars and burnt all their dead? Or that every Bigfoot died of plague and was burnt by other Bigfoots? Has there even been any evidence that Bigfoots and Yetis and Yowies use fire? What about all the Bigfoots and Yetis and Yowies that died accidentally and remotely and the others couldn't perform funeral rites for them? I'm sorry dude but that hypothesis just isn't making much sense. Maybe we need to start a new thread to discuss it in greater detail.

That is not at all what I am saying. Burning the dead goes back to as far as we can trace human culture. With the exception on Neanderthal, the fossil record stops when Homo-Sapiens began to spread. The fossils we do have came from grassland area's. These are the very places where fossils are possible. First the creature must die and the corpse must go unnoticed to scavengers. Secondly you must have a flood and even that is not enough. The body MUST be buried in sediment before the flood recedes. Or there must be a mudslide or volcanic ash covering the body. In either case, there is manipulation by mother nature so dating by lairs is never accurate. Floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and mudslides can throw off layer dating by hundreds if not thousands of years. Old layers get tilled up with newer layers. (Caves will also work, but you won't get an intact bone.)

Now add into the mix Human nature. As far as you can trace homo-sapiens, you can trace wars. By our nature we kill our rivals and we kill people who are not apart of our group. We do this on the ethnic level, how far would we go on an inter species level? The places where these pristine homo fossils are found, are the very same places that humans are said to have sprang from, and the only places on the planet that were suitable to primitive humans as far as climate went. Any thing that would have been perceived as a rival or a threat would have been killed by us and most likely burned by us. Maybe even eaten. We were also not the only fire makers.

But we had our limits. We would not leave the plains for thousands of years only venturing into the outskirts of forest and jungles when necessary. Neanderthal, Erectus, Heidelbergis, Denisova-Man, Red Deer-Man and Florensis are all confirmed to have still walked the earth at this time. Where did they all go? Weak frail and climate restricted Homo-Sapiens just traveled the world and killed them off? They most likely went where we would not and could not go. (All the places where fossils are not possible Deserts, Forests, Jungles, Swamps, Mountains.) The very same area's where modern HB reports come from. The same places we still will not go. No body wants to live too far from civilization to this day. You may have that dream home cabin in the woods, but you are not going to want to drive two hours just to get to the nearest store. We would not even be living in most of the places we live today without technology.

As for Yeti Bigfoot wars? Or them burning their own dead. The stereotypical Patty Sasquatch are not the only things being reported. There are also reports of Neanderthal-like creatures wearing skins and making fires here in North America. Almas are also said to make fires and carry crude weapons.

As for Fossil record. The oldest human body found in North America is just over 20,000 years. Yet the oldest Clovis tools date back to 30,000 years with a controversial dig in Mexico of metal tools dating back over 50,000 years. When Archaeological evidence predates Anthropological fossil evidence, it should prove just how unreliable Anthropology is.

Squatchmaster G wrote:Additionally, archaeologists and anthropologists have also unearthed H. sapiens skeletons for the dark ages and every other period you mentioned, even the cultures which burnt their dead.

Of course they have... Does not take much to dig up an old cemetery. If we could help it, we buried our dead at this time. But you are talking about a small percentage of the dead. During the black Plague Europe lost over half of it's population. All of the dead could not be buried, most were incinerated. Then throw the crusades into the mix. If bones were that easy to fossilize, we would be climbing over them today.

Are you saying that the reason there's no fossil records or recent skeletons for Bigfoots or Yetis or Yowies is that they had Bigfoot wars and Yeti wars and Yowie wars and burnt all their dead? Or that every Bigfoot died of plague and was burnt by other Bigfoots? Has there even been any evidence that Bigfoots and Yetis and Yowies use fire? What about all the Bigfoots and Yetis and Yowies that died accidentally and remotely and the others couldn't perform funeral rites for them? I'm sorry dude but that hypothesis just isn't making much sense. Maybe we need to start a new thread to discuss it in greater detail.

I would be more inclined to believe we HAVE Partial Skeletons of these creatures. But Museums are not properly staffed to look through all the old archives of Bones they have and Identify each and every piece they have.
Things are Buried in Museums.
How much may be miss labeled?

CMcMillan wrote:
I would be more inclined to believe we HAVE Partial Skeletons of these creatures. But Museums are not properly staffed to look through all the old archives of Bones they have and Identify each and every piece they have.
Things are Buried in Museums.
How much may be miss labeled?

What I wouldn't give to get into the Smithsonian Natural History collection or the unsorted archives...just above the National Firearms Museum in terms of DO WANT.

Tzieth wrote:6,000 eh? I think you are meaning bone fragments and not species?

Neither. We have fossilized remains of 6,000 hominin individuals. Some are fairly complete but many are only partial.

Tzieth wrote:Millions of years? lol Homo habilis/ Homo rudolfensis (They still argue whether or not it's the same creature) date back an estimated One million, nine hundred-thousand years. That is as far back as they can confirm genus homo. anything prior are apes.

Uh, that's nice? But I said hominins, not hominids. Hominins go back way further than H. habilis.

Tzieth wrote:But lets get back to these fragments. Very little complete skeletons, differences that could simply be ethnic, and the constant debates over whether or not some of these "different" hominids could be the same one. Those that are obviously different have absolutely no direct link according to the rules of Macro-evolution.

Ah, you think that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are different processes. I see. That explains a lot.
Sorry, I don't buy into Creationism or Intelligent Design or similar pseudo-sciences. If you've got something that's not based on religious belief I'll be glad to discuss it.

Tzieth wrote:You do not just go from having a Sagittal crest to a sagittal keel with no transition in between.

No one said they did??? Hominids evolved from gracile australopiths and it was the robust australopiths (aka paranthropus) which developed the sagittal crests. The fossil evidence from that era is a little spotty so we've got two different hypotheses on their evolutionary postion at the moment and we'll have to wait for more fossil evidence to turn up before we can favour one over the other.

Tzieth wrote:Like I said before, the ones that do show what could be a transition are still being debated over whether or not they are not trying to relabel two or three of the same creature. If this is a strong case for evolution, than pygmies are not Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens. This is what backs up your story?

We already agreed that you've got a really poor grasp on the usable definitions of 'species', maybe you should go research it a bit further before you try jumping to conclusions like that. This stuff is really really easy to research.

Tzieth wrote:Floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and mudslides can throw off layer dating by hundreds if not thousands of years. Old layers get tilled up with newer layers. (Caves will also work, but you won't get an intact bone.)

Okay, we'll also add 'palaeontological dating processes' to the list of things you know nothing about and need to research.
If a fossil bed has been jumbled up by earthquakes or mudslides that'll be extremely obvious and the paleontologist will take that into account. Most fossils are taken from intact stone which are much easier to date. Any non-fossilized organic remains up to about 60,000 years old can usually be dated using carbon dating (with certain specific exclusions).

Tzieth wrote:But we had our limits. We would not leave the plains for thousands of years only venturing into the outskirts of forest and jungles when necessary. Neanderthal, Erectus, Heidelbergis, Denisova-Man, Red Deer-Man and Florensis are all confirmed to have still walked the earth at this time. Where did they all go? Weak frail and climate restricted Homo-Sapiens just traveled the world and killed them off?

Upper paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens kicked all kinds of ass. Don't underestimate the role of superior weapon technology. If that didn't work they could just fall back on their agricultural abilities and edge out the older homos during poor hunting seasons. The spread of H. sapiens through the ancient world and the corresponding dying off of the other homo species is also documented pretty darn well.

Tzieth wrote:As for Fossil record. The oldest human body found in North America is just over 20,000 years. Yet the oldest Clovis tools date back to 30,000 years with a controversial dig in Mexico of metal tools dating back over 50,000 years. When Archaeological evidence predates Anthropological fossil evidence, it should prove just how unreliable Anthropology is.

None of that sounds accurate to me, where are you getting this information from?

Tzieth wrote: During the black Plague Europe lost over half of it's population. All of the dead could not be buried, most were incinerated. Then throw the crusades into the mix. If bones were that easy to fossilize, we would be climbing over them today.

Oh man, you really have no idea how fossils are formed.

CMcMillan wrote:I would be more inclined to believe we HAVE Partial Skeletons of these creatures. But Museums are not properly staffed to look through all the old archives of Bones they have and Identify each and every piece they have.
Things are Buried in Museums.
How much may be miss labeled?

Fossils found in the late 1800s and early 1900s were often misplaced or mislabelled so it's possible but procedures have improved a lot since the old dinosaur wars between Cope and Marsh. Any hominin remains discovered in the last 70 years would have been leapt on by the first paleoanthropologists to hear about them.

Fossils found in the late 1800s and early 1900s were often misplaced or mislabelled so it's possible but procedures have improved a lot since the old dinosaur wars between Cope and Marsh. Any hominin remains discovered in the last 70 years would have been leapt on by the first paleoanthropologists to hear about them

.

The problem and I heard this in an interview from several paleoanthropologists that the mueseums just don't have the people or money to catalog all the old items. And they keep getting newer items. So I doubt unless some new person is specifically looking for something will just happen to leap on it.

And here we go.. explain to me how creationism or I.D. is any more pseudo-science than Macro-evolution.. Don't sit there and tell me this or that is well documented.. Show the facts lol. What exactly is well documented when to this day, Evolutionists are still arguing with evolutionists over whether or not this creature is actually that creature? Macro-Evolution has never been proven, it has never been tested. In trying all they have done was re-affirm micro-evolution and try to make the case for macro. But before you try to pull out the fruit-fly experiment, yes they have made fruit flies change species ten fold but in the end, they were still fruit-flies. That is micro not macro.

No suitable transition fossil has ever been found, and the ones that do count, as I have said before are still being argued about. They could just as easily been "Race" Now please stop trying to use higher vocabulary to re-affirm your self (This is called compensating.) My I.Q. is 148 I am well aware of what you are saying and you are evading my questions and not using laymen's terms so that everyone here can understand the fact you have no clue as to what you are saying... ie; I am well aware that you used the word "hominin" as opposed to "hominid" and this is where you are wrong. Hominin is ONLY genus homo (Hominini). Direct human ancestry. NO Hominin was ever found to predate Homo habilis/ Homo rudolfensis, anything prior is a non-human primate. However when that word first surfaced it did include Australopithecines. But those are being put into a new group because your fellow pseudo-scientists who are looking to solidify evolution instead of studying what is solid now, think Australopithecines were also the ancestors of Panini (Chimps) and it throws confusion into their quest to shove their non-tested theory down every ones throat.

Now as for me.. This Anthropology stuff is new to me. I purposely looked the other way as I was brought up in a strictly Christian background. (I had my own brainwashing that I had to overcome.) But in actually reading the Bible without the shackles of some denomination's fixated and biased view, "Other Human Species" is not only plausible in Biblical standards, but mentioned. (Personally I no longer "Believe" the Bible, but that is a personal thing for personal reasons I will not mention as I wish not to offend those that do.) My Passion was Archaeology. This is what I wanted to do and I set my self up to be an Archaeologist until I decided to go into the military and later law enforcement. History is was and is my passion. It is the only thing that is reliable and self repeating with only the names, faces and tech changing. But Humans will always act like humans and wars will always be fought over the same things they were fought over from the beginning of time.. Religion, Resources, Greed, Power, Control. Key word "Control"

It's not only a fact that we never ventured into the jungles and forests back then, it's a fact that we still do not do this now. We chop these areas down, drain them and develop them first.. then we slowly encroach and this is a relatively new thing that modern tech allows us to do. Other Human species could still have flourished. All the jungles, swamps and forests that exist today existed back then only they were much larger. This is one good indicator as to why we know they existed then. Homo-Sapiens do not fit into the environment, we make the environment fit to us.

But when speaking of the alleged "Hunter gatherer" era of human history (This has also not been proven as archaeological evidence predates anthropological.) Keep in mind that Homo-Sapiens walked the earth and encountered Neanderthal.. Not Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens. Cro Magnon were smaller, dumber and more frail that Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens. I doubt very seriously that they could have wiped out any other human species.

By the way.. I am curious.. Why do you even bother singling out every comment I have made on it's own if you have no intention of even trying to address it?

Show me the eye-orbit ratio, Show me a perfect overhead view of neanderthal teeth... How hard is that? All you are doing is trying to shoot down the points of others as if you know everything and not validating your own points.

Lets recap, shall we?

Tzieth wrote:
Millions of years? lol Homo habilis/ Homo rudolfensis (They still argue whether or not it's the same creature) date back an estimated One million, nine hundred-thousand years. That is as far back as they can confirm genus homo. anything prior are apes.

Squatchmaster G response:Uh, that's nice? But I said hominins, not hominids. Hominins go back way further than H. habilis.
Definition of HOMININ (Merriam Webster)

: any of a taxonomic tribe (Hominini) of hominids that includes recent humans together with extinct ancestral and related forms

hominin (Concise Encyclopedia)
Any member of the zoological “tribe” Hominini (family Hominidae, order Primates), of which only one species exists today—Homo sapiens, or human beings. The term is used most often to refer to extinct members of the human lineage, some of which are now quite well known from fossil remains: Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthals), Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and various species of Australopithecus.

However.... This is subject to change as Genus: Paranthropus were not Bipedal and either left no lineage, or are more attributed to creating Panini than they are Homo. They are now trying to only include genus Homo and Hominini. (Goes back to Darwinists fighting Darwinists in the name of greed.. I love it!!!) But as of now since Australopithicus is in websters, then I guess you are right 4 million years is still "Millions of years".

Tzieth wrote:
But lets get back to these fragments. Very little complete skeletons, differences that could simply be ethnic, and the constant debates over whether or not some of these "different" hominids could be the same one. Those that are obviously different have absolutely no direct link according to the rules of Macro-evolution.

Squatchmaster G replied:
Ah, you think that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are different processes. I see. That explains a lot.
Sorry, I don't buy into Creationism or Intelligent Design or similar pseudo-sciences. If you've got something that's not based on religious belief I'll be glad to discuss it.


Aside from angering every Christian here... You think Evolution is not a religion? It's a theory that has never been tested nor retested (So it's not even a true theory) And it is being passed off as fact... (When you own supporters are trying to keep changing things, this is not a red flag to you?) But nice try evading. No Macro and Micro most certainly are not the same thing. One is using genes that already exist and the other is adding new genes that never existed to create an entirely different organism. You guys keep trying to champion DNA, but DNA is meaningless in this case. "Chimps Share 97% of our DNA... And? lol How many millions of genes are in that missing 3%? DNA does not make us what we are.. all DNA is is a box carrying genes. Look at all the 50%ers out there.. Scorpions, Spiders, roaches. Do they look 1/2 human? lol. We all breath air, we all must eat, we all need liquid water in some fashion to survive even if it is found in the blood of other organisms.. That is about as far as DNA takes us. The true thing that makes us who or what we are the genes. These go dormant or they activate, but they do not change nor leave. There is your solid proof we did not evolve from apes. My feet are flat. I was born without an arch. Some people "suffer" from hypertrichosis while others have protruding brow ridges.. These are called "Genetic diseases" but what they really are, are dormant genes that for whatever reason were triggered... What is the name of that disease that causes humans to develop ape like feet again? Oh wait.. there isn't one because we do not have that gene

Tzieth wrote:
You do not just go from having a Sagittal crest to a sagittal keel with no transition in between.


Squatchmaster G responded:

No one said they did??? Hominids evolved from gracile australopiths and it was the robust australopiths (aka paranthropus) which developed the sagittal crests. The fossil evidence from that era is a little spotty so we've got two different hypotheses on their evolutionary postion at the moment and we'll have to wait for more fossil evidence to turn up before we can favour one over the other.

extactly the reason they are trying to remove them from Hominini. But again, if you are going to try to push that Australopithecines evolved into genus Homo, then there has to be small transitions in-between. Even among genus homo where there is no debate of species. Erectus, Neanderthal, Sapiens, and habilis, there is also no transition in the bone structure. The current thought is that Erectus created both Sapiens and Neanderthal. Yet the three of us have no similarities. Errm I had better rephrase. Our differences far outweigh our similarities. Bone structure is too great of a difference in far too less of time. I have my own theory on this, but evolution lacks to explain this.

Tzieth wrote:
Like I said before, the ones that do show what could be a transition are still being debated over whether or not they are not trying to relabel two or three of the same creature. If this is a strong case for evolution, than pygmies are not Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens. This is what backs up your story?

Squatchmaster G Responded:
We already agreed that you've got a really poor grasp on the usable definitions of 'species', maybe you should go research it a bit further before you try jumping to conclusions like that. This stuff is really really easy to research.

Oh did we now? You are the one who says there is more than one definition. My definition to put it simple.. "Members of a Genus" What exactly is yours?

Tzieth wrote:
Floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and mudslides can throw off layer dating by hundreds if not thousands of years. Old layers get tilled up with newer layers. (Caves will also work, but you won't get an intact bone.)


Squatchmaster G responded:
Okay, we'll also add 'palaeontological dating processes' to the list of things you know nothing about and need to research.
If a fossil bed has been jumbled up by earthquakes or mudslides that'll be extremely obvious and the paleontologist will take that into account. Most fossils are taken from intact stone which are much easier to date. Any non-fossilized organic remains up to about 60,000 years old can usually be dated using carbon dating (with certain specific exclusions).

And If the Earthquakes were ancient and part of the rock formation? And carbon dating is pretty much useless now. Too many factors have been found that can throw it off from solar-flares, to small amounts or radio active minerals, to massive floods that remove sediment from one area and relocate it to another and now magnetic shifts. This is where two main sciences bump heads... Biology wants to put things at dates that geology says is impossible. Somebody is wrong somewhere. And I will put my money on geology being right. If granite has been stressed, stretched, twisted and compressed creating the Cascades within the last 200,000 years, then how the hell could limestone caying fossils millions of years old survive this?

Tzieth wrote:
But we had our limits. We would not leave the plains for thousands of years only venturing into the outskirts of forest and jungles when necessary. Neanderthal, Erectus, Heidelbergis, Denisova-Man, Red Deer-Man and Florensis are all confirmed to have still walked the earth at this time. Where did they all go? Weak frail and climate restricted Homo-Sapiens just traveled the world and killed them off?


Squatchmaster G responded:
Upper paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens kicked all kinds of ass. Don't underestimate the role of superior weapon technology. If that didn't work they could just fall back on their agricultural abilities and edge out the older homos during poor hunting seasons. The spread of H. sapiens through the ancient world and the corresponding dying off of the other homo species is also documented pretty darn well.


Our "Advanced weapons tech" were not much more advanced than what they think Neanderthals had. And we did not venture far from our homes to hunt. Remember, this is before we domesticated beasts of burden such as horses. Your point about agriculture is making my own point. (We stuck to the grasslands) We had nothing to gain by venturing off into the wilderness. We were not (And still are not) Adapted to that sort of terrain. They were. Like I have seen Sasquatch Skeptics say on the Blog. "If they are a type of human where is the evidence of tool use or fire use?) Aside from the fact that this sort of thing is reported when it comes to "Marked Hominids", It goes back to necessity. We invented our clothes, our weapons, our dwellings out of necessity. (Until now where inventions are made for entertainment.) If Sasquatch or our cousins, did not need clothes, or weapons or tools, then why would they create them? But you and your "documented well" statements are rather entertaining lol... "Upper paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens kicked all kinds of ass." and "The spread of H. sapiens through the ancient world and the corresponding dying off of the other homo species is also documented pretty darn well." LOL... Key word Paleolithic... AKA Prehistoric... meaning "Before recorded History" ... Recorded AKA Documented... What is wrong with this picture? lol

Tzieth wrote:
As for Fossil record. The oldest human body found in North America is just over 20,000 years. Yet the oldest Clovis tools date back to 30,000 years with a controversial dig in Mexico of metal tools dating back over 50,000 years. When Archaeological evidence predates Anthropological fossil evidence, it should prove just how unreliable Anthropology is.

Squatchmaster G responded:
None of that sounds accurate to me, where are you getting this information from?

Well.. Guess what.. I was DEAD wrong.. See I never knew Kennewick man was debunked. He was thought to be over 20,000 years old, but turned out he was Irish. However this makes an even stronger case as right now, the oldest body ever found in North America is only 10-13,000 years old with Clovis tools dating back 30-50,000 years old.

"Oldest Human Remains in North America Found

In 1959, the partial skeletal remains of an ancient woman estimated to be 10,000 years old were unearthed in Arlington Springs on Santa Rosa Island, one of the eight Channel Islands off the southern California coast. They were discovered by Phil C. Orr, curator of anthropology and natural history at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. The remains of the so-called Arlington Springs woman were recently reanalyzed by the latest radiocarbon dating techniques and were found to be approximately 13,000 years old. The new date makes her remains older than any other known human skeleton found so far in North America.

The discovery challenges the popular belief that the first colonists to North America arrived at the end of the last ice age about 11,500 years ago by crossing a Bering land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska and northwestern Canada. The earlier date and the location of the woman's remains on the island adds weight to an alternative theory that some early settlers may have constructed boats and migrated from Asia by sailing down the Pacific coast.

The Arlington Springs woman lived during the end of the Pleistocene era when large herds of bison and woolly mammoths roamed the grassy plains and other extinct native American animals such as camels, horses, and saber-toothed cats were still around.

The remains of Pleistocene-era animals have been discovered on Santa Rosa Island where the Arlington Springs woman was found. In 1994, the world's most complete skeleton of a pygmy mammoth, a dwarf species, was also excavated here."

Read more: Oldest Human Remains in North America Found — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779260.html#ixzz2JRSVYe2t
"Artifacts in Texas Predate Clovis Culture by 2,500 Years, New Study Shows
Mar. 25, 2011 — Researchers in Texas have discovered thousands of human artifacts in a layer of earth that lies directly beneath an assemblage of Clovis relics, expanding evidence that other cultures preceded the Clovis culture in North America. This pre-Clovis toolkit appears to be between 13,200 and 15,500 years old and it includes biface and blade technology that may have later been adapted -- and improved upon -- by the Clovis culture."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110324153013.htm

And most recently: "Scientists investigating a cave system in Oregon came across what they describe as the oldest known artifact in the America. Preliminary analysis indicates that the scraper-like tool belonged to a group of people that lived 14, 230 years ago, adding further substance to the idea that the widespread Clovis culture, which dominated North America between 12,900 and 12,400 years ago, was not the first population group to occupy this land. Archaeologist Dennis Jenkins, an expert at the University of Oregon in Eugene (UO), was the leader of the new research, Nature News reports.


“We had bumped into a lot of extinct horse, bison and camel bone – then I heard and felt the familiar ring and feel when trowel hits bone. I switched to a brush. Soon this huge bone emerged, then I saw the serrated edge. I stepped back and said: 'Hey everybody – we got something here,” says of the discovery team member Kevin Smith, who is now a master's student at the California State University in Los Angeles. The bones were discovered in a cave system near the town of Paisley, in south-central Oregon. The finds were presented by Jenkins in a UO lecture last month.

There is still no way of knowing if the artifact belonged to the Clovis culture or to individuals that lived before that. The scrapper had none of the traditional features that all other Clovis artifacts have, which threw the archaeologists off-balance. The distinct fluted spears and arrow points that are characteristic to America's first large civilization were not discovered at the location. Still, “they can't yet rule out the Paisley Cave people weren't Clovis,” UP archaeologist Jon Erlandson adds. He was not a part of the new investigation.

There were those who dispute the finds when they were first announced, the UO team says. The caves were first investigated a couple of years ago, but the evidence uncovered at the time, which hinted at the fact that it was the oldest archaeological digs site in the Americas, were widely disregarded. The new discoveries, which were made in the correct sediment layer, support the previous hypothesis, and clearly designate the Paisley Caves as one of the most important monuments and study sites of American anthropology." http://news.softpedia.com/news/Oldest-Known-Tool-in-the-Americas-Found-126309.shtml

On a Seperate note:

World's Oldest Stone Tools Volume 50 Number 2, March/April 1997
by Angela M.H. Schuster
Stone Tool 2.52-2.60 million years old (Rutgers University) [LARGER IMAGE]
More than 2,600 sharp-edged flakes, flake fragments, and cores (cobbles from which flakes have been removed), found in the fine-grained sediments of a dry riverbed in the Afar region of Ethiopia, have been dated to between 2.52 and 2.60 million years ago, pushing back by more than 150,000 years the known date at which humans were making stone tools.

Excavated between 1992 and 1994 by Rutgers University paleoanthropologists Sileshi Semaw and John W.K. Harris at three sites along the Gona River, the artifacts are similar in type to the 1.8-million-year-old tools found by Mary Leakey at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, in the 1960s. Known as Oldowan, the tool type has been found at other East African sites: Omo in southern Ethiopia, Lokalalei in northern Kenya, and Hadar, five miles east of the Gona River study area. Until now the oldest known examples were dated to 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago.

Because no hominid remains were found in association with the tools and they predate the oldest known remains of the genus Homo (see ARCHAEOLOGY, January/February 1997), the find has left the identity of the makers open to speculation. Semaw and his team will return to the field later this year in hopes of answering this question.

Using the argon/argon dating method on a layer of volcanic ash nearly seven feet above the tool-bearing deposit, Paul Renne of the Berkeley Geochronology Center determined that the Gona artifact assemblage was more than 2.52 million years old. A maximum date of 2.6 million years ago was obtained for mineral-rich sediments just below the artifacts using paleomagnetic dating. http://archive.archaeology.org/9703/newsbriefs/tools.html (Just threw that in there because again you have tools predating bodies lol)

"



Oahspe Study
Modern Man in America 50,000 years ago.

More supporting evidence continues to be discovered, indicating that modern man appeared in various places of the Earth at earlier stages of development rather than developing in one place and spreading out from there. This is also the case in the Americas. Modern man has been found to have been there long before the timeline of the conventional theory which assumes modern man first come out of Africa, finally making his way to the Americas less than 20,000 years ago.
In quoting the appearance of modern man from conventional sources, there is a dominant paradigm amongst scientist that there are no signs of modern man in the Americas, any earlier than around 15,000 years ago, and perhaps a few thousand years earlier than that.
Reports of archaeological discoveries found in South Carolina in 2012 and in Mexico around the mid 20th century, reveal archaeological evidence of occupation by modern man. Firerings in South Carolina and stone tools and rock engravings in Mexico are much older than 18,000 years. These findings compare with the traces of early modern man in the other great continents of the world.
According to the article, "Native American artifacts tell story of primitive cultures" in the Independent Mail, (Anderson, S.C.) By L. Woodrow Ross on January 29, 2012, evidence of occupation by man in South Carolina, USA goes back 50,000 years.

||…University of South Carolina archeologist Albert Goodyear has discovered artifacts that, he says, indicate that there may have been humans in the area as long as 37,000 years prior to the Clovis people that were said to have arrived in America 13,000 years ago. While controversial, his discoveries are opening scientific minds to the possibility of pre-Clovis occupation of America.
The site is named for David Topper, a forester who led Goodyear to the site in the early 1980s. Goodyear established the presence of 13,000-year-old Clovis artifacts of flint and chert on the site and later found a fire ring with 50,000-year-old plant remains. The Topper site is one of the most important in the country and is yielding clues to ancient civilizations that will help us to better understand the past.||

Below is a link and extracts of a report on the book: The First American by Christopher Hardaker. It is about the archaeological evidence found in Mexico that proves that man did not first go to the Americas across the land bridge of Siberia some fifteen thousand years ago, but that he lived there much earlier, at the same stage of development as man in Eurasia, Africa and Ocea (The term given in Oahspe for the Islands of the Oceans of Earth), around 40,000 to 50,000 and more years ago.
Therefore it is not out of bounds, for valid hypotheses to conjecture that he did not originally migrate to those areas from Africa, but that he appeared there, around the same time he appeared in other areas of the world. And this is consistent with Oahspe which reveals that the second appearance of I'huans upon the earth was around 39,000 years ago. (Oahspe, Synopsis of Sixteen Cycles.)
According to the report, while geological evidence seems to show that stone tools found in Valsequillo, Mexico, date back to perhaps 40,000 years ago (by measurement of layers believed to be deposited by water only), carbon dating, however, showed that they were 250,000 years old! But carbon dating becomes less reliable the older the sample tested, especially more than a few tens of thousands of years. While it may be that the sedimentary evidence is correct in this case, there is a potential for miscalculating geological time by assuming that all layering can be attributed to erosion by weathering and water or volcanic activity only.
A'ji and nebulae described in Oahspe as dust and ash so fine, they are invisible to the eye, is precipitated at certain times from the atmosphere forming deposits that can build up in far shorter periods than general erosion. According to Oahspe, the deposition of corporeal substance described below shows that cities can be buried by falling A'ji so quickly that their inhabitants can see it happening:" http://oahspestandardedition.com/OSAC/ModernManinAmerica40,000bp.html

"
A Review of the Valsequillo, Mexico Early-Man Valsequillo Archaeological Sites (1962-2004) with Emphasis on the Geological Investigations of Harold E. Malde
STEEN-MCINTYRE, Virginia C., P.O. Box 1167, Idaho Springs, CO 80452, dub.ent@ix.netcom.com
Harold E. (Hal) Malde began his study of the geology of the Valsequillo Basin south of the city of Puebla, Mexico in 1964 as a member of the Valsequillo Archaeological Project. Earlier, field reconnaissance by Cynthia Irwin-Williams (Harvard) and Prof. Juan Armenta Camacho (U. Puebla) had located four sites along the north shore of the Valsequillo Reservoir, state of Puebla, where well made stone tools and the remains of extinct Pleistocene mammals occurred together in situ. The artifacts could not be dated directly by 14C since no datable carbon was preserved.

Malde planned to date the archaeological sites indirectly using geological evidence. This included detailed mapping of much of the basin, then essentially a geological unknown, and attempts to match dated tephra layers (volcanic ash and pumice) in the 8-24 kyr range on nearby La Malinche volcano with those that occurred at the sites. No match was ever found.

Meanwhile, uranium-series dates on a mastodon tooth fragment and a butchered camel pelvis from the El Horno and Hueyatlaco sites gave dates of ca 250 - 350 kyr. Additional excavation at Hueyatlaco in 1973 confirmed the stratigraphy originally reported by the Irwin-Williams group. Zircon fission-track dates from two tephra layers stratigraphically above the artifact-bearing units were roughly similar to that for the tooth and bone (Steen-McIntyre et al., 1981, Quat. Res. 16, 1-17; http://www.valsequilloclassic.net/nuke/). The unexpected great age for the samples created a deep rift between the project archaeologist and the geologists. Work was suspended for over two decades.

Research at Hueyatlaco began again in 1997. Hal's last visit to the site was in 2004, when at age 80 he filmed the new excavations, assisted in preparing the trench profile, and entered into lively dialogue with the project scientists."

(So either Sediment layers and Carbon Dating are accurate or they are not.. I love how they pick and choose to meet their own agenda's lol)

But 15,000 years or 50,000 years.. The fact remains that Archaeological evidence still predates Anthropological and no one seems to be pointing this out.

Tzieth wrote:
During the black Plague Europe lost over half of it's population. All of the dead could not be buried, most were incinerated. Then throw the crusades into the mix. If bones were that easy to fossilize, we would be climbing over them today.

Squatchmaster G responded:

Oh man, you really have no idea how fossils are formed.

I told you how they were formed earlier and I was making my case as to why there would be "no fossil record" of Hominids thought to be extinct if they were still surviving today.. I could say "Try pulling your head out of your ass and actually read what is being said" But that would imply that you had no intention of trolling when in fact that was your full intention to begin with.