Who was the first to discover America?

[jbg]

Really? I thought it was only racist when you said they're different.

I was making the point, satirically, that people need thicker skins on the subject.

[wyly]

True, but an open mind is what is required where orthodoxy might be too dismissive of all but the most conservative theories that keep the gravy train operating. The problem with evidence of very early migrations erectus or sapien is that of repeated glaciation, changing landscapes, flooding (for coastal regions), soil acidity and so on, especially in the northern half of the continent. H. erectus or sapien appears to be very adaptable creatures and should evidence arise of their presence on this continent before the last ice age it shouldn't be that surprising.

I don't say it's impossible but highly unlikey, and until there is hard evidence it just didn't happen...glaciation also happened in europe on a big scale yet there are specimans of H erectus, if they reached the americas there would evidence somewhere the lack of any would strongly suggest they never made it...

The authors seem less committed to the assertion than you do. Of course the spreading of ol' blue eyes could be based on many factors supporting a Europe-only origin, with all those randy rampaging Europeans running amok back in the day. Maybe a Eurasian origin is more apt.

a good scientist will always leave the possiblity open even though he/she believes otherwise, the genetics don't lie...neolithic europeans have been found as far east as China...europeans in the past weren't strictly europeans they migrated as well taking their genetics with them and leaving it behind where ever they went, just as eastern asian gentics have turned up in Swedish graves of the Viking age pre Mongol invasion... Edited September 22, 2010 by wyly

[Shwa]

I don't say it's impossible but highly unlikey, and until there is hard evidence it just didn't happen...glaciation also happened in europe on a big scale yet there are specimans of H erectus, if they reached the americas there would evidence somewhere the lack of any would strongly suggest they never made it...

The lack of evidence to date would strongly suggest they never made it? Oh my.

Did you know that at one time it was orthodox to not dig below the Clovis horizon because there was no evidence of pre-Clovis people in the Americas? Since no evidence was ever found of pre-Clovis people, it strongly suggested that there were none. So don't bother digging below the horizon.

If it's not there, why look for it? Besides, any evidence of anything pre-Clovis - or even from a much longer time period ago - will end up in endless controversy in the establishment. Well up until fairly recently of course.

Pre-Clovis archaeology on this continent is in it's infancy which is what the lack of evidence strongly suggests as well.

a good scientist will always leave the possiblity open even though he/she believes otherwise, the genetics don't lie...neolithic europeans have been found as far east as China...europeans in the past weren't strictly europeans they migrated as well taking their genetics with them and leaving it behind where ever they went, just as eastern asian gentics have turned up in Swedish graves of the Viking age pre Mongol invasion...

That genetics don't lie is a very good point, but fails to recognize that interpretations of incomplete data, left to fallible beings may end up with results that are refuted at a later date. Although I would say that the picture we get sometimes, even from the best science, is a pale expression of how truly deep and complex the lifeways of our ancestors actually were.

I suppose the overriding thought should be: stay tuned.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Shwa

[wyly]

The lack of evidence to date would strongly suggest they never made it? Oh my.

Did you know that at one time it was orthodox to not dig below the Clovis horizon because there was no evidence of pre-Clovis people in the Americas? Since no evidence was ever found of pre-Clovis people, it strongly suggested that there were none. So don't bother digging below the horizon.

If it's not there, why look for it? Besides, any evidence of anything pre-Clovis - or even from a much longer time period ago - will end up in endless controversy in the establishment. Well up until fairly recently of course.

Pre-Clovis archaeology on this continent is in it's infancy which is what the lack of evidence strongly suggests as well.

ya and no one was looking for Neanderthals but they found them regardless and a lot of other hominids they weren't looking for as well...where you have high concentrations of population there is lots of excavation by pure chance someone somewhere should have uncovered a specimen of erectus by now or evidence of of it's presence, but there's nothing, nada, zippo...and the pre clovis site isn't that new, my Uni prof suspected that from her digs in Chile 35yrs ago as well as the costal sea migration...

if there is controversy that's because there is supposed to be, that's how the scientific process works...someone makes a claim/hypothesis he/she presents their evidence and has to defend it, if it stands up to scrutiny it becomes accepted theory if it doesn't it's marginalized until there is better corroborating evidence presented...H Erectus in the Americas isn't even a hypothesis it's just speculation...

That genetics don't lie is a very good point, but fails to recognize that interpretations of incomplete data, left to fallible beings may end up with results that are refuted at a later date. Although I would say that the picture we get sometimes, even from the best science, is a pale expression of how truly deep and complex the lifeways of our ancestors actually were.

genetics like math is predictable...unless someone screws up the calculations the answer is always the same... Edited September 22, 2010 by wyly

[Shwa]

ya and no one was looking for Neanderthals but they found them regardless and a lot of other hominids they weren't looking for as well...where you have high concentrations of population there is lots of excavation by pure chance someone somewhere should have uncovered a specimen of erectus by now or evidence of of it's presence, but there's nothing, nada, zippo...

But they kept digging past previous horizons to discover what else was there, oblivious to any social or political repercussions of any discoveries further back in time. Actually, for some of them I am sure there was an out-of-europe speculation going on at the time too. You know, the multiregional origin theories...

Considering the sheer size of this continent compounded by the principles of modern salvage archaeology, the haystack is quite a bit larger than anything in Europe. However, with the occupation dates of this continent continually being pushed back in modern times, I wouldn't be surprised if some evidence was found eventually, if it were.

and the pre clovis site isn't that new, my Uni prof suspected that from her digs in Chile 35yrs ago as well as the costal sea migration...

So did the preeminent Louis Leakey no less - especially with the Calico Dig

if there is controversy that's because there is supposed to be, that's how the scientific process works...someone makes a claim/hypothesis he/she presents their evidence and has to defend it, if it stands up to scrutiny it becomes accepted theory if it doesn't it's marginalized until there is better corroborating evidence presented...H Erectus in the Americas isn't even a hypothesis it's just speculation...

Yeah, I completely agree. And if it is just speculation, why bother to dig? Just put up the Walmart and be done with it.

genetics like math is predictable...unless someone screws up the calculations the answer is always the same...

Is it? Then genetic drift should not even be mentioned in the science literature and, of course, some brainiac should have predicted the existence of h. floresiensis.

[wyly]

But they kept digging past previous horizons to discover what else was there, oblivious to any social or political repercussions of any discoveries further back in time. Actually, for some of them I am sure there was an out-of-europe speculation going on at the time too. You know, the multiregional origin theories...

archeologists care nothing about social or political repercussions it's the science that drives them, each one of them wants nothing more than to be the person who finds the next "great discovery"...these are people who thrive on overturning conventional thought...

Considering the sheer size of this continent compounded by the principles of modern salvage archaeology, the haystack is quite a bit larger than anything in Europe. However, with the occupation dates of this continent continually being pushed back in modern times, I wouldn't be surprised if some evidence was found eventually, if it were.

those verified occupation dates have been pushed back from 13,000 to 14,500 over 40 years how long will it take to reach H erectus?

the sheer size of this continent is dwarfed by europe, asia, and africa where H Erectus has been found, that's a much bigger haystack...and yet a number H erectus and other specimens have been found by accident in africa, in asia, in the ME, in Se Asia, in China, in europe...

we stumble across long extinct mammals millions of years old and dinosaurs and even further back to the critters of the PT extinction but not a single trace of H erectus...

Yeah, I completely agree. And if it is just speculation, why bother to dig? Just put up the Walmart and be done with it.

might as well look for unicorns as well there is no evidence they lived here either but how do we know until we dig...maybe the search can begin when a set of hooves and a lone horn show up in a future walmart site, until then it's just us speculating...

Is it? Then genetic drift should not even be mentioned in the science literature and, of course, some brainiac should have predicted the existence of h. floresiensis.Then Probability should not be mentioned in the math literature, but it is...genetic drift is calculated mathematically and that includes probability...genetics and math go together very well...

h floresiensis was predictable and there must be numerous other unknown spices and sub-spices genetic drift/probability confirms this must be true...

Edited September 22, 2010 by wyly

[Shwa]

archeologists care nothing about social or political repercussions it's the science that drives them, each one of them wants nothing more than to be the person who finds the next "great discovery"...these are people who thrive on overturning conventional thought...

Come on wyly that is a completely untrue statement and you know it. The salvage archaeology industry alone should tell you that, nver mind the science driven by the next grant.

those verified occupation dates have been pushed back from 13,000 to 14,500 over 40 years how long will it take to reach H erectus?

Occupation dates have been pushed back a litle further than 14.5 kya

the sheer size of this continent is dwarfed by europe, asia, and africa where H Erectus has been found, that's a much bigger haystack...and yet a number H erectus and other specimens have been found by accident in africa, in asia, in the ME, in Se Asia, in China, in europe...

How many h. erectus have been found by "accident?" Do you have citations for this?

we stumble across long extinct mammals millions of years old and dinosaurs and even further back to the critters of the PT extinction but not a single trace of H erectus...

Thus far... there was a time when this was true for other regions of the world too...

might as well look for unicorns as well there is no evidence they lived here either but how do we know until we dig...maybe the search can begin when a set of hooves and a lone horn show up in a future walmart site, until then it's just us speculating...

Presentism, nothing more.

Is it? Then genetic drift should not even be mentioned in the science literature and, of course, some brainiac should have predicted the existence of h. floresiensis.

Then Probability should not be mentioned in the math literature, but it is...genetic drift is calculated mathematically and that includes probability...genetics and math go together very well...

So now you are drifting away from certainty now.

h floresiensis was predictable and there must be numerous other unknown spices and sub-spices genetic drift/probability confirms this must be true...

You'll have to elaborate on the predicabilty of h. floresiensis. My understanding was that it was a bit of a surprise. Not accident. Surprise.

[ToadBrother]

The 14.5 YBP has already been pushed back quite a bit and some evidence shows possible occupation of this continent 10's of thousands of years ago. The much loved Beringia theory is subject to an orthodoxy in modern Western anthropology which has resulted in ulta-conservative views when it comes to theories about the origins of Amerindians. Elaine Dewar in her book 'Bones' illustrates this phenomenon nicely.

Agreed. But the interpreters of such data are fallible and subject to orthodoxy. But it is always a relief when our children look like us and not the postman nonetheless.

Ah yes, "my poorly supported theory isn't turning heads, so clearly the problem is with everyone else."

[ToadBrother]

You'll have to elaborate on the predicabilty of h. floresiensis. My understanding was that it was a bit of a surprise. Not accident. Surprise.

A considerable surprise on a number of fronts. First that the remains (they aren't fossils) even survived. Second of all, the young age. Third, that hominids could be affected by the "island gigantism/dwarfism" phenomena, fourth that the remains are so young, and fifth that the cranial capacity (less than a chimpanzees) still showed advanced tool-using capacities generally regarded as the domain of hominids with much larger brains.

Nothing about this new species was expected. From beginning to end it's one of the greatest discoveries in the history of human evolution, one of those true eureka moments. I doubt there was a zoologist, primatologist, or any other expert on human evolution who saw it coming.

[wyly]

Come on wyly that is a completely untrue statement and you know it. The salvage archaeology industry alone should tell you that, nver mind the science driven by the next grant.

now you're off on a weird tangent, salvage archeology is necessary and unrelated to what we're discussing...

Occupation dates have been pushed back a litle further than 14.5 kya

do you have citations for this? and the answer is no, oldest carbon dated human remains can be verified as of 2009 14,300(Oregon)

How many h. erectus have been found by "accident?" Do you have citations for this?

I never gave a number for the erectus do your own legwork... Neanderthal 1, found by quary miners...Homo erectus of Ceprano, Italy found during road work...neanderthal skull fragments found in the waste pile of a shell-fish dredger in the netherlands... Australopithecus africanus found by a miner in a quarry...and there are more, accidental discoveries in the americas of early hominds(erectus)NONE...

So now you are drifting away from certainty now.

no, predictable probability, RNA and DNA have rates of mutation, mutation is a sure thing there must be change...

You'll have to elaborate on the predicabilty of h. floresiensis. My understanding was that it was a bit of a surprise. Not accident. Surprise.

finding it was the surprise, that there was a mutation was not a surprise, mutations are a sure thing what form they'll take is the unknown...evolution is not a straight line it has many branches and dead ends Floresiensis was one, there will be more... Edited September 23, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

A considerable surprise on a number of fronts. First that the remains (they aren't fossils) even survived. Second of all, the young age. Third, that hominids could be affected by the "island gigantism/dwarfism" phenomena, fourth that the remains are so young, and fifth that the cranial capacity (less than a chimpanzees) still showed advanced tool-using capacities generally regarded as the domain of hominids with much larger brains.

that hominids can be affected by island dwarfism isn't new they are still alive and well in the Andaman islands ...cranial capcity isn't the end all of intelligence are people with big brains smarter than people with small brains? the key is the pre frontal lobe and Floresensis's was well developed similar to modern mans....the big surprise here is that Floresensis was still alive very recently living alongside Sapiens...

Nothing about this new species was expected. From beginning to end it's one of the greatest discoveries in the history of human evolution, one of those true eureka moments. I doubt there was a zoologist, primatologist, or any other expert on human evolution who saw it coming.

you overstate the surprise... it's recent age is the big surprise,that what is potentially a H Erectus which was thought to be extinct 200,000-500,000K ago out lasted the Neanderthal...

[Shwa]

now you're off on a weird tangent, salvage archeology is necessary and unrelated to what we're discussing...

Hardly and if you are familiar with salvage archaeology, you would know that it is completely related to what we are discussing since salvage archaeology places limits on the extent of time and depth a dig can go. And salvage archaeology is likely the most widely practiced form in North America today and, no doubt, since it must comply with rules for urban development, comes under political scrutiny and pressure. Go in, make small test pits over a given area, salvage as many artifacts as you can and then get out before the bulldozers move in. Dig deeper than the Clovis horizon? Fuhgeddaboudit. How many purely research oriented digs do you think are going on now in North America. Do you have any idea?

do you have citations for this? and the answer is no, oldest carbon dated human remains can be verified as of 2009 14,300(Oregon)

Bluefish Cave

Meadowcroft

Topper

I never gave a number for the erectus do your own legwork... Neanderthal 1, found by quary miners...Homo erectus of Ceprano, Italy found during road work...neanderthal skull fragments found in the waste pile of a shell-fish dredger in the netherlands... Australopithecus africanus found by a miner in a quarry...and there are more, accidental discoveries in the americas of early hominds(erectus)NONE...

No, you are asserting that "and yet a number H erectus .... have been found by accident" and I am wondering if you have a percentage of h. erectus fossils that have been found by accident, you know, compared to all the rest.

no, predictable probability, RNA and DNA have rates of mutation, mutation is a sure thing there must be change...

How much h. erectus DNA have they salvaged lately? Any idea on that?

finding it was the surprise, that there was a mutation was not a surprise, mutations are a sure thing what form they'll take is the unknown...evolution is not a straight line it has many branches and dead ends Floresiensis was one, there will be more...

So what you are really saying is that h. floresiensis wasn't predicted by DNA?

[Shwa]

Ah yes, "my poorly supported theory isn't turning heads, so clearly the problem is with everyone else."

Actually it isn't my poorly supported theory at all, but an open ended theory that allows for the timeframes for North American occupation to pushed back providing it meets the test of science. As I said, if you read through Dewar's book, it is surprising that the modern archaeology industry is so profoundly vulnerable to political influence. But alas, it is just another fallible human venture like anything else and archaeology often comes in second to other concerns. Dr. Timothy Pauketat gives a good picture of how salvage archaeology can place severe limits on our understanding of a given culture group. In his case, the Cahokian influence areas which are the subject of rapid urban development.

[wyly]

Hardly and if you are familiar with salvage archaeology, you would know that it is completely related to what we are discussing since salvage archaeology places limits on the extent of time and depth a dig can go. And salvage archaeology is likely the most widely practiced form in North America today and, no doubt, since it must comply with rules for urban development, comes under political scrutiny and pressure. Go in, make small test pits over a given area, salvage as many artifacts as you can and then get out before the bulldozers move in. Dig deeper than the Clovis horizon? Fuhgeddaboudit. How many purely research oriented digs do you think are going on now in North America. Do you have any idea?

standard proceedure everywhere even in europe, site survey goes in before construction...you have this strange idea that under every home or walmart there is an archeological site, very unrealistic, ...next you'll tell me there is conspiracy to hide sites buried under every new home...

want an idea how many research digs there are? a good estimate would count the number of archelogocal schools there and multiply that by 2 or three or more, they all dig every summer and most will have multiple dig sites each...my local uni had at least three digs this summer that I know of...you go ahead and count the number of Uni's in N America and do the math...

Bluefish Cave

Meadowcroft

Topper

none of these sites are have any real acceptance in the archeological world there is a mountain of criticism of each one...and none have human remains to carbon date,none... so absolutely no conclusive evidence...

No, you are asserting that "and yet a number H erectus .... have been found by accident" and I am wondering if you have a percentage of h. erectus fossils that have been found by accident, you know, compared to all the rest.

now you're cherry picking quotes?...let's put the rest of the quote you chopped out in the sentence "and yet a number H erectus and other specimens have been found by accident"...that was dishonest of you...

if you want to spend a week going through every find over the last 150 yrs to calculate a ratio have at it, let me know what you come up with...the fact is there are accidental discoveries and those discoveries were followed up with research investigations... and in the americas there have been zero H Erectus finds of any sort...strange that in all the cave seplunking done in N America not a single H Erectus find...sometimes when there is nothing found, it means there is nothing to find...

How much h. erectus DNA have they salvaged lately? Any idea on that?

more dishonesty on your part the actual DNA is irrelevant and you know it, and if don't understand why then you should read up on it...

So what you are really saying is that h. floresiensis wasn't predicted by DNA?

what you're saying is you don't understand it... Edited September 23, 2010 by wyly

[Shwa]

standard proceedure everywhere even in europe, site survey goes in before construction...you have this strange idea that under every home or walmart there is an archeological site, very unrealistic, ...next you'll tell me there is conspiracy to hide sites buried under every new home...

An early wyly thought:

...where you have high concentrations of population there is lots of excavation by pure chance someone somewhere should have uncovered a specimen of erectus by now or evidence of of it's presence, but there's nothing, nada, zippo...

And yet you have failed to address the problem by saying, well, everyone else does salvage archaeology and it's a big place, so why bother? And then attributing strange ideas to me like you are trying to get out of it via the straw man. Try again wyly, answer the problem that short term salvage archaeology poses to advancing the knowledge of the remote pass on this continent and maybe I'll take you seriously.

want an idea how many research digs there are? a good estimate would count the number of archelogocal schools there and multiply that by 2 or three or more, they all dig every summer and most will have multiple dig sites each...my local uni had at least three digs this summer that I know of...you go ahead and count the number of Uni's in N America and do the math...

100? Maybe less? How many of those are of the test or salvage type or teaching expeditions? If it is less that 100, that is not a whole lot for such a large space wouldn't you agree? And if you do, wouldn't you agree that the fewer the digs there are, the less chance of making a significant find as to push the human habitation back on this continent, especially under the pressure of modern day archaeological orthodoxy?

none of these sites are have any real acceptance in the archeological world there is a mountain of criticism of each one...and none have human remains to carbon date,none... so absolutely no conclusive evidence...

Of course they have acceptance in the archaeological world, commensurate with their number. And of course sites of occupation can be determined without the requirement of human remains. I mean, how many Norse skeletons were discovered at L'anse aux meadows?

now you're cherry picking quotes?...let's put the rest of the quote you chopped out in the sentence "and yet a number H erectus and other specimens have been found by accident"...that was dishonest of you...

Maybe it is dishonest, maybe not, but you provided only a partial answer and a convenient one at that.

if you want to spend a week going through every find over the last 150 yrs to calculate a ratio have at it, let me know what you come up with...the fact is there are accidental discoveries and those discoveries were followed up with research investigations... and in the americas there have been zero H Erectus finds of any sort...strange that in all the cave seplunking done in N America not a single H Erectus find...sometimes when there is nothing found, it means there is nothing to find...

I dunno how many cave spelunkings have been done, do you? The only thing you are explaining is that accidental discovery is, well, accidental. However depending on accident to spur science forward is a little risky don't you think?

more dishonesty on your part the actual DNA is irrelevant and you know it, and if don't understand why then you should read up on it...

Is h. erectus DNA irrelevant?

what you're saying is you don't understand it...

No, what I am saying is that your understanding of DNA, genetic drift, bottlenecks and such isn't as accurate as you wish to make it out to be. Sure one can say that "genetics like math is predictable" in the same way we can say that geology, like math is predictable. Except in these cases you are applying the math to the DNA or rocks to get your predictions. And in the case of genetic "predictions" with the whole of human evolution, well, can you predict where I will find gold in the Canadian Shield please? Just do the math and let me know, I could use a few extra bucks.

[ToadBrother]

that hominids can be affected by island dwarfism isn't new they are still alive and well in the Andaman islands ...cranial capcity isn't the end all of intelligence are people with big brains smarter than people with small brains? the key is the pre frontal lobe and Floresensis's was well developed similar to modern mans....the big surprise here is that Floresensis was still alive very recently living alongside Sapiens...

The Andaman Islanders are well within normal parameters for H. sapien height. These hominids, presuming they are descendants of H. erectus, not only lost height, but substantial cranial capacity.

I don't think you quite know what I'm talking about when I refer to island gigantism/dwarfism. It's an observed phenomena that on isolated islands species will either evolve to much larger sizes or to much smaller ones. As I recall, Flores Island also had a pygmy elephant variety of the Asian Elephant.

you overstate the surprise... it's recent age is the big surprise,that what is potentially a H Erectus which was thought to be extinct 200,000-500,000K ago out lasted the Neanderthal...

First of all, there's no one out there calling this H. erectus, any more than anyone calls Neandertals H. erectus. These hominids most certainly descended from H. erectus (so probably did we, but from an African branch, and not from any of the colonists of Eurasia). It was indeed a major shock to find them.

[bill_barilko]

I agree absolutely, but the idea of a Roman ship off the coast of Brazil is intriguing as one of those "what if" type scenarios. Even if it was there, there's no evidence of regular trips to SA by the Romans.

Note-the presence of Roman artifacts in Brasilian harbours is easily explained-colonial era ships took up ballast in Old World harbours (stones/what have you) then dumped said ballast in the New World when they loaded their ships up with goods.

As to Phoenicians http://www.phoenicia.org.uk/inspiring-blog.htm is fun to follow whether you believe in what they're highlighting or not.

[wyly]

The Andaman Islanders are well within normal parameters for H. sapien height. These hominids, presuming they are descendants of H. erectus, not only lost height, but substantial cranial capacity.

Andaman islanders meet the tradional definition of pygmy-adult males average less than 5'3" not all pygmy's groups being of the same height...obviously all pygmys are within normal parameters for sapiens, normal is subjctive and ethno centric...cranial capacity isn't the end all to intelligence, it's the prefontal lobe... are you claiming pygmy's because of their stature and smaller cranial capacity they are not as smart as a taller person?...these were intelligent hominids that developed open water crossing...

I don't think you quite know what I'm talking about when I refer to island gigantism/dwarfism. It's an observed phenomena that on isolated islands species will either evolve to much larger sizes or to much smaller ones. As I recall, Flores Island also had a pygmy elephant variety of the Asian Elephant.

I know exactly to what you're referring, the Andaman Islanders fit into the category...

First of all, there's no one out there calling this H. erectus, any more than anyone calls Neandertals H. erectus. These hominids most certainly descended from H. erectus (so probably did we, but from an African branch, and not from any of the colonists of Eurasia). It was indeed a major shock to find them.

they appear to be a to be a shorter Erectus which I admit is not established as yet, but there is no reason to rule it out either, "if it looks like a duck, it probably is"...and because Neanderthals and sapiens are likely descendents of Erectus does not rule out Erectus itself along side surviving, because erectus in Africa mutates/evolves it does not automatically mean Erectus in S E Asia must evolve the same way ...the original species does not have to disappear...

I wasn't shocked, I expected new species of hominids to turn up...the recent age of these survivors is the shocker..

[ToadBrother]

Andaman islanders meet the tradional definition of pygmy-adult males average less than 5'3" not all pygmy's groups being of the same height...obviously all pygmys are within normal parameters for sapiens, normal is subjctive and ethno centric...cranial capacity isn't the end all to intelligence, it's the prefontal lobe... are you claiming pygmy's because of their stature and smaller cranial capacity they are not as smart as a taller person?...these were intelligent hominids that developed open water crossing...

When did I claim that? And the Flores Man's cranial capacity isn't a few percentage points smaller than an average human, it's smaller than a chimpanzee's brain, and something like half the size of that of an H. erectus. You're trying to make them sound like a small erectus, and that they certainly were not. In every respect they defy the normal rule of hominid evolution, which was towards larger brains and greater complexity in tool kits.

I know exactly to what you're referring, the Andaman Islanders fit into the category...

No they don't. The Andaman islanders are within the range of H. sapiens, and do not exhibit any of the large scale reduction in cranial capacity. They're brains are not half of that of anyone else.

they appear to be a to be a shorter Erectus which I admit is not established as yet, but there is no reason to rule it out either, "if it looks like a duck, it probably is"...and because Neanderthals and sapiens are likely descendnts of Erectus does not rule out Erectus itself along side surviving, because erectus in Africa mutates/evolves it does not automatically mean Erectus in S E Asia must evolve the same way ...the original species does not have to disappear...

Except that they have morphological features which are almost reminiscent of Australopithecines. Again, these are not just pygmy erectus, they have substantial reduction in cubic size of the brain, far beyond the differences you may find in low stature modern populations.

I wasn't shocked, I expected new species of hominids to turn up...the recent age of these survivors is the shocker..

You're trying to tell me that you expected they would find a hominid that antedates the last known Asian H. erectus finds by hundreds of thousands of years, and not only that, would have cranial capacities not seen in any Hominid in over a million years? I call bull---t on that one. That we would find new species, and will find new species, is hardly a shocking prediction, but if you were to tell any hominid paleontologist that someone was going to dig up these particular hominids, even five years before, you would have been laughed out of the room. In fact, the reactions to the very thought were so strong that some researchers insisted, and a few still insist, that these microcephalic Moderns and a few who are dreaming up some ancient Australopithecine migration.

[wyly]

When did I claim that? And the Flores Man's cranial capacity isn't a few percentage points smaller than an average human, it's smaller than a chimpanzee's brain, and something like half the size of that of an H. erectus. You're trying to make them sound like a small erectus, and that they certainly were not. In every respect they defy the normal rule of hominid evolution, which was towards larger brains and greater complexity in tool kits.

you're making assumptions that aren't proven and very much in question...brain size is not an absolute guide to intelligence a blue whale is 6 times the size of ours, the Flores specimen pre-frontal lobe is very developed...not all modern sapiens developed complex tool kits, stone age cultures exist despite their modern brain size...Flores could well have had a tool kit that was complex but being mostly organic in nature would not survive, as well they were intelligent enough to master crossing open water...

No they don't. The Andaman islanders are within the range of H. sapiens, and do not exhibit any of the large scale reduction in cranial capacity. They're brains are not half of that of anyone else.

when did that become a rule? adaptation can take different routes to the same end.

Except that they have morphological features which are almost reminiscent of Australopithecines. Again, these are not just pygmy erectus, they have substantial reduction in cubic size of the brain, far beyond the differences you may find in low stature modern populations.

of course that's assuming they weren't small from day one and never experienced substantial reduction...and I admit they may not even be related to H Erectus...but as Erectus was in the area first that's not an unreasonable assumption to make...

You're trying to tell me that you expected they would find a hominid that antedates the last known Asian H. erectus finds by hundreds of thousands of years, and not only that, would have cranial capacities not seen in any Hominid in over a million years? I call bull---t on that one. That we would find new species, and will find new species, is hardly a shocking prediction, but if you were to tell any hominid paleontologist that someone was going to dig up these particular hominids, even five years before, you would have been laughed out of the room. In fact, the reactions to the very thought were so strong that some researchers insisted, and a few still insist, that these microcephalic Moderns and a few who are dreaming up some ancient Australopithecine migration.

no that's what you assumed...what I said is I expect other unknown species to turn up I never predicted it's morphology..and I expect there will many more...only the recent age of these hominids is a surprise to me...

[Michael Hardner]

New Information

[Scotty]

I pretty sure your right.

Now why is it that the people who lived here 10000's of thousands of years don't get the credit for discovering the Americas? I mean WTF?

Cause they were just native savages.