quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
But no living examples in nature. Also there would be no lineage because only the females were found to be fertile. So, a freak. Not a new species.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

The act of elongating one's skull is something that humans have done in the past, just because they appear to not look human does not make them non human.

I'm aware of that, but head binding and cradle boarding do not change the volume of the cranial vault, they only change its shape, and they fail to explain the lack of a sagittal suture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

What evidence is there that they aren't homo sapiens? I would like to see that evidence, or if you have already posted it, could you please reference the post #?

The major differences are that these people had a larger cranial vault, i.e., a bigger brain, and their skulls lack the characteristic sagittal suture, exhibiting instead only a single parietal plate (last image).

K.

quote:


It had mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) with mutations unknown in any human, primate, or animal known so far. But a few fragments I was able to sequence from this sample indicate that if these mutations will hold we are dealing with a new human-like creature, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

I'm aware of that, but head binding and cradle boarding do not change the volume of the cranial vault, they only change its shape, and they fail to explain the lack of a sagittal suture.

References?

I'm afraid your request confronts me with a conflict of interest, because disabusing you of the notion that changing the shape of a container can alter its volume would diminish the entertainment value of your position.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

But I did find this which is actually quite remarkable and could hold your statements true, especially considering that they did DNA tests and found them to not be homo-sapiens:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/initial-dna-analysis-paracas-elongated-skull-released-incredible
http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/545/DNA-Analysis-Of-Paracas-Elongated-Skulls-Released-The-Results-Prove-They-Were-Not-Human

quote:


It had mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) with mutations unknown in any human, primate, or animal known so far. But a few fragments I was able to sequence from this sample indicate that if these mutations will hold we are dealing with a new human-like creature, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Essentially, even though you didn't seem to provide the information on the DNA testing, it seems that you are correct and that DomKen and I were wrong in our assumptions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Science has its fundamentalist assholes just like religion, and they are every bit as nasty and dishonest.

An often repeated false equivalency. Just who are these science fundamentalists? And how do they maintain their fundamentalist creed when the central spark of science is to experiment and expose error? And just what is that fundamentalist creed anyway? Well, truth be told, it does not exist. The charge of scientism is a bogus one, brought by patent medicine purveyors, literalist theists, and new-age woo presenters who are trying to sell their alternative goods. It is an old and tread bare tactic, this attempt to level the playing field by demeaning science.

Claiming it's a false equivalency on the basis of a straw man ("the fundamentalist creed") which you dismiss with a flourish ("it does not exist") is pretty thin stuff. Nobody raised a charge of scientism, either, and even if they had you've offered nothing of substance to show that it wouldn't be valid. Ironically, however, it is a characteristic of fundamentalists that they will resort to virtually any kind of legerdemain or ad hominem when they feel exposed.

K.

quote:

A male Great Dane can't realistically mate with a Chihuahua does that make them separate species?

quote:

Those are difficult questions. Are dogs, wolves and coyotes separate species? They are all completely interfertile though in general they do not voluntarily interbreed. Basically species is a human concept and it does not map clearly onto organisms. We'll never really know at what point our ancient ancestors were so different from us that we would be infertile with them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

But I did find this which is actually quite remarkable and could hold your statements true, especially considering that they did DNA tests and found them to not be homo-sapiens:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/initial-dna-analysis-paracas-elongated-skull-released-incredible
http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/545/DNA-Analysis-Of-Paracas-Elongated-Skulls-Released-The-Results-Prove-They-Were-Not-Human

quote:


It had mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) with mutations unknown in any human, primate, or animal known so far. But a few fragments I was able to sequence from this sample indicate that if these mutations will hold we are dealing with a new human-like creature, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Essentially, even though you didn't seem to provide the information on the DNA testing, it seems that you are correct and that DomKen and I were wrong in our assumptions.

You are being to quick to accept claims by nuts. These mtDNA claims are that these skulls are the result of human extraterrestrial hybridization which is flat out impossible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

They evolved the way all other species did. There was an empty niche in the ecosystem (flowering plants) and the bees (once wasps) filled it, they evolved together to maximize their needs, the flowers needed pollinators and the bees needed food. It's pretty much a symbiotic relationship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
What do you mean by how?

A population of social wasps became specialized for feeding on flowers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

They evolved the way all other species did. There was an empty niche in the ecosystem (flowering plants) and the bees (once wasps) filled it, they evolved together to maximize their needs, the flowers needed pollinators and the bees needed food. It's pretty much a symbiotic relationship.

They evolved the way all other species did?
No they didn't, the "normal" evolutionary processes, like natural selection or mutation, don't don't fit honey bees.
;-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

But I did find this which is actually quite remarkable and could hold your statements true, especially considering that they did DNA tests and found them to not be homo-sapiens:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/initial-dna-analysis-paracas-elongated-skull-released-incredible
http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/545/DNA-Analysis-Of-Paracas-Elongated-Skulls-Released-The-Results-Prove-They-Were-Not-Human

quote:


It had mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) with mutations unknown in any human, primate, or animal known so far. But a few fragments I was able to sequence from this sample indicate that if these mutations will hold we are dealing with a new human-like creature, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Essentially, even though you didn't seem to provide the information on the DNA testing, it seems that you are correct and that DomKen and I were wrong in our assumptions.

You are being to quick to accept claims by nuts. These mtDNA claims are that these skulls are the result of human extraterrestrial hybridization which is flat out impossible.

They reach no such conclusions in either article Ken. Just because the mtDNA are different does not mean that they are aliens. There are many possibilities, and being a liberal I expected you to have your mind open a little more to these different possibilities. These results are largely preliminary, as they were released just this past week, so there is much more to still be examined and more questions to be answered. Also, I'm not blindly accepting the claims despite how my wording in my previous pm could have conveyed. I'm stating that there is recent evidence giving much more credibility to the thought that they aren't homo-sapiens, so it should give more reason to entertain the theory as a possibility. It's not good to be stuck in your ways, science and those who admire it need to be malleable, if we're not, we're no better than the right wingers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
What do you mean by how?

A population of social wasps became specialized for feeding on flowers?

Comparing honey bees to social wasps is a little like comparing the Taj Mahal to a grass hut, they both have pointy tops.
;-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

While the source itself does, the article referenced does not. However, I did try to track down the source of this "research" and reached a dead end with crazy claims on aliens as you said. I do admit I was wrong and you were right Ken, but regardless it doesn't hurt to entertain other possibilities, they could result in incredible break throughs after all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Your example does not illustrate my point, which was that a differentiating marker of speciation is the lack of fertile offspring in cross breeding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Difficulty_of_defining_.22species.22_and_identifying_particular_species
It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms,[15] and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.[16]