28 Apr 17
Originally posted by sonhouseI believe the evidence that there were humans if simply not very strong. Better not to speculate until further evidence comes to light.
I read that piece, my guess is it was a very small population that died out soon after, maybe coming over on rafts or some such, so the world waits for 130,000 year old human remains. That is the only thing that will clinch it.
29 Apr 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadAt least there is this one site. They admitted they never did much looking at this age period so now there will be more searches. It seems clear to me though, that whatever they find, there won't be much of it, like the first failed colonies in America, a few sites but no expansion because they all died out in a few generations.
I believe the evidence that there were humans if simply not very strong. Better not to speculate until further evidence comes to light.
30 Apr 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe analysis of the bones shows scratch marks consistent with being hit by sharp stones as well as the way the bones were broken. Can you think of a natural process that would have a large rock right in the middle of the bones, where the pieces flaked off fits the rock like puzzle pieces? Also, one of the mammoth tusks was mounted in the ground vertically oriented. Try explaining that one where nothing like that had been seen before, tusks before were always horizontal to the ground.
One site that has no conclusive evidence of humans. We need more than a few broken bones to be sure.
It is not just one line of evidence on that site, there are at least three separate facts that so far cannot be explained by some natural process. For instance, the fact there was a rock there at all while all around it you get pebbles in the dig. That alone says someone transported it there from somewhere else, maybe kilometers from the site it was found.
Originally posted by sonhouseYes, I can think of natural processes by which bones get broken by rocks. But I am not even convinced that breakage by rocks is the only explanation. The scientists were so unsure that they went all the way to Africa to try and replicate it on elephant bones. What other options did they try? Did they only test their preferred scenario?
The analysis of the bones shows scratch marks consistent with being hit by sharp stones as well as the way the bones were broken. Can you think of a natural process that would have a large rock right in the middle of the bones, where the pieces flaked off fits the rock like puzzle pieces?
And why humans? Why not Neanderthals?
Also, one of the mammoth tusks was mounted in the ground vertically oriented. Try explaining that one where nothing like that had been seen before, tusks before were always horizontal to the ground.
Always? How many did they find?
It is not just one line of evidence on that site, there are at least three separate facts that so far cannot be explained by some natural process.
'Cannot be explained' is a bit of a reach.
For instance, the fact there was a rock there at all while all around it you get pebbles in the dig.
And if there were two rocks? What about three rocks? How many before you accept that maybe a rock could be there by natural processes?
That alone says someone transported it there from somewhere else, maybe kilometers from the site it was found.
So why don't we stop looking for broken bones, and just look for rocks, then we will know humans were there whenever we find a rock.
And did they manage to date when the bones were broken? When was the tusk placed upright? When were the rocks supposedly moved?
01 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThose are valid questions for sure. And my guess is it WAS neanderals but clearly if that evidence was hominid origin, they must not have lasted long but that will be determined if and when they find further fossil evidence. A neandertal skull would certainly peg it. If one hypothesizes there were Neanderthals in San Diego, that is literally thousands of miles from where they would have presumably come from, out of Siberia across an ice bridge, most likely.
Yes, I can think of natural processes by which bones get broken by rocks. But I am not even convinced that breakage by rocks is the only explanation. The scientists were so unsure that they went all the way to Africa to try and replicate it on elephant bones. What other options did they try? Did they only test their preferred scenario?
And why humans? ...[text shortened]... n the bones were broken? When was the tusk placed upright? When were the rocks supposedly moved?
Another possibility is some of them coming maybe accidentally on a raft maybe not even manufactured but a fluke of nature where a flood happened or some such and they drifted across the Pacific. The only other way would have been through Europe and across the Atlantic then in to maybe central America or thereabouts and across the continent to San Diego, maybe where they were stranded on an ice floe making its way across the Atlantic during an ice age.
All those hypotheses suggests there would be more in the way of fossils, but like they guy said, they haven't even THOUGHT much about looking that far into the past and therefore at deeper remains. It certainly opens up an entirely new perspective on human/hominid kind of travel. I imagine it is an exciting time for archaeologists.
02 May 17
I still say that there are two key problems:
1. The evidence does not conclusively point to humans or our relatives.
2. The dating is based on the age of the bones, which does not conclusively date either the breakage date or the date of the other supposed activity such as moved rocks or a tusk stood upright.
When they find a hearth, or stone age tools, then they might be on to something.