26 Apr '17 21:20>
This post is unavailable.
Please refer to our posting guidelines.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?