March 15th, 2012
04:55 PM ET

'Red Deer Cave' people, possibly a new human species?

Newly identified partial skeletons of "mysterious humans" excavated at two caves in southwest China display an unique mix of primitive and modern anatomical features, scientists say.

"Their skulls are anatomically unique. They look very different to all modern humans, whether alive today or in Africa 150,000 years ago," said evolutionary biologist Darren Curnoe, the lead author of the study, from the University of New South Wales in Australia.

The fossils found at excavation sites in Longlin Cave, in Guangxi Province, and the Maludong Cave, in Yunnan Province, indicate that the stone-aged people had short, flat faces and lacked a modern chin. They had thick skull bones, a rounded brain case, prominent brow ridges and a moderate-size brain.

They were dubbed the "Red Deer Cave" people because scientists say these prehistoric people hunted extinct red deer and cooked them in the cave at Maludong, where four of the five partial skeletal fossils were found.

Whether the Red Deer Cave people are indeed a new species indicating a new evolutionary line or whether they are a very early population of modern humans remains a controversial topic of discussion among scientists.

The team of Australian and Chinese researchers remains cautiously optimistic when it comes to classifying what they have unearthed.

"The evidence is quite fairly balanced at the moment. It's weighted towards the idea that the Red Deer Cave people might represent a new population, possibly a new species," Curnoe said.

Details of the discovery are published in the scientific journal PLoS ONE.

Archeological evidence dates these prehistoric hunters and gatherers to 14,500 to 11,500 years ago, indicating that for a sliver of time in East Asia, the Red Deer Cave people may have shared the landscape with modern-looking people who displayed the beginnings of farming.

Despite Asia being the largest subcontinent, the fossil record for human evolution remains slim. The vast majority of prehistoric archeology has focused on Europe and Africa, scientists say.

"Understanding the fossil records of East Asia is the missing link to our overall understanding of human evolution," Curnoe said.

The Maludong site had actually been excavated the first time by the Chinese in 1989. At that time, several bags of fossils were found, but it was only in 2008 that the site was studied and the remains analyzed by Curnoe and his team of researchers.

The age of the cave sites was determined by collecting sediment samples and tested using radioactive carbon dating.

At the Longlin Cave, the remains of a lower jaw set in a bed of sediment were found by a geologist back in 1979 and rediscovered in a the basement laboratory of one of the Chinese researchers in 2009. The bones first had to be removed from the sediment rock. Then, using a CT Scan 3D, models of the skull were made, showing both the prominent primitive and modern features.

Due to the uncertainty surrounding the human fossil record, paleoanthropologists say, more conclusive DNA testing is required.

Initial DNA testing conducted on the fossils did not show evidence of human DNA, but Curnoe and his team will push forward.

"If we are successful in extracting DNA, it will give us a really accurate understanding of precisely who these people are and where they might fit in the human evolutionary tree," he said.

"We are trying to understand the common story. What unites us all? Where do we come from? In understanding our evolutionary past, this might help us understand where we are today and where we might be going," Curnoe added.

Follow @CNNLightYears on Twitter

soundoff (942 Responses)
  1. Latest Mini PC

    Magnificent put up, very informative. I ponder why the other specialists of this sector do not notice this. You should proceed your writing. I am sure, you have a great readers' base already!|What's Happening i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I've discovered It absolutely helpful and it has helped me out loads. I hope to contribute & assist other users like its helped me. Good job.

    August 23, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
  2. sdesarn

    There are actually a number of particulars like that to take into consideration. That may be a great point to deliver up. I offer the ideas above as common inspiration but clearly there are questions just like the one you deliver up the place a very powerful thing will be working in trustworthy good faith. I don?t know if greatest practices have emerged around issues like that, however I'm certain that your job is clearly recognized as a fair game. Both boys and girls feel the affect of just a moment’s pleasure, for the remainder of their lives.

    August 13, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
  3. Varpa, Bybys, Varpos, Bybio, Pasididžiavimas, Kaip paisidinti byby

    Simply want to say your article is as surprising. The clarity in your submit is just great and that i could suppose you're knowledgeable on this subject. Well along with your permission let me to clutch your RSS feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks 1,000,000 and please keep up the enjoyable work.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:11 am |
  4. Scat

    Let get the clonning people

    April 5, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
  5. free unique article

    I have been exploring for a bit for any high quality articles or weblog posts in this kind of house . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this web site. Reading this info So i'm satisfied to exhibit that I have an incredibly excellent uncanny feeling I came upon just what I needed. I most unquestionably will make sure to don?t forget this website and provides it a glance on a continuing basis.

    April 4, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
  6. ceai verde, green tea, oolong tea, wulong tea, white tea, black tea

    You actually make it appear so easy with your presentation however I in finding this topic to be actually something which I believe I would by no means understand. It sort of feels too complex and very extensive for me. I am having a look forward to your subsequent publish, I'll attempt to get the hold of it!

    April 4, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
  7. Laughing babies

    certainly like your web site but you have to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling problems and I in finding it very troublesome to inform the truth however I will surely come again again.

    April 4, 2012 at 8:52 am |
  8. U B Misguided

    For all the "science" buffs out there – I would like to thank you for many years of insightful, and meaningful truths you have clung to until someone can force feed it down your throat that your pompous assumptions were incorrect. The common theme throughout history is public ridicule and humiliation even within your own ranks.

    Starting with the obvious flat earth, then there was the universe revolves around the earth "theory" that was a good one. Lets not forget the sea monsters living in the ocean that many an eyewitness testified to. Lets also remember the good ol' maggots came from meat belief for many years. And the good old Pluto is a planet, no, its not a planet – hmmm lets compromise and call it a moon!

    Now, you want to hypothisis, and theorize about everything from the origin of the universe, to the "GOD particle" which you hoped to prove with your latest particle accelerator tests. How did that pan out for you?

    I find it laughable to the point of tears, how you stick to such a flawed practice which proves itself wrong with every new "advancement", make up new buzz words and cling to a theory as though it were your life, demand proof from anyone not eating the BS you choose to swallow, yet exempt yourself from accountability, by forming your packs of self affirmation groups bent on the old standby "Ridicule, humiliate, and intimidate" based on your simple inability to grasp something beyond you feeble comprehension. Man I LOVE the scientific "we have all the answers, until a better explanation comes along" crowd.

    One day the wonders of the universe will all be made known to you, but not by the hand of man – it will come from the creator. Pray for forgiveness – and repent, then you too can obtain salvation and grace.

    March 19, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
  9. portland tony

    This entire comment section went from a scientific discussion of newly uncovered archeological findings the spiritual lessons of Adam and Eve! Jeez?

    March 17, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
    • roccop777

      If you'll take the time to carefully read the comments, you will discover the references to Adam and Eve, etc. come almost exclusively from people within the evolution camp to mock creationists. On the other hand, in my posts (I see special creation as the best explanation for the origin of life) I did not once mention Adam and Eve, but I quoted world famous scientists and empirical scientific findings which contradict the notion, that the diversity of life is the result unplanned, undirected and purposeless mechanisms. The blame for messing up a good, substantive discussion lies squarely on the doorstep of the believers of evolution.

      March 18, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
  10. roccop777

    I looked over the responses to my post last night and was happy to see it got some people thinking - unfortunately it got many believers in the theory of evolution all riled up - and when that happens they typically begin belitling and then spouting off a bunch of nonsense and urban legends which have been palmed off as "science". I'll address just a few of their baseless claims:
    1) Because I pointed out that Nicolas Steno, the father of modern paleontology was a creationist and was the first to demonstrate that fossils weren't life forms in the process of arising from lifeless matter (spontaneous generation/abiogenesis) as the ancient greeks and the scientific community thought at that time - here's some of the responses:
    a) Clearfig wrote: The theory of spontaneous generation was abandoned decades ago and not as a result of any creationist researchers. Wrong! The researchers who fought the scientific community to disprove sponatneous generation was Louis Pasteur - a confessing creationist. Clearfog then goes on to write tell me again how creationist researchers advanced any science Here's just a few: Johann Kepler – Astronomy; Isaac Newton - Physics; Blaise Pascal - Mathematics; Michael Faraday - Electrodynamics; Nicolas Steno– Paleontology; Lord Kelvin - Thermodynamics; Sir Francis Bacon - formulated the "scientific method" - and that is just the tip of the iceberg!
    b) All scientists before Darwin were creationists by default, because atheism was not an alternative Baloney! For instance Isaac Newton actively argued with atheist scientists, calling atheism counterintuitive, illogical and contrary to the laws of nature.
    ReasonableXX even claims First of all until Darwin, everyone was a creationist of some type. Evolutionists need to get their facts straight! Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandfather formulated the ideology of a naturalistic, atheistic, evolutionary origin of life before Charles was even born. The ancient greeks also proposed such theories as well. Charles didn't propose anything new, which had not already been in circulatiion for a long time.
    c) A number of those making comments objected to me casting into doubt radiometric dating methods and challenged me to provide evidence, that the assumptions about constant rates of decay are faulty. It is a verifiable fact that C14 has been found embedded in diamonds and coal deposit allegedly millions of years old - but then it is also well known that if decay rates of C14 are constant, there should be no trace of it in these objects after 100,000 years. Something is wrong in the assumptions! It has also been recently discovered that C14 decay rates fluctuate with the seasons.
    For those of you who blindly believe that the various radiometric basically agree with each other. Please do some more research. There are countless cases of rocks being formed via natural catastropies (like volcanic eruptions in Hawaii and Mt. St. Helens), which have been dated via radiometric dating methods as having taken place millions of years ago - problem is, they were witnessed by people now living! Much of radiometric dating systems ar calibrated based on faulty assumptions and interpolated based on these false assumptions.

    March 16, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      I see you've been reading some of the higher-end, more articulate creationist websites. That doesn't make the ideas any less wrong.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
      • roccop777

        Mockery is cheap, presenting verifiable facts is more substantive and scientific. Please point out which of the facts I presented are incorrect. Or are you actually saying, you cannot refute the facts presented, it's just that your ideology (idea) doesn't agree with my ideology (idea). Well, finally a believer in evolution who half-way admits the theory of evolution is based more on ideology than empirical scientific facts. The truth is Erasmus Darwin laid out the ideology of the theory of evolution - and two generations later Charles went out on his voyage try to find to some biological support for the ideology.
        For your information, I live in Jena Germany, the city through which the theory of evolution entered Germany via Ernst Haeckel. I have a good friendship and have had many good exchanges with one of former East Germany's top zoologists/biologists, who is one of those in charge of Haeckel's natural history museum. As a university professor he taught a few generations of evolution biologists and researchers, but now admits at the end of his career, that he has serious doubts that the theory of evolution even works. Looking back over his career he has confessed to me: We scientists often tell lots of fairy-tales in the guise of science."
        Since our city has the highest percentage of people with PhDs in Germany, I have had the opportunity to meet and talk with one of Germany's leading bio-chemists - who agrees that Pasteur's statement "Spontaneous generation is an illusion" is still valid. I have even had the opportunity to have a short, lively discussion with a biochemist who is a Nobel prize laureate for his work synthesizing the B12 vitamin, about self organization of lifeless matter (we disagreed).
        Because of Haeckel's influence on our city I have been able to see first hand how the scientific community (specifically adherants to the theory of evolution) was manipulated and instrumentalized by racism, eugenecists and social Darwinism.
        I mention all this to let you know that I am not just parroting some creationist websites, but have had many opportunities to interact with people at the forefront of evolution research and, as a result, have come to the conclusion that this theory is big on ideology, but very lacking when it comes to empirical evidence.

        March 16, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
      • Chris M

        You people are awful. People are dying for your stupid quibbling. Just wait and find out if your fairytale is real. Let the dead be...

        March 16, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
      • False Dichotomy

        If you know all the evidence and still dismiss basic evolutionary biology then nothing I say would have any affect. I really wasn't just mocking – creationist ideas are clearly wrong no matter how they are phrased.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:22 pm |
      • roccop777

        To Chris M - these comment blogs are also there to facilitate discussions. I have been presenting evidence to back up my position. That's not quibbling. Can you please tell me where people are dying over discussing evolution/creationism? I live in a city which was at the forefront of Nazi evolutionist ideology, which used the theory of evolution to justify the more advanced/master races displacing/exterminating the inferior races. Clear proof that millions people have indeed died under the guise of evolution.
        You also wrote we should wait to see (after death) which "fairytale" is real. Which fairytale are you referreing to? The belief in an intelligent Creator, or the belief in Almighty Chance which through undirected processes created order out of chaos? Yes, I will find out! But those who believe in Almighty Chance/evolution - even if they are right - will never find out they were right, because, according to their ideology, after death there is nothing.
        to: False Dichotomy - I have presented a few verifiable facts, which cast doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution. You have not been able/chosen not to refute any of them. One of the elements of the "scientific method" is that anything of a scientific nature must be falsefiable - that means any hypothesis, theory or even natural law should be subject to rejection if the evidence is lacking. Your allegiance to the theory of evolution appears to transcend and ignore any facts to the contrary. That is not scientific, but stubborn ideology.

        March 17, 2012 at 3:55 am |
      • False Dichotomy

        You're right, I have chosen not to engage you on this, and your last comment confirms why. Anyone who refers to biological evolution as chance and undirected process (let alone ideology) has demonstrated that they don't understand even the fundamentals of evolution. Like I said before, you can dress it up in articulate language, but it's still the same old song and dance. You don't actually understand evolution, but you feel entirely qualified to dismiss it.

        I will point out two things: (1) blaming eugenics or ethnic cleansing on evolution is like blaming the atomic bomb on physics. The nasty acts of human beings has nothing to do with the veracity of a body of scientific knowledge.

        (2) Falling back on falsifiability as an argument is invalid both because the implications of evolutionary hypotheses are indeed falsifiable (e.g., rabbits in the Precambrian), and because regardless it relies on Karl Popper's anti-empirical definition of science, which is not the standard of modern science. According to Popperian philosophy, Einstein was not doing science.

        So, no matter where you're from or who you've talked to, you are still promoting the same creationist talking points and logical fallacies (including, subtly, the false dichotomy, I might add) that your fundamentalist Baptist counterparts are peddling over here in the States. And you both are simply incorrect in doing so.

        March 17, 2012 at 9:22 am |
  11. intothemoonbeam

    The Santorum and Palin supporters think this a hoax, just like global warming, just like overpopulation on Earth, just like the Dinosaurs, just like the moon landing, just like the Big Bang. Am I missing anything else?

    March 16, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      ...that teaching abstinence only correlates with higher rates of teen pregnancy, that oil is a finite resource, that the earth is more than 6,000 years old...

      As long as you don't base your beliefs on evidence, you can claim anything you don't like is a hoax!

      March 16, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
  12. Peaceful Hippie Chick

    OK... I've read enough... time to talk... Hello "commonsense" ... Have you read the Bible??? I don't mean bits and pieces, I mean the Bible, the ENTIRE Bible? Just like with any other book, sweetie, you have to read the entire thing to get the whole message before you can do your book report. Read Genesis 6:2-4... I will copy it here for you so you don't have to try to find it... Genesis 6:2-4 clearly states... and I quote... 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
    4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

    Notice it says... in very plain language... that the sons of God made children with the daughters of man. My dear, sweet, "commonsense"... does this or does this not confirm, using the Bible, that there were OTHER TYPES OF HUMAN-LIKE PEOPLES???? The Nephilm... the sons of God... and the daughters of man... are all in this tiny portion of the Bible. This is AT LEAST THREE different human-like peoples...

    March 16, 2012 at 9:53 am |
    • Peaceful Hippie Chick

      Anyway... this discovery actually confirms what the Bible says about the origins of modern day humans... so... I mean... why try to discount the discovery by siting the Bible... when the Bible supports the discovery???

      March 16, 2012 at 10:04 am |
      • Primewonk

        Your god claims he made Eve from a rib of Adam. This shows that your god was such a cra.ppy scientist that he didn't understand that this would have made Eve a genetic clone of Adam, with the same XY chromosome pattern instead of the XX pattern seen in females.

        Sorry.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:29 am |
      • Peaceful Hippie Chick

        @primewonk... Did you read what I said? Did I say that god made Eve from Adam's rib? Nope... didn't say that at all. I was actually telling "commonsense" that using the bible to say that the discovery is hokey when she obviously hasn't read the entire bible is just plain silly. Just as you not reading my entire posting and commenting about the rib thing is just plain silly. Peace and glitter to you...

        March 16, 2012 at 10:46 am |
    • FifthApe

      The bible also has talking snakes, humans living in *big* fish for 3 days, sun standing still – and don't get me started on the lack of morality displayed by the mythical god in his 'first' book.

      March 16, 2012 at 10:14 am |
      • Peaceful Hippie Chick

        @money number 5... I know, right? Living in the belly of a big fish for three days and then getting puked up onto the shore... ewwwww.... like that could happen...

        I was directing my comment about the three noted species of beings in the bible for dear "commonsense" who seems to like to talk about what the bible says when she/he/it does not really know what he/she/it is talking about.

        And yes... destroying entire cities... destroying everyone but a few chosen who got to hop on this huge boat... slaughters... etc. etc... It is very horrific...

        Then, of course... it gets a little sweeter with Jesus on board... but... then... people get ahold of the book and use it to oppress and manipulate... terrify and bribe... twist and turn...

        March 16, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • Peaceful Hippie Chick

      Also notice the statement... "My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

      Then... read on in your Bible... you will see that this is immediately followed by Noah and the flood. Noah took 120 years to build the ark... then... humans days were over. And that... my dear... was the end of those who were not the hybrid mixture of sons of God and daughters of humans.

      March 16, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      Wow. This whole discussion reminds me of the cartoon in which, in one panel a scientist says to a grad student "here are the data, go and see what conclusions can be drawn from them," and in another panel a creationist says "here are the conclusions (the Bible), go and see what facts can be drawn to support them."

      March 16, 2012 at 10:43 am |
      • Peaceful Hippie Chick

        @False Dichotomy... I know, right? Fun isn't it? I just think the little fella is so cute... look at those teary eyes... the freckles on his bald spot... pouty mouth... awww... I just want to hug him.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:48 am |
  13. iEvolved

    Would you rather believe a shepherd magician or a modern scientist? Bible is a history book with a religions interpretation.

    March 16, 2012 at 9:40 am |
  14. Bible Clown©

    I think it was Asimov who said you could shave a Neanderthal, put him in a suit, and let him walk down Broadway and nobody would look twice.

    March 16, 2012 at 8:41 am |
    • Peaceful Hippie Chick

      @Bible Clown... I would look twice... that's for shizzle... only because he is so darn adorable...

      March 16, 2012 at 8:44 am |
  15. Reza

    Darwin's theory tries to explain (at least partially) how life evolved. It not only doesn't contradict or exclude the possibility of existence of God but also very much supports it. Who did put those physical laws, and do keep them in place, base on which we build our theories? Certainly not physicists or biologists. All what we do is to try to understand and use them in our favor, like building an airplane, ship, computer etc. We should be humble by the fact that every day we discover how ignorant we were yesterday. May God make us understand.

    March 16, 2012 at 8:40 am |
    • Primewonk

      The theory of evolution, at it's most basic level, is simply a change in the frequency of alleles of a population of a species over time.

      Adding your god, or any god, to the mix does not add any additional descriptive power to the theory. It simply adds a layer of complexity that is not warranted or needed.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:07 am |
      • Reza

        I am a scientist and know how it works. Every theory relies on some assumptions or hypotheses. It tries, then, to produce some useful and practical explanations and predictions. You do not question those assumptions as long as you find no contradicts (with itself or the observations).

        Therefore, Darwin's theory like any other theory is not self-sufficient and needs those assumptions.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:27 am |
      • Primewonk

        " I am a scientist"

        If this was true, you would understand that science deals with the natural realm only. Any god, yours included, worth his or her salt, claims omnipotence and omniscience. This puts them in the supernatural realm. Once that happens, "god" is no longer falsifiiable. So science is moot on your god and all gods.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:37 am |
      • Reza

        I am not trying to prove existence of God neither you can disprove it. As you said and I agree fully, that is out of the scope of science. All what I say is that scientific theories are not self-sufficient as you try to portray them.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:20 am |
      • Dr.K.

        Reza, you are correct that no scientific theory is self-sufficient. They all are built upon and rely upon countless observations and principles acc.umulated throughout the history of research, and are all inter-related. That is one of the reasons it is so naive to think that biological evolution can just be dismissed and have everything else remain intact. If "Darwinian" evolution were fundamentally wrong, everything from genetics to geology as we know them would come tumbling down too.

        As others have pointed out, there is not a different "science" that makes your microwave oven work than makes radiometric dating work. They are based on the same theories and principles.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:26 am |
      • Reza

        If you understood me saying that science is wrong then please read my comments once more but carefully.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:38 am |
      • Primewonk

        Reza, the problem is you said, " It not only doesn't contradict or exclude the possibility of existence of God but also very much supports it. "

        You're claiming the evidence and facts we have to support evolution supports your version of a god. Facts and evidence from the natural realm cannot be used to support a supernatural deity.

        Plus, since you are a scientist, I wonder why you refer to this as "Darwin's theory"? The modern theory of evoultion is much more robust, much deeper, and much better supported than Darwin's 150 year old theory.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • FifthApe

      "May God make us understand."

      Which god would that be?

      March 16, 2012 at 10:16 am |
      • Reza

        The same God who created you and gave you the ability to think and the ability to pose this question. You may say you (universe) came out of nothing, or you created yourself. That wouldn't make sense to me since there is nothing (with absolutely no exception) in universe which can come out of nothing. Since the universe is of the same nature of its components, it could itself not have come out of nothing.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:27 am |
      • False Dichotomy

        Why is it assumed that the universe had to "come out of" something? That, I think, reflects a human bias toward needing things to have a beginning and an end like in a storybook. If people are so quick to propose and believe that "God" is eternal, why are they so quick to dismiss the possibility that matter (and anti-matter) are eternal? Why does something need to create the universe at all?

        March 16, 2012 at 10:55 am |
      • FifthApe

        Just what I figured – your god right.... The one you picked. How lucky for you. Not any of those *other* gods. Good thing for you that you were not born in the wrong country and indoctrinated into believing in the wrong god.

        And if you *are* a scientist you would know that our understanding stops at the big bang and we know nothing of what was before, what was there... everything breaks down at that point.

        And that also begs the question – Did your god come from nothing? You see its a problem of regression for you.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:59 am |
      • Primewonk

        @ Reza -Humans have created tens of thousands of gods over the past couple hundred thousand years. Your version was recently (6000 years) cobbled together fro mother minor deities worshiped by tribes in the area.

        All gods – at least those worth their salt – claim to have created the universe including humans. Your version is no more, nor no less, special than any of these other gods.

        For someone who claims to be a scientist, you seem to confound cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution. Every other scientist I know, understands that these are 3 separate distinct fields.

        As a scientist you also seem to not understand what the basic principals of the origin of the universe are. As a scientist, you also seem unfamiliar with the Casmir effect.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:40 am |
      • Reza

        Make an example that something came of nothing. It doesn't need to be even real. Then I would think about your claim that the universe came out of nothing.
        Yes, I cannot prove that universe came out of something. But my "belief" is at least not contradictory but your claims most probably is, since I have all the phenomena in universe as examples to support my belief and you have not a single one.
        Any way, we will all know the truth. Our lives are short enough (the fact we forget most of the times).

        March 16, 2012 at 11:50 am |
      • Reza

        @ Primewonk: The fact that there are many false gods invented by human (yours are science and scientists), it doesn't mean there is no true God. You talk so much but don't tell me much logically solid things.
        If you just heard those terms, I studied them and understood what their scopes of validity are.
        And reading the history of the science we will find a lot of instances where we thought we are right but soon it turned out that we were wrong. I have many examples to make.

        March 16, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
      • FifthApe

        Reza: Before Einstein we would have all said that if you push something even if its moving at the speed of light it would go faster. After all thats based on all observations. We know know that not to be the case. Similar to making claims about the big bang, a place where admittedly all known laws break down.

        And no, we won't know the truth after we are dead. We will be *dead*. A state similar to what you and I were in 200 yrs ago.

        March 16, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
      • FifthApe

        Reza said:

        "And reading the history of the science we will find a lot of instances where we thought we are right but soon it turned out that we were wrong. I have many examples to make."

        This is the very foundation of the strength of science! Its why it *works*. We continue to improve our understanding as new information and evidence comes in. Unlike bronze aged books written in the bronze age that contain so much that is clearly false.

        And you claim to be a scientist? I find that very hard to believe. All scientific understanding is only our best estimate at a point in time given the evidence. This is something any scientist would understand.

        March 16, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
      • False Dichotomy

        Reza: "Make an example that something came of nothing. It doesn't need to be even real."

        The Christian God. That sort of meets both criteria.

        (perhaps not, actually, because as Primewonk points out, the Christian God can be clearly traced to earlier ideas of gods. So, I guess I am referring to the Christian God as described by Christians)

        March 16, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
      • Reza

        @FifthApe: You don't want to understand my point. I can do nothing about it. But I repeat it for the last time:
        Science is a practical way to make our way one step further. It is used to make computer chips or jet engines or vaccines. And that is all for this short life. But I am not going to finish after death. You do, you like to believe. That is up to you.

        March 16, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
      • Reza

        @False Dichotomy: You cannot say Christian God is not true. Even if it is so, it came of Christians minds and imaginations (at least). It didn't come out of nothing.

        March 16, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
      • FifthApe

        Reza

        All you arguments to this point have been Deist in nature. You have all your work in front of you to claim the Christian god the true god. While I may not be able to say for sure if there is or is not a god (by definition), I can say with 100 % certainty that the Christian god is false. All one has to do is read the bible and ask: Is this the mind of a god that created 1×10^23 stars? And it approves of slavery and the killing of baby boys, talking snakes, virgin births etc etc. Come now. Grow up – at least take the Deist position. That at least can be defended as has some rational to it.

        March 16, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
      • FifthApe

        Reza

        "But I am not going to finish after death. "

        Behold the wishful thinking of a Christian. The prime motivation for humans to create gods – the fear of death. Some need adult security blankets – some do not.

        March 16, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
      • Reza

        You have all really skewed logic. Even if you know simple math you know that an equation has always infinite false (candidates for) solutions. But that doesn't mean that there is no right solution/s. If you say you will be dismissed right away if not laughed at. And yet you want to apply that ridiculously false logic to the most fundamental and important matter of human's life, which is existence or nonexistence of God.

        March 16, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
      • FifthApe

        Reza said:

        "You have all really skewed logic."

        This is the person that believes:

        The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

        March 16, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
      • False Dichotomy

        Reza, if you don't that believe God came out of nothing, where did God come from? Presuming you will say God is eternal, then: if things can be eternal why is it necessary to insist on a creator in the first place?

        March 16, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
      • FifthApe

        False Dichotomy – I could hear Carl Sagan's voice as I read your comments. 🙂

        March 16, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
      • False Dichotomy

        It wasn't on purpose, but I'm honored!

        March 16, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
  16. Peaceful Hippie Chick

    Awwwww... poor little guy... he looks like he's been crying.... Big hugs to you sweet prehistoric cave dude.

    March 16, 2012 at 8:22 am |
    • Peaceful Hippie Chick

      I want one for a pet. His cute little male pattern baldness temples loaded with freckles... his lobeless ears. I just want to hold him and pet him and kiss him and call his George...

      March 16, 2012 at 8:28 am |
      • Peaceful Hippie Chick

        I meant... call him George...

        March 16, 2012 at 8:29 am |
  17. Markos

    I can imagine the calibre of my dick if I was of this species! All the ladies would be lining up! I would be in Syria waiting for the downfall to get away with that rose in the desert.

    March 16, 2012 at 8:16 am |
    • Peaceful Hippie Chick

      @Markos... Can I call you George?

      March 16, 2012 at 8:34 am |
  18. musikpal

    Constructing a face out of fossils? That's very scientific. Before the artist and the evolution biologists start constructing the face and start drawing, they already know it has to look like a monkey. In science, what make an experiment invalid? BIAS.

    March 16, 2012 at 8:11 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      Did I mention that it kills me how people with absolutely no background feel like they are qualified to dismiss decades of intensive scientific research as if they know better? Ridiculous.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:27 am |
    • FifthApe

      Actually missing persons cases have shown just how close they can get.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:33 am |
    • Peaceful Hippie Chick

      @musikpal... But awww... they made him so cute! Receding hairline... freckles on his bald spots... teary eyes... don't you just want to hug him??

      March 16, 2012 at 8:36 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      You don't really seem qualified to criticize paleontological procedures to me. Do you understand that they are finding points on the skull where muscles anchored, and using that to reconstruct the shape of the flesh? There was a movie called GORKY PARK where this was central to the plot; they can make a good approximation of a face from a dry skull.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:44 am |
  19. WASP

    @godfrey: dude you totally stole all the fun on this blog. i was enjoying myself now i have to go to the belief blog to find people to help me pass time at work. lol

    March 16, 2012 at 8:07 am |
    • Peaceful Hippie Chick

      @WASP... I'm having fun... why aren't you having fun? Having fun is a choice... just think of sunshine and wildflowers... the scent of honeysuckle drifting through the air... making clover necklaces... see... happy now, right?

      March 16, 2012 at 8:54 am |
  20. False Dichotomy

    It's interesting to me how many people who choose names like "common sense" seem to be compensating for a lack of actual knowledge. By implying that common sense is somehow superior to knowledge they are propping up their lack of the latter. Cars don't drive and microwave ovens don't work on principles of common sense.

    March 16, 2012 at 8:04 am |
  21. dave

    people the word 'theory' in science is not the same as the word theory in common usage. A theory in common practice is a mere hypothesis or opinion.. a theory in science is a hypothesis accepted by the scientific community because it has been tested and peer reviewed

    March 16, 2012 at 7:55 am |
    • musikpal

      It has been tested but has not yet passed that's why it remains a theory and not a law because there are rooms for it still to be disproved. Just recently the limit of the speed of light have been broken by two different labs.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:20 am |
      • FifthApe

        musikpal – please complete your high school science levels before posting. I took courses in Atomic Theory.... we make computers, power and bombs based on Atomic Theory not Atomic Law. Get it....

        March 16, 2012 at 8:35 am |
      • FifthApe

        Oh... and try and keep up. The results with the neutrinos looked shaky from the start and now looks like experimental error. Further event if is did... so what. Thats the power of science. Continuing to correct itself and give us better and better approximations of our place in the universe.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:37 am |
      • Peaceful Hippie Chick

        @musikpal... You mean light has a speed limit??? For real??? Wow...

        March 16, 2012 at 8:38 am |
      • Bible Clown©

        "It has been tested but has not yet passed that's why it remains a theory and not a law" A Bill to make it an official Law hasn't passed the Science Congress yet? Science Senators and Science Congressmen are arguing bitterly over it? The Science President will sign it into law?

        March 16, 2012 at 8:48 am |
      • Bible Clown©

        ' the limit of the speed of light have been broken by two different labs' You actually believe that? Look it up.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:49 am |
      • Primewonk

        In the hierarchy of science NOTHING is higher than a theory. Theories exist to explain sets of facts and laws. In science a law is often expressed as a mathematical construct.

        For instance Newton's law of gravitational attraction is expressed as F=G(m1*m2)/r*r This lets you calculate the force of attraction between 2 objects with mass at a distance. However, this law does absolutely nothing to explain how mass attracts mass. For that you need the theory of gravity.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:58 am |
      • musikpal

        @fifthApe, as usual....a cheap shot from evolotionist. If as u said u've taken Quantum Mechanics then u should know why they called it Atomic Theory, because there were still a lot of unknown and it's a process,a development and collections of experiments. In my opinion this subject will remain a theory because things of subatomic particles will be endlessly unfold as we get smaller and it's infinite as it gets smaller just as it's infinite as it gets bigger on the large scale. We'll just keep naming a new theory from Atomic to String and to.......

        March 16, 2012 at 9:35 am |
      • Primewonk

        musikpal – A theory can be proposed. A theory can be confirmed, A theory can be modified. A theory can be falsified. That's it. Unless it's been falsified, a theory will always be a theory.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:42 am |
      • musikpal

        @FifthApe
        "Oh... and try and keep up. The results with the neutrinos looked shaky from the start and now looks like experimental error. Further event if is did... so what. Thats the power of science. Continuing to correct itself and give us better and better approximations of our place in the universe"

        You sounded just like the people who rejected Quantum Mechanics when it was 1st introduced. What is light? It's just packages of photons. Photons is just "a thing". Could it be possible that another thing might be able to travel faster than a thing? Very possible. May be it's just that we haven't had the tool to discover it. Watch out a biggest cover up or a conspiracy in the history of science may be about to happen so that theory of evolution will remained disproved.

        March 16, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
      • musikpal

        Of course GMm/r^2 explain summarize it all and it in itself explain the gravitational force. And I wouldn't call it a theory no matter what they say, IT IS ONE OF THE LAW THAT GOVERN THIS UNIVERSE.

        March 16, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
      • Primewonk

        Musikpal – Newton's law doesn't do anything except let you calculate a number. Tell us, why does mass attract mass? Why is the mechanisms by which this happens? How does gravity work.

        March 16, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
      • FifthApe

        musikpal – Data just in today. "European researchers said Friday they have measured the speed of neutrinos and found the subatomic particles don't travel faster than light after all, refuting another team's measurements that prompted widespread disbelief among scientists last year."

        Evolution – conspiracy – dis proven? LOL. Its the ONLY theory that explains the diversity of life that fits with all the evidence we see and gets stronger as the years pass, Off answers in genesis with you – that must be where you get your science from.

        March 16, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
  22. commonsense

    how do you know that it's not a sick person or ape with an anatomically deformed head? or a sterile -one time produce- of two different species? I need real proof like i know dinasors existed because there are thousands of fossils. Why not thousands of fossils of human primates? Because there aren't and have never been any! evolution is a "theory" not "law". A theory might or might not be proven true one day...

    March 16, 2012 at 7:48 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      Um, except there ARE thousands of fossils of human ancestors. Just because you are ignorant of them doesn't mean they don't exist. In addition, dinosaurs existed for almost 200 million years while the hominid line has only existed for about 7 million years, so of course there are more dinosaur fossils.

      It kills me how people with absolutely no background feel like they are qualified to dismiss decades of intensive scientific research as if they know better. Ridiculous.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:58 am |
      • musikpal

        I think most people let me use your word "ignorantly" approved and believed what the so called scientists claimed whether it be 200 millions or 7 millions years. If one hasn't done an experiment and perform the calculations ie. on carbon dating the fossil by himself(or at least know how exactly carbon dating works), it would be ignorant to just believe the millions of years claim since those claimed numbers are not like the science of everyday life (In every day life science, we don't need to perform experiments by ourselves to believe them because we know they work, for ex, we believe electromagnetic force exists because we can wash dishes, burn fuel, or eat food so we chose to believe those credible scientists' explanation).

        March 16, 2012 at 9:06 am |
      • False Dichotomy

        Since you don't know that carbon dating cannot be used to date a fossil and cannot be used to date anything over 50,000 years old, I don't think you can claim much of an expert opinion here. The term "ignorant" continues to apply just fine.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:07 am |
      • FifthApe

        "carbon dating the fossil"

        Huh??? Bzzt wrong. Total fail there musikpal. You could not be more wrong, but that's what you get when your read creationist web sites and think its science.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:25 am |
      • U B Misguided

        "Just because you are ignorant of them doesn't mean they don't exist."

        Just because you're ignorant of GOD doesn't mean GOD doesn't exist"

        And how do you claim to know that there are several thousand "gods", how do you overlook that 10 people can see the same event and recant 10 different versions of that event?

        Can you not see that perhaps, ALL "gods" are perhaps referring to the same 1 true GOD or Creator? I'm not talking about the god of cheese, or god of hair length, something used by ignorance in order to explain how cheese is made or how one's hair grows, those are along the same lines as the football gods, or bowling gods that may or may not be pleased with you depending on your scores that night. I'm talking about the real GOD, the one that put everything in motion and created everything you are trying to understand. If GOD has to dumb down his communication with us (referring to your narrow mindedness of take scripture out of context), it would equate to me speaking phonically or with syllables, and using facial expression to an infant, since the infant cannot fully grasp what I am saying to it – we are an infant race in the grand scheme of things, could you ever hope to explain all the inner workings of a jet aircraft to a newborn, or even a 2 year old? If you need to make yourself feel better by trying to look smart, then just say so, the rest of us can/would overlook your arrogance and tolerate your behavior, but don't throw your tantrum and tell me that a system based on correcting itself over time whenever a new "aha" moment is reached, is the end all answer for all things.

        March 19, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
    • FifthApe

      "evolution is a "theory" not "law"" - Yet another high school drop out that does not know how the term theory is used in science. Hint: Theory is as good as it gets.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:39 am |
      • musikpal

        I didn't major in science til college and finally I've found one excellent reason for skipping it in junior n high school all together. I get to skip the (political) science that you went through and cut straight to the core science. Think for your self not what they define for you, "A law is a law that every one must obey, no exception, as long as the universe is still around". And whoever will call whatever a theory ,I don't care and I don't have to obey if it doesn't agree with the experiences I've had and learned on this earth n this universe. No politic of science brain washed me what science I have to believe. By the way, I was exposed to evolution(in 3rd grade) b4 I was exposed to God n the monkeys couldn't convince me that they were my great great grand father.

        March 16, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
      • Primewonk

        Musikpal wrote, " I didn't major in science til college and finally I've found one excellent reason for skipping it in junior n high school all together. I get to skip the (political) science that you went through and cut straight to the core science."

        I'm going to go out on a limb here and call BULLSHlT. Anyone who would major in science in college would understand the scientific definitions of law and theory.

        March 16, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
      • FifthApe

        "I don't care and I don't have to obey if it doesn't agree with the experiences I've had and learned on this earth n this universe. No politic of science brain washed me what science I have to believe. By the way, I was exposed to evolution(in 3rd grade) b4 I was exposed to God n the monkeys couldn't convince me that they were my great great grand father."

        This can stand on its own as an incoherent ramble from an obvious scientific illiterate who thinks carbon dating could be used on this find, yet claims scientific literacy. Who confuses laws, math and theory over and over showing he does not even understand the basics.

        March 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • Primewonk

      commonsence wrote, " evolution is a "theory" not "law". A theory might or might not be proven true one day..."

      I always wonder why people who choose to be purposefully ignorant about science show up on these threads and demonstrate that ignorance.

      Your problem is that you do not even understand the basic definitions used in science. You don't understand the basics of the scientific method.

      In science we don't prove things, we explain things. Proofs are for maths and ethanol. Theories never get promoted to fact or law. In science, a law is a mathematical construct that allows you to calculate a value. Theories exist to explain sets of laws and facts.

      This is all information you should have learned in Junior high.

      Instead, folks like you choose to get your "sciency" sounding information from folks like "Pastor Dave" instead of valid science sources. The problem is that "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as his minions.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:51 am |
  23. CommonSense

    In the beginning, God created the Heaven and Earth. Nature didn't create itself.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:39 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      Thanks, Common Sense, that explains it! That is indeed some common sense – another example of common sense is that the sun rises and sets every day ... only it doesn't. The earth revolves once every day. So much for the infallibility common sense – you might actually have to resort to thinking critically at some point.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:51 am |
    • Primewonk

      The problem is that your god totally mucked it up. He got the entire order of creation wrong.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:38 am |
    • FifthApe

      Which god would that be? Right.... yours – how did I know the answer to that one! LOL

      March 16, 2012 at 8:40 am |
    • Peaceful Hippie Chick

      @CommonSense... Actually... in the beginning was the Word... and the Word was with God... and the Word was God. You need to read the entire book... not just the first few pages...

      March 16, 2012 at 8:59 am |
      • FifthApe

        Sorry, but its quite clear that Zeus is the creator of all we see.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:36 am |
      • Primewonk

        Sorry FifthApe, but your boy Zeus is a pretender god. Im know that AMMA is the real god.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • intothemoonbeam

      @commonsense just a tip you should read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and "The Universe in a Nutshell" rather than the bible. It will open your eyes. I was once like you until I actually started to read Non-Fiction books on Science and the Universe.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:37 am |
  24. angel611

    Anyone else notice they almays make these people black?
    He could just as easily been yellow or white.
    I guess it is in insult to make the fake monkey man anything other than black.
    And yes, he does look just like GW Bush.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:28 am |
    • Thenextstep

      I don't mean any ugliness or meaness to my comment here, but I've only seen the smushed in nose lookl on blacks around here. I live in Alabama.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:33 am |
      • Dr.K.

        Ugh, you may not intend any offense, but that's offensive.

        btw, the shorter, wider nose is also an original human trait – longer, narrower noses are another recent, northern lat.itude development though it is not entirely clear why. In the course of human evolution you and I with our light skin and narrow noses are the unusual-looking ones.

        March 16, 2012 at 7:41 am |
    • Dr.K.

      I think they are going on probability. It actually is not just as likely that it would be "white" or "yellow." Dark skin is the orig.inal and thus "normal" human skin. DNA indicates that lighter skin colors are recent evolutionary developments that result from adapting to more northern lat.itudes, where lighter skin allows for greater vitamin D absorption in less direct sunlight.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:35 am |
      • Peaceful Hippie Chick

        @Dr.K. Why do you assume that the poster has light skin and a skinny nose?

        March 16, 2012 at 8:50 am |
      • Dr.K.

        It was admittedly an inference. I have spent time in Alabama and know that caucasions often refer to African Americans as the "blacks." I have not heard African Americans use the term that way. But perhaps I was mistaken.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:15 am |
  25. teremist

    I am very curious about this find. I don't think we will ever have all the pieces to the human puzzle, but it is fascinating.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:27 am |
  26. olitwist

    Well, it is pretty obvious they are not Chineese Han, they look more like the Tibetan or MOngol race. But. leave it to the Chinese communist party top make it up.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:26 am |
  27. Thenextstep

    This depics half the people I see walking arond here in the south. Pretty neat stuff.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:19 am |
    • Peaceful Hippie Chick

      @Thenextstep... He's cute... ain't he???

      March 16, 2012 at 9:04 am |
  28. K7

    Several factors need to be considered here:

    I don’t believe that this finding has anything to do with my origins. However it may explain the ancestry of Wisconsinites because they still eat deer.

    A likely reason for the demise of the RD people is that their cooking utensils were made of fire hardened clay, which scraped the Teflon off their frying pans making it impossible for them to prepare proper nutrition. Had they used wooden petro-chemical based utensils they would probably still be with us.

    It should also be noted that these findings were in a socialist country which give credence to the theory that socio-economic stagnation leads to the dying off of entire species.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:15 am |
  29. reason

    It is interesting how after reading religious scripture you get the impression God created one human species in one day a few thousand years ago. Yet through science we know there have been dozens of human species that evolved over millions of years.

    If religious scripture is the word of an all knowing god why does religion perfectly reflect the incredibly narrow views and limited knowledge of a stone-age society?

    March 16, 2012 at 7:12 am |
    • FifthApe

      For the very same reason this god did not know that marsupials I suspect! When god is man made its limited to what man knew at that time. There is nothing in the bible that could not have been written by a human who thought the wheelbarrow was emerging technology.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:43 am |
  30. Kyle H. Davis

    Well, if there are Chinese scientists involved, there is going to be only one outcome to their investigation: It is a different "Species" and China is now the center of creation and the world. (It's pretty much indoctrinated into them anyway)

    March 16, 2012 at 7:11 am |
  31. beernsmokes

    I'd like to meet his barber....Nice do.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:06 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      "I'd like to meet his barber." Maybe he's the original Werewolf of London?

      March 16, 2012 at 11:47 am |
  32. unowhoitsme

    We ALL have different skeletons and outside features; that's what makes us unique. Giving our ancestors the "caveman look" with animal features and instincts is a joke. Why human beings have been classified as "animals" is beyond logic. Human beings are more destructive and never rely on instinct.

    March 16, 2012 at 6:58 am |
  33. greg

    I find it absolutely amazing that some here continue to cling to the bible as if it is anything but a very good collection of fairy stories. How can some americans achieve so much, but others be so backward?

    March 16, 2012 at 6:34 am |
  34. m

    What is interesting in this would be that it appears to be a unique sub-species, perhaps some cross between modern man and maybe Neanderthal. The fact that there is little (too this point) evidence of early man in Asia may be due to climatic issues during those time periods. There is still nwo and probably was then significant enough land or ice bridges to cross from east Africa into all of the continents at one point in time. Though Australia and the Pacific rim islands are the most curious in terms of mans habitation.

    Today we have different and unique versions of mankind all over the planet yet we all share common DNA from a "root species". It will be interesting to find out what makes this verson of man different from those found to this point.

    March 16, 2012 at 6:23 am |
  35. Joe

    What is so special about this, Its just another picture of Uncle Tom!

    March 16, 2012 at 6:10 am |
  36. mommaearth

    Probably alot smarter than present day man,at least they didn't F up the enviroment.

    March 16, 2012 at 6:01 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      lol true enough.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:03 am |
  37. canchi034

    That guy in the picture, I want to know who his stylist is.

    March 16, 2012 at 6:00 am |
    • mommaearth

      He must own one of those cordless trimmers

      March 16, 2012 at 6:11 am |
  38. Leif

    Why doesn't CNN have a section devoted to science? Tech is the closest it comes to. Does anyone at CNN have a pair?

    March 16, 2012 at 5:46 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      i feel sad when i click on BBC and see that they DO have a section devoted to science.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:48 am |
      • Leif

        You and me both.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:50 am |
    • FifthApe

      You have to go to the BBC for real science – especially origins and cosmology. Sad but true.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:44 am |
  39. YCF

    Yet another proof that the Bible is completely wrong.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:16 am |
    • Leif

      Amen.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:49 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      Doesn't really prove anything. Saying everything in the Bible is literally true is indefensible, but we already know humans have changed over time. They could have been created by God. left behind by a flying saucer, mutated by a solar flare, or 'jes growed,' and they'd have been right where we found them. The lack of a chin point may mean they were our cousins instead of our ancestors, but they probably loved their families, made tools, and mourned their dead. They probably looked up at the stars and wondered, just like any other people. But they may not have been able to speak or sign, and so they weren't quite 'us' yet.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:53 am |
  40. Bootyfunk

    science rocks.

    we have found many species of human. i'm a very "spiritual" atheist. i know a lot of atheists hate when atheists use those terms. but what i mean is how profoundly connected we are with the world around us. science shows that we share most of our DNA with chimps. amazing. DNA shows that we are all truly brothers and sisters, descended from a common ancestor in africa. if we want to find out who we are, we won't find the answers in a dusty old book written in the iron age when people thought the world was flat. true spirituality is not found in a church. true spirituality is understanding how we are part of this universe. elements in our body, iron for instance, can only be made in the death throws of a giant star, much bigger than ours. we truly are made of star dust. that is a fact. that is provable. facts like that mean more to me than anything in the bible, are much more humbling, and help us find out who we are and where we came from.

    go science!

    March 16, 2012 at 5:10 am |
    • FifthApe

      I am as well. When you know enough about our true place in the universe, it is very spiritual indeed, and makes the 'burning' bush etc look just plain silly.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:46 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      I'd expect God to be more like His appearances in Stephen King books; words heard in a dream, a sudden hunch or lucky accident. Apparently our remote ancestors learned almost overnight to use the thighbone of an antelope as a baseball bat; they went from leopard food to Leopard Slayers in weeks. The fossils change from ape and antelope bones to leopard and antelope bones. What put that club in the ape's hand and told him 'Strike hard or die?" A sudden hunch? A lucky accident? A dream?

      March 16, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
  41. molly

    Whenever they want to draw a "human ancester" from a human skull, they add a bunch of hair, push the lips and jaw forward and make him purse them funny, raise the ears higher on the head, add a bunch of wrinkles around the eyes, and make the whites of the eyes brownish. Then we look at it and think, why yes, that really is a primitive, ape-like man.

    When they have an ape skull and want it to be a "human ancester, they do the opposite: make the eyes white rather than brown, add visible pupils, draw it with a relaxed mouth and jaw, have the head balanced over the neck, lower the ears and change their shape, take away much of the hair, etc. It's all entirely up to the artist and his agenda whether the finished product is an image of a human who looks no odder than any other human on the planet today, or a mishmash of ape features and human features supposedly not quite human yet. It's amazing what you can do with a set of bones and some paint and canvas.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:05 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      christians sure hate facts. read the opening paragraph of any high school science text book. congratulations, you have now obtained more useful knowledge than if you had read the whole bible, which christians almost never do. take an anthropology class. the world is not 6000 years old.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:13 am |
    • m

      It's called facial reconstruction, go to any police crime lab to find out how SCIENCE works. As for the eyes, etc since the skeletal remains are a match for human traits, that denotes specific DNA characteristics such as eye format and pigmentation. Again, it's real science that never shows up in your book of fairytales.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:46 am |
      • commonsense

        how on earth do they know about primate traits? is there such a thing?

        March 16, 2012 at 7:54 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      Jeez, what a dope. They've been doing this since the 70s. They take the skull from a known person, reconstruct it, and see how close to the photos the reconstruction is. They've tuned it until they can reconstruct murder victims from old rotten skulls, so it's no big deal to reconstruct unknowns like this.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:17 am |
1 2 3

Contributors

  • Elizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer