Page 3 of 10
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:15 am
by Beagle
http://www.china.org.cn/e-gudai/1.htm
Most of the palaeoanthropologists of China do not agree with this. The large amount of palaeoanthropological fossils found in China suggest that Yuanmou Man of 1.7 million years ago, New Cave Man of 100,000 years ago, Upper Cave Man of 18,000 years ago and Jalai Nur Man of 10,000 years ago all had high cheekbones, flat nose bridges and spade-shaped upper front teeth, which are all characteristics of modern man in China, indicating genetic stability and evolutionary continuity. In particular, the span of 330,000 years from Peking Man, to New Cave Man and Upper Cave Man, who all made their home in the Zhoukoudian area, effectively testifies to the fact that the yellow race evolved from a local ape.
Backed by solid proof, almost all of China's palaeoanthropologists support the theory of "regional evolution" of the origin of man.
Chinese scientists support multi-regionalism. Supposedly, Peking Mans' cranial structures display characteristics of Asian moderns, much as Europeans have characteristics of Neandertal man.
Peking Mans' bones are now missing, but there are casts and molds.
I would disagree entirely that the Asian race evolved from a regional ape.
That's not my view of multi-regionalism.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:47 am
by Digit
I would accept it as a possibilty but for the fact that Chinese and Occidentals can produce viable offspring Beag. A common ancestor (Erectus?) would be a more logical, ie non political, ancestor.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:39 pm
by Forum Monk
There may be some agenda on the part of government officials to legitimzie their claim of soveriegnty over certain disputed territories. For this reason, I tend to look at many of these historical and archaeological claims from China with skepticism.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:00 pm
by Digit
My point exactly Monk, I'll buy the common ancestor, but is there any evidense for a primate in that region at the time?
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:05 pm
by Beagle
Centric views, it seems will be with us always. It's good to be skeptical.
HN was Out of Africa in the form of H. Ergaster. The rest of the worls seems to be from H. Erectus. Both very closely related.
I think we're all children of Lucy but we left Africa a couple of million ya.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:06 pm
by Minimalist
Forum Monk wrote:There may be some agenda on the part of government officials to legitimzie their claim of soveriegnty over certain disputed territories. For this reason, I tend to look at many of these historical and archaeological claims from China with skepticism.
They feel the same way about the West.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:24 pm
by ravenwing5910
Digit wrote:My point exactly Monk, I'll buy the common ancestor, but is there any evidense for a primate in that region at the time?
ok, I have a really, really dumb question. Aren't there primates in South America? if so when did they get there? and Why is it impossible that hss could have evolved independently in SA since during pangea (sp) Sa and Africa were connected right so wouldn't the ingredients be basically the same? (told you it was a dumb question, so no laughing at the newby ok)
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:32 pm
by Beagle
It's not dumb. Scientists have asked the same question and can't figure it out. All they know is that New World monkeys split from their African counterpart 13 million years ago. The continents were already separated then.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:33 pm
by ravenwing5910
then how did the monkeys get to SA? swim?
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:36 pm
by Beagle
I don't know.
Some scientists have speculated that they floated over on debris. The continents were a little closer together then.
Bottom line is they don't know.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:43 pm
by ravenwing5910
seems to me that if "they" don't know, then they should accept that perhaps their hypothesis is wrong. perhaps those monkeys split much earlier than "they" think, or evolved independently. And if one primate evolved here then why not us? I would also like to say that the DNA evidence doesn't answer all, there has been too much travel and mixing prior to the development of DNA testing that field is too new to be difinitive.(just my opinion)
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:53 pm
by Digit
The relationship RW between the two groups is not close, so the separation must have occured a long time ago, one estimate is 30million years.
This is one of the bigger mysteries because the chances of a number of animals capable of breeding with each other surviving an ocean crossing, or a gravid female surviving, is extremly remote.
The problem is any alternatives are even more remote!
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 2:10 pm
by Minimalist
evolved independently in SA since during pangea
The Fundies (well...maybe not all of them but Arch) thinks Pangea is a plot to discredit the bible.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 2:14 pm
by Digit
Just ran an animation on the break up of the continents RW, and despite the apparent distance between the old and new world it isn't very large 30 million or so years ago, that is, if you travel via antarctica.
The currect range of new world monkeys is further north than their old world counterparts, but a crossing then via antarctica is more feasible than straight across.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 2:48 pm
by ravenwing5910
Dig, how do you run an animation? are you one of those computer guys? is it something on the web that anyone can access? I would like to see it if I can?