Homo Sapien Sapiens- Where Did We-Vibram-kso trek

Homo Sapien Sapiens: Where Did We Originate?
The beginning of Homo sapien sapiens (Let's just cry them sapiens) is shrouded in secret. Estimates alter between,0 the authorities anywhere from 100,000 to a million years ago. Trying to trace modern humans behind to Homo erectus is as laborious to file as it was usual neanderthal.
Human or human-like creatures may have been approximately as a very long time. In Ethiopia, a stone tool dated 2.5 million years ago was recently uncovered. That is the oldest tool ever found by a half million years. Who made it? Whatever it was, it wasn't an Australopithecus. Don Johanson, the paleontologist who discovered Lucy, believes that there is no testify any australopithecus created a stone tool.
Robustus remains a potentiality exception. But we can beautiful much rule out robustus. The tool proceeded that species by a half million years. Moreover, the only "tools" anybody has ever honored to robustus were made of bone - not stone.
Johanson thinks the only thing that could have made that tool was a human. But thas yets a problem. The premier estimates anyone has ever given for both Homo habilis and Homo erectus is two million years ago. And neanderthal was a couple of million years too late to manufacture that tool. Consequently, the 2.5 million year old Ethiopian tool remains one of many unsolved archeology mysteries.
Many fossil remains from Africa, Asia, and Europe appointment from 100,000 to 500,000 years ago. Collectively they are called "archaic" Homo sapiens. Archaic is a roomy classification. We see a lot of variety. Some of these fossils reveal erectus characteristics, but have larger brains or show other differences in size or shape of the skull.
The experts are divided on how we ought view these fossils. Some believe these "archaics" may have been one or more separate species. Others say that these early sapiens were no more unlike than people are today. After all, modern humans vary widely in size and shape: dark, white, tall, short, portly, slender, big nose, small nose, etc. That degree of variation is seldom found in other species.
Nevertheless, when sapiens emerge on the scene, they show more peculiarities in general,0 with every,0 other than with any other category or sub category in the district,0. That suggests namely a single ancestral population with modern features scatter out rapidly along Africa, Asia, and Europe. Anthropologists deem these extensive modern human specifics indicate a recent common origin.
What are sapiens' differentiating traits? A high rounded cranium with a large brain cavity averaging around 1400 cubic centimeters, small teeth, distinct bony chin, and a relatively slender body. The most striking characteristic of a modern human skeleton is the brain cavity.
At birth a baby's brain is only one-third the size of a mature adult brain. The brain more than doubles in weight during the first year. Starting day one with a fourteen ounce brain, a normal baby will grow to a thirty-five ounce brain by its first birthday. By 6 or seven, modern humans reach their mature level with a forty-five ounce brain.
On the other hand, both apes and apes are restricted to mature brains no more than double the size of what they had at birth. Chimpanzees, case in point, begin with seven ounces and mature with fourteen. It is thought that erectus too started with seven ounces emerge from, yet additional eighteen more in the at first,0 year and another seven ahead approaching manhood. The fully mature Homo erectus brain weighed in at thirty-two ounces.
Although the human brain weighs a mere three pounds, proportionally that's five times larger than the mammal average, given our body heaviness. Homo erectus' brain was three times the average thinking its body size.
The oldest archaic sapien fossil is a skull from Java dated 700,000 years ago. The face protrudes forward and has affirmed ridges over its eye sockets. The cranial vault is long, low, and broad at the bottom of the skull. It was similar to what we found in Homo erectus.
In Zambia, Africa, a Homo sapien skull shows a large face and dense brow ridges. Paleontologists muse it could be 300,five fingers vibram sale,000 years old. Some have suggested it could be a form between erectus and sapien.
Yet another skull comes from Dali in northern China. This one is dated between 180,000 and 230,000 years old. Johanson says it shows "a lot of primitive features including an exceptionally large brow ridge, thick cranial bone, and a long low cranium similar to Homo erectus. Its brain size lies between that of erectus and modern humans.
Two more China skulls called Maba and Dali are archaic Homo sapiens. Researchers date them very roughly between 100,000 and 200,000 year old.
A cranium found in a cave in Morocco, Africa, the so called "Jebel Irhoud 1" has been difficult to date. But it's believed to be in the vicinity of 100,000 to 200,000 years old. While the brow ridges are ponderous, the fashion of the face and cranium is modern. It reveals a short smooth face. Compared to neanderthal, the nostril was short and the impudence region relatively hollow.
Still another skull, this one from Omo-Kibish in southern Ethiopia, has an precarious age but may be 130,000 years old. They call it "Omo 1." Again, Johanson is our source of message for this fossil. He tells us that much of the back of the skull and some of the sides are present. Its parietal bones are intact. The mandible has a another chin, and the cheek bones meet the face at a right angle just like they do in modern humans.
The brow ridges taper at the sides as it does in Jebel Irhoud 1. Omo 1 possessed a short, broad face which is far more modern with its high forehead and long bent sides than the much later neanderthal.
At the southern tip of Africa, about 400 miles eastern of Cape Town, archeologists discovered the Klasies River Mouth cave. Here they found human fossils, stone tools, and animal bones. Among the artifacts were many leaf-shaped, pointed stone flakes and scrapers.
Those are the sort of tools archeologists classify as Middle Stone Age technology, a period usually associated with neanderthal from roughly 40,000 to 180,000 years ago. But these fossils show modern features - not neanderthal.
The fossils are in bits and pieces. Found were several shreds of lower mouth, one upper jaw, a number of prejudiced skulls, teeth, and 4 cranial bones. Johanson says the lower jaw is approximately identical apt modern human's. It has a light create, small teeth, and most premonitory of all -- a chin. Neanderthals did no have a bony chin, neither did Homo erectus. What's more, we find no bony ridges over their eye sockets. That means these bones definitely didn't belong apt a neanderthal.
Furthermore, it didn't belong to any of the other archaic Homo sapien groups in Africa either. These fossils may be 100,000 years old. They were modern humans, living in South Africa during the same period neanderthal lived in Europe and western Asia. And they had the same technology as neanderthal.
Apparently humans, who looked very much like us today, lived in this cave somewhere between 75,000 to 115,000 years ago. Investigators demand these folk hunted large and small game.
At approximately the same date, 100,000 years ago in Java, we find more fossils at Ngandong located six miles north of Trinil, the so called "Solo fossils." Unearthed were several skulls, skull fragments, and a couple of lower limbs. Unfortunately, no face was present. Its features approximated Homo erectus, but its brains were larger.
We have moved from Africa to Java; immediately it's on to France. In 1947, a couple of fossils was discovered in the Fontechevard cave in France. Their features were modern. Excavators found these partial skulls under a membrane of undisturbed stalagmite. From this we understand latter,0 burial was impossible. The were dated by 100,000 year old.
Remains of modern human burials were located in two Israel caves, Qafzeh and Skhul. Fifteen individuals dated around 90,000 years old - maybe as old as 100,000, possibly as recent as 80,000 years ago - were uncovered in these caves. Johanson says, "Their mandible have a distinct chin, their faces are short and broad, and the back of their craniums absence the distinctive occipital bun" which identifies neanderthals.
They look very much like their contemporaries found in far off Klasies River cave in South Africa. Ninety-thousand years ago we already see Homo sapiens from both South Africa and the Near East who bear a emphatic modern likeness to humans today.
From Australia we find Mongo III, an almost complete male skeleton, who was buried in a flexed (knees bent) position between 28,000 and 32,000 years ago in what is now New South Wales. It was alike to early burials catching place in Europe during the same period.
The bones were pink from ocher spread over the burial. The fossil was mighty, but Johanson believes he was not quite as robust as the mean masculine Aborigine of today.
About the same time, 30,000 years ago, Cro-Magnon was living in France. In the town of Les Eyzies, skeletons of three males,discount fivefinger shoes, a female, and an neonate were discovered by with reindeer and giant bones. These people were modern in each adore.
Back to Australia, at Lake Mungo over 100 partial skeletons have been found. Researchers rebuilt a petticoat and nicknamed her Mungo I. She lived 25,000 years ago and had been cremated.
In China, two skulls were discovered dating 25,000 year old. They are modern.
Sometimes paleontologists are wondered at the tangles and corners in the fossil log. That fine looking modern skull turns out to be very old; conversely, primitive fossils on occasion are of recent vintage. Examples of the former are discerned in the 90,000 year old modern groups found in Israel and South Africa.
Kow Swamp serves as a prime sample of the latter. Forty individuals, some decorated with shells and beads, were buried attach at Kow Swamp, south of Lake Mungo. They show robust skulls with large faces and teeth. Above their eye sockets were dense ridges across flat foreheads.
Researchers began to speculate that they had discovered the missing correlate between erectus and sapiens. These primitive-looking archaic types just might be the straight descendents of Homo erectus. The surprise came when the fossils were dated. They were merely 9,000 to 15,000 years old.
Amazing! The primitive-looking Kow Swamp people were half as old as the much more gracile Mungo fossils which clearly belonged to modern humans. Such contradictions are not uncommon in the fossil record.
As the Qafzeh and Klasies River Mouth sites show, Homo sapiens already had their distinctive physical features at fewest by 90,000 years ago. They reveal high rounded craniums, small teeth, bony chins, and slender gracile bodies. Physically they were human. But what about culturally?
Culturally, they were at the same Middle Stone Age level as neanderthal. And they remained at that level. Erectus, you may recall, kept the same stone technology for one to two million years. No innovations, no alterations, no real variation from area to place. Experts answer his competence to speak based to a large degree above his prolonged stagnate culture.
Neanderthal was around for 100,000 years just about. His Middle Stone Age technology was certainly more cultivated than erectus' tools. All the same, neanderthal, like erectus before him, failed to cultivate as time went on. Again, we suspect something about neanderthal is not quite human; otherwise we would anticipate progress.
Next we find Homo sapiens. Some look archaic; others appear physically very modern. Still, no cultural progress. Once more, we are forced to conclude that they are not quite human both, even now they look the portion. That decisive bit of creative talent, that decisive spark that makes humans human was as absent in sapiens as it had been in erectus and neanderthal. Sapiens, like neanderthal, appears to have come into this world with Middle Stone Age abilities, and there they lingered.
Creative Revolution
There they stayed until 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. Then something happened. Something became sapien action so dramatically, we know we are viewing people as human as ourselves. In his book, Ancestors, Don Johanson tells us that revolutionary new ideas exploded across the Old World.
We see a greater variety of stone tools including specialized utensils for different tasks. Styles start changing over time and from place to place. New stone implements appear: flint leaf-shaped points, projectile points, scrapers, and harpoon heads.
Moreover, we find grave merchandise, communal graves, ocher making, and rocks covering graves to prohibit scavengers. Yes, neanderthal buried their dead too, but sapiens added etiquette to the burial.
At the same time, we find the first archeological evidence of symbolic art. Modern sapiens began to demonstrate their capability and appetite fhardly evermething beyond their daytime to day needs. Prehistoric art appeared in caves in 3 continents: Europe, Africa, and Australia. Evidently, the artwork arose independently some 40,000 years ago.
Neither neanderthal neither archaic Homo sapiens left any engraving or painting. Only modern sapiens left artwork. This human revolution is called the Upper Paleolithic in Europe and the Late Stone Age in Africa.
Symbolic art naturally implies a oral language. Anthropologists believe that art, language, and human self-perception all occurred 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. That would explain why so little progress had been make before that phase, and so much has been effected since.
You might wonder how do the naturalists and the religious side view this "human revolution." All the naturalists can say is: "Some nucleotide in a sapien's brain must have mutated which left him -- different." That mutation must have been a lucky one, for it took a dimly reasoning creature who couldn't find his way out of Middle Stone Age technology and turned him into a reasoning, meditative, creative dynamo who found his way to the moon and back.
Those on the religious side respond: "The one who made the macrocosm and created life above this planet gave male a spark of his own creative cause,0. That is what Genesis means when it says, 'He made them in his above picture.' This divine spark is the individual conscience. Therein lies our feeling, our cause,0, our ingenuity, our uniqueness, and our immortality. That is what sets modern Homo sapiens besides,0 all additional organisms quondam and present."
Two Premises
How did mankind evolve? You find as many opinions on this subject as you find paleontologists. That is no surprise. The track of clues is constantly no more than a few flakes of stone and broken beast bones. Maybe a vaguely human type of jaw or perhaps just a tooth is found among other bones.

Little wonder investigators come up with warmhearted different interpretations. The major problem remains the pitifully small number of hominid fossils.
All too often, the specialists make up for scanty and vague evidence with assumption. Presumption becomes intertwined with meager evidence, and it is all presented as facts. About the only object authorities in this field can agree on is that "evolution is a truth." Ask them how it happened, and they immediately began to dispute among themselves.
What do we really know approximately the ancestry of man? An honest reply,0 is -- very little. A wide variety of human-like forms, to one degree or variant have lived on earth during the final two million years. By all accounts, some were contemporaries of early humans, others might have proceeded humans. It is difficult to say since,0 we really don't know when Homo sapiens began.
Going back into time, we escape into fossil later fossil which may be a human variation, but then again, perhaps they were someone else. Certainly the authorities don't coincide. The bits of bone and stone they uncover explain little and conceal much.
As for which fossil begat which, there are no surviving eyewitnesses, there are no written records, DNA tests are not possible. The only thing left is methodology and speculation.
In his writing, The Making of Mankind, paleontologist Richard Leakey quotes David Pilbeam's candid assessment of the fossil record: "If you brought in a natty scientist from another exercise and showed him the meager evidence we've got he'd surely say, 'Forget it; there isn't enough to work on.' . . . we remain fully aware of the perils of painting conclusions from evidence that is so incomplete," cautions Leakey himself.
If such majestic anthropologists are "fully conscious" of their "poor" and "lacking" fossil evidence, why do they turn right around and say emphatically, "the fossil record assists evolution"? Here's the straight forward unvarnished truth: The fossil record is too "lacking," too "lacking," and too "inadequate" to testify either evolution or creation.
That is the fact. But you won't arrest anthropologists saying it. To comprehend their location, you absence to look at it from their point of sight,0.
The authorities in this field start with two premises. The first is that anything can be unraveled by normal forces of one type or another. And the second premise is that mutations and normal selection have no natural boundaries. Given ample time and the proper circumstances a single-celled organism be able to,0 mutate and natural select its course into an elephant or man. If you approve both of these premises, then you accept evolution.
Evolution is a given. The only reason for consulting paleontology, archaeology, or anthropology is to see how life evolved, not whether. As for those millions of years between major types of hominids, no problem. Future investigations will surely fill in the gaps, they believe.
Anthropology field and lab go continues to churn out new information. Anthropologists, keeping abreast of the latest evolutions, occasionally update their views on what proceeded man. And due to the sketchy nature of the evidence, they will persist to disagree among themselves about our ancestors. However, they mingle in saying we evolved. Certainly. That was an unquestioned speculation from the start. And so it has remained. Anthropology had naught to do with it.
Question to Consider: Is human evolution -- science? or a faith-based set of faiths?
Five finger shoes is still known around the world as the undisputed leader in soling technology for a wide range of quality performance footwear products. Vibram manufactures more than 34 million soles annually for more than 1,000 premium footwear brands worldwide. The Birkin bag is a handmade purse by Hermes and named after actress and singer Jane Birkin. The bags are distributed to Hermès boutiques on unpredictable schedules and in limited quantities, creating scarcity and, intended or unintended, exclusivity. http://www.hermesforsales.com. Vibram S.p.A. is an Italian company based in Albizzate that both manufactures and licenses the production of Vibram-branded rubber outsoles for footwear. www.vibramsbuy.com These soles were first used on mountaineering boots.www.vibramsbuy.com
MBT (Masai Barefoot Technology) was born in 1996 when we discovered that natural instability can have positive effects on the human body. We made this discovery by observing the wonderfully agile Masai people walking barefoot on natural, uneven ground. Seeing these people in action made us realize that the human body is simply not designed to walk or stand on the hard, flat surfaces of modern society. mbt shoes So we set out to develop a new kind of footwear, one that would mimic walking on soft, uneven ground. Tod's shoes Group is an Italian company which produces shoes and other leather goods, and is presided over by businessman Diego Della Valle. It is most famous for its driving shoes.


How Near Find Someone Using Their Cell Phone Number_2122-Vibram-mbt lami sale

Nike Fall 2008 Preview - Sneaker Files_5380-Vibram-hermes bolide 27

Air Jordan 2009 (2K9) 8211; All Star-Vibram-mbt mo