Comprehensive coverage

Researchers from Tel Aviv University have solved the mystery of the appearance of early modern man in Israel - as early as 400,000 years ago

The researchers: Dietary changes that occurred in our region led to the disappearance of "Homo erectus" and the appearance of the modern man who was more agile and had more skills and abilities

Prof. Avi Gopher. Photo: Magic Cave Excavation Project
Prof. Avi Gopher. Photo: Magic Cave Excavation Project

Researchers from Tel Aviv University offer for the first time a reconstruction of the circumstances that led to the disappearance of Homo erectus, the ancestor of modern man, and the appearance of modern man in our region about 400,000 years ago. Homo erectus appeared in Africa a little less than two million years ago. It is characterized by a massive and relatively heavy body, a skull with thick eyebrow ridges and a brain volume of about 900 cc. Modern man (the common name for Homo sapiens) is a descendant of Homo erectus and is characterized by a lighter body, better movement ability and a larger brain volume, of about 1,300 cc.

The researchers who surprised when they reported about a year ago about the presence of evidence of the existence of modern man at the site of the Magic Cave near Rosh Ha'Ein already 400,00 years ago, while until then evidence of the existence of modern man was found about 200,000 years ago in Africa, now offer an explanation for the circumstances that led to the development of the new species in our area and precisely 400,000 years ago. Their article on the subject was published last Friday (9.12) in the scientific journal Plos One.

"It's all a matter of nutrition," explain the researchers from Tel Aviv University: Dr. Ran Barkai, Prof. Avi Gofar and Miki Ben Dor from the Department of Archaeology, as well as Prof. Israel Hershkowitz from the Department of Anatomy and Anthropology, in an article that challenges what is known about the diet of prehistoric man and the reasons that led to the changes biological and cultural during the evolution of the human species

The disappearance of elephants preceded the appearance of modern man
The researchers point out that elephant bones with signs indicating that elephants were eaten by Homo erectus have been found in many of the sites of the illusory culture (the culture attributed to Homo erectus) around the world and in Israel. On the other hand, in the Levant (Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and parts of today's Turkey) no remains of elephants have been found in the sites of cultures later than the Ashlite, starting from 400,000 years ago. The findings of animal bones from the Ashli ​​site at Gesher Benot Ya'akov (which are close to 800 thousand years old), show that elephants were a very important animal in the economy of Homo erectus and provided him with about 60% of the total calories from animals. From this it was clear that the disappearance of the elephant - a huge animal whose caloric value is equal to that of dozens of donkeys, for example - placed a huge burden on Homo erectus who had to hunt a larger number of smaller and more agile animals to compensate for the lack of meat and fat. The researchers point out that at the same time as the disappearance of elephants, modern man appeared for the first time.

The researchers found that the elephants also disappeared in Africa, along with the illusory culture, and that there, too, the disappearance of the elephants from the sites preceded the appearance of modern man. The main difference was that there the process took place 150,000 years later than in Israel. The researchers concluded from this that there should be a connection between the disappearance of elephants and the appearance of modern man both in our region and in Africa - something that has not been suggested so far.

Hunting small animals and social skills
In an attempt to deeply understand the impact that the disappearance of elephants had on Homo erectus from the aspects of caloric consumption and nutrients, the researchers built a computational bioenergetic model of human nutrition. One of the important conclusions drawn from the model was that Homo erectus depended on a significant amount of animal fat for its existence; It is known that man is physiologically limited in the amount of protein that the liver can process into energy and in the amount of plant food (uncooked) that he can digest per day. Hence, Homo erectus had to supplement his diet by consuming a significant amount of fat.

In Israel for very long periods of time, from close to a million and a half years before our time to about 400 thousand years before our time, man put emphasis on hunting large animals rich in fat. The elephant was the most prominent among these animals.
Understanding the dependence of Homo erectus on animal fat illuminates another dimension of the evolutionary deprivation caused by the disappearance of elephants: the elephant not only has a relatively high amount of fat compared to small animals (as a general rule, the larger the animal, the higher the relative amount of fat in the body) but, unlike smaller animals, it does not Loses almost fat in dry seasons.

The researchers point out that the life of Homo erectus in the Levant in the summer seasons after the disappearance of the elephants must have been unbearably difficult. The dry plant landscape, in addition to the protein consumption subject to a physiological limitation, meant that in order to obtain the fat that was previously provided by the elephants, Homo erectus had to hunt a large number of smaller and more agile animals, whose fat gradually runs out throughout the summer. Hunting smaller animals also required him to expend more energy to obtain the same amounts of meat and fat.

Indeed, an examination of the anatomical, morphological and cultural changes that modern man has undergone, indicates an adaptation to hunting of small and agile animals. The larger brain volume of the modern man, compared to Homo Ecratus, allowed him to locate, track and hunt animals more efficiently, especially the animals with a high fat content, as shown by the findings of the animal bones in Kesem Cave. His large brain also enabled the development of social and technological skills, with which he was able to hunt and consume a greater number of small animals, for example, group hunting, cooperative food sharing, fire control and the production of innovative stone tools. Physical changes that characterized modern man, such as lower weight and relative lengthening of movement organs contributed to improving his agility and reducing the energy cost of his movement in the field.

Evidence of new behaviors indicating higher cognitive and social skills compared to Homo erectus, found in Merat Kesem has been previously published.

The researchers further point out that the article they published on the subject, in addition to being the first to offer reasons for the appearance of Homo Sapiens in our region, also challenges the paradigm of "coming out of Africa", which dominated the study of the evolution of Homo Sapiens for many years, according to which Homo Sapiens originated in Africa. In recent years this paradigm has been shaken by new discoveries from Europe, China and elsewhere as well as by advances in the theory and methodology of physical anthropology. These are now setting the stage for a new understanding of the human story in general and the emergence of modern man in particular.
The researchers are currently expanding their research in an attempt to reconstruct the causes of additional phenomena in human evolution with the help of the bioenergetic model they developed in this study.

49 תגובות

  1. The owners of the theory say "it's all a matter of nutrition", and base the theory on a series of unfounded assumptions.
    "Elephants were a very important animal in the economy of Homo erectus and provided him with about 60% of the total calories from animals." This claim is based on the fossil findings at the sites of Arctus. If they ate birds, eggs, fish, sea animals ("fruits"), tiny rodents, snakes and other small reptiles, and insects, all of which are common in human menus today, the chance that they will leave fossils is very small. What's more, not all food is eaten at the permanent sites.
    How capable were the ancient hominids of hunting elephants? It is a huge animal that lives in groups, and it takes many people to attack it. Some Eractos groups were large with tens and over a hundred people. What did all those Eractus groups equipped with wooden spears with stone tips, whose number did not exceed ten fifteen souls, how did they hunt elephants?
    This is a claim that has a shaky foundation.
    Another key assumption is that Eractus needed large amounts of fat that only elephants could provide. I guess every healthy vegetarian is laughing. When we observe the lives of primitive people whose economy is like that of the Stone Age, in the forests of Brazil and Papua New Guinea, we do not see - on the one hand - eating elephants or other high-fat animals, and on the other hand we do not see vigorous physical and intellectual activity that requires a large amount of fat. What motivates the researchers and us following them to accept the claim that a lot of fat was necessary for the survival of Eractus?
    This claim is no less shaky than the first.
    The main assumption of the authors of the article is that in the Kesem Cave near Rosh Ha'Ain, the remains of Spines were found about 400 thousand years old. This hypothesis is based on a study whose results were published in an announcement by Tel Aviv University
    which is based on the following article:

    In this article, ancient teeth found in the aforementioned cave were described and one of them, which was at most 300 years old, prompted the researchers to say "we believe" that it belongs to Homo sapiens. Equally important researchers, such as Professor Yoel Reck from Tel Aviv University, rejected this claim, and he says that it is a Neanderthal tooth.
    And so it turns out that this claim is also completely unsettled.
    The researchers calculate the amounts of fat and protein in elephants and other large animals, the ability to digest and process the proteins and fats of modern and ancient man, and these calculations give an impressive scientific touch to their claims. They rely, among other things, on an article that made a lot of noise in human research, by Wheeler and Aiello, in which the two claim that the conversion of energy consumption from the digestive system to the brain caused the main change that led to the appearance of Homo sapiens, the growth of the brain from about 900 grams in Homo erectus, to about 1300 grams in Spines, thanks to the cooking of the meat. However, Wheeler and Aiello's hypothesis (Wheeler, Aiello 1995) suffers from many weaknesses. One is that they cannot show a necessary biological connection between the reduction of the intestines and the growth of the brain, and the other is that they cannot use this theory to explain why the brain of the early hominids grew more than twice - before cooking began. In fact, the current article does not actually explain anything in this direction either.

    The main criticism of the hypothesis of the article we are discussing is that they do not even hint at the development of vocal communication, speech and language that took place during the evolution of Homo erectus into Homo sapiens. And it must be remembered that the evolution of speech and language was the main factor in the evolution of the human lineage, and to a large extent it influenced all the features of his structure and all his behaviors, including his hunting and cooking activities.

  2. And one more thing (for the still skeptic):
    The whole system of terminology you use shows that you fundamentally do not understand the processes of evolution and natural selection: creatures do not "decide to change", they have no "reason to change" and evolution does not "choose". The processes occur independently, without a guiding hand. The creatures simply live their lives and the natural interactions between them and their environment give rise to the results we call the results of evolution.

  3. still skeptical,
    'There is no preference for one or another variation' is really not the same as 'adapted to the static environment as much as possible'! And also to a layman (and not the Diyots) it shouldn't look like that. Creatures survive in different environments even without being maximally adapted (there is no such thing!) but they survive because they are relatively adapted, and this does not have to be the case all the time (but it is enough that this situation exists part of the time). Think how many times a predator tries his luck until he succeeds? Survival is also relative, and not always successful. The thing that determines survival is - whether the occurrence of a mutation (or a certain allele) has an advantage in a certain niche. And in order for this advantage to become a characteristic of a certain population, it should only be expressed in the ability to produce more offspring (a cancer that appears after offspring are produced continues to appear throughout the generations because it does not affect the production of offspring even though it affects the survival of the individual). In addition to this, in order for a certain trait to become dominant in a certain population, it should bring benefit under conditions of survival pressure (then the change is also rapid in evolutionary terms) and it must in most cases already be present in the gene pool (as a result of some random mutation that occurred before), if not Yes, the aforementioned group of creatures will probably become extinct, because there is no ready answer in its gene pool and there is no time to wait for such a mutation to appear randomly.

  4. Well, student, Technion:
    Do you see what one careless reaction can do?
    Every liar who reads it finds in it an opportunity to rear its ugly head.

  5. Technion student
    I know there are nice articles and censorship of comments.
    We all know this and know the (ugly) game. That's what there is.

  6. Still skeptical:
    I didn't read what my father said, but the claim you made on his behalf is not accurate (whether he claimed it or not).
    "The static environment" is a somewhat artificial concept because there are mutations that allow (or encourage) their subjects - to simply move to another environment or take advantage of another niche in the world.
    Even in a "static environment" mutations sometimes also create an opportunity to compete better in that environment (of course the penetration of this type of mutation already changes the environment because now it has more successful competitors).
    In any case - the mutations do not occur "by order" but as a result of coincidences which are sometimes discounted and usually not.
    I don't know what you were trying to show in your words, but if it somehow leads you to the conclusion that there is no evolution, then you are clearly wrong.

  7. Student, Technion:
    Your response was published because it did not contain a word that was entered into the automated system as a word suspected of characterizing irrelevant responses.
    The automatic system is not affected by the consideration of what we will respond to and what we will not.
    We have a way to respond to an unpublished comment. In your other comment from today you can see an example of using this way.
    If your response had been filtered by the automatic system, I would have probably responded to it in the same way, but since it was released for public viewing, I had to also write my response to it in this context.
    I had to - because I really think it would have been better if he had been blocked and I would have replied only to you and avoided the personal charges that arise in an argument in front of many viewers.
    There are no changing criteria.
    What does happen is that sometimes suspicious words are subtracted from the database that determines what will be delayed until a manual check and what will not.
    Yes - there is also the removal of words from the database because sometimes a certain word characterizes irrelevant reactions of a specific commenter and he finds the word from the database to stop his troubles.

  8. To Michael,
    Obviously if I write a comment with a complaint and you publish it, the comment will contain the complaint. If the comment was not published you would have nothing to comment on.

    Anyway, you are right - my previous protest was incorrect and I take it back. I will only state that my impression (emphasis: my impression) is that the published comments are according to your time-changing definition of what is allowed and what is not allowed to comment.

  9. still skeptical,

    It's not accurate. If the population is small, there may be stochastic changes that do not depend on adaptation to environmental conditions. This process is called genetic drift.

  10. Well then, let's cut it short.
    My father said that if there are no changes in the food or the environment or the predators there is no reason to change because there is no preference for one or the other variation. which is exactly the same as saying that they are adapted to the static environment in a maximal way or does it just look like that to the echoes?

  11. Still skeptical:
    I don't have the strength to read more of your scroll, but I read the beginning of this response:
    You ask there "Have you ever seen a pantheon who has the knowledge and courage to argue publicly and on an atheist website for 467 comments against educated people who think exactly the opposite of him?"
    Well - I saw and saw.
    In fact, this is exactly the most discouraging feature of all these pans.
    They specialize in wars of attrition.
    It's easy for them because it's much easier to write nonsense than to write sensible things.
    All that is needed is to anesthetize the intellectual honesty and lose the shame.

  12. Student, Technion:
    How do you explain that your (false) response was not blocked?
    The word "garbage" does appear in it.
    What you say is simply not true and it is not at all clear to me what you are basing it on.
    Can you explain?

  13. to the on-duty skeptic,
    So that's it, he doesn't have the knowledge, at most you can say that he has persistence in distorting the principles of evolution so that it looks to the layman as if he really understands evolution,
    And as for the courage, courage has nothing to do with the matter, there are models who have the courage to appear on television and say that "a chicken is a bird and a cow is an animal", so what? Does that make it a matter of taste to you?

  14. still skeptical,
    In the response of the priest Strambo there are several fundamental errors as you find in the responses of religious people (but not only with them). These errors have made you and probably other "skeptics" think that there is a problem with evolution instead of understanding that the problem is learning something from someone who does not understand the subject well. I, for example, do not understand astrology that much, so you will never find me teaching anyone the subject. If someone nevertheless asks me to teach him something about astrology, I make it clear to him that it is better for him to go learn it from a qualified source because I am not one. When the priest strambo pretends to understand evolution (and to his credit it can be said that in the first sentences he even manages not to make any mistakes at all) but he later presents such fundamental errors then he acts dishonestly and thus harms the innocent who all they wanted was to understand something. The funny thing about the whole thing is that you yourself seem to have realized that this site is not brilliant to say the least, so why are you abusing yourself and "learning" from there?

    Beyond that, in the past I have already come across the website "Nesma Yehudit" and I disagree with the other commenters who credited that website with epithets such as "garbage". Garbage can be reused, it can be used as fertilizer (organic garbage) or the materials can be recycled (for example paper or glass and sometimes even plastic), on the other hand the website in question not only contributes nothing to the understanding of issues related to science (and in my opinion also other issues, because every discussion In every subject it must be based at least on sound logic and even this minimum does not exist there) rather it harms the chance of those who have already converted/degraded them to religion in the past to be able to see something that is not based on lies and distortions.

    And regarding your original response (which doesn't exactly fit this article, but apparently the skepticism really burns in your bones...)

    You write that "it is simply impossible or at least illogical"
    Wait, decide, impossible? Or doesn't make sense? It's really not the same thing... If it's impossible, you must be basing it on something, right? And it will surprise me a lot because as someone who knows a little about the subject of evolution, then there is nothing like that, but maybe you will update me, who knows?
    If it just doesn't make sense, well, what do you expect? You went to learn from someone who doesn't understand the subject and he mixed some correct things with some nonsense and now suddenly it seems to you that there is something illogical? Not only is it very logical that it will seem illogical to you after the "explanations" you received, it is even expected. And as a matter of fact, you wrote: "species that have not changed at all"
    really? Didn't change at all? Not anatomically, not physiologically, not behaviorally, not even genetically? And all this from a comparison between fossils and an animal that exists today? Are you sure? Could it be that the original claim in the matter, that of the scientists and not of those who feed on pans, regarding the relationship between those fossils and the animals living today is different from what you wrote?

    If you were complete and honest, you would just ask the question you don't understand. When the first sentence you write is: "I wandered around the Internet and found another reason to doubt the correctness of evolution"
    So it is quite clear that not only do you not understand anything about evolution, but you also have no interest in understanding anything about it. The rest of your responses and your sources did wonders to illustrate this. So if understanding evolution doesn't interest you, why are you bothering here? Wouldn't it be better for you to go back to roaming the internet and find more "reasons" to doubt the correctness of evolution? Although this way you won't learn anything about evolution (that of science and not the scarecrow invented by the creationists), but you are guaranteed to find a common language there with many commenters.
    If you were complete and honest, you would refer to the answers that they bothered to give you here and not avoid making false accusations as if others blew up the discussion. It actually seems to me that you are the one trying to get away after you failed.

  15. Have you ever seen a rabbi who has the knowledge and courage to argue publicly and on an atheist website for 467 comments against educated people who think exactly the opposite of him?

    Bottom line, he answered you. If you don't feel like going in and reading then I'll just copy and paste one last time.

    1. Are you claiming that I committed a scarecrow fallacy? hmm let's see:
    You claimed:
    "There is only a partial relationship between the rate of mutations, which is constant, and the rate of change, which can be fast or slow, depending on the circumstances. If the environment has not changed, no predators have been added, or there has been no change in the food, there is no particular reason to change because there is no preference for a different variation."
    The conditions you give to a situation where there is no reason to change, even though the rate of mutations is constant and can create mutations for selection at any given moment, are a maximum adaptation to the static environment.
    "I never claimed that he fits his environment perfectly"
    I never claimed that you claim this, but this is definitely the situation where you claim that natural selection will not determine the versions that are created, and therefore I said that in order for such an argument to be valid, it is necessary to accept an assumption - which is hidden between your lines - that the situation at the moment is that the force cannot fit more , because it is already perfectly adapted, and therefore it has not undergone any evolution, therefore, I have given examples that will show that it can adapt to its contemporary environment much more than it is currently adapted...
    So unless you've heard the term straw man somewhere and it rings a bell, I really don't understand how you came to this delusional conclusion. Of course, you may have simply committed a diversionary fallacy to try to get me to attack the current trend instead of focusing on your original argument, and its absurd implications.
    2. That's not what I said (straw man did you say?) I said that his vision could be more adapted than it is now...for example, the shark's night vision is based solely on the white light, of course it can be improved and more adapted, and also open up possibilities of hunting at night (sharks Near cities, they began to take advantage of human city lights to hunt at night, which proves that if they could, they would do it, therefore, his vision can be more suitable)
    "You can think of a lot of changes it went through and you can't see just based on fossils."
    So why is there no speciation observed in the existing populations?
    3. "Evolution has no direction"
    Making claims that you have no ability to back up is pointless.
    "Haven't you heard of endangered species?"
    Yes, because their environment has changed.. where is the natural selection? Why are they not adapted to the new environment that humanity has created?
    "Does the fact that something can be improved necessitate the development of improvement in evolution?"
    You can't say that on the one hand the species are created because of improvements, and on the other hand, they don't happen, even when there are opportunities. As if, of course you can say, but this is a contradiction.
    For the purpose of the discussion, I was prepared to accept claims such as "it happens very slowly" as a reasonable possibility for why species do not change even when there are opportunities, but if that is the case then why do we see in the finding of fossils high taxonomic levels that appear in layers without any precedent to be reached?
    I was ready for the purpose of the discussion to accept a claim like "it happens very quickly" as a reasonable possibility why we don't see a change in the fossil record, but then you get stuck again if the mere fact that many species have many options to adapt more, and yet it doesn't happen, even for a very long time ….
    But to say "it happens and it doesn't happen" is trying to eat the cake and leave it doesn't make sense. Either it exists, or it doesn't. You can't have both.
    An interesting argument could be "maybe we are wrong about the rate of mutations", but this would already contradict all genetics as we know it...
    "How come we don't know how to fly yet?"
    As a paraphrase of my streamlining suggestions to recommend?
    Assuming - that the Darwinian theory faithfully reflects reality - for the purpose of the discussion:
    Why would we have wings? We are TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN
    Wings will not benefit any item's survival any more than it would without wings. Wings will just waste energy.
    This argument could make sense - if we were debating Lamarck's theory, where desire can somehow have an effect. Indeed, quite a few people want wings, CAUSE ITS AWESOME, but why would a blind selection mechanism care what we think is cool? The theory holds that the reason for the selection of mutations is because they are beneficial to the survival of the individual who, thanks to the selected mutation, is better suited to the environment and gets to reproduce and spread the allele that contains the mutation to the rest of the future population of the species. Not because it is cool.

  16. Adiyo Skeptic, you can, like another commenter, doubt that the earth revolves around the sun. Unfortunately, because of people like you, the scientific nomenclature should be changed and the term evolution fact should be used instead of evolution theory.
    The article may seem smart to you, but the facts written in it (one example - the determination of the age of the creatures) were mediated (in-XNUMX- not in-XNUMX) by mahbatim, therefore the connection between them and the scientific fact is strictly coincidental.

  17. I agree that the creator of the website is not a very smart guy, but the same guy "as a henist commando" who wrote the article certainly knows what he is talking about, the fact is that he answered your claims very well.

    Why am I not a skeptic? I didn't "choose a side" at any point in the discussion, but I just communicated between the 2 sides (it was clear to me that you wouldn't want to come in, read what he wrote and respond directly to his words) and use the discussion to better understand the issue and draw conclusions.

    But, of course you have to blow up the discussion (how expected) and avoid an answer.

  18. If you were to go to his website, which is an ultra-orthodox propaganda website that tries to be clever in order to prove that the science is wrong - by the way, things that have been disproved a long time ago, but the pans keep bringing them up in the hope that people don't know the truth.
    This is indeed a junk site. There is no other definition. I agree with Michael, he didn't call him trash personally but for the written things he brings and indeed you are welcome to enter by yourself and prove yourself.

  19. ^
    The fact that you allow yourself to use words like garbage, but when others use such words their response is blocked, is extremely disturbing.

  20. Thanks for sparing us from displaying this garbage here.
    Too bad you pretend to be a skeptic.

  21. Still a "skeptic":
    You said you would be accused of dishonesty.
    You knew you weren't honest but in my previous response I pretty much held back and didn't say it blatantly.
    So now says: "You are a liar!"

    Do you have to agree with me on the assumption that the state in which the species currently finds itself corresponds to its environment in a way that cannot be improved?
    How do you "have to agree with me" on something I never claimed?
    After all, this is nonsense of the first order! Haven't you heard of endangered species?
    Does the fact that something can be improved necessitate the development of improvement in evolution?
    How come we don't know how to fly yet?
    I would never make such a stupid claim but you put words in my mouth because the words in my mouth you cannot attack.
    By the way - I'm interested in what you know about the type of vision of sharks, say, only 100 thousand years ago.
    You claim that their vision has not improved.
    I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm interested in what you're not basing it on.
    I stopped reading your words because there are serious and honest people who are much more interesting to talk to.

  22. Still skeptical
    There is an answer for anyone who asks questions that complicate the theory of evolution so you have to have a Nobel prize for evolution to be taken seriously here.
    The main thing is not to despair.

  23. Luck is also a Darwinian process.

    Apart from the fact that evolution has no direction, there are animals that become more sophisticated and there are those that in order to survive give up traits (andRoey Tsezana recently mentioned in one of the articles the fish and reptiles that moved to underground caves and lost their sight).
    Evolution cannot invent things from nothing, but rely on what the creature inherited from its ancestors and make better use of it, that's why the white bald head didn't evolve anymore. Because it is a directionless process the result is that not everyone is perfectly adapted but as much as possible. We would expect from a developed creative process that it would bring perfect results, without unnecessary organs (each organ means an expenditure of energy), but also without the ability to adapt to changes.

  24. Actually Michael, the opposite is true.
    I am a victim of evolutionist propaganda and lately many doubts have begun to arise in me.

    In order for your claim to be correct, I would have to agree with you on the assumption that the situation in which the species is currently found is compatible with its environment in a way that cannot be improved... this is an unlikely assumption... Since the white bald eagle (in the case you referred to) is a predator, can't it have better vision? Can't he develop sharper senses? Can certain limb configurations no longer fit? Couldn't more defenses have been created against other sharks during the maturation stages? Couldn't a very simple protection be created from at least one of its main predators, the orca whale, which all you have to do is hit it, and grab it upside down, so that it doesn't resist anymore and it can eat it without any interruptions while it's still alive? (Many sharks faint as soon as they capsize) Something observed in nature, a mutation, or a series of mutations that will cause the shark to remain alert is beneficial to the survival of the individuals that contain it.
    In short, we can think of many "improvements" that could adapt it more to the static environment that currently exists. So why assume that if the environment is static, it will require it to remain as it is?

    In addition to that, even if we assume that your assumption is correct (and I don't see any reasonable reason why to accept it, to be honest) you are also wrong in assuming that the environment has remained static, in the last 16 million years, the earth, at least according to the geological findings, has changed a lot ...prehistoric sharks such as the Megalodon, from the same family as the Amlatz according to morphological signs, and who lived in the period and in areas parallel to the White Bald, became extinct during this period...which included changes in the temperature of the oceans, and drops in sea level.
    In short... he had every reason to undergo evolution by natural selection... if it does exist, and yet, it didn't happen.
    Also, there are examples of animals that have not changed for a much longer period of time such as the Coelacanth which dates back (according to fossils) to 360 million years old.

    In fact, most of the extinctions did not result from proposed Darwinian processes, and most of the survivors survived solely by luck... For more information on this concept, see, for example, paleontologist Dr. David Raup's book EXTINCTION: BAD GENES OR BAD LUCK

  25. Still skeptical:
    We are all always sceptical, but you don't seem like a skeptic at all to me. You are simply looking for reasons to justify your long-standing belief that you decided to believe in despite all the evidence against it.
    There is nothing in evolution that requires the development of new species just to dispel your skepticism.
    There are various reasons for the development of new species and this is not one of them.
    The development of new species does not require the extinction of the species from which they evolved.
    It may be that new species evolved from the white amlatz and it may not, but even if new species evolved from it this does not necessarily mean its extinction.
    Extinction can only occur if the new species competes for the same niche with an old species, destroys its habitat or preys on it.
    The development of the pen did not destroy the pencil.

    But it's clear to me that I'm wasting my time and you won't be convinced.
    After all, in order to use the shaky argument you brought, you need an uncompromising motivation and a wonderful ability to ignore the facts.
    Among the facts you ignore is, among other things, the fact described in the following article:

    Benjamin May:
    I also would not know how to analyze the structure of the teeth and I have never seen the teeth in question.
    All in all, I turned to Yoel Perk, who is a world-renowned expert in paleontology, and asked him what he thought about the research.

  26. Michael

    On the existence of the ancient Homo sapiens (according to the plates
    the times of the present study), who lived in those areas
    On the island where Neadrethals lived - I read many years ago.

    But everything else (regarding the teeth, who exactly ate which elephant..)
    Above my information.

    I agree with you that the haste is from the devil - and probably this study
    It is not yet ripe for us to recognize the conclusions arising from it as facts.

  27. As someone already explained, there is only a partial connection between the rate of mutations, which is constant, and the rate of change, which can be fast or slow, depending on the circumstances. If the environment has not changed, no predators have been added, or there has been no change in the food, there is no particular reason to change because there is no preference for a different variation.

  28. I wandered around the Internet and found another reason to doubt the correctness of evolution:
    Species that have not changed at all for millions of years, such as the white eel, the sphenodon, and more.
    It is simply impossible or at least illogical that for millions of years natural selection has not been able to find any improvement out of the multitudes of mutations that occur all the time.
    I would be very happy to receive a reasonable answer (of course after you accuse me of dishonesty, etc.), the main thing is to have a satisfactory answer at the end.

  29. Benjamin:
    I pointed out another weak point which in my opinion is no less important.
    In my previous response I provided it as a link to the response I gave in a previous article in the series.
    Now I will quote it in the body of my response.

    The response was this:

    It seems to me that haste is from the devil.
    I spoke with Yoel only from Tel Aviv University and he completely rejects the conclusions of the initial research.
    According to him, the structure of the teeth indicates that it is not Homo Sapiens at all, but Neanderthals or some species in their branch after they split from the branch that developed into Homo Sapiens.

  30. Michael Rothschild pointed out the weak point in the study
    The new one: it allegedly contradicts DNA tests. Yet
    It should be remembered that there were two types of Homo sapiens,
    The "primitive" type Homo sapiens idaltu (four hundred
    one thousand years to one hundred and sixty thousand years before our time)
    and the "new" Homo sapiens sapiens (since
    Until today).

    According to the timelines of the study, it is clear that Homo sapiens
    That the current research is talking about is the ancient one, it may have been
    Return to Africa of at least one of the species - which confused
    the researchers in both studies, or intermediate species were found.

  31. It is just as important that they also solve the riddle of how he survived here to this day.
    (I met a few today).

  32. Asaf:
    Shamefully - they are talking about Homo Sapiens.
    After all, it is 400 thousand years as a surprising find compared to the known 200 thousand years, while it is known that the Neanderthal man lived already 350-600 thousand years ago in Europe.

    Shamefully because, as many of the previous commenters pointed out - the theory is full of holes.

    Did modern man migrate to Africa?
    How is it that Africa has the greatest genetic diversity (by far!) of modern man?

    Besides, you are welcome to read my response in the previous article in the series:

  33. Anyone who has something against evolution or all kinds of questions
    It is recommended to read the book: "The Greatest Show in the World" by Richard Dawkins.

  34. And there is also a third possibility - that evolution is not true at all.

    According to evolution, certain species of lizards, short-range birds and a type of monkey have had to cross entire oceans. how? For those asking for solutions...

  35. First of all, it is important that researchers clarify who they are talking about as "modern man",
    Homo sapiens Neanderthal? Homo spins spins? Or maybe a third species that has not yet been defined?
    The link between the development of "modern man" and the disappearance of elephants in Africa 150 thousand years ago...
    Misleading and misleading because the sentence - "Researchers found that the elephants also disappeared in Africa",
    It is simply not true, the elephants in Africa did not disappear, they exist and exist to this day,
    It is possible that the reference is to a different species of elephants?
    I have not seen the original article but according to what is written here it is a collection of assumptions
    which are based on a collection of other assumptions that have no factual basis.

  36. The Bible explains everything: the modern man from the cave of magic is the biblical man, who came here after being expelled from Eden. Since he is Jewish, of course he did not eat elephant meat.

  37. The ideas of the researchers are very interesting and seem possible - and they are both innovative and not yet established (and not "highly complex"), so it is probably still too early to discuss the spread of homosexuals - this is a topic that will surely be re-examined after the current research is more established, which is, among other things, the reason for its great importance. It is not correct to discuss the opposite - what is acceptable to think about the way the species spreads and based on that to decide in advance what is correct in relation to our topic. Eddie wondered about the rate of evolution - you have a wrong paradigm about uniform rates in the change of species. There are indeed mutations at a constant rate, approximately, at the level of the individual, but the change of a species usually takes place in "quick" jumps on the scale of life's development (as a result of environmental stress, etc.), with degrees of relatively prolonged stability - go back to the basics of Darwinian evolution.

  38. The article is very insightful. The first of which is that the aforementioned researchers did not prove at all that there was a modern man here 400 thousand years ago.
    Go to the article from 4.11 that is linked at the end of the current article and you will find there comments on the original article, which explain that in fact the research from Kesem Cave at most allows the hypothesis that a tooth of Spines was found whose age does not exceed 300 thousand years.
    To Arya Seter, as far as I understand they are proposing a parallel development, it is not absurd, but apparently at the moment it is not true.

  39. The study found a correlation between the disappearance of elephants and the disappearance of Homo erectus
    The conclusion of the researchers is as if the disappearance of the elephants is the cause of the disappearance of Homo erectus.
    At least from the logical point of view there are at least two more options as follows:
    One - it was the homo erectus maidens that caused the elephants to disappear.
    The second - there was another factor, a third factor, which for the time being has disappeared, which was the cause
    to the disappearance of elephants and Homo erectus.

  40. So what - it all depends on... elephants?
    A few questions:
    1. Weren't there other large animals, with lots of fat, that continued to live in the area hundreds of thousands of years after the elephants disappeared from the Israeli landscape? It turns out that it is... and if so - not the absence of the component of elephant fat, and perhaps not the fats in the food at all - will base a theory on the disappearance of Homo erectus and the appearance of Homo sapiens.
    2. The process of the disappearance of the elephants was, according to the description, quite fast. On the other hand, the volume of the brain since the period of 400,000 years has not changed significantly. It turns out that the jump in brain volume was quite rapid. How can one explain that an increase of about 50% in brain volume, which is required for dealing with the lack of fat - happened in such a fast process, soon after the disappearance of the elephants?
    3. Perhaps it is more correct to say the other way around - where the Homo sapiens arrived - where the elephants disappeared, in his pens? And if so - it is not the elephants that will explain the appearance of the Homo sapiens!

  41. In addition, it is not clear whether the ignoring of Neanderthal man (who also specialized in hunting large animals but whose brain volume did not fall short of that of modern man) is an accidental omission, or it simply does not fit the theory? It is even less clear if the aforementioned 400,000-year-old "modern man" is the same Homo sapiens sapiens that arrived after 360,000 years (more or less) to Europe and from there to the rest of the world, or if it is an extinct type of "archaic modern man" that never got further A source of hope, and if so - what stopped him in our tiny country for all those hundreds of thousands of years? Too much mystery and too few solid facts. Isn't it time to order the mobile prehistoric DNA mapping laboratory of Paabo & Co. to sort out who is who?

  42. Do they believe that the African Homo sapiens developed separately from the Israeli Homo sapiens, or that the Israelis migrated to Africa and populated it?

  43. What other evidence is there that there was no exodus from Africa? Does it mean that Homo sapiens appeared in different places without evidence of migration from one place? How can such a thing be explained?

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.