Other humanoid variants transplanted by the Ancients?

[Thunderbolt]

This article on Ars Technica allows for the possibility that the Ancients had a pick of humanoid species to distribute across the stars:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...rthal-nor-sapiens-new-human-relative-ided.ars

 

[aramis]

H Sapiens, hoever, wasn't one of them; ancients were 300KYA.

 

[BlackBat242]

Homo Erectus (late); Homo heidelbergensis; Homo rhodesiensis

 

[BeRKA]

H Sapiens, hoever, wasn't one of them; ancients were 300KYA.

Maybe it was...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101230123554.htm

 

[rancke]

H Sapiens, hoever, wasn't one of them; ancients were 300KYA.

Missed this the first time.

Homo sapiens was one of them (possibly the only one) in the Traveller Universe. This is incontestably proven by the fact that a number of different populations descended from specimens transplanted by the Ancients are interfertile with H. sapiens sapiens.

(It's also stated explicitly in GT:Humaniti that the ancestors were of the species H. sapiens antiquus, so those of us who accept GT material as relevant to the OTU don't even need the aforementioned evidence to know that it's the case. However, that's by the way.)

The Traveller Universe is not identical to the Real Universe. Very close, but not identical. And if Real Life science ever do prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that H. sapiens didn't exist 300,000 years ago, it will merely mean that this is one of the places where the TU differs from the RU.


Hans

 

[BlackBat242]

YOUR TU perhaps... and even the OTU... but not MY TU.

The creators of that part of the TU screwed up, and if you want to blindly follow their error to the impossible situation it sets up, just for the sake of blindly obeying canon, be my guest.

In my TU, the seeding occurred ~30,000 years before the Vilani first travelled out of their atmosphere.

 

[rancke]

YOUR TU perhaps... and even the OTU... but not MY TU.

Fine by me. I'm really not interested enough in your TU to care one way or the other.

The creators of that part of the TU screwed up...

They were going along with what was a popular theory at the time it was written. Now another theory has become more popular, but AFAIK it really isn't any more of a scientific fact than the old theory was. Just another way to interpret some pretty scanty evidence.

...and if you want to blindly follow their error to the impossible situation it sets up, just for the sake of blindly obeying canon, be my guest.

Not blindly. Very deliberately, in fact. I want to stick to the original story because it keeps the setting consistent and really doesn't make enough of a difference to matter. And it keeps me from having to change the background once again when today's theory is replaced by another.


Hans

 

[Spinward Scout]

And if Real Life science ever do prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that H. sapiens didn't exist 300,000 years ago, it will merely mean that this is one of the places where the TU differs from the RU.

And, to put an end to the dispute - this was just released on New Year's Eve:

It has long been believed that modern humans emerged from the continent of Africa 200,000 years ago. Now Tel Aviv University archaeologists have uncovered evidence that Homo sapiens roamed the land now called Israel as early as 400,000 years ago -- the earliest evidence for the existence of modern humans anywhere in the world.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101230123554.htm

EDIT: my bad - BeRKA beat me to it.

 

[BeRKA]

Flamewar has ended. Traveller was right.

EDIT: my bad - BeRKA beat me to it.

Yep, this flamewar topic should be over for now.

 

[aramis]

And, to put an end to the dispute - this was just released on New Year's Eve:



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101230123554.htm

EDIT: my bad - BeRKA beat me to it.

And there's a rather big body of genetic data that has, in multiple trials shown the divergence of all living populations to be about 150,000 years ago, by mitochondrial DNA mutation rates, and some 80,000 years ago by Y-Chromosomal analysis. While the rates used may be off, it would be in the direction of closer. *

So whatever those were, they are probably NOT "us" (H. Sapiens sapiens), and are unlikely to be direct ancestors of us. And Neither was Neanderthal (MRCA about 500KYA).

Also, the article notes fragments and teeth - not full skulls nor even significant chunks - which, unless there's preserved DNA, amounts to a really big leap of ego in an attempt to grandstand for funding. It's hard to tell the last 4-5 species in Genus Homo apart by teeth alone. And it's a reprint of an article from "American Friends of Tel Aviv University"... the booster club, mind you, for TAU, which does fundraising and alumni events... making me wonder why it even got published... it doesn't have the hallmarks of peer review. It does have hallmarks of propaganda.

* references
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/999030.stm
http://www.duerinck.com/migrate.html

 

[shadowcat20]

Bah...Grandfather just used time travel. Came closer to our real time and grabbed his subjects then took them back in time........

 

[Cryton]

Homo Erectus (late); Homo heidelbergensis; Homo rhodesiensis

Nice choices.
Homo heidelbergenensis though, is often considered to be an offshoot of Homo neandertalensis, or vice-versa depending on who you talk to. It should also be noted that it was H. Neandertalensis whom T4s Vrad were modeled(badly) off of.
H. rhodensiensis is an excellent choice as well, as it is considered to be the next link back from H. sapiens sapiens, great call.

For MTU I use the following:

Homo neandertalensis (and H. heidelbergensis as well) , Homo rhodesiensis, Homo erectus, and Canis lupis.

For fun I add Homo floresiensis, and Gigantopithecus.

Finally, as its cannon for the OTU, and kinda within the ballpark (give or take 100K years), I also use Homo sapiens sapiens.

Only H. s. sapiens and H. floresiensis were not around in 300 000 B.C.E , but H. s. sapiens only misses it by around 100 000 years, and thanks to new dating techniques, the date keeps changing.

 

[Spinward Scout]

For fun I add Homo floresiensis, and Gigantopithecus.

Very cool.

 

[Orr]

Only H. s. sapiens and H. floresiensis were not around in 300 000 B.C.E , but H. s. sapiens only misses it by around 100 000 years, and thanks to new dating techniques, the date keeps changing.

I read a recent BBC article about a tooth found in Israel that supposedly pushes H. s. sapiens back those 100,000 years.