Early Man

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by webboffin
Yes, well the discovery must of been baffling - it is new data questioning the validity of old data whether it is a possibilty of change in the age of human evolution or it's altered anatomical structure.

This debate was already ongoing prior to this fossil find. Like I said earlier, the article implies that hominid lines of evolution were already established, when they are not. This is merely another piece of the puzzling, but it is certainly not "baffling".

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by webboffin
I trust the BBC before I trust you when it comes to scientific news.

You'd rather trust a journalist over a scientist when it come to scientific news. Right. . . .

Maybe you should work for the BBC as you seem so updated and scientifically superior.

Sorry I have to spend my working time doing science, instead of reporting on people doing science.

Prove to me this was known decades ago. And now it is an exageration of facts!!!!

How about you browse the Fossil Hominid FAQ?

Specifically, here is the page on "Little Foot", which is the fossil that the BBC article is refering too.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by webboffin
Why not try and discuss the implications of this new data instead.

I did but you ignored the post.

There has been a debate on when bipedality first appeared in the hominid lineage.  One hypothesis is that our common ancestor with chimps was a knuckle walker and that chimps and gorillas simply kept the trait.

Another hypothesis is that knucklewalking is an adaptation characteristic of the chimp/gorilla lineage and was not in the common ancestor.  The closer we find fossils to the split -- like Toumai -- it looks like bipedality goes back to very close to the split.  Clarke's data suports the second hypothesis.  However, to be dramatic and be more important, Clarke paints a strawman version of hominid evolution by implying that the first hypothesis is the only one, thus making him more important by "discovering" the second.

What is being discussed is the exact shape of the family tree, not that there is one.  And when and why adaptations occurred in our history, not that the adaptations occurred.

Weboffin, in science whenever you answer a question, 3 or 4 new questions pop up out of the answer. So, having discovered that humans evolved, the next questions were: what is the exact evolutionary history and the sequence of acquiring human adaptations?

The data is pretty conclusive that H. sapiens, H. ergastor/erectus, and H. habilis are chronospecies: the same species at different points in time.  The data at this time is pretty conclusive that a species of Australopithecus is the chronospecies to H. habilis.  Most anthropologists think it's A. afarensis, and the data I've seen is so persuasive that I think it's preverse not to accept it as (provisionally) the case.  A few think it was A. africanus.  And Clarke thinks he has a new species of Australopithecus that may be the ancestor.

Interspersed among all this is where the Paranthropus genus branched off and where H. rudolphensis, H. antessori, and H. neandertals come in.  It is clear that H. neandertals and H. sapiens are separate species.  But did H. erectus give rise directly to both or did H. erectus split to H. heidelbergensis in Europe which gave rise to H. neandertals?

Now, if you really want to discuss all this, I can give you references to read to familiarize yourself with the discussion and the background for the discussion I gave above.

 

[webboffin]

Good now we are finally getting somewhere at last. Carrying on from post #63. Is evolution so rapid that a primate could evolve distinctly to a human (what I believe as scientifically guessed) in 2 million years which is a very short amount of time? And what sort of neuro-genetic similarities do apes have that they can relate to humans, such as behaviour; language skills, religion; socialising and technical skills? What is the future expected evolutional path for humans going by past fossil evidences?

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by webboffin
Good now we are finally getting somewhere at last. Carrying on from post #63.

Is evolution so rapid that a primate could evolve distinctly to a human (what I believe as scientifically guessed) in 2 million years which is a very short amount of time?

Humans are primates, so yes - a primate species could change charachteristics such that a different primate species would be evident within 2 million years.

If you think about it, what are the chances of you being able to have children with an ancestor transported here from 2 million years ago? 

And what sort of neuro-genetic similarities do apes have that they can relate to humans, such as behaviour; language skills, religion; socialising and technical skills?

Neuro-genetic similarities? Do you mean genetic similarities, nerological similarities or behavioural similarities?

There are many genetic similarities - the differences in fact are quite small.

Neurologically, our brain structures have many similarities. There is significant evidence that we share language centres - for example, gorillas have been taught to sign and some groups also appear to have their own simple language. 

Behaviourally, we are very similar. Social groupings are recognisable, for example. Organisation for hunting and protection is obvious. Building structures and using tools also occurs.

What is the future expected evolutional path for humans going by past fossil evidences?

Impossible to predict - literally impossible, not just very difficult. We do not know what evolutionary influences we will come under in the future; nor do we know how we will react to them - particulalrly as we often overcome these influences using artifacts, rather than let them work on changing the species over time.

The rate of cultural evolution compared to genetic evolution is so rapid that in effect genetic evolution is becoming increasingly irrelvant to the human species. As we will soon be able to modify our own genetics, this becomes even more clear. 

 

[webboffin]

Originally posted by David Gould
Neurologically, our brain structures have many similarities. There is significant evidence that we share language centres - for example, gorillas have been taught to sign and some groups also appear to have their own simple language. 

Behaviourally, we are very similar. Social groupings are recognisable, for example. Organisation for hunting and protection is obvious. Building structures and using tools also occurs. 

Don't many animals already possess those skills in the natural world? Why does that typically tie us down to apes? 

Personally, not as a fact, but I see worrying disaster in the end with messing around with genetic technology. Humans will take things to far. We are not suited to playing god so intimately. But that is another thread.

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by webboffin
Don't many animals already possess those skills in the natural world? Why does that typically tie us down to apes? 

Many animals do possess some or many of those skills in the natural world.

However, when you combine the genetic similarities with the phsiological similarities with the neurological similarities with the behavioural similarities, apes are far more similar to humans than any other species - so similar, in fact, that it seems extremely reasonable to conclude that we are very closely related indeed.

You should remember that Darwin and others came to this conclusion without having access to the DNA evidence and only to limited amounts of behavioural evidence.

The DNA evidence is pretty darn conclusive.

We know that DNA is passed on to offspring.

We know that it changes over time due to mixing up and copying errors.

We know that DNA affects physiology and behaviour.

So the fact that our DNA is so close to that of apes is a great big smoking gun.

 

[Noddingdog]

Woah! I go away for a while and 3 more pages of posts! Haven't got time to reply now, maybe later.

 

[webboffin]

I am not trolling the thread but asking fundimental questions that must be on anyones mind that has given deep thought to the effects and cause of evolution.

Okay, let's consider what you posted as being likely in the course of the evolution of man and probably therefore for life on Earth, why is it that some creatures that are around today didn't continue evolving over the millions of years also? Why do only some creatures evolve and then seemingly stop and others creatures continued? A crocodile; a chicken; cockroaches these have remained unchanged at least since early primates were around. Where did all the species begin and what is their one common ancestor?
Do mutations in DNA always produce positive results? Even at 50/50 (unlikely) as most mutations are failures so this would of slowed evolution because of trial and error.
And in a very short space of time apes evolved to humans yet nothing else in evolution can compare in it's history in advancement at a fundimental DNA level that humans cannot reproduce with the very close relative we came from. And finally how does DNA know what is good if it just esentially protein matter.

 

[Hector Medina]

I have a solution.
They either found a human or a ape and its no more than 6000 yrs old.


In Young Earth Creation,

God Bless,

Hector

 

[webboffin]

I myself do not support a 6000 year old Earth. It is not scientific theory that the Earth is older it is a scientific fact that most people accept beyond a doubt whether people think God exists or not.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by webboffin
Okay, let's consider what you posted as being likely in the course of the evolution of man and probably therefore for life on Earth, why is it that some creatures that are around today didn't continue evolving over the millions of years also? Why do only some creatures evolve and then seemingly stop and others creatures continued?

All species continuously evolve. Some taxa do appear to have had a high degree of morphological stability, by human standards, over millions of years. However, morphological stability is not the same as stoped evolving. That is a common misconception that even biologists sometime help to foster.

Do mutations in DNA always produce positive results? Even at 50/50 (unlikely) as most mutations are failures so this would of slowed evolution because of trial and error.

Actually the rate of evolution via selection is proportional to the amount of (addative) variation in the population. So more mutations equal more evolution.

And finally how does DNA know what is good if it just esentially protein matter.

DNA is not protein, it is deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA doesn't know what is good for it. Selection is an external force determined by the environment acting on phenotypes.

Here is a classic explaination of selection.

1. Variation: There exists diversity in populations of organisms.
2. Heritability: A part of this variation can be passed on to offspring.
3. Selection: All organisms will not reproduce with the same ability.
4. Adaptation: Those traits which enhance an organisms reproductive ability will increase in the population and displace those traits which do not.

See. It's rather simple.

 

[webboffin]

I don't see it that simple but taken aboard. My description of DNA was corrected.
Can anyone else enlarge in answering further:
A) Are mutations or missing DNA largely positive (usually medically it equals disability/disease for humans)?
B) Explain the rapid rate of human evolution from primate
C) What is life species common ancestor?
D) Do apes have a sense of religion? When did that concept evolve?

 

[Noddingdog]

Ok, here we go. Back to Page 3, Post 30.
Tossed out by the scientific community eh? Funny, Pasteur and Newton didn't have too much of a problem with it, nor did the leading scientists in Darwin's time. In fact, the leading scientists were opposed to Darwin's theory but the Church was strangely for.
Post 31
OK Jerry, you give me some examples of how all the evidence strongly points towards evolution (oh, and how it refutes creation)
Post 32
If God created these scientific laws then science is subservient to God. Maybe it is that we do not understand these scientific laws (and there are no doubt laws existing that we have not discovered - and don't ask me for examples. )
Post 33
Shame that the new approach has not found one "missing link" that is completely justified, agreed and unquestionable in over 100 years of searching. *sigh* Surely there should be thousands of transitional skeletons? Are there? Nope. Oh well. Never mind, let's ignore that and carry on teaching evolution anyway.

Noddingdog

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Noddingdog
Post 31
OK Jerry, you give me some examples of how all the evidence strongly points towards evolution (oh, and how it refutes creation)

Actually, I had already pointed you to where I posted this in a thread for another member, but I will repeat it here to make it easier for you to find:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/32855.html post 1 on the first page, and post #31 on page 4, then

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/32855-13.html (page 13 of the thread), has three posts of particular interest. #123, 126, & 127.

Between those 5 posts, you should find ample strong evidence for evolution that is not equally compatible with creationism.

The mere existence of the geological column refutes creationism's central claim that all life was created in its modern form (or close to it), and at about the same time.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by webboffin
Are mutations or missing DNA largely positive (usually medically it equals disability/disease for humans)?

Mutations are usually neutral or nearly so. This is because for most organism most of their DNA isn't involved in protien or RNA production or regulation. Of those mutations that are not neutral, most are deleterious. Only a small portion are beneficial any any one environment. However, you'd be suprised at what a little beneficial mutation can do.

Explain the rapid rate of human evolution from primate

Well humans are still primates, so it probably isn't as rapid as you think. Furthermore, why do you think that hominid evolution was rapid?

What is life species common ancestor?

What is a "life species?"

Do apes have a sense of religion? When did that concept evolve?

Well that probably depends on how willing you are to stetch the meaning of religion. Religion is a cultural phenomenon, so you need to have some level of culture. Many species have forms of culture, but I doubt they are as flexable enough to encompous religion. Some anthropolgists think that religion was alive and in pre-modern humans. Our neanderthal cousins are seen as having religion because of certain burial practices.

 

[webboffin]

C) What is life species common ancestor?

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
What is a "life species?"  

Doesn't take a cryptologist to work out the meaning. What is the common ancestor of life on Earth?

You say that man is still a primate in a definate sense. Are you suggesting that theory is now fact?

 

 

[troodon]

You say that man is still a primate in a definate sense. Are you suggesting that theory is now fact?

Primate is an arbitrary term (in that it is merely used as a convenient tool of classification) but heres a definition I found:

"Primates are unguiculate (with nails or claws), claviculate (with a clavicle), placental mammals (Vaughan, 1986). They share a set of features which includes: opposable thumbs and usually opposable toes, toes with a nail or without any hard part, eyes reinforced by a bony post orbital bar or orbital ring and stereoscopic vision, testes scrotal, ***** pendulous, two pectoral mammae, cutaneous ridges on fingers and palms and a brain with a posterior lobe (Vaughan, 1986 & Simons, 1992). More generally they have three teeth types at some stage in their life, a well developed caecum and very sensitive fingertips. There are also trends in the primate lineage towards shorter snouts, convergence of axes of vision, enlargement of brain, lessening of olfactory ability and prolongation of postnatal growth period (Conroy, 1990). Not every primate has every feature listed, but all have a large number, this has implications when trying to identify fossils as primates." 

Humans meet the above requirements and are thus primates.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by webboffin
What is the common ancestor of life on Earth?

We don't exactly know; though, we do know that it was a prokaryotic cell.

You say that man is still a primate in a definate sense. Are you suggesting that theory is now fact?

Yes man is a primate. That was recongnized way back when Linneaus first started doing taxonomy.

Primates @ the Tree of Life.

 

[webboffin]

Thank you, so you are really saying that man is regarded as a primate not necessarily due to exclusive DNA links to apes like creatures but more physical anatomical similarities.
I can accept that.