Jungles would be a very poor candidate for the origin of the genus Homo. It's likely that the cooling climate in the Pleistocene, with the reduction in forests and increase in grasslands gave rise to hominins that eventually evolved to humans.
Never heard man evolved in Africa and migrated to Europe? That has been taught in public schools for the last 70+ years.
Man does get around.
Ethiopia as grassland? The Caucasus is also a prime candidate. Especially in the coincidence of agricultural advances from existing species, such as horses and cattle.
Only problem is we don't see hominins in Central Asia until much later. The first anatomically modern humans are found in Africa. And yes, North Africa was for a long time, wetter and greener.
I notice "deepest" dropped out there. You think the Horn of Africa is "deepest Africa?" The evidence is that man evolved in Africa. For a long time, the only place fossils of hominids were being formed was in Africa. Then first archaic H. sapiens moved into Europe and Asia and then toward the end of the ice age, anatomically modern humans moved out of Africa into Eurasia.
Do a poll. Ask how many Americans were taught in school that man evolved from apes in the jungles of Africa. That is deepest Africa, the sub Saharan jungles.
I have. Most paleontologists acknowledge anatomically modern humans first show up in Africa.
Hard to say. I never saw that in any of my biology classes and certainly not in any university classes. And I've had quite a few in this area.
Darwin has been criticized in the literature for his thought that acquired characteristics are heritable, for his thoughts on how baleen whales evolved, for his insistence that evolution is only gradual in all cases and many other things. Your Chinese guy doesn't seem to have much knowledge of the scientific literature.
Yes modern human fossils. The first humans were rather different that anatomically modern humans. But they appear first in Eastern Africa. And yes, H. erectus made it as far as E. Asia, so H. sapiens wasn't the first humans out of Africa, much less anatomically modern H. sapiens.
This is an anatomically modern human, not the first human species. From your source:
Quote: Jun-Yuan Chen. Professor. Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Nanjing, China.
TJebel Irhoud, at roughly 280,000 to 350,000 years old. If they (the dates) hold up, these dates would make the remains by far the earliest known examples of Homo sapiens.
Darwin has been criticized in the literature for his thought that acquired characteristics are heritable, for his thoughts on how baleen whales evolved, for his insistence that evolution is only gradual in all cases and many other things. Your Chinese guy doesn't seem to have much knowledge of the scientific literature.
H. sapiens is far from the first known human.
Phrenology is a discredited "science"
And I predicted that Man is, was and shall be found within Latitudes defined roughly as Mediterranean. Clear around the world, based on the environment most favorable to the organism, therefore population patterns.
It's pretty much an ideal latitude. You might want to read Jarred Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. He came to a similar conclusion about why the Old World overcame the New World. But we see fossils of humans in S. Africa as well. We see lots of early anatomically modern humans in North Africa, because hominids evolved in Africa.
Perhaps you don't know what "phrenology" means. It has nothing whatever to do with paleontology.
That was... random.
H. habilis was just and early member of our genus. They were possibly our ancestors, but a closely related species might be the one. Evolutionary theory does not require "ascent from simpler to more complex." Indeed chimpanzees are highly evolved in a different direction than humans.
Genetically, yes. Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to any other ape.
Your fellow creationist Dr. Kurt Wise says that the many transitional homind fossils are among the very good evidence for macroevoltionary theory. But it's not just anatomy. As you know, genetic data also confirms anatomical evidence.
I never understood how people would conclude that if God made us by evolution, we were free to sin as we like. Very poor reasoning.
No. In fact, the DNA of chimpanzees and bonobos are very, very similar to each other, with both about equally distant from humans. Bonobos have some human-like traits but then so do chimpanzees.
When two troops of chimpanzees meet, there is often violence. When two troops of bonobos meet there is often lots of sex. Sounds like we're kind of a blend of the two, doesn't it?
If one makes an idol of evolution or creationism, and insists that believing or or the other is a requirement for salvation, maybe so.
I am not a creationist.
No. DNA sequencing has it closer to 5 million years ago. Hominidae includes apes outside of the genus Homo. You're thinking of hominini, all human species.
For decades, researchers seeking the origin of our species have scoured the Great Rift Valley of East Africa. Now, their quest has taken an unexpected detour west to Morocco: Researchers have redated a long-overlooked skull from a cave called Jebel Irhoud to a startling 300,000 years ago, and unearthed new fossils and stone tools. The result is the oldest well-dated evidence of Homo sapiens, pushing back the appearance of our kind by 100,000 years.
Neanderthals were around long before anatomically modern humans. BTW, Neanderthals are almost certainly H. sapiens. Genetically, they are just a bit too close to be classified as separate species.
That occipital bun, I suppose. Maybe the teeth. Not much of a mental prominence (chin) but kinda. (Barbarian checks) Apparently, they did not have the "simian shelf" found in more archaic H. sapiens:
www.nature.com
There are much older hominids in Asia. Now an anatomically modern human that old, would be of some interest. Got a link?
In the sense that Newtonism is a narrative. But evolutionary and gravitation theories are theories because they make testable predictions that have since been repeatedly validated by new evidence.
Scientific theories change as evidence requires. So genetics, for example, cleared up one major problem with Darwinian theory, at the same time that it ruled out the general inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Again, Phrenology is a discredited "science"
1)Newtonianism is clearly defined objects in clearly defined systems operating under discoverable fixed laws (math)
I don't think you know what "phrenology" means. None of this has anything to do with phrenology.
Yep.
Evolution is clearly defined processes in clearly defined ways operating under discoverable fixed laws (math).
I know about it. It is AUM (animal unit per month) is an example of the formulas to calculate the. equilibrium. It is much simpler and more complicated than that. In fact, in practice much more complicated.
No. Predation is a specific behavior that requires killing other organisms for sustenance. This excludes plants (with a few exceptions that prey on insects), parasites that do not kill their hosts, and so on.
Actually, plants tend to increase organic material in soil. That's why plants in rock crevices tend to produce soil over a period of time. They tend to deplete certain minerals and nitrogen. But that's not predation.
Mosquitos, for example, are parasites. At least the females are. The males eat nectar from flowers which benefits the flowers via pollenation.
Close, but no cigar...
I don't see what assets under management has to do with it. But the point remains. Much of evolutionary theory involves a lot of mathematical work. Were you aware that information theory was first worked out for biological evolution?
siepellab.org
