Progression: Neanderthal to CroMagnon, etc.

[stevevw]

For me, while i believe God has his hand in the succession, I do not anticipate finding...supernatural operations which operate in the natural world. While certainly possible, i see no reason God could not operate through nature to create what the natural world is today. So, i am somewhat indifferent to the proposition that something like...animal behavior, could affect evolution of future generations. Simply because animal behavior itself doesn't appear to be anything out of the ordinary.

Thanks for sharing, I have read through some of them. As i get more time, ill read through the rest.

I agree that it is not a supernatural processes but natural processes that allow life to change. I just thinkthere are a lot more ways for that to happen than just Natural selection. In some wasy the way some make natural selection to be the answer tosome of the complex sitiuations we see just for the sake of supporting an idea that may work in some sitiuations is almost making it supernatural. I think it is good that God installed into life several ways for it to change and there is still a lot to be discovered. I think we will see a change to evolutionary theory like with how genetics influence the original theory with neo Darwinism.

 

[stevevw]

What about the recent discovery of modern human like footprints found in Crete which are said to be 5.7 million years old. This overturns the current evolutionary picture that has been painted where the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus which has ape like feet is a transition along the human line. It would also put Australopithecus in doubt as the foot prints are the same as modern humans but have a longer heel and flatter foot which is certainly within the category of modern human variation. The toes are distinctly human with the big toe similar to our shape, size and position as opposed to apes where the big toe is like a thumb suitable for grasping trees and climbing and has the distinct ball on the sole which is never found in apes.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm

 

[Job 33:6]

What about the recent discovery of modern human like footprints found in Crete which are said to be 5.7 million years old. This overturns the current evolutionary picture that has been painted where the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus which has ape like feet is a transition along the human line. It would also put Australopithecus in doubt as the foot prints are the same as modern humans but have a longer heel and flatter foot which is certainly within the category of modern human variation. The toes are distinctly human with the big toe similar to our shape, size and position as opposed to apes where the big toe is like a thumb suitable for grasping trees and climbing and has the distinct ball on the sole which is never found in apes.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm

Two thoughts to this,
Number 1.
When we look at the fossil succession, there are two things that we need to keep in the back of our minds. The fossil succession is about accuracy, not precision. If we think about our own personal family tree, it is complex with many cousins, many more second cousins, many many more third cousins, parents, grandparents, brothers sisters, nephews and nieces etc.

When we look at the fossil succession, 99% of the time, we are not looking at our ancestor. Rather we are looking at a close relative.

Number 2.
In geology, you are lucky if you can always differentiate between rock layers that are just a million or two years apart. And, when we examine the plethora of fossils in our own human lineage, we are looking down at our history with unprecedented precision. However, we still need to be careful in what we are assuming are absolutely our direct ancestors, versus what might be a close relative.

When we look at the fossil succession though, power in the succession, in introductory discussions, comes in viewing the succession at large, prior to viewing the succession with more precision.

For example, it was the existence of the succession and knowledge of biological evolution, that allowed neil shubin and ted daeschler to travel to a remote location in canada, and to dig down to a remote shallow marine layer of shales, to find the transitional species, tiktaalik. In a relative sense of accuracy, the fossil succession reigns supreme.

However, on the level of more precision, other possible tetrapod tracks have been discovered that may predate tiktaalik. And on that precise level, we begin questioning, who was a cousin, a second cousin, a third cousin etc.
------------------------------------------------------------
The same goes with human evolution. At large, the succession clearly demonstrates primitive ape to man, now we enter into discussions of who was who on a higher level of precision.

And that is what you see going on here. Everyone understands the ape to human succession, now everyone is entering the discussion with more precision of who is who, and naturally this causes debate, contemplation and discussion.

 

[Job 33:6]

And so with ardi, and other proto human / ape like beings, a skeleton is initially discovered. People oh, it's half ape half human, it must be our direct ancestor. But then 10 more skeletons of other hominids are found, and more precision is established. And what once may have been considered a parent is now a brother or sister or cousin. A sibling that closely reflects our ancestor but may not be.

And as more and more fossils are found, more and more do we have a clear image of our history.

I think the media and atheist groups try to claim that every single fossil is our direct ancestor, meanwhile young earthers try to say that no succession exists at all. But the answer is in the middle. The succession is there, but what family member is what. Who is a cousin? Who went extinct? What groups are closer related? And this is what it's all about.

 

[stevevw]

Two thoughts to this,
Number 1.
When we look at the fossil succession, there are two things that we need to keep in the back of our minds. The fossil succession is about accuracy, not precision. If we think about our own personal family tree, it is complex with many cousins, many more second cousins, many many more third cousins, parents, grandparents, brothers sisters, nephews and nieces etc.

When we look at the fossil succession, 99% of the time, we are not looking at our ancestor. Rather we are looking at a close relative.

Number 2.
In geology, you are lucky if you can always differentiate between rock layers that are just a million or two years apart. And, when we examine the plethora of fossils in our own human lineage, we are looking down at our history with unprecedented precision. However, we still need to be careful in what we are assuming are absolutely our direct ancestors, versus what might be a close relative.

When we look at the fossil succession though, power in the succession, in introductory discussions, comes in viewing the succession at large, prior to viewing the succession with more precision.

For example, it was the existence of the succession and knowledge of biological evolution, that allowed neil shubin and ted daeschler to travel to a remote location in canada, and to dig down to a remote shallow marine layer of shales, to find the transitional species, tiktaalik. In a relative sense of accuracy, the fossil succession reigns supreme.

However, on the level of more precision, other possible tetrapod tracks have been discovered that may predate tiktaalik. And on that precise level, we begin questioning, who was a cousin, a second cousin, a third cousin etc.
------------------------------------------------------------
The same goes with human evolution. At large, the succession clearly demonstrates primitive ape to man, now we enter into discussions of who was who on a higher level of precision.

And that is what you see going on here. Everyone understands the ape to human succession, now everyone is entering the discussion with more precision of who is who, and naturally this causes debate, contemplation and discussion.

What I do not understand is here is a creature 5.7 million year old with well advanced walking on land abilities around 1.7 million years before the creature which has been held up as the main transitional in australopithecines (Lucy) that walked. The Australopithecus genus are on the human line so are closer relative to humans than the creature that made the foot print tracks. So if the creature that made the foot print tracks was able to walk with modern human like feet then any claims made about all that follows is wrong becuase they should have been even more advanced in their feet and ability to walk. Yet there is not one later hominid that has these advanced features apart from very later hominins that are very close to modern humans to say that maybe another line carried the human line with the modern features.

The discovery also brings into doubt the theory that all hominin ancestors older then 1.8 million years came out of east Africa. The date for the footprints are securley dated as mentioned earlier so this discovery does bring a big conflict with what has been claimed in the past. It is too big a gap which conflicts with all the later finds. The debate about whether Australopithecus walked or not has been ongoing and comes down to certain fragmented, worn and missing features and there are very little fossils of feet for these creatures so it is very contentious. The feet that are available are more apelike plus there is evidence for knuckle walking. The fossil footprints are definite and clear and leave no room for interpretation which is a more sure way of determining a feature.

Add to this the lack of ape fossils found and chances are that australopithecines and others that came later are apes and have been mistakenly classed as hominins. The next time human like features are found in homonins is with more modern creatures like Neanderthal and Homo naledi which are more like human feet but are 100s of thousands of years later and nerer to modern humans.

 

[stevevw]

And so with ardi, and other proto human / ape like beings, a skeleton is initially discovered. People oh, it's half ape half human, it must be our direct ancestor. But then 10 more skeletons of other hominids are found, and more precision is established. And what once may have been considered a parent is now a brother or sister or cousin. A sibling that closely reflects our ancestor but may not be.

And as more and more fossils are found, more and more do we have a clear image of our history.

I think the media and atheist groups try to claim that every single fossil is our direct ancestor, meanwhile young earthers try to say that no succession exists at all. But the answer is in the middle. The succession is there, but what family member is what. Who is a cousin? Who went extinct? What groups are closer related? And this is what it's all about.

I think that we all have beliefs that can influence the way we see things even the experts that assess the fossils in the first place. It is like if a fossil is out of place or contradictory then someone who believes in the evolution of life will come up an explanation such as its a new species to fit it into the picture. As you said the same with fundementalists. There are splitters and lumpers when it comes to taxonomists assessing species and thats why it is so hard to get a clear picture especially when most of the evidence is patchy and fragmented.

 

[Job 33:6]

What I do not understand is here is a creature 5.7 million year old with well advanced walking on land abilities around 1.7 million years before the creature which has been held up as the main transitional in australopithecines (Lucy) that walked. The Australopithecus genus are on the human line so are closer relative to humans than the creature that made the foot print tracks. So if the creature that made the foot print tracks was able to walk with modern human like feet then any claims made about all that follows is wrong becuase they should have been even more advanced in their feet and ability to walk. Yet there is not one later hominid that has these advanced features apart from very later hominins that are very close to modern humans to say that maybe another line carried the human line with the modern features.

The discovery also brings into doubt the theory that all hominin ancestors older then 1.8 million years came out of east Africa. The date for the footprints are securley dated as mentioned earlier so this discovery does bring a big conflict with what has been claimed in the past. It is too big a gap which conflicts with all the later finds. The debate about whether Australopithecus walked or not has been ongoing and comes down to certain fragmented, worn and missing features and there are very little fossils of feet for these creatures so it is very contentious. The feet that are available are more apelike plus there is evidence for knuckle walking. The fossil footprints are definite and clear and leave no room for interpretation which is a more sure way of determining a feature.

Add to this the lack of ape fossils found and chances are that australopithecines and others that came later are apes and have been mistakenly classed as hominins. The next time human like features are found in homonins is with more modern creatures like Neanderthal and Homo naledi which are more like human feet but are 100s of thousands of years later and nerer to modern humans.

Ardipithecus - Wikipedia

Looks like there is debate on Ardi's position in our lineage, reflecting thoughts of your first and second paragraph. I would only reiterate my last post in response.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think that we all have beliefs that can influence the way we see things even the experts that assess the fossils in the first place. It is like if a fossil is out of place or contradictory then someone who believes in the evolution of life will come up an explanation such as its a new species to fit it into the picture. As you said the same with fundementalists. There are splitters and lumpers when it comes to taxonomists assessing species and thats why it is so hard to get a clear picture especially when most of the evidence is patchy and fragmented.

It depends on your perspective. Again, you are critiquing what people are already critiquing. In the discovery of highly precise positioning of fossils, there inevitably will be contemplation, debate, new discoveries enhancing the picture etc.

But I don't see these debates over precision, as something that challanges the succession as a whole.

The reason something like Ardi can be pushed off as a cousin or second cousin, rather than a direct ancestor, is because Ardi didnt appear in the cretaceous. Ardi doesnt have 6 legs or a blow hole. Ardi isnt present even beyond the miocene. Ardi, though debated in its precision in the fossil succession, still resides where we would expect it to exist in the evolutionary succession of life on earth. This is why we can look at it, shrug our shoulders and move on, as opposed to rewriting the theory or recognizing that there is something wrong with the succession.

This debate is occurring between fossils that occur within 1-2 million years of one another (or even less, as opposed to say 10 or 20, or 40 million). Not only that but its a discussion occurring on a relatively large number of hominid and hominid like skeletons (lots of options, lots of possibilities for each). Which really is pushing our understanding of the succession to its furthest limits.

But none of this changes the broader picture of things. That is, more ape like species historically in time, more human like skeletons closer in time, then ultimately, the appearance of us. Whether the skeletons are 10,000 years old or 2 million years old, you are debating inside the confines of an established succession.

 

[Job 33:6]

And, so long as the succession is evident, biological evolution will remain supported by that succession. Because at large, the succession depicts a gradient in evolution of life, and common descent.

The only way to really change this, would be to demonstrate that common descent were not depicted in the fossil succession. And the only way to really do that would be to discover something like a cambrian bunny rabit, hence the popular reference.

Something like Ardi would need to be discovered in at least 10 million year old rock to be significantly controversial. But it is hardly even close to that.

 

[Job 33:6]

@stevevw
Here is a question for you. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but you do not appear to oppose the succession at large, nor do you appear to oppose common descent of life through time.

Rather you appear to oppose the common idea of Darwinian gradualism, as being the means by which common descent occurred.

With that said, what is the value in your critique of the fossil succession? The fossil succession does not differentiate between things like gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. The fossil succession does not care about how, in a biological sense, evolution occurred.

So, if you recognize common descent as truth, what is the value in challenging the fossil succession?

It is one thing to challenge it because you want to see it unfold into perfection, but I get the sense that you want to tear it down. As if you would want it...to not be true, even though you seem to agree that it is there.

What do you think?

 

[Job 33:6]

I think that we all have beliefs that can influence the way we see things even the experts that assess the fossils in the first place. It is like if a fossil is out of place or contradictory then someone who believes in the evolution of life will come up an explanation such as its a new species to fit it into the picture. As you said the same with fundementalists. There are splitters and lumpers when it comes to taxonomists assessing species and thats why it is so hard to get a clear picture especially when most of the evidence is patchy and fragmented.

I do agree though, the people who first discovered Ardi may have been ecstatic over it. This is also back in 1994 mind you. People also want their discovery to be the latest and the greatest. They want their discovery to be the newest and best and more interesting find. And they may very well have that form of bias going into the introduction of their work.

And this is a downside to new discoveries, especially when the media blows them out of proportion, or when people with their biases step in and manipulate an understanding of what they are.

But then, here we are, 14 years after the discovery of Ardi, and people are picking it apart like wolves so that their discovery can take its place (a heightened precision of understanding).

But ultimately, just going back to my prior post, these battles occur on a fine tuned level. They are battles between an E and E flat or E and E sharp, as opposed to an E and D, or E and B (if you are familiar with music). And the succession of A B C D E F and G is something we all generally agree on.

 

[stevevw]

And, so long as the succession is evident, biological evolution will remain supported by that succession. Because at large, the succession depicts a gradient in evolution of life, and common descent.

The only way to really change this, would be to demonstrate that common descent were not depicted in the fossil succession. And the only way to really do that would be to discover something like a cambrian bunny rabit, hence the popular reference.

Something like Ardi would need to be discovered in at least 10 million year old rock to be significantly controversial. But it is hardly even close to that.

I am not sure about the bigger picture of things regarding humans place in the common decent of life as the present evidence seems all over the place. On the face of it human like footprints at 5.7 million years old show that homonins have been around for some time. Even though it is said that the dating is not in question because there has been inconsistent findings could it be that the dating itself is suspect in the the first place regarding the age of the layers fossils are found in.

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw
Here is a question for you. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but you do not appear to oppose the succession at large, nor do you appear to oppose common descent of life through time.

Rather you appear to oppose the common idea of Darwinian gradualism, as being the means by which common descent occurred.

With that said, what is the value in your critique of the fossil succession? The fossil succession does not differentiate between things like gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. The fossil succession does not care about how, in a biological sense, evolution occurred.

So, if you recognize common descent as truth, what is the value in challenging the fossil succession?

It is one thing to challenge it because you want to see it unfold into perfection, but I get the sense that you want to tear it down. As if you would want it...to not be true, even though you seem to agree that it is there.

What do you think?

I think it is important to be clear about the method by which life evolved or changed as it affects the way we see things like common decent and the fossil record. It can minimize the mistakes made by the assumptions inherent in Neo Darwinism. It is because of these assumptions that Neo Darwinism needs to come up with ideas like punctuated equilibrium to explain the anomalies rather than perhaps because of other reasons that may explain things better. Other mechanisms inherent in the development processes or HGT that can suddenly produce bigger changes because it uses pre-existing genetic info that can be switched on when needed.

There are many inconsistencies that are bringing into question some of the tenets of evolution such as common decent with genomics for example which show life is more like a forest rather than a tree of life with a single trunk leading back to a common ancestor. This indicates that the blueprint for life may have been around very early and that life can share genetic material a lot more than expected.

I am not sure how life came about and evolved but all we can do is look at the evidence and address what we see without making too many assumptions. What I do see is that there seems to be more organisation and direction and this makes a big difference between Neo Darwinism that relies on everything being explained in self creating naturalistic terms without any intelligence involved and Gods intervention which may have installed some blueprint for life which it follows. How that happened I am not sure but I think decerning the difference is important as it affects the way we interpret the evidence.