Apparently that isn't the case. Some argue it was the other way around.Papias said:
Buuuut that's another topic ...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Apparently that isn't the case. Some argue it was the other way around.Papias said:Anthropologists uses two definitions, one for anatomically modern humans, (AMH) and another for behaviorally modern humans. (BMH) Obviously, we evolved to be AMHs before evolving to be BMHs.
Well, of course for me the most important aspect is the religious one - humans are defined as those animals that have been given a soul by God, so that would be all people alive today, and I don't know exactly when God gave the first soul, (when Adam, the transitional ape that crossed the line to being human, lived). If I had to guess, I'd say maybe 100,00 years ago? But that's just a guess, since souls tend to not fossilize well. : )
For physical attributes, from a layman's standpoint, I'd go by encephalization quotient, which is simple and distinguishes us from all other animals.
However, I need to be clear that I'm not an expert, and that is a "person on the street", common answer. Those kinds of answers should always be remembered to be incomplete, and not to ever suggest that they are as good as the actual definition used by experts.
Anthropologists uses two definitions, one for anatomically modern humans, (AMH) and another for behaviorally modern humans. (BMH) Obviously, we evolved to be AMHs before evolving to be BMHs.
AMHs go by a bunch of anatomical features (including brow ridges, encephalization quotient, a chin, and so on), which evolved gradually and not all on same schedule, with some appearing sooner, some later. Hence the many smooth transitional fossils. Trying to draw a sharp line there is like trying to draw a sharp line between when a room goes from being "freezing cold" to being "too hot". AMH gradually appeared, with the transition being mostly done by around 200,000 years ago.
BMH is defined by spoken language, which also likely appeared gradually (from basic sounds, to a few words, up to language today), but of course that is harder to test because words don't fossilize very well before writing developed (also gradually, as can be seen).
I have enough sense not to disagree with those who know the subject much better than I on this or anything else. I am an expert in one field, and will disagree with anyone there if I think they are wrong, but it's not anthropology.
Papias
Well, of course for me the most important aspect is the religious one - humans are defined as those animals that have been given a soul by God, so that would be all people alive today, and I don't know exactly when God gave the first soul, (when Adam, the transitional ape that crossed the line to being human, lived). If I had to guess, I'd say maybe 100,00 years ago? But that's just a guess, since souls tend to not fossilize well. : )
For physical attributes, from a layman's standpoint, I'd go by encephalization quotient, which is simple and distinguishes us from all other animals.
However, I need to be clear that I'm not an expert, and that is a "person on the street", common answer. Those kinds of answers should always be remembered to be incomplete, and not to ever suggest that they are as good as the actual definition used by experts.
Anthropologists uses two definitions, one for anatomically modern humans, (AMH) and another for behaviorally modern humans. (BMH) Obviously, we evolved to be AMHs before evolving to be BMHs.
AMHs go by a bunch of anatomical features (including brow ridges, encephalization quotient, a chin, and so on), which evolved gradually and not all on same schedule, with some appearing sooner, some later. Hence the many smooth transitional fossils. Trying to draw a sharp line there is like trying to draw a sharp line between when a room goes from being "freezing cold" to being "too hot". AMH gradually appeared, with the transition being mostly done by around 200,000 years ago.
BMH is defined by spoken language, which also likely appeared gradually (from basic sounds, to a few words, up to language today), but of course that is harder to test because words don't fossilize very well before writing developed (also gradually, as can be seen).
I have enough sense not to disagree with those who know the subject much better than I on this or anything else. I am an expert in one field, and will disagree with anyone there if I think they are wrong, but it's not anthropology.
Papias
Is this a bad (to very bad, even useless) criterion?
Does EVERY voice uttering animal have some type of language system? How do you distinguish human language system from, say chimps language system?
And where is the fossilized record of any language system?
Why don't you just say: "I don't know"?
However, I need to be clear that I'm not an expert, and that is a "person on the street", common answer. Those kinds of answers should always be remembered to be incomplete, and not to ever suggest that they are as good as the actual definition used by experts.
15 pages of ... nothing much. Shame it never really went anywhere.
Naraoia, from the common forum sent me this link, thought it might be of interest in this discussion.
The size and surface area of the mammalian brain are thought to be critical determinants of intellectual ability. Recent studies show that development of the gyrated human neocortex involves a lineage of neural stem and transit-amplifying cells that forms the outer subventricular zone (OSVZ), a proliferative region outside the ventricular epithelium. We discuss how proliferation of cells within the OSVZ expands the neocortex by increasing neuron number and modifying the trajectory of migrating neurons. Relating these features to other mammalian species and known molecular regulators of the mouse neocortex suggests how this developmental process could have emerged in evolution.
Development and Evolution of the Human Neocortex
I have the PDF somewhere but it's been a while since I read it. Anyway, here is another one, this is more complete and puts together the time line.
Evolutionary Forces Shape the Human RFPL1,2,3 Genes toward a Role in Neocortex Development
I'll check back later and see if this generates any interest.
All these info are fine. The problem is that we do not have brain fossils.
The breath from God not only gives human a spirit, but it MUST cause the human brain to be the one we have. We can see that human brain is different from chimp brain. But science-wise, that is all we have. There is no transition on brain tissues.
Well, we are getting some pretty interesting insights into what would have had to happen. Evolution is a process, natural selection is an effect and paleontology deals with a lot of fragmentary bones. With genetics you are looking at a cause of the differences in no uncertain terms. That is what ultimately has to settle this origins debate from a scientific point of view.
We do have human and chimpanzee brains, genes involved in brain development can be identified and characterized. For me, this is the logical place to look for a cause and effect relationship effectively demonstrating whether or not it is even possible.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Doesn't the chart "Fossil hominins: Cranial capacity vs time" show that, as an historical fact, brain size increased in overlapping ranges all the way from australopithecus up to modern humans? Doesn't this show that, whatever the cause was, its possible because it actually happened?
Well, we are getting some pretty interesting insights into what would have had to happen. Evolution is a process, natural selection is an effect and paleontology deals with a lot of fragmentary bones. With genetics you are looking at a cause of the differences in no uncertain terms. That is what ultimately has to settle this origins debate from a scientific point of view.
We do have human and chimpanzee brains, genes involved in brain development can be identified and characterized. For me, this is the logical place to look for a cause and effect relationship effectively demonstrating whether or not it is even possible.
Grace and peace,
Mark
A naive question from me (I don't know the answer) may demonstrate the problem: why can't we get any reliable genetic information from a dinosaur bone? Or, this one may be better: do we know any genetic information of Neanderthals?
Wikipedia said:In 2004, Neanderthal ancient mtDNA was partially sequenced in the HVR region for following specimens: Feldhofer 1, Feldhofer 2 from Germany; Mezmaiskaya from the Russian Caucasus; Vindija 75, Vindija 77, Vindija 80 from Croatia; Engis 2 from Belgium; La Chapelle-aux-Saints from France; El Sidrón: 441, 1253, and 1351c from Spain; and Rochers-de-Villeneuve from France and Riparo Mezzena.
In 2009, six Neanderthal mtDNA full sequences were done and published in the NCIB Genebank listed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis complete mitochondrial genome from two studies. The mtDNA genetic diversity in Neandertals 38,000 to 70,000 years ago was about one-third of modern humans. The effective population of Neandertals was smaller than modern humans and great apes.The fossil ages of the five dated Neandertal sequences and a human-chimpanzee divergence of ~6 million years.
Yes, but you missed the point.
We do not have: 0 human > 0.3 human > 0.7 human > 1 human.
We have: 0 human > 1 human. Fossil record does not address this point. The question is still an old one: What is human?
Doesn't the chart "Fossil hominins: Cranial capacity vs time" show that, as an historical fact, brain size increased in overlapping ranges all the way from australopithecus up to modern humans? Doesn't this show that, whatever the cause was, its possible because it actually happened?
I don't think it is wise and certainly not scientific to conclude that an ape brain can triple in size, divide into two hemispheres, mesh the neurons to twice the density of apes unless they know the cause.
No. As a matter of fact I'm convinced that chimpanzee ancestors are being used as transitional fossils. Even if they are not there is a cause and effect relationship that has to be established for an explanation of a phenomenon to be considered 'scientific'. I don't think it is wise and certainly not scientific to conclude that an ape brain can triple in size, divide into two hemispheres, mesh the neurons to twice the density of apes unless they know the cause.JVPITER said:Doesn't the chart "Fossil hominins: Cranial capacity vs time" show that, as an historical fact, brain size increased in overlapping ranges all the way from australopithecus up to modern humans? Doesn't this show that, whatever the cause was, its possible because it actually happened?
As far as the fossils, I've seen the charts and I'm not impressed. When you follow the evidence it is far less compelling then we are being told. As always, I reserve the right to remain unconvinced.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?