Another Evolution Thread

A Surprise Left

Scubascott wrote:

Why is that a problem?

Hey Mookie - What's the evidence of human-like behaviours in earlier homonids? I assume that the further back you go the less 'human' they were in terms of tool use etc.

Well Neanderthal for instance grew crops and cooked food on stone ovens and there is some instance of written language. If such human like behaviour came from such a primitive human ancestor that is a little strange. It would make more sense for them to be much more primitive than that, rather than being almost exactly the same as us.

Scubascott

A Surprise Left wrote:

Well Neanderthal for instance grew crops and cooked food on stone ovens and there is some instance of written language. If such human like behaviour came from such a primitive human ancestor that is a little strange. It would make more sense for them to be much more primitive than that, rather than being almost exactly the same as us.

Actually neanderthals weren't our ancestors at all. They were a different branch of the evolutionary tree that split from us around the 1 million years ago mark. We co-existed with them for many thousands of years. I believe that they were better adapted to the colder northern hemisphere climates that us during the last ice age. So they dominated those regions for some time, while we were hiding in warmer places like Africa, Indonesia and Australia. Don't quote me on the details though, I may have them completely screwed up. As I said, this isn't my field. I'm a molecular guy. Ask Mookie Baylock.

RainDog

The Neandertal debate is still up in the air, I believe. It's true they were an "earlier" form of human; what's being kicked around now in the scientific community is whether or not they bred with the Cro-Magnuns. It's not that we evolved from Neandertals - the question is, are there still Neandertal genes swimming around in our pool?

Personally, I believe we wiped them out. But that's just me.

brainofPJ

Ahnimus wrote:

I watched a lecture with an evolutionary biologist (2006). He said that in Darwin's time his theory did have many holes in it. However, those holes have since been filled.

You can actually order the DVD of the lecture for free from http://hhmi.org if you live in North America.

“I also have no objection to explanations, if they are good explanations. Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. . . ."


it wasn't Darwin's theory....he just took credit for it...

Ahnimus

brainofPJ wrote:

“I also have no objection to explanations, if they are good explanations. Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. . . ."


it wasn't Darwin's theory....he just took credit for it...

Alfred Russel Wallace?

brainofPJ

Ahnimus wrote:

Alfred Russel Wallace?

i just know that he was a younger contemporary of Darwin.

the concept can be traced back to ancient Greece...there were also several 18th-century forerunners of Darwin who paved the way for wide acceptance of The Origin of Species.

Ahnimus

brainofPJ wrote:

i just know that he was a younger contemporary of Darwin.

the concept can be traced back to ancient Greece...there were also several 18th-century forerunners of Darwin who paved the way for wide acceptance of The Origin of Species.

Ok, but Darwin spent 40 years Quantifying Evolution.

Mookie Baylock

brainofPJ wrote:

i just know that he was a younger contemporary of Darwin.

the concept can be traced back to ancient Greece...there were also several 18th-century forerunners of Darwin who paved the way for wide acceptance of The Origin of Species.

The concept of evolution has been around for as long as people could see similarities between closely related species.

Darwin DID NOT come up with the theory of evolution. There were several theories that pre-dated Darwin, Lamarkian evolution being the most well respected (interestingly Soviet biologists were required to only work with Lamarkian theories until recently). What Darwin came up with was a theory that explained how evolution worked ie. natural selection.

Wallace came up with a similar (albeit less refined) theory at the same time, and as I believe I explained about 10 pages back the initial presentation of their ideas was done together, although Darwin came up with it much much earlier. He sat on his theories because it conflicted with his religious beliefs.

Mookie Baylock

Scubascott wrote:

Actually neanderthals weren't our ancestors at all. They were a different branch of the evolutionary tree that split from us around the 1 million years ago mark. We co-existed with them for many thousands of years. I believe that they were better adapted to the colder northern hemisphere climates that us during the last ice age. So they dominated those regions for some time, while we were hiding in warmer places like Africa, Indonesia and Australia. Don't quote me on the details though, I may have them completely screwed up. As I said, this isn't my field. I'm a molecular guy. Ask Mookie Baylock.

Agreed, neanderthals were not human anscestors. They were contemporaries of humans. Homo Erectus living in ice age Europe evolved into Neanderthals, while Erectus in Africa became humans. The humans then left Africa and met the Neanderthals in the Middle East Area where they co-existed for tens of thousands of years. What level of interaction there was we don't know. It is possible that they interbred, and there is debate over it. I don't buy it myself. Neanderthals were intelligent and strong, but they were not nearly as sophisticated as we were/are.

Mookie Baylock

Scubascott wrote:

Why is that a problem?

Hey Mookie - What's the evidence of human-like behaviours in earlier homonids? I assume that the further back you go the less 'human' they were in terms of tool use etc.

Well as you trace the fossil record back in time, you see how our anscestors become more apelike and smaller brained. In terms of behaviour all we really have to go on are stone tools which, as expected become less and less complex as you go back in time. That being said, there are a few indications. For example the 4 million year old footprints, at Laitoli I believe, show what might be interpreted as a family unit.

Explaining any behaviour in an extinct species is difficult and is mainly based on interpretation. If you want to hear my personal theory...

I believe that "human" behavior began with the evolution of the menstral cycle (I could get into the origins of the menstaul cycle later if you like). Before this, pre-human society would have been similar to ape society. An alpha male having domination over the lesser males and first access to fertile females. With the adoption of the menstraul cycle, as opposed to the eustrus cycle, females were ,for all intents and purposes, fertile all the time meaning less compitition between males for fertile females and a more egalitarian society. Also, this might have led to advances in female behaviour and anatomy, as they had to escape the hoards of horny males, lol. This led to the disapearance of extreme sexual dimorphism, as the females had to protect themselves!

This is just my theory now, so don't go reading too much into it.

Ahnimus

wow, I thought alpha males are bald.

J/k different context

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

So, I've come to learn recently that as of 2006 half of Americans do not accept evolution. This is primarily based on the Intelligent Design movement.

Let me sort out some myths about evolution.

There are no missing links
There is no controversy in the scientific community
Charles Darwin himself didn't like his own theory but recognized it as the truth.

Proponents of ID argue it's a scientific theory because of the flagellum of bacteria. Flagella are whip-like extensions from organisms like bacteria that propel them. The flagella are fairly complex, for a tiny molecule like bacteria. You can see an animation here and a part description here. The claim is that since a tiny molecule has a complex limb such as the flagellum and since the part is "irreducable" meaning one missing piece renders the flagellum useless, that that is evidence of Intelligent Design.

Scientifically speaking, each individual part of the flagellum serves other purposes. So it is reducable, it just won't have propulsion if key components are missing. Even with 40 missing components the flagellum can still work. Secondly, this isn't a single-cell organism, this isn't the begining of life Darwin was refering to, this is a complex molecule.

Another arguement was the mathematical probability of chance. By reversing the product of chance everything seems impossible. For example, you get dealt a Royal Flush in a game of Five Card Stud. What are the chances? Well if you reverse it the chances are roughly 1 in 2.5 million, but it does happen. Just within our puny existance I'm sure this hand has come up a few times. So, our planet's age is about 4.6 billion years or so, our species age is about 7 million years old, but we've probably only been sentient for a few hundred thousand years. Anyway, the likely hood of us happening is 100% in reflection. The same chance of being dealt a Royal Flush, if you have a Royal Flush in your hand.

You can question the "theory" of evolution but you can't question the fact that we evolved from ape-like creatures. Which is the fundamental problem people have with evolution. Evolution is the basis for most of our scientific research into disease. Without the understanding of Evolution we would never cure cancer or AIDS.

When someone says "I have a dachsund-terrier mix" they are making reference to evolution. Their animal has some traits from the dachsund and some from the terrier, that is evolution and it's undenyable.

Anyway, sorry for rehashing this, it just blows me away that half of Americans buy into that ID crap and the propaganda that goes with it.

let's say a million years from now a scientist finds one set of bones from the 20th century. those of the elephant man. he will conclude that 20th century man looked like that; then come up with a theory of how 20th century man evolved from that state to present state. just something to think about.

Mookie Baylock

onelongsong wrote:

let's say a million years from now a scientist finds one set of bones from the 20th century. those of the elephant man. he will conclude that 20th century man looked like that; then come up with a theory of how 20th century man evolved from that state to present state. just something to think about.

Are you implying that fossils are just deformed people? Fossilization is very rare, and then the likelyhood that a fossil surviving, then being found is very very rare, one in a million at least. The odds that a fossil being found is deformed is very unlikely. Because of the odds, most fossils are considered to be typical of their species.
Not only that but we find groups of similarily "deformed" humans at different time periods and in different locations. If every 4 million year old austrolpithicus is really a deformed human, why do we find so many similarly deformed people from the same period, and no modern people until 150000 years ago?

Do you really believe that fossil experts are so stupid that they can't recognize an abnormailty from an adaptation? For instance, skulls are symetrical, the elephant man was anything but.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

let's say a million years from now a scientist finds one set of bones from the 20th century. those of the elephant man. he will conclude that 20th century man looked like that; then come up with a theory of how 20th century man evolved from that state to present state. just something to think about.

Yea, I guess, but that's not going to happen. Besides we've found several fossils of the same species, granted there are some we've only found single samples. Take a trip to the La Brea tar pits. I've never been there, but I hear it's cool.

CorporateWhore

A Surprise Left wrote:

Well Neanderthal for instance grew crops and cooked food on stone ovens and there is some instance of written language. If such human like behaviour came from such a primitive human ancestor that is a little strange. It would make more sense for them to be much more primitive than that, rather than being almost exactly the same as us.

One of the central aspects in which humans were special is that they buried their dead.

Neaderthals just let their dead sit out and rot. They had no custom of burial whatsoever.

To me, that seems to be a significant difference that is worthy of noting.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, I guess, but that's not going to happen. Besides we've found several fossils of the same species, granted there are some we've only found single samples. Take a trip to the La Brea tar pits. I've never been there, but I hear it's cool.

i was watching a show on national geographic channel where a girl found an alien skull in a cave in mexico.

Mookie Baylock

CorporateWhore wrote:

One of the central aspects in which humans were special is that they buried their dead.

Neaderthals just let their dead sit out and rot. They had no custom of burial whatsoever.

To me, that seems to be a significant difference that is worthy of noting.

Wrong. Actually there is lots of evidence of buried neanderthals. For example a skeleton known as "Shanidar 1" was buried with grave goods, surrounded by red ochre (a surprising common human custom). His skeleton also showed that he had been severely injured years before he had died, and would have been basically unable to contribute to every life. He lost an eye, and had severly damanged arms and legs. Yet he was cared for and lived for years after and was given an elaborate burial when he died. This is the first evidence for compassion in history.

Neanderthal life was not as variable and complex as ours, but they were had plenty of culture, including possible bone flutes, for instance.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

i was watching a show on national geographic channel where a girl found an alien skull in a cave in mexico.

Well yea, all Mexican's are aliens to the U.S. :P

What kind of Alien was it?

Mookie Baylock

onelongsong wrote:

i was watching a show on national geographic channel where a girl found an alien skull in a cave in mexico.

Cultures in that area practiced cranial reformation on their infants when their skulls are still very soft and non-fused. The result is surprisingly strange looking skulls. I've seen some, they're fricking weird. It's similar to the North American natives who carried their babies on cradleboards worn like backpacks. The infants end up with heads that are very flat on the back from resting against the boards all the time.

gue_barium

CorporateWhore wrote:

One of the central aspects in which humans were special is that they buried their dead.

Neaderthals just let their dead sit out and rot. They had no custom of burial whatsoever.

To me, that seems to be a significant difference that is worthy of noting.

Actually, Neanderthals did bury their dead, and this is one of the reasons their study has been so intense.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/museum/VirtualTour/Tour/First/Human/human3.html