Human Evolution

[Jose]

jcrawford and I have been having some interesting discussions in other threads, which have led to the notion that we really need a thread on human evolution. So, here it is.

The Rules
We want to work from data. Data that is discussed must be accessible in the scientific literature. Personally, I would prefer the peer-reviewed literature, because, as those of us in science know all too well, the peer reviewers are usually one's competitors. Thus, they are typically extremely critical of what we write.

Any other information that is brought to bear must also be accessible to everyone. Where requested, direct quotes from the sources will be important.

The questions for discussion

1. What is the current best understanding of human origins?

2. What "confounds" are there in the interpretation of data?

3. Given that there is always genetic diversity within populations, how easily can we assign hominid fossils to different groups? Here, the term "form-species" is probably most useful, referring to similar fossils with similar forms, but in the absence of information on the capacity for interbreeding. In many cases, different form-species are different species (fossil trees vs fossil insects), but sometimes they are not (fossil leaves vs fossil roots of the same tree).

4. Does information based on fossil data mesh with information based on genetic data? The true history must be genetically feasible. The fossils must have been left by individuals who were produced by normal genetic methods. To be valid, any explanation of origins must incorporate both fossil and genetic data.

5. What are the parts of human history that are most at odds with (some) Christian views, and what suggestions can we offer for reaching a reconciliation?

I will begin by posting the following genetic data, which is pictorial representation of the differences and similarities in mitochondrial DNA sequence of a whole bunch of people. Relative difference/similarity is proportional to the lengths of the vertical lines. Horizontal lines merely separate the vertical lines so we can see them.

How do we interpret these data?

[If appropriate, I will edit this post to ensure that the OP of this thread lists the important questions.

[jcrawford]

There is no raw data, Jose. All interpretations and facts based on data are the result of theoretical pre-suppostions and assumptions about them, as pointed out by Karl Popper and Einstein himself.

You've lost me here. If "there is no raw data," then how can there be interpretations "based on data"?

The diagram is based on data specifically selected to illustrate the theory. Even the names given to the different populations are selected in terms of what the illustrator wants to show. The data is only being "interpreted" by those of us who did not select and arrange it in the first place.

Show me some "data" that indicates that today's human beings evolved from other 'species' of human beings who in turn evolved from African monkey and ape ancestors once upon a time.

We'll get there, don't worry. How about going one step at a time? Speaking of which, can you give me your interpretation of the diagram I've posted for you?

Jose, I haven't a clue how to "interpret" the diagram, and need to rely on the interpretation of others in order to make any sense out of it at all. Comments by the other posters are somewhat helpful but I still haven't a clue as to what the evolutionary implications of the diagram are, and am relying on your claim that "We'll get there, don't worry. How about going one step at a time?"

You can use neo-Darwnist notions of genetic mutation, adaptation and natural selection if you care to, but you're still going to fall into the inescapable trap of racism once you arrive at that evolutionist point in pre-history where there are no other human beings on earth except those first few African people whom Darwin imagined to have closely resembled African ape and monkey ancestors in their earliest stages.

I think we'll have to wait and see whether the data force us to that conclusion or not.

The Smithsonian phylogenetic diagram based on the fossil data which you generously provided the link to, has already forced us that conclusion. Are you claiming to have genetic data and evidence contradicting neo-Darwinist phylogenies clearly indicating the evolution of non-human primates into the first 'species' of African people on earth?

Why does chimp have such a small geneology line?

They used only one chimp sequence. I'd be interested in seeing a tree that has 100 chimps and 100 humans...There would probably be a human "bush" on one side, and a chimp "bush" on the other side, with the two family bushes joined by the branches of the tree. But, with only one individual, we don't get much of a tree.

No, but the Bush Family has a couple of branches around the White House Christmas tree. BTW: Where is our one and only Chimp? I haven't seen any of his posts on this thread yet.

[Jose]

Here's a clear-cut neo-Darwinist rule of evolution that obviously applies to humans: The risk of extinction to a human species is proportionally increased to the degree that another human species continues to out-populate the first, in territorial expansion.

Except that it is not a neo-Darwinist rule, and it is not at all obvious that it applies to humans. We know that it doesn't apply to other species, so why should humans be weird and have it apply to them?

We should rephrase this rule to be scientifically accurate: The risk of extinction of a species depends upon other species competing for the same niche, or upon predation by other species. Humans could have gone extinct if lions had eaten them. Moas became extinct because humans ate them. Eastern bluebirds are decreasing in numbers because European starlings are competing for the same nesting sites, and are very good at it.

If a species that is well-adapted to living in grasslands has a small group--let's call it a tribe--that migrates off into a different place, and over a few centuries becomes adapted to living in mountains, then won't we have two different groups?

Not for long, according to the African Eve Model.

I think you'll have to explain your reasoning here. I claim that the African Eve Model is completely silent on this, and that there is no basis at all for claiming that one group must displace the other.

One will live happily in the mountains, the other will live happily in the grasslands. If they aren't competing for the same resources in the same place, shouldn't they be able to co-exist?

That would be nice, Jose, but you know how evolution works. A few individuals in one group or the other eventually mutate, migrate into the other's territory and are naturally selected to out-populate and dominate the other group.

And...what would make them mutate so that they could do this? Indeed, I do know how evolution works, and I recognize your suggestion here as an assumption that is not supported by evidence. Many people seem to make this assumption, but it is entirely unwarranted.

[jcrawford]

At least the diagram size is OK, for once!

Yes, Jose, you are doing very well on that score. Aside from the size of the diagrams, though, it is their content which is meaningless in terms of neo-Darwinst racial concepts of human evolution out of a 'species' of African people who originated and descended from African ape and monkey ancestors.

Now, to be "picky" about terminology, we can't show the groups evolving because that would require some kind of movie of the dynamic process. All we have are static timepoints. The current timepoint can give us data on lots and lots of individuals; fossils are each a single timepoint represented by a single individual. We need to put these different timepoints together to reconstruct the movie. In reconstructing the movie, we are constrained to ensure that the movie reflects genetic mechanisms accurately.

Where's Jim, the Happy Humanist with some popcorn now that the movie of human evolution out of Africa is about to be reconstructed before our very eyes? Cecile B. DeMille must be turning over in his grave. This promises to be a bigger box-office draw than "The Ten Commandments," "Planet of the Apes," and "The Passion of Christ" combined.

[Jose]

The diagram is based on data specifically selected to illustrate the theory. Even the names given to the different populations are selected in terms of what the illustrator wants to show. The data is only being "interpreted" by those of us who did not select and arrange it in the first place.

You have made an unwarranted assumption. The data were not selected for any reason other than the individuals seemed like a good representation of humanity. The relationship of their sequences was not pre-selected.

Sure, we can give names to groups, but that's not forcing us to conclude anything. Rather, it makes it easier to tell where the dots are. We could leave off the words altogether, and the data would remain unchanged, and the interpretation would still be up to the viewer. That is, by the way, an inherent assumption in science: the reader will, and should, come to their own interpretation of the data we present. If the author is a good scientist, then he's reached the same conclusion from the data that the readers do when they re-think it, and check whether he's right.

Jose, I haven't a clue how to "interpret" the diagram, and need to rely on the interpretation of others in order to make any sense out of it at all. Comments by the other posters are somewhat helpful but I still haven't a clue as to what the evolutionary implications of the diagram are, and am relying on your claim that "We'll get there, don't worry. How about going one step at a time?"

Fair enough. My apologies for jumping too far at once. Does the last bit of my last post help? I want to avoid "telling the answer," and prefer having our readers work to the answer independently--so they can decide whether my view of it is reasonable. So, if what I've said doesn't seem reasonable, let me know where you think the flaws are.

The Smithsonian phylogenetic diagram based on the fossil data which you generously provided the link to, has already forced us that conclusion. Are you claiming to have genetic data and evidence contradicting neo-Darwinist phylogenies clearly indicating the evolution of non-human primates into the first 'species' of African people on earth?

Hmmm...by "making the data force us to a conclusion," I mean looking at the data and feeling that only one interpretation is valid. Having someone else tell us their view may be a helpful guide, but they could be wrong, so we can't trust 'em.

The Smithsonian site is their summary of their understanding of the fossil data. The dotted lines connecting different species are dotted in order to indicate uncertainty, while at the same time indicating their current best interpretation. If their diagram is reasonably correct, then it must be compatible with information gleaned from genetics. As for the diagram itself, we'll be able to tear it to bits (or conclude that it's right) when we get to your favorite part--the fossils.

[jcrawford]

The data are comparisons among a whole lot of individual humans. From the data we should be able to determine which groups represent different races, since "race" should be (and is, for other species) determined by genetic differences. A cluster of individuals that are relatively-closely related might be one "race." If you look at the diagram (especially the lower one, that has 4 groups rotated to different angles) you will see that we could view the data as 4 such clusters. The "genetic structure" of the human population thus seems to suggest that there might be 4 races. Given the locations in which these individuals live, we'd conclude that 3 of these races are strictly African, while the fourth includes some Africans plus everyone else.

Do you really want to start classifying people of various racial backgrounds into 4 distinct "races," Jose? Wouldn't it be better if we simply referred to descendents of various geographic regions as racial types best described by various members of the various racial groups themselves. Otherwise, we just end up providing scientific warranties that there really are different and separate genetic races of people in the world today. I mean, it's bad enough that some geneticists today support neo-Darwinist contentions that our human ancestors consisted of a progression of 'species' which originated from some ancestral species of modern African monkeys and apes.

There is no indication anywhere here that any of these races might be "superior" to any others.

I'm not sure about that since implying that the greater genetic diversity in people of African ancestry may indicate that they have been around longer than any other racial group may be taken by some as an indication of racial supremacy.

Nor is there any indication that the whole species of H. sapiens might be "superior" to any other species. The data merely indicate the genetic structure of the population.

The data doesn't even indicate that the population is representative of the whole species of H. sapiens, let alone that any other species exists.

[jcrawford]

Nor, I might add, is there any indication that there is any validity to the common notions of different races. The common notion is that skin color is what defines race. So, people tend to think of Africans as one race, Europeans as another, Asians as another, etc. This turns out not to be supported by the data. Rather, it is as you have said: there is genetic diversity.

And racial diversity also.

The one race that is comprised of Africans and non-Africans has genetic diversity, including diversity for skin color, hair color, and eye color. There is no justification for using any of these colors to define "race."

Aren't you genetically defining and inventing a new human race here, Jose? What race is comprised of Africans and non-Africans? Might I suggest that we drop the idea of genetic races from the discussion before we get in way over our heads and end up not knowing what on earth we are talking about? Best leave it to concepts of racial diversity, racial variations and self-identified racial groups.

[Cathar1950]

I was just joking about Chimps line. But I also had to mention that the words chimp and champ have an 80 % difference not the 95 that humans have with chimps.
jcrawford wrote:

Aren't you genetically defining and inventing a new human race here, Jose? What race is comprised of Africans and non-Africans? Might I suggest that we drop the idea of genetic races from the discussion before we get in way over our heads and end up not knowing what on earth we are talking about? Best leave it to concepts of racial diversity, racial variations and self-identified racial groups.

No he is not inventing a new human race. He is speaking of our species racial characteristics are just poor conventions used to look at genetic diversity,

including diversity for skin color, hair color, and eye color. There is no justification for using any of these colors to define "race."

Those characteristics are part of all of us. It is in our make up as humans to adapt. I was reading some article about Jewish population. Well it seemed these people all had genes that went back to the middle east but what was interesting they all looked just like the rest of the population they life in. If they lived in Africa they looked like Africans. If they lived in China the looked like Chinese. In Sweden they looked like Swedes(spelling?). Where did I read that?

[jcrawford]

If a species that is well-adapted to living in grasslands has a small group--let's call it a tribe--that migrates off into a different place, and over a few centuries becomes adapted to living in mountains, then won't we have two different groups?

Not for long, according to the African Eve Model.

I think you'll have to explain your reasoning here. I claim that the African Eve Model is completely silent on this, and that there is no basis at all for claiming that one group must displace the other.

The African Eve Model proposes that a tribe of African Homo sapiens migrates out of East Africa into the Middle East and all of Eurasia and not only displaces all other 'species' and racial groups from their nooks and niches in the desert, plains and all the high mountains of the world, but eventually replaces them as the only living species of humans to leave modern descendents on the planet while all former 'species' and racial groups become extinct without issue.

Lubenow and I propose that modern neo-Darwinists MUST propose this model in order to genetically associate, link and trace the ancestries of all historical and living people back to African origins in order to further associate, link and connect them with former neo-Darwinist 'species of African people whom neo-Darwinists racially theorize originated and descended from non-human African ape and monkey ancestors.

African Eve neo-Darwinists have theoretically got to wipe all other 'species' and racial groups of the face of the earth in order to trace modern human ancestry back to African ape and monkey ancestors. They can't allow any ancient Middle Eastern and Eurasian early/archaic Homo sapiens 'species' or racial groups to be the original ancestors of modern people in their representative geographic areas because that wouldn't accommodate Darwin's original racist theory that all human beings descended from anthropomorphous apes in Africa.

[jcrawford]

One will live happily in the mountains, the other will live happily in the grasslands. If they aren't competing for the same resources in the same place, shouldn't they be able to co-exist?

That would be nice, Jose, but you know how evolution works. A few individuals in one group or the other eventually mutate, migrate into the other's territory and are naturally selected to out-populate and dominate the other group.

And...what would make them mutate so that they could do this? Indeed, I do know how evolution works, and I recognize your suggestion here as an assumption that is not supported by evidence. Many people seem to make this assumption, but it is entirely unwarranted.

Jose, we're talking about the origins, survival and extinction of human 'species' in accordance with both Darwin's and neo-Darwinist's theories of random mutation, adaptation, natural and sexual selection. How on earth could a tribe of African Homo sapiens migrate out of East Africa one hundred tya. into the Middle East and then throughout all of Europe, the Caucasus, China, India, Indonesia and the rest of the known world at that time, replacing all former human inhabitants of those territories by sexually out-reproducing them without inter-breeding with them to the extent that all former 'species' and racial groups in those geographical regions around the world eventually became extinct and the over-breeding breed of superior African Homo sapiens were the only race or 'species' left to re-populate the entire world and become the mother race of us all today, if that's only an "assumption" about how evolution works and only you really know how it does?

The African Eve Model is a genocidal genetic theory of human evolution, Jose. No wonder geneticists are interested in human cloning and other genetic manipulations of plants, animals and human beings.

[jcrawford]

Jose, I haven't a clue how to "interpret" the diagram, and need to rely on the interpretation of others in order to make any sense out of it at all. Comments by the other posters are somewhat helpful but I still haven't a clue as to what the evolutionary implications of the diagram are, and am relying on your claim that "We'll get there, don't worry. How about going one step at a time?"

Fair enough. My apologies for jumping too far at once. Does the last bit of my last post help? I want to avoid "telling the answer," and prefer having our readers work to the answer independently--so they can decide whether my view of it is reasonable. So, if what I've said doesn't seem reasonable, let me know where you think the flaws are.

Jose, I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about regarding the "flaws" in the diagram or whether "your view of it is reasonable," other than it shows greater genetic diversity amongst Africans, which is common genetic knowledge to start with and needs no diagram to say so, but rather a written explanation of what this greater African genetic diversity means in terms of African people originally originating from non-human African ape and monkey ancestors. I think the other posters have also lost interest in the diagram and have fallen asleep or are watching SG1, so can you just tell us how this diagram relates to human evolution out of Africa and be done with it or else I am going to win this debate by technical default on your part.

The Smithsonian phylogenetic diagram based on the fossil data which you generously provided the link to, has already forced us that conclusion. Are you claiming to have genetic data and evidence contradicting neo-Darwinist phylogenies clearly indicating the evolution of non-human primates into the first 'species' of African people on earth?

Hmmm...by "making the data force us to a conclusion," I mean looking at the data and feeling that only one interpretation is valid. Having someone else tell us their view may be a helpful guide, but they could be wrong, so we can't trust 'em.

The Smithsonian site is their summary of their understanding of the fossil data. The dotted lines connecting different species are dotted in order to indicate uncertainty, while at the same time indicating their current best interpretation. If their diagram is reasonably correct, then it must be compatible with information gleaned from genetics. As for the diagram itself, we'll be able to tear it to bits (or conclude that it's right) when we get to your favorite part--the fossils.

We're seven or eight pages into the debate already and you haven't associated one human gene with one single fossil. You did say something about the fossil record being compliant with genetic interpretations, didn't you?