Human Evolution Q&A

[sayak83]

I am currently reading up a lot of resources on human evolution. The current scientific evidence points to

1) A divergence between ancestral chimpanzee line and ancestral human like around 6 million years.
2) Increasing adaptation to bipedal locomotion and open woodlands. Multiple species with several bipedal strategies present all over africa (upto 2.5 million years)
3) Beginning of tool use and brain size increase from 2.5 mya. Subsequent adaptation to open savanna
4) Spread out of africa (1.7 mya appx.) and colonization of Europe and Asia
5) Multiple species evolve everywhere
6) Archaic modern humans rise in Africa (200,000 yrs) and spread out to Europe and Asia with limited crossbreeding with other local species.
7) Development of culture around 80,000 and rapid growth after 40,000.

Would like to know about your views on the scientific discourse on human evolution.

[sayak83]

The differences are objectively large and won't go away because you want them to.

[Ozgirl]

When the skeleton structure between two fossil organisms are very different they are classified as different species. This is the morphological species concept. This is not full proof, however for Afarensis and Ardipithecus who lived 1 million yrs apart and looked completely different (hand, feet, locomotion capability etc etc.) and for both of which we have bones from every part of the body, classifying them as different is perfectly uncontroversial. In fact they are so different that they were put in diff. genus Ardipithecus vs Australopithecus.

In other words your classifications are arbitrary and you have no scientific method of classifying extinct species.

So your number 5 is actually unsubstantiated and based on evolutionary assumptions.

Your No1, the chimp/human split, also has a range of 4.1-8my, meaning it is not clear and depends on the insertion valued added to a variety of algorithmic models.

As for this..

Brain size linked with bipedalism was never a prediction of TOE. Otherwise birds would fit the bill too

Bipedalism tied to increases in brain size was the leading evolutionary theory of the day just like the knuckle walking ancestry you struggle with and they formed the basis for an evolutionary prediction that failed.

Recent fossil finds have pushed back the earliest known date by which human ancestors walked on two legs to some six million years ago.

"Our closest living relatives are chimps and gorillas, and since both of them climb trees and walk on their knuckles, it's most likely that our common ancestor with them did that too," he said.

"If our common ancestor with chimpanzees was not a knuckle walker, it means that chimps had to evolve knuckle walking independently from gorillas," he added.

But if the new study is correct that bipedalism occurred in very ancient apes, fossil evidence for the trait might no longer be considered a smoking gun that identifies fossils as belonging to a human ancestor, according to Crompton.

"It's going to make it very much more difficult to tell what's a hominid and what's not," Crompton said.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ans_2.html

It appears that primate bipedalism is no longer solely a human trait. Indeed it took this long for these researchers to work that out, when anyone can see that indeed many primates are capable of short bursts of bipedal walking today.

So thankyou. You have answered my question in relation to No5, which is that evolutionists actually don't know if their fossils were all various species or variations of the same species because classification rankings are arbitrary around the suite of traits chosen.

You have these points. According to the latest flavour of the month things have changed. How surprising!

1 is contested and broad, 2-6 are wrong.


1) A divergence between ancestral chimpanzee line and ancestral human like around 6 million years.

4.1-8mya meaning they have no idea.

2) Increasing adaptation to bipedal locomotion and open woodlands. Multiple species with several bipedal strategies present all over africa (upto 2.5 million years)
Ardi was a biped 4.2mya and bipedalism is speculated to have been around for at least 6my. Bipedalism is no longer solely a human trait

3) Beginning of tool use and brain size increase from 2.5 mya. Subsequent adaptation to open savanna

It could be woods. Brain size is no longer tied to bipedalism

4) Spread out of africa (1.7 mya appx.) and colonization of Europe and Asia
Archaic humans suposedly left Africa 150-200 thousand years ago and there was 3 lots of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_Afr ... ern_humans

5) Multiple species evolve everywhere

There is NO scientific method to classify extinct species eg splitters and lumpers. IOW, researchers have no idea

6) Archaic modern humans rise in Africa (200,000 yrs) and spread out to Europe and Asia with limited crossbreeding with other local species.

Archaic and modern humans are not the same thing. The timing of the dispersal of anatomically modern humans (AMH) out of Africa is a fundamental question in human evolutionary studies. Existing data suggest a rapid coastal exodus via the Indian Ocean rim around 60,000 years ago.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/453

7) Development of culture around 80,000 and rapid growth after 40,000.

Well maybe. It is still being worked on

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/5849 ... st-thought


You got 5 out of 7 wrong according to your evolutionary researchers, with No1 contested and incredibly unstable, demonstrating they have no idea really about any of them.

[sayak83]

1) A divergence between ancestral chimpanzee line and ancestral human like around 6 million years.

4.1-8mya meaning they have no idea.

Actually a genetic clock based divergence date of 6 mya +- 2mya is a very good estimate. Remember that the divergence between ape human lineage could happen anytime between 0-40 miilion yr period...so genetic clocks today have constricted this range by 90%. That's huge progress for a field in 30 yrs.

2) Increasing adaptation to bipedal locomotion and open woodlands. Multiple species with several bipedal strategies present all over africa (upto 2.5 million years)
Ardi was a biped 4.2mya and bipedalism is speculated to have been around for at least 6my. Bipedalism is no longer solely a human trait

Bipedalism is still a characteristic of the hominin line . There is a difference between upright posture (like when sitting or climbing) and bipedalism (walking upright). Upright posture has many of the initila adaptations rqd. for bipedalism and therefore the current argument centers on whether ororin and sahelanthropus had upright posture only or also bipedalism?

However, the Miocene ape precursors of extant great apes and modern humans were anatomically, and presumably behaviourally, quite different from modern great apes, and many of the features often associated uniquely with modern humans are likely to be primitive retentions or specializations that have broader functional"behavioural relationships. For example, the position and orientation of the foramen magnum and aspects of the anatomy of the pelvis and proximal femur that distinguish modern humans from great apes, typically identified as being uniquely related to bipedalism, are, in fact, also found in non-hominoid primates associated with quite different locomotor behaviours.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... tml#/ref11
This debate is not new. When initial fragmentary remains of Australopiths were found there was a similar controversy...settled in favor of bipedalism when fuller skeletons were discovered. Same will happen with Ororin and Sahel.

3) Beginning of tool use and brain size increase from 2.5 mya. Subsequent adaptation to open savanna

It could be woods. Brain size is no longer tied to bipedalism

No brain size is not tied to bipedalism ....known since 1970. Late Homo habilis, Homo Erestis, Homo Rudolfensis all show open savanna adaptation and brain size increase from 2.2 mya while bipedalism started at least by 3.5-4mya.

5) Multiple species evolve everywhere

There is NO scientific method to classify extinct species eg splitters and lumpers. IOW, researchers have no idea

The points were made chronologically. Believe it or not morphological species characterization IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Lumpers and splitter disagree on which should be the null hypothesis...assume that fossils belong to diff species and try to disprove it by showing they are sufficiently similar (splitters) vs assume that fossils belong to same species and try to disprove by showing they are sufficiently distinct (lumpers). For ideal case both methods should yield the same thing...but for fragnmentary data it does not. However both lumpers and splitters agree multiple hominins (Paranthropus, A. Africanus, A. Afarensis, H. erectus etc.) existed. They disagree whether say H. ergaster is really diff from H. erectus (they straddle that line) or A. Anamensis is really diff from the later A. Afarensis (since it appears they evolved from the latter in situ) etc. Lumpers state (and I agree) every new tooth or skull should not be an excuse to name a new species but people must wait till enough bones are uncovered. In many cases they have been and "multiple species have evolved everywhere!"

6) Archaic modern humans rise in Africa (200,000 yrs) and spread out to Europe and Asia with limited crossbreeding with other local species.

Archaic and modern humans are not the same thing. The timing of the dispersal of anatomically modern humans (AMH) out of Africa is a fundamental question in human evolutionary studies. Existing data suggest a rapid coastal exodus via the Indian Ocean rim around 60,000 years ago.

True...I meant to say anatomically modern H. Sapiens evolved 200,000 yrs ago (+- 30,000). Rest reads correctly.

Everything I said stands. Sorry to disappoint you

[Ozgirl]

1) A divergence between ancestral chimpanzee line and ancestral human like around 6 million years.

4.1-8mya meaning they have no idea.

Actually a genetic clock based divergence date of 6 mya +- 2mya is a very good estimate. Remember that the divergence between ape human lineage could happen anytime between 0-40 miilion yr period...so genetic clocks today have constricted this range by 90%. That's huge progress for a field in 30 yrs.

2) Increasing adaptation to bipedal locomotion and open woodlands. Multiple species with several bipedal strategies present all over africa (upto 2.5 million years)
Ardi was a biped 4.2mya and bipedalism is speculated to have been around for at least 6my. Bipedalism is no longer solely a human trait

Bipedalism is still a characteristic of the hominin line . There is a difference between upright posture (like when sitting or climbing) and bipedalism (walking upright). Upright posture has many of the initila adaptations rqd. for bipedalism and therefore the current argument centers on whether ororin and sahelanthropus had upright posture only or also bipedalism?

However, the Miocene ape precursors of extant great apes and modern humans were anatomically, and presumably behaviourally, quite different from modern great apes, and many of the features often associated uniquely with modern humans are likely to be primitive retentions or specializations that have broader functional"behavioural relationships. For example, the position and orientation of the foramen magnum and aspects of the anatomy of the pelvis and proximal femur that distinguish modern humans from great apes, typically identified as being uniquely related to bipedalism, are, in fact, also found in non-hominoid primates associated with quite different locomotor behaviours.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... tml#/ref11
This debate is not new. When initial fragmentary remains of Australopiths were found there was a similar controversy...settled in favor of bipedalism when fuller skeletons were discovered. Same will happen with Ororin and Sahel.

3) Beginning of tool use and brain size increase from 2.5 mya. Subsequent adaptation to open savanna

It could be woods. Brain size is no longer tied to bipedalism

No brain size is not tied to bipedalism ....known since 1970. Late Homo habilis, Homo Erestis, Homo Rudolfensis all show open savanna adaptation and brain size increase from 2.2 mya while bipedalism started at least by 3.5-4mya.

5) Multiple species evolve everywhere

There is NO scientific method to classify extinct species eg splitters and lumpers. IOW, researchers have no idea

The points were made chronologically. Believe it or not morphological species characterization IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Lumpers and splitter disagree on which should be the null hypothesis...assume that fossils belong to diff species and try to disprove it by showing they are sufficiently similar (splitters) vs assume that fossils belong to same species and try to disprove by showing they are sufficiently distinct (lumpers). For ideal case both methods should yield the same thing...but for fragnmentary data it does not. However both lumpers and splitters agree multiple hominins (Paranthropus, A. Africanus, A. Afarensis, H. erectus etc.) existed. They disagree whether say H. ergaster is really diff from H. erectus (they straddle that line) or A. Anamensis is really diff from the later A. Afarensis (since it appears they evolved from the latter in situ) etc. Lumpers state (and I agree) every new tooth or skull should not be an excuse to name a new species but people must wait till enough bones are uncovered. In many cases they have been and "multiple species have evolved everywhere!"

6) Archaic modern humans rise in Africa (200,000 yrs) and spread out to Europe and Asia with limited crossbreeding with other local species.

Archaic and modern humans are not the same thing. The timing of the dispersal of anatomically modern humans (AMH) out of Africa is a fundamental question in human evolutionary studies. Existing data suggest a rapid coastal exodus via the Indian Ocean rim around 60,000 years ago.

True...I meant to say anatomically modern H. Sapiens evolved 200,000 yrs ago (+- 30,000). Rest reads correctly.

Everything I said stands. Sorry to disappoint you

Actually the point is that it is all as clear as mud. That is the point I am making and I can demonstrate it easily.

Evolutionary studies demonstrate that in actual fact evolutionists have no clue what they are talking about. They have a paradign and philosophy they are trying to turn into a science. It is all flavour of the month and flavour of the month will never be science in my world. How about you?

[sayak83]

I do not have opinions. Evolution is science. Whether you believe it or not is entirely upto you. I have presented justifications for my belief that the science of evolution is true, you have done the opposite. I believe my justifications are more valid than yours, and you believe otherwise. Once the evidence is laid out, its upto each of us to decide what to believe as true and take responsibility for that belief.

However you should retract your claim that I got 5 out of my 7 points wrong.

[Ozgirl]

I do not have opinions. Evolution is science. Whether you believe it or not is entirely upto you. I have presented justifications for my belief that the science of evolution is true, you have done the opposite. I believe my justifications are more valid than yours, and you believe otherwise. Once the evidence is laid out, its upto each of us to decide what to believe as true and take responsibility for that belief.

However you should retract your claim that I got 5 out of my 7 points wrong.

No you actually did get them wrong. 5 were way out of date.

Evos that struggle when they are clearly outdated is a drag.

If there is research that gives more that one answer or changes to be flavour of the month then put simply you cannot answer anyones questions. What you can do is face off one opinion against another and hope it does not change mid debate. That is evolutionary science.

[Goat]

I do not have opinions. Evolution is science. Whether you believe it or not is entirely upto you. I have presented justifications for my belief that the science of evolution is true, you have done the opposite. I believe my justifications are more valid than yours, and you believe otherwise. Once the evidence is laid out, its upto each of us to decide what to believe as true and take responsibility for that belief.

However you should retract your claim that I got 5 out of my 7 points wrong.

No you actually did get them wrong. 5 were way out of date.

Evos that struggle when they are clearly outdated is a drag.

If there is research that gives more that one answer or changes to be flavour of the month then put simply you cannot answer anyones questions. What you can do is face off one opinion against another and hope it does not change mid debate. That is evolutionary science.

Would you care back up that claim with documented scientific sources, ?? I mean, slning around insults and claims come easy.. backing them up seems to be 'a drag'

[Neandertal Ned]

Actually a genetic clock based divergence date of 6 mya +- 2mya is a very good estimate. Remember that the divergence between ape human lineage could happen anytime between 0-40 miilion yr period...so genetic clocks today have constricted this range by 90%. That's huge progress for a field in 30 yrs.

Genetic clock readings, like radiometic dating systems, are a modern form of crystal ball gazing and tarot card readings. You get the same garbage out as you read into them in the first place. First thing I learned in computer science was the concept of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

Upright posture has many of the initila adaptations rqd. for bipedalism and therefore the current argument centers on whether ororin and sahelanthropus had upright posture only or also bipedalism?

Ororin and Saleh were subhuman apes no matter how hard Darwinsts try to "humanize" them.

Late Homo habilis, Homo Erestis, Homo Rudolfensis all show open savanna adaptation and brain size increase from 2.2 mya while bipedalism started at least by 3.5-4mya.

Now you are talking about human beings who formerly lived in Africa. Why should they not have run about on the open Savanahs?

5) Multiple species evolve everywhere

Not human species. Where is your evidence of "multiple" human species? Classifying some little African handy man as another species is racist.

Everything I said stands. Sorry to disappoint you

Stands on what - theory? Fantasy? A hypothesis? A worldview?

[Ozgirl]

Actually a genetic clock based divergence date of 6 mya +- 2mya is a very good estimate. Remember that the divergence between ape human lineage could happen anytime between 0-40 miilion yr period...so genetic clocks today have constricted this range by 90%. That's huge progress for a field in 30 yrs.

Genetic clock readings, like radiometic dating systems, are a modern form of crystal ball gazing and tarot card readings. You get the same garbage out as you read into them in the first place. First thing I learned in computer science was the concept of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

Upright posture has many of the initila adaptations rqd. for bipedalism and therefore the current argument centers on whether ororin and sahelanthropus had upright posture only or also bipedalism?

Ororin and Saleh were subhuman apes no matter how hard Darwinsts try to "humanize" them.

Late Homo habilis, Homo Erestis, Homo Rudolfensis all show open savanna adaptation and brain size increase from 2.2 mya while bipedalism started at least by 3.5-4mya.

Now you are talking about human beings who formerly lived in Africa. Why should they not have run about on the open Savanahs?

5) Multiple species evolve everywhere

Not human species. Where is your evidence of "multiple" human species? Classifying some little African handy man as another species is racist.

Everything I said stands. Sorry to disappoint you

Stands on what - theory? Fantasy? A hypothesis? A worldview?

Evolutionists call guess work science. Indeed all they are demonstating is that apes were all one species right down from gorillas to human because they were all having a hoot together and interbreeding right back to gorillas. Toumai with an anterior foramen means apes were bipeds before knuckle walking 'evolved'.

I love these evos that set up questions and answer threads like as if any evolutionist really knows what they are talking about in trying to evolve their philosphy into a science.

[Neandertal Ned]

I love these evos that set up questions and answer threads like as if any evolutionist really knows what they are talking about in trying to evolve their philosphy into a science.

I love the Darwinists who think that the best defense of Darwinism is a good attack on Christians and Christianity as if debunking Christianity and creation science proves that evolution is true. I notice that they are careful not to say anything about Jews and the fact that most of the Bible was written by Jews and the

That is one of the benefits of being a Christian. Besides loving your enemies you can love deleriously desparate Darwinists too! I have never encountered another group of people who take themselves so seriously! One of them even adamantly demands that I learn to speak Darwinese in order to discuss the human fossil record with him! Delicious!