Did humans descend from other primates?

[McCulloch]

Man did not descend from the primates.

Did humans descend from other primates?
Are humans primates or should there be special biological taxonomy for humanity?
Please cite evidence.

[otseng]

"With genetic manipulation and intensive production technologies, it is common for modern dairy cows to produce 100 pounds of milk a day— 10 times more than they would produce in nature."

http://139.78.104.1/breeds/cattle/

Sounds to me like you are wrong, man has indeed made large morphological changes in cattle(and other animals)in the last 10,000 years.

You left out the word "novel". Producing more of the same thing would just be microevolution.

So, there appears to be a limit to microevolutionary changes when we breed animals. And if there is a limit to artificial selection, why should we expect natural selection to be limitless?

There is no limit, given time. Man has been at this evolution business for about 10-15 thousand years and we have already created new species. Imagine having a few hundred MILLION years to act on creatures more complicated than a single cell. You really don't have to imagine anything, we have lots of fossils of the myriad of different lifeforms nature created, including men.

If you bring up the fossil record to prove macroevolution, then that would be circular logic, since macroevolution is used to explain the fossil record.

Man is clearly the only creature to control fire. It is one of the first things men were able to do that marked us as different in a qualitative way than all the other creatures.

Yes, I would agree with that.

So every creature(whatever you call it)for the last million years or so that controlled fire were men of one species or another.

Please show evidence of fire being in use in the last million years.

[McCulloch]

You left out the word "novel". Producing more of the same thing would just be microevolution.

What is it about humans that you believe is novel, as compared to the other primates?

[Matthew712]

You left out the word "novel". Producing more of the same thing would just be microevolution.

What counts as "novel"? Many of our organs and body plans and such are really just modified systems that started millions of years ago. Exactly, in your view, when is something no longer microevolution and officially macroevolution; where is the dividing line?

[SailingCyclops]

Please show evidence of fire being in use in the last million years.

There's quite a bit of evidence:

Evolution of Fire

The use of fire has long been thought to have coincided with, and perhaps aided in the precipitation of, the evolution of modern human culture and language around forty thousand years ago. That is, up until last year, when two controversial studies were released that brought this long held notion into question. These new findings suggest that not only might fire have been put to intentional use by humans as far back as 1.6 million years ...
[...]
Last April, this question was answered by Brian Ludwig of Rutgers University.
After studying forty thousand pieces of flint tool artifacts, ranging from 1 to 2.5 million years old, from sites throughout Africa, Ludwig found some surprising results. When rocks have been exposed to heat, they develop telltale signs of heat exposure, in the form of observable “potlid fractures�. After studying his tool artifacts, Ludwig discovered that the artifacts he was studying started to show these small fractures only after about 1.6 million years (McCrone, 2000). This finding suggests that by that time, H. erectus was not only using campfires regularly, but also hunting and possibly even cooking tools.
[...]

Human evolution, fire, and food

... In spite of the fact fire use becomes spottier the farther back in the historical record you go, Wringham maintains that this clutch tool could have triggered the cascade. In fact, it is interesting to note that evidence for the use of fire –spotty though it may be- goes as far back as 1.6 millions years to about the time H.erectus appeared.
[...]

Did homo erectus discover fire?

The homo sapiens mental revolution took place between 100,000 and 40,000 years ago, following the development of grammatical speech. But Homo erectus was pretty smart already judging by evidence that fire had been discovered over 1.6 million years ago. Could fire really have been such an early discovery?
[...]
New evidence, however, suggests that human exploitation of fire may be quite incredibly ancient, going back some 1.6 million years. Recently developed forensic techniques are strengthening the case that some long-disputed fire remains found in Kenya, East Africa, were indeed kindled by our ancestors.
[...]
At both sites, archaeologists found the bones and stone tools of Homo erectus--the first hominid species to have a markedly larger brain and fully human-proportioned body. At Koobi Fora, the excavations also uncovered a scattering of ten small, half-metre diameter, "lenses" of baked orange earth dating to around 1.6 million years ago.
[...]

In Search of Human Origins

A million and a half years ago, a strangely human creature appeared. These creatures lived in family groups. They used fire for warmth and protection. This was Homo erectus, a human ancestor who set the stage for the appearance of ourselves, Homo sapiens. With the control of fire, these ancestors became a people on the move.

Bob

[Goat]

Sounds to me like you are wrong, man has indeed made large morphological changes in cattle(and other animals)in the last 10,000 years.

You left out the word "novel". Producing more of the same thing would just be microevolution.

[/quote]

Can you give me the working definition you have of 'macroevolution'. It seems anytime someone brings out evidence, you proclaim it 'microevolution'. Just so there isn't a moving of definitions, can you give me a clear and concise definition on how you are using 'macroevolution'.

[otseng]

[That macroevolution is currently considered to be accumulated microevolution[1]] confirms my point. Macroevolution would be an extrapolation of microevolution. It is an inherently unobservable since it requires a long period of time.

By analogy in physics: In a few billion years, the Andromeda galaxy is slated to collide (or have a near miss) with the Milky Way. We cannot observe an event that takes billions of years. However, nobody is voicing skepticism about the collision because we cannot observe it from beginning to end (we may indeed be extinct). Extrapolation? Sure. What's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with extrapolation by itself. To reiterate my point, all I'm saying is that macroevolution is unobservable. I brought this up originally to counter the charge that a designer should be dismissed because it cannot be observed and revealing the inconsistency in the use of observability.

As for "no known biological mechanism which stops accumulation of genetic changes", this can be demonstrated in the breeding of animals. Though we can produce a variety of animal breeds, there is no example that I've seen where any major novel morphological features have been produced. Hair length and color can change. Length of necks, legs, beaks, ears, etc can change. Features from different animals can be combined, but no new major features arises. So, there appears to be a limit to microevolutionary changes when we breed animals. And if there is a limit to artificial selection, why should we expect natural selection to be limitless?

You haven't demonstrated that there is a limiting mechanism at work within artificial selection.

What I have shown is that from human experience in the domestication of animals, there is not much significant change in morphological features in animals to account for common descent.

You've pointed out that some thousands of years are insufficient to produce phenotypic change which will satisfy your version of macroevolution (which can conveniently be set higher than anything we have artificially selected thus far).

It might be my version, but I do not think it is an incompatible view of evolution. If common descent is true, my definition of macroevolution would certainly apply.

What I mean by macroevolution is major novel morphological features between different species. "An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs."
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 017#321017

"Novel morphological features" is too vague, as is the subjective qualifier "major".

Yes, I would agree that there is a subjective element to it. But even the term "species" is a bit subjective.

"It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

And since micro and macro is often differentiated at the species level by evolutionists, then the terms microevolution and macroevolution are also likewise subjective.

(Rapid evolution of cecal valves in Pod Kopiste wall lizards? Not 'major' enough for you, I suspect.)

Yes, I'm heard of this before. And no, I would not consider it to be neither major nor novel.

What I am looking for is an objective evaluation I can perform on traits to determine if they are micro- or macro-evolutionary. I am not looking for a list of comparisons: 'The appearance of trait X is macro; the appearance of Y is micro; the appearance of Z is macro...' I don't think this objective criterion can be provided.

I'm not so sure there can be an objective evaluation either. But, this would be a problem across the board.

You suggested that analogous gene similarity might arise due to similarity of designed function.

I don't necessarily claim that, but I don't rule it out either.

In a previous post, you say:

As for genetic similarities, if species share morphological similarities, it would make sense that they also share genetic similarities.

I think the difference here is "similarity of function" and "morphological similarities". Two different morphological features could be used for a similar function. A hoof and a webbed foot can be used for walking, but are not similar morphologically.

I can see no a priori reason to expect this pattern if the organisms were designed. Can you provide one? 'The designer could've done it that way' doesn't cut it. The designer could've done anything - you refuse to discuss the scope and limitations of its methods. What reasons do we have to think it should've done it that way?

I try not to use that as an explanation and I don't believe I've ever stated that here in this thread.

If possible, please define patterns (or lack thereof) of genetic similarity among extant organisms which cannot be accounted for by a designer. If this cannot be done (because a designer can be invoked to explain any pattern), will you concede that design is unfalsifiable by molecular genetic evidence (unlike evolution)?

The only way I can currently think of to falsify what I claim using molecular genetic evidence is what I stated earlier - "Genetic changes from one species to another and leading to humans are identified." For the purposes of this discussion, just the genetic steps from the common primate ancestor to humans would suffice to falsify the Human Creation Model. I would agree that modern genetics is not able to do this now. But, if it's ever done in the future, the model I proposed would be falsified.

It's not necessary to specify the tools used by a designer to infer a designer. I do not need to know the tools used by the sculptors of Mount Rushmore to infer that it was a product of intelligence rather than natural forces.

I disagree strongly for the reasons I outlined in this previous post. At the very least, you need to know that Mt. Rushmore is predated by intentional tool-users (potential designers).

I was specifically addressing your point "You have been invoking a designer, but you have not specified any of the tools used by the designer (or the genetic artifacts left by those tools which we might observe today)." My point is not about the ability to detect design, but that knowledge of the tools used is not necessary.

Regarding the demand for a sequential list of genetic changes between species...

But this is impossible because we can't genetically sample extinct intermediate forms.

This is not entirely true, but I would agree that it is generally true. However, it is entirely possible that in the future we would have the genome mapped for all extant species. And then determine all the genetic changes necessary to go from one species to another.

I have to disagree again. First of all, it is not clear how having all extant genomes will allow us to infer the step-wise mutations between them. There are infinitely many trajectories of incremental genome change that can get you from one extant genome to another. Additionally, many of these paths through 'sequence space' are blocked because of they decrease fitness - natural selection would prevent these paths from being traversed. We cannot tell which is which for the same reason we cannot predict a priori whether a mutation will be beneficial/harmful/neutral: We cannot infer phenotype from genotype, and we cannot predict whether a phenotype will have a reproductive advantage without knowing it's environment. We can't recreate extinct ecosystems to test the fitness of these infinite intermediate forms.

If this is even impossible in principle, then there'd be no way to unequivocally prove common descent through genetic evidence.

Second, where along these paths is the common ancestor? Knowing extant genomes cannot tell you what the ancestral genome looked like.

If this is true (and if it's impossible to know the genome of extinct organisms), then it'd be impossible to construct a tree of life diagram based on genetics.

Third, we have a complete chimp and human genome. We can compare all the differences. You claim that having all sequences (and their comparative differences) will allow us to trace lineages among all species.

No, I'm not claiming that anyone currently can do this.

Basically, the first piece of evidence you ask for is impossible to obtain. Even the genome sequences for every living organism on earth constitutes a necessarily insufficient data set to do what you suggest.

What I've offered is the definitive proof and falsification of the theories. Can you offer then any other suggestions that would be the definitive proof and falsification of the theories?

Due to the same inability to genetically sample these fossil species, we will probably never have a definitive phylogeny for them.

I would agree with this.

Then why did you ask for it?

To be clear, I've never asked to be able to "genetically sample" these fossil species. I was thinking of being able to reconstruct the extinct genomes from known genomes. But, if you say that this would be impossible even in principle in the future, then I'll defer to you to provide methods to prove common descent.

As I tried to say with the whale fossil analogy, fossil constitute insufficient evidence to form a unique phylogeny. They can show that intermediate forms have existed over time, but we cannot tell if they are direct ancestors or close relatives of direct ancestors.

I can agree with this.

Here are a few competing phylogenies all consistent with known fossils as of 1999:


Figure 2: Hominid phylogenies and associated biogeography (from Strait & Wood [2])

One might see this as evidence of human evolution. I see it as evidence of the intractability of being able to coming to a consensus of arranging hominid evolution to man.

You should not need to invoke another model to provide falsification criteria for your own model.

I think this would apply if there was a third explanation on the table. If there are only two, then it is fair to to compare and contrast the two.

Your previously stated predictions were vague. Saying that mankind originated in the Mideast isn't a prediction; it's a statement about the past.

It's a prediction because it logically follows from the premises of the model.

Likewise, you say mankind can be "traced" to a single couple. What methodologies (applied to what currently available data) are used to perform this trace? What patterns in this data would contradict it?

mtEve and yAdam is only a recent discovery of tracing the origins of humans to a single female and a single male. Prior to these discoveries, this was rarely contemplated except for those that accept an account similar to the Bible.

You have been vague about your use of the phrase "selected out". Natural selection keeps harmful allele frequencies low. When they're low, they are more likely to be wiped out by random genetic drift.

I believe I'm using the term in the typical sense. That is, they became extinct.

[Grumpy]

otseng

You left out the word "novel". Producing more of the same thing would just be microevolution.

Then an elephant with a long nose is no different from you with your nose. Sorry, does not compute. It does not take "novel" features to produce enough change to call it "macro", there is no macro or micro evolution, there is just change over time driven by survival of modified genes.

If you bring up the fossil record to prove macroevolution, then that would be circular logic, since macroevolution is used to explain the fossil record.

The fossil record gives us copious and undeniable evidence that evolution has occurred, that is simply a fact. It is our theories about that fact that try to explain the processes involved. It is in no way circular reasoning. The fact that so called "macro" evolution has occurred for billions of years with the descent of traits shown throughout, it is not circular to then reason that the descent of traits represent lineage and legacy. In the case of man the trait of upright walking is more than 4 million years old(it may be 8-10 million years). Of all the primates only man walks upright normally, therefore all upright walking primates must either be grand parents or cousins of modern man. Well, a few million years ago all men had near the brain capacity of a chimp, a few million years before that all primates lived in trees, a few more million the only primate on Earth(and possibly the very first primate of us all)had feet indistinguishable in major details from that of a chimp.

Yes, there are gaps in our records, but just like a series of pictures of a car accident as it happens, there is cohesiveness in what we do have, each "snapshot" not contradicting the ones before and even though we only have so many frames with missing times in between as the camera cycles, we have the accident itself to show it did happen(it occurred)and we have the snapshots in time to show the "evolution" of the "events" that led up to that fact.

Evolution is a fact, it happened, the fossil record(among many other things)shows this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Theories of evolution(SOTF, PE, GD, etc)are man's effort to understand the causes of that fact.

Please show evidence of fire being in use in the last million years.

Everyone else beat me to it. I think they covered it pretty well.

Grumpy

[nygreenguy]

What I have shown is that from human experience in the domestication of animals, there is not much significant change in morphological features in animals to account for common descent.

As with everything, this is a gradient. I would like to ask you, what is novel? Is the human hand vs. the bats wing novel?

And what about Brassica oleracea. We get brocolii, cabbage, cauliflower, kale, brussel sprouts, cauliflower, etc...

This is all the same species but the selected traits really make the plant almost borderline unidentifiable.

And what about novel secondary metabolites? Why is it limited to features?

[Grumpy]

otseng

To reiterate my point, all I'm saying is that macroevolution is unobservable.

And repeating a statement in error improves it's validity how, exactly?

Though we can produce a variety of animal breeds, there is no example that I've seen where any major novel morphological features have been produced.

Long Horns are Buffalo that are entirely different, as both are to Aurochs.

Morphology is only one measure of change. In most of the life on Earth(whether measured by volume, weight or numbers)morphology is not different, it is basically sacks of lipids filled with slightly salty water(with impurities).

Novel features in a bacteria would be change to an entirely new food source, especially one that never existed in nature, wouldn't you say? Until 1935 to be exact. There is a bacteria...

"In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or any other bacteria for that matter), and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.

Later research
This discovery led geneticist Susumu Ohno to speculate that the gene for one of the enzymes, 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase, had come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation. Ohno suggested that many unique new genes have evolved this way.

A series of recent studies by a team led by Seiji Negoro of the University of Hyogo, Japan, suggest that in fact no frameshift mutation was involved in the evolution of the 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase. However, many other genes have been discovered which did evolve by gene duplication followed by a frameshift mutation affecting at least part of the gene. A 2006 study found 470 examples in humans alone.

Scientists have also been able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients. The P. aeruginosa strain did not seem to use the same enzymes that had been utilized by the original Flavobacterium strain. Other scientists were able to get the ability to generate the enzymes to transfer from the Flavobacterium strain to a strain of E. coli bacteria via a plasmid transfer.

There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection that has been observed as it occurs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

A bacteria, evolving to eat manmade chemicals in the 31 years since those chemicals came into existence, new enzymes unlike any other found in nature. Yep, "macro" change.

Grumpy

[otseng]

Let's start discussing the stone artifacts (tools).

Oldowan

The Oldowan is significant for being the earliest stone tool industry in prehistory, being used from 2.6 million years ago up until 1.7 million years ago, when it was followed by the more sophisticated Acheulean industry. Oldowan tools were therefore the earliest tools in human history, and mark the beginning of the archaeological record

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_1

These tools are very simple stone tools.

"Oldowan tools are sometimes called "pebble tools," so named because the blanks chosen for their production already resemble, in pebble form, the final product."



We are not sure who or what used these primitive stone tools.

"It is not known for sure which hominin species actually created and used Oldowan tools."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_1

"Although the Oldowan tools were originally attributed to A. habilis, it is not known who made these tools at various sites."
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/ ... ions.shtml

For all we know, non-hominids could have also used these tools.

"There is presently no evidence to show that Oldowan tools were the sole property of the Homo line or that the ability to produce them was the special characteristic of only our ancestors."

We even have evidence of chimps using stone tools.

"Chimpanzees learned to make and use stone tools on their own, rather than copying humans, new evidence suggests."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17121018/

So, the Oldowan artifacts cannot be definitely traced solely to man.

Another problem with stone tool dating is that stone tools are/were used even in modern times.

Another problem connected with the term Stone Age is that it was created to describe the archaeological cultures of Europe, and that it is inconvenient to use it in relation to regions such as some parts of the Americas and Oceania, where farmers or hunter-gatherers used stone for tools until European colonisation began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Age

And another problem is that these simple stone artifacts could've just been naturally formed, rather than made.

"archaeologists frequently have trouble distinguishing real knapped tools from similar objects splintered by natural forces."
http://anthropology.net/2007/06/30/12-m ... rca-spain/

Acheulean

The artifact that typifies the Acheulean is the biface (or handaxe).

In archaeology, a biface is a two-sided stone tool and is used as a multi purposes knife, manufactured through a process of lithic reduction, that displays flake scars on both sides. A profile view of the final product tends to exhibit a lenticular shape (i.e., as a convex lens). Bifacial artifacts can be made on large flakes or blocks, and may be grouped into numerous distinct classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biface




http://www.aerobiologicalengineering.co ... /Handaxes/

"Handaxes are large stone cobbles which have been roughly worked into an oval or triangular shape. They are pointed, or at least pointy on one end, and some of those pointy ends are quite tapered. Some are triangular in cross-section, some are flat. In fact, there is a lot of variability within the category."

"Almost all handaxes have a point, are sized for the hand and shaped to be held. Almost no handaxes have notches for mounting."
http://www.aerobiologicalengineering.co ... /Handaxes/

It supposedly spans a very long period of time.

"They were used well into the Middle Paleolithic (Middle Stone Age), and date between about 1.7 million and 100,000 years ago."
http://archaeology.about.com/od/hterms/g/handaxe.htm

They range in size and weight, but typically are around 12-20 cm long.

This one is 29 cm long and weighs 2 kg:

http://www.forumantica.com/R0927.html

Bifaces are found practically all over the world.

"The earliest known Acheulean artifacts from Africa have been dated to 1.6 million years ago. The oldest Acheulean sites in India are only slightly younger than those in Africa. In Europe, the earliest Acheulean tools appear just after 800,000 years ago, as H. erectus moved north into Africa."
http://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/miniga ... ntro.shtml

"The largest bifaces in North America are found on the west coast in California."
http://www.lithiccastinglab.com/gallery ... nblade.htm

Texas
http://www.texasrockshop.com/blades01.html

"More and more archaeological discoveries show that bifaces are not absent from China, South and East Asia."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/062g478m78587107/

"In this area, the presence of hand-axe has been recorded so far in China, Mongolia, Korea, Japan, China, Nepal, Pakistan, Burma, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia."
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20373063

But, the surprising thing is that even though they were used for over a million years all over the world, we do not know exactly what they were used for!

There were no handaxes at the beginning of the Pleistocene, and none at the end, but for one million years in between this was the tool of choice for stone age man. Although everpresent in stone age culture, the exact purpose and use of this tool remains a mystery.

http://www.aerobiologicalengineering.co ... /Handaxes/

There has been much speculation about the purpose of handaxes. They were in use during a very early period in history and there are no recent cultural references to these forms of tools. Some of the suggested theories as to their use include: 1. general purpose tools for cutting, scraping, chopping, hacking and digging, 2. as heavy duty meat cutting tools for processing medium to large size animals, 3. as digging tools for excavating plants, burrowing animals or accessing water, 4. as cores that produced flakes that were in turn used as tools, 5. as bark-stripping tools to access the cambium layer of a tree for food and 6. as a projectile to be thrown as a discus might be thrown.

http://www.lithiccastinglab.com/gallery ... npage2.htm

The actual function of handaxes is debated. Some suggest they were not used as a chopping tool but for butchering large game. Scientists have shown that these tools exhibit wear common to butchery uses and these tools have been found in association with prehistoric elephant bones on intact "kill sites" of this period. Other scientists have theorized they were thrown into a herd as a deadly spinning projectile. Probably the most interesting theory and one that explains why many unworn and pristine condition tools have been found abandoned is that of the tool's use not as a tool at all but as an aid to sexual attraction. Possibly, males used techniques of being able to fashion symmetrical stone axes to attract females and demonstrate they were the most capable individual for survival and support of a family. If you were a primitive human able to make a large symmetrical handaxe, this would show you were genetically superior and an excellent candidate for mating. There is much evidence that contradicts this theory but it sure is quite an interesting hypothesis. Based on the varieties of utilitarian handaxe designs, and not only obvious wear from use but actual well-thought flaking designs to best fit ones hand, there's really little doubt that these stone tools were relied upon on a daily basis for primitive man's existence.

http://www.paleodirect.com/pgset2/ach-125.htm

So, it is quite surprising that "primitive" man would make and use the biface all over the world, and yet us "advanced" modern man cannot even determine what they were actually used for. (There is though one theory that I find to be the most plausible)

As for dating the Acheulean artifacts, it's not so certain.

"Providing calendrical dates and ordered chronological sequences in the study of early stone tool manufacture is difficult and contentious."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheulean

There are also many assumptions used to date them. In particular, the assumption that tool complexity evolved over time.

Relative dating techniques (based on a presumption that technology progresses over time) suggest that Acheulean tools followed on from earlier, cruder tool-making methods, however there is considerable chronological overlap in early prehistoric stone-working industries and there is evidence in some regions that Acheulean tool-using groups were contemporary with other, less sophisticated industries such as the Clactonian[7] and then later, with the more sophisticated Mousterian too. It is therefore important not to see the Acheulean as a neatly defined period or one that happened as part of a clear sequence but as one tool-making technique that flourished especially well in early prehistory. The enormous geographic spread of Acheulean techniques also makes the name unwieldy as it represents numerous regional variations on a similar theme. The term Acheulean does not represent a common culture in the modern sense, rather it is a basic method for making stone tools that was shared across much of the Old World.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheulean

Also, it is assumed that Homo erectus used the biface, so if a biface is found, it is dated to fit within Homo erectus.