More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[YoursTrue]

More news to ponder over -- scientists pondering once again -- "“Maybe brain size isn’t all it’s cracked up to be,” said Hawks. “It opens the door for us to say that maybe they were more capable than we might assume; maybe it isn’t just (brain) size.”
Uh huh -- maybe it's not just brain size. Maybe.
Homo sapien’s ‘Shadow’ Species --"Hints We May Have Had Story of Evolution All Wrong" | The Daily Galaxy

 

[Valjean]

This is not a scientific article. It's simplistic and sensationalist. It was written by someone with little knowledge of the subject being commented on.
It's rubbish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is not a scientific article. It's simplistic and sensationalist. It was written by someone with little knowledge of the subject being commented on.
It's rubbish.

Click bait titles always give the scientifically illiterate hope. That is about as far as they ever get. They rarely read articles and practically never understand them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not that bad of an article, except for the oversimplification and the strawman argument or two such as this one:

"These findings draw further into question the long-held belief that human evolution was an inevitable march towards bigger, more complex brains."

 

[sun rise]

I don't understand the extreme reaction to the story itself. It seems quite responsible and lacks sensationalism. And that includes "draw futher into question" which I find reasonable for a researcher to hypothesize.

I mean, given how intelligent corvids are, for example, it's clear that size is not everything.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

More news to ponder over -- scientists pondering once again -- "“Maybe brain size isn’t all it’s cracked up to be,” said Hawks. “It opens the door for us to say that maybe they were more capable than we might assume; maybe it isn’t just (brain) size.”
Uh huh -- maybe it's not just brain size. Maybe.
Homo sapien’s ‘Shadow’ Species --"Hints We May Have Had Story of Evolution All Wrong" | The Daily Galaxy

Science is supposed to change. If it never did, we'd still be bloodletting, we wouldn't have discovered mRNA, and Relativity and Quantum physics would never come into being. If science never changed, we'd have no viable methods to fly for travel, and we'd still no doubt be routinely performing lobotomies. Science changing is what makes it great, because it will readily discard incorrect information, and being shown wrong is something science thrives on. It's like learning a new technique for a hobby. You could refuse to change, but you'd intentionally lose out on what may be a better method. You may deny what is correct.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't understand the extreme reaction to the story itself. It seems quite responsible and lacks sensationalism. And that includes "draw futher into question" which I find reasonable for a researcher to hypothesize.

I mean, given how intelligent corvids are, for example, it's clear that size is not everything.

Yup. Seems legit to me. It is clearly not sensationalized, and clearly not some loony Creationist piece telling us how greatly it doesn't understand science.
But RFers not read something before commenting on it in ways that make it very obvious it wasn't read? Never!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is not that bad of an article, except for the oversimplification and the strawman argument or two such as this one:

"These findings draw further into question the long-held belief that human evolution was an inevitable march towards bigger, more complex brains."

It does because we are finding that isn't necessarily the case. And I think this idea will entirely eventually be replaced, because it is from a period when it scientifically accepted only humans are self aware, intelligent, and capable of complex and logical thought. But those ideas are very wrong. And every time we do update our scientific knowledge on animals, we find out many ideas that many of us grew up with are entirely wrong (I still remember the Disney song about we are "the only animal who can think, who can reason, who can read." We now know scientifically that is wrong, wrong, and wrong)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't understand the extreme reaction to the story itself. It seems quite responsible and lacks sensationalism. And that includes "draw futher into question" which I find reasonable for a researcher to hypothesize.

I mean, given how intelligent corvids are, for example, it's clear that size is not everything.

I understand a bit. Creationists frequently abuse such stories. It is hard to say how they matched up to Homo sapiens, but it is clear that Homo naledi did alright. What was infuriating was the claim that "we may have had the story of evolution all wrong". At best that is a quote mine. At worst it is an incredibly bad error. Human evolution is only one small part of evolution and this is not that large of a tweak in even human evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science is supposed to change. If it never did, we'd still be bloodletting, we wouldn't have discovered mRNA, and Relativity and Quantum physics would never come into being. If science never changed, we'd have no viable methods to fly for travel, and we'd still no doubt be routinely performing lobotomies. Science changing is what makes it great, because it will readily discard incorrect information, and being shown wrong is something science thrives on. It's like learning a new technique for a hobby. You could refuse to change, but you'd intentionally lose out on what may be a better method. You may deny what is correct.

So--the size of the brain just isn't what it was thought to be in terms of who's smarter than who. I have no problem with that -- it's almost to the point of amusement about conjecturing regarding the past of "humankind."

 

[YoursTrue]

It does because we are finding that isn't necessarily the case. And I think this idea will entirely eventually be replaced, because it is from a period when it scientifically accepted only humans are self aware, intelligent, and capable of complex and logical thought. But those ideas are very wrong. And every time we do update our scientific knowledge on animals, we find out many ideas that many of us grew up with are entirely wrong (I still remember the Disney song about we are "the only animal who can think, who can reason, who can read." We now know scientifically that is wrong, wrong, and wrong)

Not saying that chimps or gorillas cannot learn to read some things. Maybe some brain changes will enable them to read as well as most normal (? - using the word advisedly) human beings do, you think maybe? By that I mean evolve because if they can't read now very well, by the time a new form (dare I say species) is formed with chimps that can read, who knows?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yup. Seems legit to me. It is clearly not sensationalized, and clearly not some loony Creationist piece telling us how greatly it doesn't understand science.
But RFers not read something before commenting on it in ways that make it very obvious it wasn't read? Never!

So -- it just isn't what it was thought of.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yup. Seems legit to me. It is clearly not sensationalized, and clearly not some loony Creationist piece telling us how greatly it doesn't understand science.
But RFers not read something before commenting on it in ways that make it very obvious it wasn't read? Never!

You know -- they still, with all the bones, and artifacts and dating process, still haven't found the "common ancestor."
From the article, "The research shows that the more complex structural features of brains may not solely be a consequence of size, and it suggests that modern humans, Neanderthals and Homo naledi may have a common ancestor." OK, so now they MAY HAVE a common ancestor. And let's not forget that the common ancestor supposedly for gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and whatever humanoids are thought of, just has not been found. Homo sapien’s ‘Shadow’ Species --"Hints We May Have Had Story of Evolution All Wrong" | The Daily Galaxy
Oops - ALL WRONG possibly.

 

[YoursTrue]

Goodnight folks. -)

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know -- they still, with all the bones, and artifacts and dating process, still haven't found the "common ancestor."
From the article, "The research shows that the more complex structural features of brains may not solely be a consequence of size, and it suggests that modern humans, Neanderthals and Homo naledi may have a common ancestor." OK, so now they MAY HAVE a common ancestor. And let's not forget that the common ancestor supposedly for gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and whatever humanoids are thought of, just has not been found. Homo sapien’s ‘Shadow’ Species --"Hints We May Have Had Story of Evolution All Wrong" | The Daily Galaxy
Oops - ALL WRONG possibly.

Actually we have found several. We merely have not found the common ancestor with chimps or that of gorillas. Nor are we likely too. Environment has a lot to do with whether bones are fossilized or not. Damp forests are not environments where fossils are preserved well at all. But why the fascination with finding the common ancestor? Why do you think that it is necessary?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You know -- they still, with all the bones, and artifacts and dating process, still haven't found the "common ancestor."

That's not a problem though. We have common DNA with species as widely varied and dogs and daffodil.
And it's no surprise if we never do find remains of a common ancestor. Fossils of anything are rare enough, and what we have is but and incomprehensibly minute representation of the entire whole of life on Earth.

So--the size of the brain just isn't what it was thought to be in terms of who's smarter than who. I have no problem with that -- it's almost to the point of amusement about conjecturing regarding the past of "humankind."

Well, for a very long time Western society has been guided by the foolish nonsense we are above animals and they are without consideration due to this notion of a soul and how we allegedly and supposedly have on but other animals do not. And all the reasons for assuming that have been shown to be wrong.

Oops - ALL WRONG possibly.

It is incredibly unlikely evolution is entirely wrong. We have simply found it to be too great of a predictor for what we find of what was and how we see the evolution of what will be as it becomes it is "in the now."
Having some parts of wrong is to be expected. This isn't a problem for science. Being shown wrong is how science becomes better.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not saying that chimps or gorillas cannot learn to read some things. Maybe some brain changes will enable them to read as well as most normal (? - using the word advisedly) human beings do, you think maybe? By that I mean evolve because if they can't read now very well, by the time a new form (dare I say species) is formed with chimps that can read, who knows?

It used to be believed we were the only animals that could. Our current understand, as far as I know, of brain sizes and body ratio is based on views that have been shown utterly wrong. The science of today obliterated the science of yesterday. So we got many things wrong about animals. Like when it was realized most animals probably are self aware.

 

[Valjean]

I don't understand the extreme reaction to the story itself. It seems quite responsible and lacks sensationalism. And that includes "draw futher into question" which I find reasonable for a researcher to hypothesize.

I mean, given how intelligent corvids are, for example, it's clear that size is not everything.

From the very first paragraph: "(we have brains 3x the size of apes)" We are apes!

There is nothing new being proposed in this article. It is sensationalism.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's not a problem though. We have common DNA with species as widely varied and dogs and daffodil.
And it's no surprise if we never do find remains of a common ancestor. Fossils of anything are rare enough, and what we have is but and incomprehensibly minute representation of the entire whole of life on Earth.

Well, for a very long time Western society has been guided by the foolish nonsense we are above animals and they are without consideration due to this notion of a soul and how we allegedly and supposedly have on but other animals do not. And all the reasons for assuming that have been shown to be wrong.

It is incredibly unlikely evolution is entirely wrong. We have simply found it to be too great of a predictor for what we find of what was and how we see the evolution of what will be as it becomes it is "in the now."
Having some parts of wrong is to be expected. This isn't a problem for science. Being shown wrong is how science becomes better.

To have similar DNA is not a proof of evolution, as if one form evolved into another form with more or less DNA than the other form. As far as being "above" animals, the Bible says that God gave the mandate to Adam to take care of the earth. That includes, obviously, animals. And in many, many cases, man is not really doing that, such as waters being polluted from nuclear runoff or chemical runoff, killing animals, vegetation, and in the next long run, humans. However, the Bible also says, interestingly enough, that God will put an end to the ruination of the earth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

that God will put an end to the ruination of the earth.

And yet he hasn't.
The rest of the world shouldn't have to depend on your faith.

To have similar DNA is not a proof of evolution,

It is very powerful evidence as it does strongly suggest a common ancestor.

as if one form evolved into another form with more or less DNA than the other form.

Things do slowly change over time. Evolution is conservative by nature, and prone to things balancing in equilibrium with their environment. But even small changes no one sees eventually add up over the eons. And though we are mostly different from other organisms, we are still remarkably similar to our closest genetic relatives (chimps, bonobos, and other great apes), and even close enough to animals like pigs and horses that some of their internal organs are compatible with ours.

As far as being "above" animals, the Bible says that God gave the mandate to Adam to take care of the earth.

And that hasn't worked very well, at all, because we just won't view animals as sentient beings deserving of respect and their life.
And it seems like the primal and animist religions of our earlier days of hunting and gathering and being nomadic wanderers, those beliefs that saw us as all related and all parts of the whole have more scientific ground to stand on than Christianity.