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

[sun rise]

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.

Yes. People who are ignorant of science and scientific language misconstrue scientific papers because they are convinced they know how God works. "Don't confuse me with facts. I've already made up my mind" is sad.

 

[oldbadger]

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

So........ what?

 

[Clara Tea]

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

Slime mold seems to think. Lobsters don't have brains, but they distribute their thinking along their nerves (which is why they have to be boiled to be humane).

In general, the smarter animals have large brains. Yet, that isn't proof that the larger brains beat the thinking of the smaller brains.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

So.....You're saying that he proved his point about brain size and evolution?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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

Nothing in this article is surprising. Why couldn't it be that brain-size was affected by an ongoing need to communicate more effectively? I don't see how this causes some sort of "problem" for the theory of evolution. If anything, it only makes MORE sense than the converse - that language developed as just a whim on-top of an increasing brain size.

Besides this, we have experience in our own tinkering that points to size not necessarily being an obstruction to functionality. The idea of nano-computers, for example. P-junctions so small they are barely more than a handful of atoms/molecules aren't some impossibility, as long as you are able to work at that scale - making for computing AND/OR gates that can be incredibly small and compact. Leading to the plausibility of microscopic microchips. We can't pretend we know everything about evolution, or what is possible to develop in the physical world according to the progressions of evolution. And scientists DON'T - which is why there are these sorts of amends made to thinking, concepts and theories constantly going on.

Note that this is in distinct difference to many religions - wherein the key teaching is that the religion and it's texts already have everything figured out. Which is a completely crappy way to conduct oneself. Much religion is crap, in my opinion... and not just for this reason. Though this is a pretty good one.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

Yes it is amazing how our earlier ideas of human beings being the pinnacle of God's creation which came to us from the Christian reading of scriptures, had found its way into the sciences as well, following suit assuming all of creation was centered around the human being. It's taken a few hundred years, but nature as our teacher, instead of the priests with a book, is consistently showing we aren't as distinctly better than the rest of the universe.

So is it really that science is 'wrong' because it continues to correct it's mistaken assumptions which we inherited from the Christian West that we are the center of the universe? I see each correction, as evidence science is doing it right, overcoming the errant mindset we are above nature.

 

[Valjean]

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.

So if we haven't found the entire evolutionary sequence of a species it's evidence the species was magically poofed into being ex nihilo?
What Is the Fallacy Known as the False Dilemma?

We have found partial sequences for hundreds of species, including our own. Things clearly have changed forms over time -- evolved.
There is a pattern to the changes discovered. There are known mechanisms to explain it. There are observed examples of it, both in the lab and in nature.
Noöne has ever observed anything poofed into being.

No paleontologist expects to find entire sequences. Things don't fossilize in neat, complete sequences, with every tiny change represented. In fact, things rarely fossilize at all; it's an unusual event.
Finding any fossil is remarkable.

 

[Valjean]

So.....You're saying that he proved his point about brain size and evolution?

I'm saying that declaring every new observation a paradigm-shattering discovery is absurd.
I'm saying that the wording of the article indicates it was written by someone not educated in science and unfamiliar with the relevant facts.
I'm saying the article takes just another observation in an ongoing scientific discussion, sensationalizes it, and gives it a click-bait title.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing in this article is surprising. Why couldn't it be that brain-size was affected by an ongoing need to communicate more effectively? I don't see how this causes some sort of "problem" for the theory of evolution. If anything, it only makes MORE sense than the converse - that language developed as just a whim on-top of an increasing brain size.

Besides this, we have experience in our own tinkering that points to size not necessarily being an obstruction to functionality. The idea of nano-computers, for example. P-junctions so small they are barely more than a handful of atoms/molecules aren't some impossibility, as long as you are able to work at that scale - making for computing AND/OR gates that can be incredibly small and compact. Leading to the plausibility of microscopic microchips. We can't pretend we know everything about evolution, or what is possible to develop in the physical world according to the progressions of evolution. And scientists DON'T - which is why there are these sorts of amends made to thinking, concepts and theories constantly going on.

Note that this is in distinct difference to many religions - wherein the key teaching is that the religion and it's texts already have everything figured out. Which is a completely crappy way to conduct oneself. Much religion is crap, in my opinion... and not just for this reason. Though this is a pretty good one.

I didn't and don't think it's necessarily true. Now about religion, if I thought various and sundry religions are true, I'd feel free to join them. But! I don't.
I am saying that what people learned from evolutionists (scientists) in the past may not be true, and therefore people could be left with a wrong "scientific" opinion. Until they die. Is that so bad? (Shrug) God will help them to see (learn) the truth. But we will never learn everything. Ever. And that's a good thing!

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm saying that declaring every new observation a paradigm-shattering discovery is absurd.
I'm saying that the wording of the article indicates it was written by someone not educated in science and unfamiliar with the relevant facts.
I'm saying the article takes just another observation in an ongoing scientific discussion, sensationalizes it, and gives it a click-bait title.

relevant facts? Oh well you have your opinions, to be clear, about facts and what they mean or lead to.

 

[Bear Wild]

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

Thank you @YoursTrue for another wonderful supportive article for evolution. The title is misleading but that seems to be true of most of this sites articles with sensational titles.

1. We now that brain size is a factor in intelligence but it is not by itself completely predictable. Birds have evolved very compact brains with a high density of interconnections to allow for them to maintain the ability of flight.

2. There was a recent article about skull surface morphology and brocca's area discussed in the forum. The conclusions from this information must be causiously interpreted.

The article yours referred to

Endocast morphology of Homo naledi from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa

Ralph L. Holloway, Shawn D. Hurst, Heather M. Garvin, P. Thomas Schoenemann, William B, PNAS May 29, 2018 115 (22)

"Hominin cranial remains from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa, represent multiple individuals of the species Homo naledi. This species exhibits a small endocranial volume comparable to Australopithecus, combined with several aspects of external cranial anatomy similar to larger-brained species of Homo such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Here, we describe the endocast anatomy of this recently discovered species. Despite the small size of the H. naledi endocasts, they share several aspects of structure in common with other species of Homo, not found in other hominins or great apes, notably in the organization of the inferior frontal and lateral orbital gyri. The presence of such structural innovations in a small-brained hominin may have relevance to behavioral evolution within the genus Homo."

A later published article cautioning interpretation

Evidence for independent brain and neurocranial reorganization during hominin evolution
José Luis Alatorre Warren, Marcia S. Ponce de León, William D. Hopkins, and Christoph P. E, PNAS October 29, 2019
"Throughout hominin evolution, the brain of our ancestors underwent a 3-fold increase in size and substantial structural reorganization. However, inferring brain reorganization from fossil hominin neurocrania (=braincases) remains a challenge, above all because comparative data relating brain to neurocranial structures in living humans and great apes are still scarce. Here we use MRI and same-subject spatially aligned computed tomography (CT) and MRI data of humans and chimpanzees to quantify the spatial relationships between these structures, both within and across species. Results indicate that evolutionary changes in brain and neurocranial structures are largely independent of each other. The brains of humans compared to chimpanzees exhibit a characteristic posterior shift of the inferior pre- and postcentral gyri, indicative of reorganization of the frontal opercular region. Changes in human neurocranial structure do not reflect cortical reorganization. Rather, they reflect constraints related to increased encephalization and obligate bipedalism, resulting in relative enlargement of the parietal bones and anterior displacement of the cerebellar fossa. This implies that the relative position and size of neurocranial bones, as well as overall endocranial shape (e.g., globularity), should not be used to make inferences about evolutionary changes in the relative size or reorganization of adjacent cortical regions of fossil hominins."

What is clear is that the structures needed for modern Homo sapiens progressed through evolution in a clear pattern. When hominids developed the modern language processing can possibly pushed back to earlier forms. This is not that the theories got it wrong but rather the theory gets improved and refined with new information.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

So the similar DNA you share with your siblings (about 50%) doesn't indicate that you share a common ancestor (your parents)?
You may want to re-think this.


I don't know why anybody is supposed to care about what the Bible has to say.
It's a scientific question, not a religious question.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

There already was a gorilla that knew sign language.

Rip Koko

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes it is amazing how our earlier ideas of human beings being the pinnacle of God's creation which came to us from the Christian reading of scriptures, had found its way into the sciences as well, following suit assuming all of creation was centered around the human being. It's taken a few hundred years, but nature as our teacher, instead of the priests with a book, is consistently showing we aren't as distinctly better than the rest of the universe.

So is it really that science is 'wrong' because it continues to correct it's mistaken assumptions which we inherited from the Christian West that we are the center of the universe? I see each correction, as evidence science is doing it right, overcoming the errant mindset we are above nature.

Poor influences from soured left overs from when it really was Christian Europe. Like this quest for a singular, universal theory of everything. Thinking it must be that way is an Abrahamic way of thinking, where everything does ultimately come from a single source.
In general, science has been hard on the Abrahamic religions, especially for literalist interpretations. I won't be surprised if we also find the pursuit of a universal theory of everything to be a ghost hunt. (The book "This Idea Must Die" has a good article about it).

 

[Estro Felino]

In 2 millenia or so...humans will find out how primitive scientific knowledge was in 2021.


There are so many things scientists cannot figure out or explain yet. It doesn't mean Evolution did not take place. It did. Throughout billions of years.

 

[firedragon]

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

Scientific theories evolve. They change. Thats how it is.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Indeed - I hate hate hate seeing phrases like "we may have had the story of evolution all wrong" in supposedly scientific articles, especially in headlines. Pure clickbait.

To me, "we may have had the story of evolution all wrong" might be warranted if a series of discoveries indicated that whales are actually more closely related to sharks than terrestrial mammals.

But discoveries indicating that brain structure rather than brain size alone may have been more important in human evolution does not at all seem worthy of 'we had it all wrong.'
Heck, I point out the structural similarity of human and other primate brains every time I teach evolution! It isn't a secret, and it isn't really all that new of a subject.

 

[tas8831]

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

And despite all the creation scientists doing their amazing research, and all those biblical archaeologists doing all their digs, they still have not found the bones of Noah and the people on the Ark - the ancestors of ALL humanity, from just a few thousand years ago.

Must be because the creation story is made up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And despite all the creation scientists doing their amazing research, and all those biblical archaeologists doing all their digs, they still have not found the bones of Noah and the people on the Ark - the ancestors of ALL humanity, from just a few thousand years ago.

Must be because the creation story is made up.

It is so much fun to apply creation "logic" to creation beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

It is so much fun to apply creation "logic" to creation beliefs.

Yeah... they tend not to like that.