• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Science of Human Evolution

NoGuru

Don't be serious. Seriously

@sayak83 Covered this in his replies quite nicely. I see now the error in that assumption.

It's like looking at a painting of a house with a bunch of small holes in the canvas. The holes are the gaps, but you see enough of the painting to know what it's suppose to be. There's enough information in the painting/fossil record to see the bigger picture. We're only missing minor details.

I agree with the analogy to an extent, but that's not a "case closer" by any means. Some of those details may shed an entirely different perspective on the painting. For example, you have a painting with a bunch of people with their hands in the air like they just don't care. Looks like they're having fun, maybe dancing. The detail that's missing is the guy in the corner with an uzi pointed at them... changes things.

Not saying my analogy proves or disproves anything either, but those missing details are very important IMHO.

Well, when I compare the morphology of the average human with the average gorilla, I can only think of the following three alternatives:
[...]
What is more likely?

Based on ... what exactly? There could exist 200 other possibilities, and all of the aforementioned those new ones could be wrong.

Pretend you are sitting in a restaurant and witness two people having a nice dinner. They seem to enjoy each others' company and be romantically involved. A third person storms in the door, walks over to their table, screams something inaudible, knocks over their drinks and storms out.

Now, try to guess why that happened to cause that whole scenario you just witnessed.

Was it because those two are cheating on a partner? Maybe the third person knew the drinks were poisoned? Perhaps the people eating just kicked that persons dog?

There's almost no way you can know for sure all the events that lead up to that exact moment. Hell, examine your own life and try to figure why you are where you are now... it's impossible to see everything.

The point here is a loose analogy, I get that. Simply because we have some amount of fossil evidence to show progression through the species. It's also entirely possible there was non at all. Let's say the dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds and the fossils we found that tell us there were, were actually brought here by E.T. just so they could watch as we try to figure this out. Maybe all those fossils were faked and part of a giant conspiracy, maybe they were made in a child's EZ bake oven.... see where I'm going with this?

None of that is expressing my beliefs, just pointing out the extreme task of building a history of events spanning even 1000 years, let alone 4+ billion.

Here's the real kicker to this entire thread.

Everyone here believes something or the other.

Convince a man who believes the earth is round that it is actually flat.
Convince a man who believes the earth is flat that it is actually round.
Convince a communist that communism is flawed.

You cannot talk a person out of a delusion, or even strongly held belief. Change must always come from within. If I subscribe to evolution, there's no God argument in the world that's going to change my mind. Similarly, if I subscribe to creation there's no amount of "evidence" (quotes are only due to the incomplete nature of what we currently have) or argument that will change my mind. So even my own attempts at providing analogies or discussion will typically only draw criticism from the other side of the hall or support from this side. It's rare that someone will read something in context, digest it and change their own belief structure. Hell, look at the Westboro loonies. "That's not even in the bible!" "Yea but my prophet/dad/brother said our way is right so suck it Trebek!"

Sigh.... we humans are silly creatures indeed.
 

AndromedaRXJ

Active Member
@sayak83 Covered this in his replies quite nicely. I see now the error in that assumption.



I agree with the analogy to an extent, but that's not a "case closer" by any means. Some of those details may shed an entirely different perspective on the painting. For example, you have a painting with a bunch of people with their hands in the air like they just don't care. Looks like they're having fun, maybe dancing. The detail that's missing is the guy in the corner with an uzi pointed at them... changes things.

Not saying my analogy proves or disproves anything either, but those missing details are very important IMHO.

It would have happened by now. The Theory of Evolution had so many chances to be wrong but never was. Literally every missing gap we have eventually found, turned out to be pretty much exactly what we expected. The chances of finding a fossil that's completely out of place is utterly abysmal. Sure, it's technically possible. It's technically possible that the Moon is made of cheese. But if I were a betting man....

In other words, I would tweak your analogy with the uzi. It's more like the there's a hole where the uzi is, but we see the guy pointing something at the crowd, who all have a distressed look on their face. It's enough to infer that the guy is holding some type of weapon, most likely a gun. Knowing whether it's an uzi, or a 9mm, or a 45 is analogous to what I said about only missing small details that wouldn't change the overall greater picture. Knowing which type of gun it is, doesn't change the broader idea behind the painting.

And to give an analogy of how ToE had so many chances to be wrong, but didn't. Imagine a case where hundreds of paintings with holes in it were of a man pointing a gun at a crowd. Maybe the very first painting is like the one you said, where the entire man and the gun is missing. But we've come to a point where we found the missing piece. Then we move on to the next painting. It turns out that, after finding all the pieces to that one, it's the same type of painting. A man pointing a gun at a crowd. It's not an identical painting. Maybe the man is wielding a different gun. Maybe he's holding it in his left hand instead of his right. But the point is, the greater idea is the same. Only the minor details are different. Then we find the pieces to the third painting, and it shows the same idea, just with different minor details. Then we get to the 1,000,000th painting, and it's still the same idea as the other 999,999 paintings.

By the time we get to the 1,000,001th painting, we have enough to assume that it's just gonna be the same thing again. Sure, you can say something is different this time, but it's not likely. I certainly wouldn't bet on it. The chances of it being different is literally a million to one, and the chances of finding a completely out of place fossil is even far less than that. Really, I should replace the 1 million number with a number far far greater. The only thing that's likely to be different is a minor detail, but the overall idea will be the same.
 
Last edited:

NoGuru

Don't be serious. Seriously
I would be happy to hear a fourth.
Hmm, let's guess real quick.

We're the aliens and we crash landed here 10's of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years ago after our previous planet died from our silly greed and pride. Our spaceship was beyond repair so we adapted to the environment around us and became primitive in nature. Over the centuries the knowledge of what once was has become lost and alas, we're here now believing we came from apes because we don't know about the spaceship (or anyone who found it certainly wouldn't make that public knowledge for nefarious purposes).

It's possible right?

I think our past is a 9 dot problem... again though, that's what I think, and I'm often wrong.

It would have happened by now. [...]

I understand what you're saying, and it's completely reasonable, but a dangerous assumption that since we're 99% sure... well that's the truth. Again, I'm not claiming it's not as I cannot say without question either/or.

In other words, I would tweak your analogy with the uzi.
[...]

And that's a fair modification of it.

But that begs the question, what about the many literal paintings or inscriptions that speak of extra terrestrial visitors? The "Gods", as they were called. Seems like much is being thrown out to accommodate this one theory. It's fair to say much is thrown out to accommodate any view. If I'm a hardcore Christian, then there's a ton I'm dismissing, right? I laughed when Bill Nye debated Ken Hamster and his one line was classic; "There are trees older than you think the earth is." Having grown up in a religion that thought that way, man there's an explanation for everything. Carbon dating is wrong because God did this or that. It's rather silly to ignore what we can see in front of us, but we have to realize that our eyes are running a second story over the picture.

Isn't it also possible the same is happening with ToE? (For that matter every other hypothesis we come up?) A scientist is no different than a preacher is he? We're all humans trying to understand the world around us. Some take it a bit further while others stop at the first explanation they get, but none are infallible.

"True wisdom is the knowledge that you know nothing" ~ Socrates

amiright?

Nope. While I accept ToE (to an extend I guess) and find the entire study fascinating, it bothers me that it doesn't feel like the entire story. Although, unless Bro-ski on the heaven ship comes and fills us in, that story may never have a final nail in it, because no explanation is complete.
 

AndromedaRXJ

Active Member
I understand what you're saying, and it's completely reasonable, but a dangerous assumption that since we're 99% sure... well that's the truth. Again, I'm not claiming it's not as I cannot say without question either/or.

That's how we think in our day to day lives. 100% certainty in anything isn't possible, but it's perfectly practical to deem a 99% as truth.

Seems like much is being thrown out to accommodate this one theory. It's fair to say much is thrown out to accommodate any view.

I don't know of anything that's been thrown out to accommodate the Theory of Evolution. The scientific community as a whole, doesn't have a vested interested in holding up the Theory of Evolution, and they would be doing themselves a disservice in throwing anything out. That's very unscientific.

For the most part, the exact opposite happens. In order to prove a theory right, you have to test against it. If you test against a theory rigorously, and the theory still holds up no matter what, then the theory is deemed correct, which is where the ToE is at.

Isn't it also possible the same is happening with ToE?

There may be some individuals out there that biasely try to hold up the theory, but the scientific community as a whole, doesn't do that. It does the exact opposite. The theory is proven correct because scientists try their hardest to prove it wrong.

We're all humans trying to understand the world around us.

Not quite. Some of us are interested in finding the truth. Others think they are, but are really only interested in believing what they find most comfortable.

While I accept ToE (to an extend I guess) and find the entire study fascinating, it bothers me that it doesn't feel like the entire story.

Saying it doesn't feel right isn't bringing anything substantial to the table. If you can identify specifically what you see wrong with the theory, we're all ears. But you gotta be specific.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
.................................
What is the summary? One sees that in Africa, between 37-30 million years ago, there lived and evolved many kinds of primates that can be placed as basic anthropoids, primates at the divergence point of New World and Old World types and the first Old World monkey-ape type species that are likely to be the ones from which all current Old World moneys and apes came from. Fayum depression and other places show evidence of the branching of the monkey-apes from tarsiers and their eventual further branching into Old world and New World forms during this crucial times. Its hard to see what other than evolution through descent could explain such patterns. Note the pattern. Lemur-like and tarsier-like primates are seen to diverge at 55 mya and they look the furthest apart today. Within the tarsier-like, some groups begin to become more monkey-ape like and diverge themselves into New and Old World monkey-ape types. This is seen to occur later, between 40-30 million years ago (mya), just as evolution would predict. The prediction of sequential, staggered in time, divergence based in current similarity-dissimilarity is a prediction that is confirmed by the past fossil-sequence.

So far, the fossil evidence upto 30 million years ago demonstrate the evolution of primates with traits common to both modern Old World Monkeys and Apes. The theory of evolution predicts that we would expect to see apes and monkeys beginning to diverge from each other in the subsequent time period. Such fossils begin to turn up in Kenya and other parts of Africa from about 22 million years ago. The best preserved (and apparently the most numerous) group are the Proconsuls, a lineage of primates consisting for several mid-sized to large species (10 kg to 50 kg) who are beginning to show some of the distinctive features found in modern apes but not in monkeys.

The ape-like features of Proconsuls include (which Old World Monkeys do not have)
1) They do not have a tail.
2) More powerfully grasping hands and feet with a grasping big toe
3)Increased mobility and movement range of hips and shoulders
4) Somewhat slower growth rates
5)Brain size somewhat bigger than monkeys of similar weight.
6)More ape-like shorter face and ear bone and teeth more similar to apes than monkeys

However, Proconsuls are quite close to the point of divergence between apes and monkeys and still retain some of the generic features of their undifferentiated Catarrhine ancestors that today are only found in monkeys and not in apes. These are:-
1)Unlike modern apes, the limbs are of similar length. Thus unlike modern apes, the forelimbs are not longer than the hindlimbs
2)Skeleton and flexible spinal column structure shows that Proconsuls were moving on trees on all fours like monkeys and not swinging from them using two hands or two feet like apes do today. This makes many of the bone joints and shapes more similar to modern monkeys than modern apes.

Overall Proconsuls represent the earliest apes close to the monkey-ape divergence period. The fossils show that the creatures were beginning to exhibit many of the traits of modern apes while still retaining some of the more generic features. Many kinds of species from moderate sized to large, existed in Africa from 22-15 million years. They lived in forested environments and ate fruits mostly. An excellent short video of recent research as well as one of the species of Proconsul are linked below.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Proconsul_nyanzae_skeleton_7.JPG
 

NoGuru

Don't be serious. Seriously
That's how we think in our day to day lives. 100% certainty in anything isn't possible, but it's perfectly practical to deem a 99% as truth.

Which doesn't make it right. You know that's true too, but this isn't me saying that proves ToE false either... We KNEW the Earth was flat, we were 100% positive, and then better information came along.

For the most part, the exact opposite happens. In order to prove a theory right, you have to test against it. If you test against a theory rigorously, and the theory still holds up no matter what, then the theory is deemed correct, which is where the ToE is at.

There may be some individuals out there that biasely try to hold up the theory, but the scientific community as a whole, doesn't do that. It does the exact opposite. The theory is proven correct because scientists try their hardest to prove it wrong.

This is true with a f****d up footnote. You're right that it's very unscientific, and it sucks to think there's someone or something out there attempting to suppress information, but I can tell you that it does happen. Inventors of devices that produce free energy (that I personally knew) were threatened with death if they attempted to publish their findings. There are many (not going to make up a percentage) who honestly seek the truth. What sucks is that when truths are found that threaten corporate profits or other agendas, well then other threats are made. There's much being done and we're told to ignore the man behind the curtain.

Why are the studies done by certain agencies on telekinesis still classified? If there's nothing there... should be an easy thing to say.

Not quite. Some of us are interested in finding the truth. Others think they are, but are really only interested in believing what they find most comfortable.

Too true. We are creatures of habit and patterns. Some are able to see the pattern as a trap, others love the routine and never grow or attempt to expand their understanding. If you ever want to grow you have to get out of your comfort zone. (Not directed at any individual)

"If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us. The free mind is not a barking dog, to be tethered on a ten-foot chain." ~ Adlai Stevenson Jr

I don't know of anything that's been thrown out to accommodate the Theory of Evolution.
[...]
Saying it doesn't feel right isn't bringing anything substantial to the table. If you can identify specifically what you see wrong with the theory, we're all ears. But you gotta be specific.

When you throw feelings out, you're throwing something out.

Now, I'm sure this comment will draw criticism, but it doesn't change what we're taught.

In Marine Corps boot camp and School of Infantry I can remember several times being told to trust your gut. Trust your feelings. If it feels wrong, you can almost always bet something is. That wisdom saved our lives on several occasions.

So what is intuition? You can't put intuition in a box and zap it. You can devise several tests I'm sure and I'm sure those tests have been done (leading to the US Government making it part of their fighting training regimes), but I imagine some of those may be subject and flawed by the observer effect. Did you know that your heart can predict the [immediate] future? (A source) Explain that using only what we can "see". There are plenty of new studies coming out that show this universe is much wilder than we think. Like the GOES (Geo something something satellites) (and that may be the wrong acronym) showing fluctuations in the Earths magnetic field around 9/11. Many (Princeton researchers to be exact (source)) believe this was a result of "feelings" worldwide affecting the physical world around us.

Trust me, I grew up in a cult... I know exactly why religion is being attacked; the blind faith in something at the expense of advancement is stupid and extremely dangerous. But I feel strongly we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Does that mean God? Hell, I don't know. I can't express the two versions of saying tomato in this text field easily, whatever it is... there's something far beyond what we can see or touch and I strongly feel that a lot of that is being discarded with much of what we "understand" about the world around us. Hence my extreme question of ToE. If that's how we got here, I'll be the first to fall on my sword and eat my shoe. If not, I won't even say I told you so... it would be nice to have something concrete. It's hard to accept however, that something that can wonder why it's here came from a single celled organism. A factory robot does not walk off the line and wonder what it's doing with it's life... something completely automatic (like a single celled organism) doesn't change into something that stares into the night sky questioning it's existence. Again though... I could be completely off kilter here.
 

AndromedaRXJ

Active Member
Which doesn't make it right.

It makes it as right as anything will ever be.

This is true with a f****d up footnote. You're right that it's very unscientific, and it sucks to think there's someone or something out there attempting to suppress information, but I can tell you that it does happen. Inventors of devices that produce free energy (that I personally knew) were threatened with death if they attempted to publish their findings. There are many (not going to make up a percentage) who honestly seek the truth. What sucks is that when truths are found that threaten corporate profits or other agendas, well then other threats are made. There's much being done and we're told to ignore the man behind the curtain.

Why are the studies done by certain agencies on telekinesis still classified? If there's nothing there... should be an easy thing to say.

I have my own views on free energy and telekinesis, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

When you throw feelings out, you're throwing something out.

I'm not saying to throw feelings out. Intuition is useful and it can pick up on things that we may not notice on a conscious level. Modern psychology has already proven that. But simply saying you have a feeling about something, doesn't tell anyone else anything. It's up to the person with the gut-feeling to follow that feeling and to see if they can find anything tangible with it. Detectives have gut-feelings all the time, but they can't present just that. They have to find something that aligns with their feelings, and they often do. But they still have to present more than just their feelings in the end. After all, a criminal can't be persecuted off of just feelings.

Feelings, or human intuition, is a good starting point. It's not a good end point. It merely gives us an idea of where to look first. If you have a feeling that there's something wrong with the ToE, then that should be your stepping stone to find something beyond that.

In Marine Corps boot camp and School of Infantry I can remember several times being told to trust your gut. Trust your feelings. If it feels wrong, you can almost always bet something is. That wisdom saved our lives on several occasions.

Well this is a situation involving survival, not investigation. We're animals like any other, and we're wired for survival. So it makes sense that following a gut feeling for survival often results in success. But we didn't evolve to do scientific investigation or to solve crime scenes. So in order to do those things, we needed to come up with more logical and scientific processes to do that. Maybe if there were such a lifeform evolved for that, they can do scientific investigation on a subconscious level, and solve crime scenes without even thinking about it. But we can't.

So what is intuition? You can't put intuition in a box and zap it.

All intuition is is our brains processing information without us consciously thinking about it, and it's doing it with information that's being constantly picked up by the five senses. There's nothing mystical about it. It's basically just the brain and senses in autopilot.

E.g. Imagine while you're playing on your cellphone, there was a mugging going on 50 feet away from you. You don't notice it, but the event is within your field of vision and your brain is picking up the information at the corner of your eye.

Later, you go home and see the mugging being reported on the news. This is the first time you consciously know about it and have no idea you were present for the event. Five possible suspects are shown. You have a strong feeling that it's one of the ones it's showing, but you don't entirely know why you have this feeling. But it could be that your eyes did see his face, and your brain stored the information. You just weren't consciously aware of it because your conscious mind was preoccupied with something else.

That's what intuition is. If you have a feeling about something, it means your brain is holding information that you don't fully and consciously realize. But it doesn't mean it's always correct. E.g. maybe the mugging being reported on the news isn't the same one you were present for.

Believe me. I, myself, am someone who follows their gut feeling all the time. In fact, I almost always regret it when I don't follow my gut-feelings and it's too late to act. However, if I have a gut-feeling and I'm not in a dire act-fast sort of situation, I'll take the time to sit and think long and hard about what this feeling is really about. Whenever I have a gut-feeling, I'm assuming that my brain has picked up something that I haven't fully realized. So I try to process it more and bring it to a conscious level until something clicks. And if I can't do that, then I discard it (or the feeling just naturally goes away). In other words, feelings shouldn't stay feelings. A person having them should work on having that feeling transition into conscious awareness. Sometimes all that takes is to think about it and to organize the information in their head better. Sometimes, not all the information is in their head, so they need to investigate the world around them more to find the missing piece(s). Sometimes they can't do either, and the feeling may just be wrong.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
So far, the fossil evidence upto 30 million years ago demonstrate the evolution of primates with traits common to both modern Old World Monkeys and Apes. The theory of evolution predicts that we would expect to see apes and monkeys beginning to diverge from each other in the subsequent time period. Such fossils begin to turn up in Kenya and other parts of Africa from about 22 million years ago. The best preserved (and apparently the most numerous) group are the Proconsuls, a lineage of primates consisting for several mid-sized to large species (10 kg to 50 kg) who are beginning to show some of the distinctive features found in modern apes but not in monkeys.

The ape-like features of Proconsuls include (which Old World Monkeys do not have)
1) They do not have a tail.
2) More powerfully grasping hands and feet with a grasping big toe
3)Increased mobility and movement range of hips and shoulders
4) Somewhat slower growth rates
5)Brain size somewhat bigger than monkeys of similar weight.
6)More ape-like shorter face and ear bone and teeth more similar to apes than monkeys

However, Proconsuls are quite close to the point of divergence between apes and monkeys and still retain some of the generic features of their undifferentiated Catarrhine ancestors that today are only found in monkeys and not in apes. These are:-
1)Unlike modern apes, the limbs are of similar length. Thus unlike modern apes, the forelimbs are not longer than the hindlimbs
2)Skeleton and flexible spinal column structure shows that Proconsuls were moving on trees on all fours like monkeys and not swinging from them using two hands or two feet like apes do today. This makes many of the bone joints and shapes more similar to modern monkeys than modern apes.

Overall Proconsuls represent the earliest apes close to the monkey-ape divergence period. The fossils show that the creatures were beginning to exhibit many of the traits of modern apes while still retaining some of the more generic features. Many kinds of species from moderate sized to large, existed in Africa from 22-15 million years. They lived in forested environments and ate fruits mostly. An excellent short video of recent research as well as one of the species of Proconsul are linked below.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Proconsul_nyanzae_skeleton_7.JPG


Evolution of Apes in Africa (22-16 million years ago)


So far, I have tracked the evolution of first primates at 55 million years ago upto the emergence of first apes, the Proconsuls, about 22 million years ago. I have also presented many of the key fossils that show the emergence of key biological characteristics that separate out apes from other living primates. Following Proconsul, apes continued to evolve and diversify in Africa. Africa in those times were filled almost entirely with tropical rainforests extending from coast to coast and north to south, right into Sahara and Arabia (which was part of Africa then). There was no ice sheets yet in the North Pole or Greenland and neither the Alps, nor the Himalayas have formed. Warm and moist climate prevailed over much of the world and in Africa, this resulted in an explosion of forest dwelling fruit eating apes of various sizes and shapes.

014.jpg


A very interesting species of ape that was found from this period is Nacholapithecus which lived in Africa at 16 million years
nacholapithecusknmbg35320.png


While it is very similar to Proconsul in the shape of skeleton and the joints, one important difference is that, like modern apes, its forelimbs are much longer than its hindlimbs and its wrist and footbones have become bigger and stronger with more powerful grasping ability. It could probably climb up tree trunks like modern apes and use its long big upper limbs to reach for and jump towards far away branches in trees. Modern ape-like skeletal features are more visibly present in another fossil of this era called Morotopithecus whose fragmentary skeleton and spinal column from 18 million years suggests that it moved through the trees by hanging from the the branches with its hands or feet like modern apes. Overall by about 16 million years quite a few species of distinct ape families with various features adapted to living in trees and different from monkeys have evolved in Africa.


Migration of Apes to Asia and Europe (17 million years ago)
At around 17 million years, the oceanic sea level dropped and a land bridge connected Eurasia and Africa for the first time. This led to a large exchange of animals and plants between the two continents. Many ape species began to migrate into Asia and evolve quickly into new species that took advantage of the new forests of Europe and Asia that were now available to them. Griphopithecus was the earliest ape found in Asia (Turkey and Germany by 16 million years). But the most remarkable fossil ape from Eurasia is that of Pierolapithecus from 12 million years, which is considered to be from the group that is the last common ancestor of all modern great apes (chimps, orangs, gorillas, humans). With Pierolapithecus , scientists see for the first time, most of the distinctive traits that are present in all great apes and not present in the lesser apes (gibbons). Thus Pierolapithecus represents the group of ancient ape ancestors that is at the divergence point of great apes and lesser apes.

image_1052_2.jpg


http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/article01052.html

Between 12- 8 million years, the great apes in Eurasia radiate into many species. Some like Sivapithecus (India), Ankarapithecus (Turkey), Lufengpithecus (China) are seen to be related to the line that leads to modern Orangutans. Others like Dryopithecus (all of Europe), Ouranopithecus (Greece) and Oreopithecus (Italy) have traits that make them closer to the gorilla/chimp/human line. After about 9 million years, the cooling of Europe and the drying of Middle East causes the apes of the Orang-like group to retreat to East and South-East Asia while the apes of Europe or West-Asia disappear from Europe and retreat into North Africa where they eventually give rise to chimps, gorillas and humans.

DRYOPITHECUS

SIVAPITHECUS

Conclusion:- Rise and Fall of the Planet of the Apes (22-6 mya)

1) Between 22 million years and 6 million years, apes were the dominant primates of Eurasia. Known fossils span 24 groups and 100 species, and probably the actual number of species were 5 times that number. This was an era before the ice-age of the Northern Hemisphere. Tropical rainforests covered the entirety of Africa and moist and dense subtropical forests covered Europe and Asia as well. Thus many types of ape species, starting from Proconsul, evolve in Africa and flourish. When Asia and Africa connect, the apes migrate into the Asian and European forests and diversify there as well after 16 million years. The great apes diverge from gibbons at about 13 million years while orang ancestors of East Asia diverge from gorilla/chimp ancestors at about 10 million years. While early apes retain many of the monkey-like characters, by 16 million years, many of the newer species begin to look more like modern apes with bigger fore-limbs, stronger and broader chests, powerful grips, more flexible joints and bigger brains. They also sport big jaws and sharp canines that are excellent for eating big ripe fruits and crack nuts.

2) After 14 million years, the great Rift Valley, the volcanic mountains and Ethiopian plateau of East and South-East Africa begin to form. This creates large rain-shadow in Africa and the African rainforests begin to recede. This causes African apes to dwindle. Very few ape fossils are found in Africa after this perid.

3) Between 10-8 million years, African and South Asian plates collide with Eurasian plates causing the rapid rise of the Alps in Europe and the Himalayan mountain range along with the Tibetan and Iranian plateau in Asia. These events cause the entire Middle East to dry out from subtropical rainforests to open woodlands, while climate in East and South Asia becomes extremely seasonal dominated by the monsoon. Western and Central Europe, cut off from the smaller Mediterranean by the Alps, becomes cold, while Mediterranean and North Africa themselves become drier and become open wooded grasslands.

4) The collapse of the tropical forests are catastrophic for apes. All apes in Europe and West Asia die out, while a few migrate back into Northern Africa. Apes in Asia retreat into South-East Asia and China. The collapse of the apes continue to the present with today only 7 species (two gorilla, two chimps, two orangs, 1 human) remain of the many many species that existed in the past. The lesser apes (gibbons) have fared somewhat better with 17 gibbon species, though all located in the rainforests of South and South-East Asia.

5)The early history of human evolution (from 8 million years onwards) is to be considered in the context of these evolutionary pressures that drove our lineage to evolve features that make our ancestors better able to handle open woodlands and grasslands that replace the forests of the world from 8 million years onwards.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Can I ask you question(s) without you being flippant?

You say you don't support creationism. Correct?

But you also you don't agree with evolution, and speciation in particular (because you have not seen the missing links), but you also reject abiogenesis. Correct?

To tell you the truth, I am not completely sold with abiogenesis, but it is still a relatively new field, and scientists are only just beginning to test it.

For that matter, you seem anti-science in just about everything.

Then my real questions these:

If you reject everything, then what do you accept? How do you think humans and other animals came to be around?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Others like Dryopithecus (all of Europe), Ouranopithecus (Greece) and Oreopithecus (Italy) have traits that make them closer to the gorilla/chimp/human line.
I sometimes call my Italian wife "Oreopithecus"-- just before she artichokes me.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Everything sounds a bit good until I get here. I gave you all the fruit, I got you guys kicked out of the garden, its all my fault. I should kill myself. Matter of fact all women should. Right.

(I do not think as I do)
You guys wouldn't stand so alone.

If Adam was convinced by his wife, he would have likely been convinced by the serpent -but the serpent spoke with Eve first. It is just how it happened.
I have learned that God's judgments are not to shame or harm -but to to cause an experience which -while not entirely enjoyable -brings about the desired end result (which will be entirely enjoyable).

In Eden, Adam and Eve were complementary -and only after those events would man rule over woman. However -that is not to say that man ruling over woman was or is the ideal. That pendulum would eventually swing too far in the other direction. It is also written that in later times, men would have women to rule over them.
Again -not the ideal -just something that happens.

Even that misunderstanding of scripture has led to women being treated badly by supposedly religious men. Men are to love their wives as Christ loves the church.
He humbled himself for them in order to exalt them.

Gender inequality is part of God giving the creation over to futility in hope -not willingly -but that is no excuse for individuals to mistreat or dishonor each other.

12As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

That which men have done to women is just as much in error.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Hmm, let's guess real quick.

We're the aliens and we crash landed here 10's of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years ago after our previous planet died from our silly greed and pride. Our spaceship was beyond repair so we adapted to the environment around us and became primitive in nature. Over the centuries the knowledge of what once was has become lost and alas, we're here now believing we came from apes because we don't know about the spaceship (or anyone who found it certainly wouldn't make that public knowledge for nefarious purposes).

It's possible right?

Possible, but it does not count as a fourth alternative.

Obviously, this is covered by point 2): we and apes developed our common characteristics independently on two separate trees of life.

Ciao

- viole
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Evolution of Apes in Africa (22-16 million years ago)


So far, I have tracked the evolution of first primates at 55 million years ago upto the emergence of first apes, the Proconsuls, about 22 million years ago. I have also presented many of the key fossils that show the emergence of key biological characteristics that separate out apes from other living primates. Following Proconsul, apes continued to evolve and diversify in Africa. Africa in those times were filled almost entirely with tropical rainforests extending from coast to coast and north to south, right into Sahara and Arabia (which was part of Africa then). There was no ice sheets yet in the North Pole or Greenland and neither the Alps, nor the Himalayas have formed. Warm and moist climate prevailed over much of the world and in Africa, this resulted in an explosion of forest dwelling fruit eating apes of various sizes and shapes.

014.jpg


A very interesting species of ape that was found from this period is Nacholapithecus which lived in Africa at 16 million years
nacholapithecusknmbg35320.png


While it is very similar to Proconsul in the shape of skeleton and the joints, one important difference is that, like modern apes, its forelimbs are much longer than its hindlimbs and its wrist and footbones have become bigger and stronger with more powerful grasping ability. It could probably climb up tree trunks like modern apes and use its long big upper limbs to reach for and jump towards far away branches in trees. Modern ape-like skeletal features are more visibly present in another fossil of this era called Morotopithecus whose fragmentary skeleton and spinal column from 18 million years suggests that it moved through the trees by hanging from the the branches with its hands or feet like modern apes. Overall by about 16 million years quite a few species of distinct ape families with various features adapted to living in trees and different from monkeys have evolved in Africa.


Migration of Apes to Asia and Europe (17 million years ago)
At around 17 million years, the oceanic sea level dropped and a land bridge connected Eurasia and Africa for the first time. This led to a large exchange of animals and plants between the two continents. Many ape species began to migrate into Asia and evolve quickly into new species that took advantage of the new forests of Europe and Asia that were now available to them. Griphopithecus was the earliest ape found in Asia (Turkey and Germany by 16 million years). But the most remarkable fossil ape from Eurasia is that of Pierolapithecus from 12 million years, which is considered to be from the group that is the last common ancestor of all modern great apes (chimps, orangs, gorillas, humans). With Pierolapithecus , scientists see for the first time, most of the distinctive traits that are present in all great apes and not present in the lesser apes (gibbons). Thus Pierolapithecus represents the group of ancient ape ancestors that is at the divergence point of great apes and lesser apes.

image_1052_2.jpg


http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/article01052.html

Between 12- 8 million years, the great apes in Eurasia radiate into many species. Some like Sivapithecus (India), Ankarapithecus (Turkey), Lufengpithecus (China) are seen to be related to the line that leads to modern Orangutans. Others like Dryopithecus (all of Europe), Ouranopithecus (Greece) and Oreopithecus (Italy) have traits that make them closer to the gorilla/chimp/human line. After about 9 million years, the cooling of Europe and the drying of Middle East causes the apes of the Orang-like group to retreat to East and South-East Asia while the apes of Europe or West-Asia disappear from Europe and retreat into North Africa where they eventually give rise to chimps, gorillas and humans.

DRYOPITHECUS

SIVAPITHECUS

Conclusion:- Rise and Fall of the Planet of the Apes (22-6 mya)

1) Between 22 million years and 6 million years, apes were the dominant primates of Eurasia. Known fossils span 24 groups and 100 species, and probably the actual number of species were 5 times that number. This was an era before the ice-age of the Northern Hemisphere. Tropical rainforests covered the entirety of Africa and moist and dense subtropical forests covered Europe and Asia as well. Thus many types of ape species, starting from Proconsul, evolve in Africa and flourish. When Asia and Africa connect, the apes migrate into the Asian and European forests and diversify there as well after 16 million years. The great apes diverge from gibbons at about 13 million years while orang ancestors of East Asia diverge from gorilla/chimp ancestors at about 10 million years. While early apes retain many of the monkey-like characters, by 16 million years, many of the newer species begin to look more like modern apes with bigger fore-limbs, stronger and broader chests, powerful grips, more flexible joints and bigger brains. They also sport big jaws and sharp canines that are excellent for eating big ripe fruits and crack nuts.

2) After 14 million years, the great Rift Valley, the volcanic mountains and Ethiopian plateau of East and South-East Africa begin to form. This creates large rain-shadow in Africa and the African rainforests begin to recede. This causes African apes to dwindle. Very few ape fossils are found in Africa after this perid.

3) Between 10-8 million years, African and South Asian plates collide with Eurasian plates causing the rapid rise of the Alps in Europe and the Himalayan mountain range along with the Tibetan and Iranian plateau in Asia. These events cause the entire Middle East to dry out from subtropical rainforests to open woodlands, while climate in East and South Asia becomes extremely seasonal dominated by the monsoon. Western and Central Europe, cut off from the smaller Mediterranean by the Alps, becomes cold, while Mediterranean and North Africa themselves become drier and become open wooded grasslands.

4) The collapse of the tropical forests are catastrophic for apes. All apes in Europe and West Asia die out, while a few migrate back into Northern Africa. Apes in Asia retreat into South-East Asia and China. The collapse of the apes continue to the present with today only 7 species (two gorilla, two chimps, two orangs, 1 human) remain of the many many species that existed in the past. The lesser apes (gibbons) have fared somewhat better with 17 gibbon species, though all located in the rainforests of South and South-East Asia.

5)The early history of human evolution (from 8 million years onwards) is to be considered in the context of these evolutionary pressures that drove our lineage to evolve features that make our ancestors better able to handle open woodlands and grasslands that replace the forests of the world from 8 million years onwards.


So far I have traced the evidence of the evolution of Great Apes upto the collapse of the forests of Europe and Middle East and the retreat of the Asian apes into Africa between 10-8 million years ago. In Africa, the European/African Great Apes diverge first into Gorilla ancestors and the rest (around 10 million years) and then into Chimpanzee ancestors and the human ancestors (8-6 million years ago).

The group of ancient species in the human lineage after the divergence between chimp ancestors and human ancestors were called Hominins. Thus the classification scheme is as follows

Subfamily Homininae (all ancestral European and African apes)

1) Tribe Gorillins (modern gorilla and all ancestors in the gorilla lineage)
2) Tribe Panins (modern chimpanzee and all ancestors in the chimpanzee lineage)
3) Tribe Hominins (modern humans and all ancestors in the human lineage)



It is quite fortunate that the Tribe Hominin that is our own ancestral lineage is very well represented in the fossil record. Over 20-25 species are known spanning from 7 million years ago to today, giving scientists a reasonably good account of the evolutionary transformations that resulted in the arising of modern humans. Provided below is a simplified diagram of the known ancestors belonging to the Hominin tribe.

Wood-2010-Fig-1-600px.jpg



The various hominin species known so far and their dates are shown as well as how well developed their "human-like" features are. A few other species recently discovered (like Au. sediba and H. Naledi) have not been shown in this somewhat older picture. What I would point out here is the very large number of fossil species that has been discovered over the entire time span. This gives lie to the claim that human evolution is not well documented in the fossil record.

Among the primitive hominins, undoubtedly the one with the best fossil record belong to the Ardipithecus genus (Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus) that were found in Ethiopia.

e8d38fdc8232367a6e0d1ce101feff15.jpg


Some of the basic conclusions from Ar. ramidus

1) The first basic trait that emerged in the hominin lineage is the evolution of bipedality on the ground. Ardipithecus was very adept in climbing and moving in trees. Its divergent big toe, strong arms and powerful grasping hands show it could move in trees using hands and feet very well. It lived in fairly dense wooded environment and foraged a lot and probably slept in trees.

2) But, unlike chimpanzees it walked on two legs (with somewhat of a bent knee gait) when it moved on the ground. The bones in its foot and ankle are joined in such a way so as to provide power for the lift off of one feet and balancing the entire weight on the other..something seen in later hominins and humans. Its leg bones are stronger in order to bear the body weight vertically, and its pelvis architecture also shows that it is vertically positioned over the leg bones rather than at right angles as in a quadruped or in the leaning forward gait of chimpanzees.

3) The connection of the spine to the skull has also moved downwards (like modern humans) so that the spine can better support the brain in an erect posture.

4) All this shows that Ardi was on two legs while on the ground and it probably walked that way when moving from tree to tree or covering a more open patch of the woodlands.

5) Another characteristic hominin feature that distinguishes it from more ancestral forms is that it lacked the large sharp incisors common in male chimpanzees used for dominance and display and its teeth are becoming more similar in shape to later hominins.

6) Most other features remain characteristic of ancient African/European apes. Specifically, the size of its brain is still that of a chimpanzee proportion, around 300 cc. It was a 50 kg, 4 feet tall animal.

7) Overall it preserves a mosaic of traits that evolution predicts would characterize early hominins close to their point of divergence from chimpanzee ancestors.

 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
My previous posts has shown the fossil evidence for the emergence of the first human-like ancestors (hominins) after the human-chimp lineage divergence at around 7-6 million years ago. The characteristic feature of early hominins is their adaptation to walking on two legs on the ground in response to more open forests of the rapidly drying out tropical and subtropical Africa. Ardipithecus Ramidus fossils clearly show this adaptation while retaining excellent tree climbing ability as well. While many later hominin species will go every which way in adaptation, most will become increasingly better bipedal walkers and spend less time in trees and more time on the ground.

Why did bipedalism evolve?

Theory of evolution predicts that the evolution of bipedalism will be adaptive and will provide significant benefits to human ancestors. Researchers have established that:-

1) Bipedal walking of humans is highly energy efficient. The energy cost of human bipedal walking is two times more efficient than average energy cost of four-legged walking of general mammals and four times more efficient than the quadrupedal knuckle walking of chimpanzees.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/30/12265.full
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070720111226.htm

2)The human ancestors were (like chimps) already capable of upright walking over short distances, and as the forests dried out and gave way to more open woods, natural selection for a more efficient form of locomotion drove the species to evolve more efficient bipedal walking postures.

3) Chimpanzees, who lived in more closed tropical forests, did not face such evolutionary pressures and hence developed knuckle walking that gets the job done on the ground while they spent most of their time in trees where their anatomy is better. However a few groups of chimps engage in more bipedal walking as they live in more open forests and need to carry resources from forest patch to forest patch. These savannah chimps also show a lot of traits (extensive use of wooden sticks for hunting, using caves for shelter, using water for bathing) that give is hints of the behavior of earliest hominins who lived in similar environments.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/are-western-chimpanzees-a-new-species-of-pan/

4) Research has shown that specialization for upright bipedal gait becomes evolutionary favorable for an ape when its habitat shifts enough that it is spending more than 60% of its time foraging on the ground.


All these points show that bipedalism was an adaptive trait that evolved in early hominins in response to drying of the forests so that they can spend more time moving on the ground looking for resources than in the trees.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
My previous posts has shown the fossil evidence for the emergence of the first human-like ancestors (hominins) after the human-chimp lineage divergence at around 7-6 million years ago. The characteristic feature of early hominins is their adaptation to walking on two legs on the ground in response to more open forests of the rapidly drying out tropical and subtropical Africa. Ardipithecus Ramidus fossils clearly show this adaptation while retaining excellent tree climbing ability as well. While many later hominin species will go every which way in adaptation, most will become increasingly better bipedal walkers and spend less time in trees and more time on the ground.

Why did bipedalism evolve?

Theory of evolution predicts that the evolution of bipedalism will be adaptive and will provide significant benefits to human ancestors. Researchers have established that:-

1) Bipedal walking of humans is highly energy efficient. The energy cost of human bipedal walking is two times more efficient than average energy cost of four-legged walking of general mammals and four times more efficient than the quadrupedal knuckle walking of chimpanzees.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/30/12265.full
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070720111226.htm

2)The human ancestors were (like chimps) already capable of upright walking over short distances, and as the forests dried out and gave way to more open woods, natural selection for a more efficient form of locomotion drove the species to evolve more efficient bipedal walking postures.

3) Chimpanzees, who lived in more closed tropical forests, did not face such evolutionary pressures and hence developed knuckle walking that gets the job done on the ground while they spent most of their time in trees where their anatomy is better. However a few groups of chimps engage in more bipedal walking as they live in more open forests and need to carry resources from forest patch to forest patch. These savannah chimps also show a lot of traits (extensive use of wooden sticks for hunting, using caves for shelter, using water for bathing) that give is hints of the behavior of earliest hominins who lived in similar environments.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/are-western-chimpanzees-a-new-species-of-pan/

4) Research has shown that specialization for upright bipedal gait becomes evolutionary favorable for an ape when its habitat shifts enough that it is spending more than 60% of its time foraging on the ground.


All these points show that bipedalism was an adaptive trait that evolved in early hominins in response to drying of the forests so that they can spend more time moving on the ground looking for resources than in the trees.
Perhaps the most well known of all ancient hominins is "Lucy" , a small female skeleton fossil belonging to the Hominin species Australopithecus Afarensis from East Africa that lived between 3.9-2.9 million years ago

lucy-skeleton-from-apjpg-b80d96fff9e9a9e0.jpg


Standing at 3.5 feet it is a smallish female of the species. The most informative piece of the skeleton are bones of the pelvis and the hip as well as the joints of thigh and femur bones that show that this species Afarensis was clearly bipedal. The evidence for excellent adaptation to two legged walking on the ground is further bolstered by the knee joint recovered from another fossil Afarensis
220px-Al129knee.jpg


Whose contours show that Afarensis was well adapted to bipedal walking.

While Lucy herself was fairly small female, the average size of individuals were somewhat larger, particularly the males of the species. Individuals range from 30-50 kg and 3.5-5.5 feet in height with males being bigger than the females. One of the more impressive fossil specimen is a 5.5 feet long male, again with excellent human-like lower body adapted to bipedlism as well as having human like shoulder blades, collar bone and rib cage.
fossil-bipede-evolucao-humana-20100622124826.jpg


http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2010/06/partial_skeleton_from_lucys_sp.html

The number of fossils of Afarensis found in the 3.9-2.9 million year range is numerous,showing that the species was extremely successful. No doubt the successful adaptation to bipedalism contributed to its success. The famous 3.6 mya Laetoli footprints puts their bipedal adaptation beyond doubt.
20140512_Tuttle_Footprints.jpg


Such extraordinary number of fossils have helped scientists to reconstruct the lower body anatomy of Afarensis in detail.The arms of afarensis were longer than us, its hands and finger bones were more curved than us, while its wrists and ankles were more flexible than us- showing that Afarensis still was climbing trees often enough. But it had lost much of the other arboreal adaptations of Ardipithecus (including the flared big toe) showing that it was spending most of its time on the ground.


More recently, complete skulls of both Males and Female Afarensis have also been discovered.

Male Skull is especially large. The brain case is 550 cc, somewhat larger than that of a big chimpanzee (500 cc) of a similar mass. The jaws jut out in the front like earlier apes, and the braincase shape is also similar to apes. The males also have a brow-ridge. But unlike apes, its front canines are much smaller and the back teeth are larger and the spinal chord is entering the skull more centrally to adjust for the bipedal gait. The female of the species had smaller skull (due to smaller body mass, around 370-430 cc) and do not have the brow ridges.

https://qrius.si.edu/browse/object/11043703#.WAqt9PkrKM8

https://afarensis99.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/know-your-hominin-a-l-822-1/

RTEmagicC_AL-822-1_01.jpg.jpg


Overall then, Afarensis was a hominin species living in East Africa between 3.9-2.9 million years with modern bipedal human like skeleton below the neck, but more ancestral ape like head with brain size only slightly larger than chimps.

Over the last 10 years evidence has increasingly mounted that Afarensis made and used rudimentary stone tools.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/world-s-oldest-stone-tools-discovered-kenya


Thus, despite having nearly chimp like brains, bipedality and use of stone tools already show and expansion of behavioral flexibility of Afarensis that contributed to their success and diversification. Very soon (by 3 million years), hominin descendants of Afarensis will spread into South Africa (Au. Africanus) and Sub-Saharan Africa and diversify into multiple species. The first evolutionary flourishing of human ancestors have begun.

2000px-Map_of_the_fossil_sites_of_the_early_hominids_(4.4-1M_BP).svg.png
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The diversification of Hominins in Africa (3-2 million years ago)

The species to which Lucy belongs (Au. Afrarensis) was an extremely successful human ancestor, and they migrated to large parts of Africa and diversified into new species there. Soon, by 3 million years, scinetists find multiple species of hominins living in various parts of Africa.

They include

Australopithecus Afarensis i
n South Africa (3.5-2 mya), Major fossil finds include,
1) "Little Foot" from 3.5 mya
COH_Sterkfontein_Caves_Little_Foot_2007.jpg


2) An important fossil of lower anatomy dated to 2.5 million years, establishing bipedality
sts14.jpg



3) Skull of a female Au. Africanus, 2.5 mya
MrsPles.jpg


4) Skull of a male Au. Africanus, also around 2.5 million years
http://www.efossils.org/page/boneviewer/Australopithecus africanus/Sts 71

5) 3 year old juvenile Au. Africanus, 2.5 million years old, skull along with brain endocast was fossilized.
taung-child-2.jpg


6) Au. Sediba, a descendant species of Au. Africanus that lived in South Africa at 2 million years ago

ancient-skin_02.jpg




Meanwhile in East Africa, Au. Afarensis gave rise to several distinct species by 3 million years. These include

1) Kenyanthropus (3.1 mya)

3387200447_d2d608521f.jpg


2) Au. Garhi, a 2.5 million year old fossil hominin which used stone tools.
3837926.jpg


3) Another variety of hominin that lived in East Africa 2.5 million years ago. Paranthropus aethiopicus.
250px-Paranthropus_aethiopicus.JPG

4) Paranthropus boisei (2.3-1.5 million years ago) was another descendent of afarensis that lived in East Africa,
http://efossils.org/page/boneviewer/Paranthropus boisei/OH 5


From this large diversity of hominin species, the specific group most closely related to later humans (all the species belonging to genus Homo) begins to emerge at 2 million years.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Which doesn't make it right. You know that's true too, but this isn't me saying that proves ToE false either... We KNEW the Earth was flat, we were 100% positive, and then better information came along.
Just as a bit here. Very few people actually believed the world to be flat. AT least not people who were in the academics of such a subject. The Greeks even devised a plan to measure the circumfrence of the earth and came damn near close to it. The main problem with their experiment was that they didn't do it on an exuinox. They had simply assumed that they would have traveled the whole distance as if they were the center of the axis tilt. BTW the Greek who did that was a his torian named Eratosthenes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

For a short period of time the Church in Europe taught that it was flat because of the bit about the 4 corners being mentioned metaphorically somehwere or whatever the excuse is now. But people who were astronomers knew the Earth was a sphere. The Chinese knew. All people of sufficent advances knew. Christopher Columbus was not mocked and told he would fall off the edge of the Earth. It was his knowledge (common knowledge at the time to boot) that the Earth was a sphere that allowed him to come up with the idea to sail to the Indias without corssing Cape Horn down at South Africa.

Newtonian physics is really the only example I can think of in the history of science that was widely accepted as true by a broad and enlightened scientific community that ended up simply being wrong. To be fair its becauseo our universe and its laws are far beyond our normal human understanding and only ever came to light at first with Enstine and his understanding of the very very large. QM later talked about the things that were very very small. Newtonian physics still exist and is taught today. Its the basis of Engineering of course and is widely used. We just found it is not universially true at all sizes and energy levels. But immedialy soon as we started noting these observations we knew that something was amiss.

But with evolution we don't see that though. The very basic idea of change over time because of inheritied charictaristics was both right and wrong. It was in the right direction but wrong on the fundamental understanding of how it worked and what it "really" was. So as science progressed the last 150 years since its first publication we have found out an enormous amount of information. Dozens if not hundreds of whole schools of scientific study and research hinges on these observations. DNA, genetics, chemistry, any biological science and medicine just to name a few. Every time we discover something new that blows our mind it continues to add to the evolutionary theory. It clarifies it just a bit more and makes it stronger. Within the evolutionary sciences there are debates about specific things and most of the time they are in fact incredibly interesting debates but no one seriously debates if the basis of evolution is not true. The reason is because we have no evidence against it. Never in human history have we ever had such an idea or scientific concept end up being wrong. Nothing so well understood and well researched has ever been found to be just delusion and smoke.

The only idea that might have had more influence and certainty that ended up being false...is religion.

Why are the studies done by certain agencies on telekinesis still classified? If there's nothing there... should be an easy thing to say.
Probably due to the nature of the experiments. They were crazy loose on the rules back then.

When you throw feelings out, you're throwing something out.

Now, I'm sure this comment will draw criticism, but it doesn't change what we're taught.

In Marine Corps boot camp and School of Infantry I can remember several times being told to trust your gut. Trust your feelings. If it feels wrong, you can almost always bet something is. That wisdom saved our lives on several occasions.
I wasn't going to respond to this but I feel now I need to. You are taking differnet things out of context. First if you throw away gut feelings in science you get more accurate. Everything has to be backed by evidence. If you have a "gut feeling" that something is going on then test it. That is called hypotheses. And if everything comes back negative then you shrug your shoulders and move on. Hell go back and do the test a thousand times and make sure that there is no statistical significance if it makes you feel better. But the feelings themselve are of no value without results to back it up.

Intuition an gut feelings can be good in more personal situations. Why? Because it is your subconscious helping you recognize patterns you didn't see with the surface layer of your thinking. That feeling of something is wrong but can't put your finger on it is your brain seeing a pattern without realizing its seeing a pattern. If you have a gut feeling then go back to the earlier paragraph and see if there is something there.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The origin of our Genus.

Biologists designate humans by the name Homo sapiens. The term "Homo" is the designator of our genus which includes our closest ancestors and sister species, while the term "sapiens" designate our unique species.

As seen from the posts 56 and 57,the species in our ancestral lineage between 4-2 million years were classified in the Australopithecus genus and was characterized by their increasingly better adaptation to walking on two legs.

In contrast, the growth in brain size was modest. An average chimpanzee has brain size of about 400 cc, while Australopithecus has brain size between 350-550 cc (avg. 450 cc).

From 2 million years onwards, however, a particular lineage of fossils, that while retaining many of the older Australopithecus features, begins to show increasing brain size. This lineage, existing in Africa first and then spreading to West Asia, show a brain size between 500-800 cc (avg 650 cc) and is found between 2.3-1.6 million years. The species has been variously called Homo habilis and/or Homo Rudolfensis , is associated with increasing use of flaked stone tools (called Oldowan stone tools) and have been found in East Africa as well as in Dmanisi, Georgia (West Asia).

Wood-2010-Fig-1-600px.jpg
\
The orange bars, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis are considered the first species in the transition from later Australopithecus to genus Homo. Latest evidence suggests that habilis and rudolfensis are simply variable groups within the same species of Homo that lived between 2.3-1.5 million years in Africa and later West Asia.

A nearly complete skull of Homo habilis was found in Kenya dated to 1.9 million years old. This is a small adult female with brain size of 510 cc, relatively small teeth and significantly less forward projecting face than Australopiths. The flat face and the human like shape of the skull is unmistakable compared to earlier Australopiths (see previous posts).

habilis_KNMER1813_skull_CC_lt_3qtr_sq.jpg


Another important skull is the 1.75 million year old fossil with 600-630 cc brain size
habilis_OH24_skull_CC_rt_3qtr_sq.jpg


A somewhat larger brained individual (sometimes attributed to H. rudolfensis) was also uncovered in in Kenya from 1.9 million old rock deposits. The brain size is estimated to be 700-750 cc from the skull

Homo_rudolfensis64.jpg


Along of with lower jaw bones of similar individuals found recently at the same site.
fossil-2.png



Perhaps the most exciting find of the current decade has been the discovery of 6 fossilized individuals of this transitional Homo lineage (including 6 skulls and 2 nearly complete skeletons) in Dmanisi Georgia, all belonging to the same population that inhabited the region 1.8 million years ago, along with their flake-stone tools. Ranging from 550 cc-780 cc brain size, these skulls and skeletons provide an excellent snapshot of the likely variations within species and suggest that all the fossils shown here belong to the same species.

http://dmanisi.ge/page?id=12&lang=en

https://anthropology.net/2007/09/19/dmanisis-paleoanthropological-importance/

One of the fossil skulls belong to a very old individual all whose teeth have fallen out, showing that this species took care of their old...something no other species but ourselves do today. Shown below is the fossil of the skull of the old "person" and another younger individual in the group.

82zlz38avwwsoo.jpg


d2700lr_3.jpg


Stone tools found in Africa and Dmanisi
82znqk0oloo40s.jpg



We see therefore excellent evidence of an important period between 2.3-1.6 million years when our genus "Homo" with more frequent stone tool use, significantly bigger brains and some important social characters like caring for older people evolved from older bipedal Australopithecins of Africa. It also represents the first migration of hominin lineage into Asia.


 
Top