This just in:
Concurrent H. erectus and H. habilis
I often post these interesting finds but can never find the best old thread to post them in so suggest future fossil discoveries (or related theories) be added here so folks like me that are quite interested, but not particualrly well versed, can easily follow the changes and ongoing dynamics.
If others like that idea, could someone please link one or two articles or threads from here (or just diagrams?) to give future readers a place to get caught up to the current thinking on human origins?
Cheers,
Apeman
Full Version: The Latest Human Fossil Finds
Another article on that...
http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/244399
I'm reading that and thinking "phew, finally!" I've long been thinking that paleo-anthropology and related sciences have been too hung up about how humanity developed. I've not been a believer of the "party line" for some time and have thought that it has been a short sighted political lock-step doctrine aimed at presenting a united front against creationists or something. The past theories have always seemed to me to forget the idea that evolution doesn't have a specific object in mind. Saying one set of hominids must have died out because another lot evolved a little different somewhere else is as stupid as looking at the rodent family tree and saying squirrels shouldn't exist because there are rabbits. It could be also that they were all too focussed on the inevitable glory that would accrue from finding "the missing link" and thus would attempt to slot their finds in a direct line from primate to sapiens whether there was evidence to the contrary or not. One can only hope that these finds blow everything wide open and we can get some intellectual honesty out of the field.
http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/244399
I'm reading that and thinking "phew, finally!" I've long been thinking that paleo-anthropology and related sciences have been too hung up about how humanity developed. I've not been a believer of the "party line" for some time and have thought that it has been a short sighted political lock-step doctrine aimed at presenting a united front against creationists or something. The past theories have always seemed to me to forget the idea that evolution doesn't have a specific object in mind. Saying one set of hominids must have died out because another lot evolved a little different somewhere else is as stupid as looking at the rodent family tree and saying squirrels shouldn't exist because there are rabbits. It could be also that they were all too focussed on the inevitable glory that would accrue from finding "the missing link" and thus would attempt to slot their finds in a direct line from primate to sapiens whether there was evidence to the contrary or not. One can only hope that these finds blow everything wide open and we can get some intellectual honesty out of the field.
QUOTE(Flashman @ Aug 9 2007, 09:52 AM) 
Another article on that...
http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/244399
I'm reading that and thinking "phew, finally!" I've long been thinking that paleo-anthropology and related sciences have been too hung up about how humanity developed. I've not been a believer of the "party line" for some time and have thought that it has been a short sighted political lock-step doctrine aimed at presenting a united front against creationists or something. The past theories have always seemed to me to forget the idea that evolution doesn't have a specific object in mind. Saying one set of hominids must have died out because another lot evolved a little different somewhere else is as stupid as looking at the rodent family tree and saying squirrels shouldn't exist because there are rabbits. It could be also that they were all too focussed on the inevitable glory that would accrue from finding "the missing link" and thus would attempt to slot their finds in a direct line from primate to sapiens whether there was evidence to the contrary or not. One can only hope that these finds blow everything wide open and we can get some intellectual honesty out of the field.
http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/244399
I'm reading that and thinking "phew, finally!" I've long been thinking that paleo-anthropology and related sciences have been too hung up about how humanity developed. I've not been a believer of the "party line" for some time and have thought that it has been a short sighted political lock-step doctrine aimed at presenting a united front against creationists or something. The past theories have always seemed to me to forget the idea that evolution doesn't have a specific object in mind. Saying one set of hominids must have died out because another lot evolved a little different somewhere else is as stupid as looking at the rodent family tree and saying squirrels shouldn't exist because there are rabbits. It could be also that they were all too focussed on the inevitable glory that would accrue from finding "the missing link" and thus would attempt to slot their finds in a direct line from primate to sapiens whether there was evidence to the contrary or not. One can only hope that these finds blow everything wide open and we can get some intellectual honesty out of the field.
I don't think there really is a 'party' line like that.. if anything, the party line is just what you describe.. something like an evolutionary 'bush'. Perhaps the popular press presents the evolution of Homo sapiens as a progression toward a final goal, but that is probably more the simplistic understanding of the journalist than anything else.
On the other hand, the fossil record does show, in a rough sense, a progression in the lineage what are likely close relatives to our own ancestors. In geological time, even if two similar species of hominid coexisted for 20,000 years, that's barely any time at all, and it wouldn't be too much of a simplification to say that one superseded the other (after a transitional period of coexistence).
Bipedalism, evolved in a common ancestor of all living apes at least 20 million years ago
First Europeans Came From Asia, Not Africa, Tooth Study Suggests
THE eruption of Mount Toba in Indonesia 74,000 years ago may not have been as cataclysmic for modern humans making their way from Africa to Australia as once thought, new research suggests.
It sounds to me like they are saying they found 74,000 year old modern humans that are not from Africa but it is risky to assume too much from press releases. If true that changes all sorts of assumptions made about when moderns first left Africa.
First Europeans Came From Asia, Not Africa, Tooth Study Suggests
THE eruption of Mount Toba in Indonesia 74,000 years ago may not have been as cataclysmic for modern humans making their way from Africa to Australia as once thought, new research suggests.
It sounds to me like they are saying they found 74,000 year old modern humans that are not from Africa but it is risky to assume too much from press releases. If true that changes all sorts of assumptions made about when moderns first left Africa.
Discovery challenges idea of how humans evolved
SETH BORENSTEIN; The Associated Press
Published: August 9th, 2007 06:53 AM
WASHINGTON – Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.
The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man’s early evolution: that one of those species evolved from the other.
And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man.
The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey’s find suggests those two earlier species lived side by side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in today’s edition of the journal Nature.
The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.
It’s the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother and daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.
The species lived near each other but probably didn’t interact, each having its own “ecological niche,” Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian, while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, “they’d just avoid each other, they don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said.
There remains some still-undiscovered common ancestor that lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.
Overall what it paints for human evolution is a “chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree,” Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in Kenya.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved
SETH BORENSTEIN; The Associated Press
Published: August 9th, 2007 06:53 AM
WASHINGTON – Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.
The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man’s early evolution: that one of those species evolved from the other.
And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man.
The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey’s find suggests those two earlier species lived side by side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in today’s edition of the journal Nature.
The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.
It’s the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother and daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.
The species lived near each other but probably didn’t interact, each having its own “ecological niche,” Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian, while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, “they’d just avoid each other, they don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said.
There remains some still-undiscovered common ancestor that lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.
Overall what it paints for human evolution is a “chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree,” Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in Kenya.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved
QUOTE(GEORGEKARRAS @ Aug 9 2007, 08:34 PM)
The species lived near each other but probably didn’t interact, each having its own “ecological niche,” Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian, while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, “they’d just avoid each other, they don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said.
Overall what it paints for human evolution is a “chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree,” Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in Kenya.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved
Overall what it paints for human evolution is a “chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree,” Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in Kenya.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved
There is so much we still don't know.
The notion that there were two different species of men living together, but who did not like each other is a familiar one, although I would not describe a sas as a man, more like an animal, or a man that developed through intense physicality, rather than through intellect. When you think about it, the only reason we are as intelligent as we are is because we are so physically weak; we had to figure out how to survive by using our wits, working together as a team, making weapons, using fire. If we were as strong and hairy and massive as sasquatches, we would not need to be so smart.
"Chaos" is something scientists don't really like to see, especially when it comes to the evolutionary theory.
It's nice to see that some of the sheepdip we've been force-fed concerning human origins is finally being torn asunder in a public way. Anyone who has read Cremo & Thompson's 'Forbidden Archeology' will understand that anatomically modern humans have been around for literally eons. And for those who have been duped by their college educations, no, we did not come 'out of Africa' some 100,000 years ago. That a couple of minor distant cousins (habilis and erectus) happened to continue to cohabit the planet with us until a million or so years ago is not surprising either, although its discovery masquerades as some sort of earth-shattering announcement in the above article. Didn't we also just discover another cohabiting cousin who, again if one accepts conventional wisdom, shouldn't have been there at all: Homo Floriensis (the tiny little Hobit man)? And didn't he only shuffle off his mortal coil some mere 10,000 years ago? Oops, am I letting the cat out of the bag? Getting Leakey and her dim-witted and wrong-headed cronies to admit the greater truth would be a hominology revolution in and of itself. Until then, read everything you can find on the subject, be skeptical, believe nothing if it comes from the dominant hominology hegemony and trust your critical instincts.
Dudlow
Dudlow
According to recent paleontological evidence, two species of the genus Homo, rudolfensis and habilis, appeared a little more than 2 million years ago. They both supposedly sprung up at about the same time and yet were different species. That is very strong evidence that the lineage of Homo is older than the fossils suggest. Now we have this evidence that suggests that erectus is also likely much older and/or speciation is far more widespread than commonly believed. These fossils only represent a handful of locations and it is very likely that the human family bush is even more complex than suggested. If erectus is older, then some of the erectus in Asia my be farther removed from modern humans than was commonly believed especially considering they ventured to at least one entirely new continent, Asia, shortly after this. That increased isolation tends to accelerates the development of new species as do all the new potential environments. With periodic glaciating, all sorts of species of erectus may have formed. It is not reasonable to assume that only one of the erectus, or one of the many other hominids could have made the journey from Africa.
It seems likely, from what I can tell, one of the erectus branches in Africa, since it is likely older now, evolved into ergaster, which may be in the human lineage. It has to be tough, with just a few fragments of bone to determine species in the majority of the fossils found. Determining technology use must be even tougher if you consider the likelihood of multiple species. There must be several thousand tools found for every fossilized tool maker. As long as one lineage is technological in the area, you don't know who made the tool. It is probably even more likely they could coexist if one were non-technological. It implies they make their living in different ways.
Those that branched off early and are not in the human lineage cannot reasonably be assumed to have followed the same evolutionary path as modern humans. The logical deduction is that many of the erectus were likely far more primitive than the conventional model suggested.
It seems likely, from what I can tell, one of the erectus branches in Africa, since it is likely older now, evolved into ergaster, which may be in the human lineage. It has to be tough, with just a few fragments of bone to determine species in the majority of the fossils found. Determining technology use must be even tougher if you consider the likelihood of multiple species. There must be several thousand tools found for every fossilized tool maker. As long as one lineage is technological in the area, you don't know who made the tool. It is probably even more likely they could coexist if one were non-technological. It implies they make their living in different ways.
Those that branched off early and are not in the human lineage cannot reasonably be assumed to have followed the same evolutionary path as modern humans. The logical deduction is that many of the erectus were likely far more primitive than the conventional model suggested.
QUOTE(Dudlow @ Aug 9 2007, 09:37 PM)
It's nice to see that some of the sheepdip we've been force-fed concerning human origins is finally being torn asunder in a public way. Anyone who has read Cremo & Thompson's 'Forbidden Archeology' will understand that anatomically modern humans have been around for literally eons. And for those who have been duped by their college educations, no, we did not come 'out of Africa' some 100,000 years ago. That a couple of minor distant cousins (habilis and erectus) happened to continue to cohabit the planet with us until a million or so years ago is not surprising either, although its discovery masquerades as some sort of earth-shattering announcement in the above article. Didn't we also just discover another cohabiting cousin who, again if one accepts conventional wisdom, shouldn't have been there at all: Homo Floriensis (the tiny little Hobit man)? And didn't he only shuffle off his mortal coil some mere 10,000 years ago? Oops, am I letting the cat out of the bag? Getting Leakey and her dim-witted and wrong-headed cronies to admit the greater truth would be a hominology revolution in and of itself. Until then, read everything you can find on the subject, be skeptical, believe nothing if it comes from the dominant hominology hegemony and trust your critical instincts.
Dudlow
Dudlow
Ooookay. I assume this spiel had nothing to do with the article the OP linked... since nothing in that article supports the claptrap you're spouting.
Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of evolution (human or otherwise) realizes that the 'bush' analogy is far more accurate than a simple linear progression. Anyone who got a college education that involved studying biology and who didn't get this probably wasn't 'duped', but was sleeping in class.
QUOTE(Dudlow @ Aug 9 2007, 09:37 PM)
Getting Leakey and her dim-witted and wrong-headed cronies to admit the greater truth would be a hominology revolution in and of itself.
Dim-witted? You are talking about one of the greatest anthropological minds of all time.
I think if you exhibited some common courtesy and critical thought, that would be a revolution.
Note: We already have a thread with this story posted here.
Good catch, Apeman. I've merged the two in chronological order. 
QUOTE(counselor @ Aug 10 2007, 12:49 PM)
Dim-witted? You are talking about one of the greatest anthropological minds of all time.
I think if you exhibited some common courtesy and critical thought, that would be a revolution.
I think if you exhibited some common courtesy and critical thought, that would be a revolution.
That you consider the Leakeys among "the greatest anthropological minds of all time" indicates that, like so many others who have been duped by that dominant hegemony, you too have completely ignored the vast corpus of evidence on the other side of the coin that has been suppressed through knowledge filtering on an ongoing basis for over a century.
If you haven't read any of the many alternative histories, one of which I was kind enough to mention by name, then you have no business commenting either way. It simply reveals your own ignorance on the subject. And that ignorance being as widely held as it is, indicates how successful the suppression mechanism within the paleo-sciences has been for many years. That's one of my points - to a certain point we have all been duped for many years. But the truth is now gradually becoming recognized and a great battle for the truth is being waged.
Those who have ignored the alternative evidence are often among those who also accept the notion that man, for example, has only been in the Americas since the ice-bridge; more clap-trap that has been commonly espoused by the dominant paleo-hegemony, but for which a large corpus of counter evidence that is even more compelling actually exists. Go and read it; it isn't hard to find. Don't argue with me, argue with them.
Yes, read the alternative arguments before you puke invective upon those who have studied them. Your unsupported comments reveal your uncritical and uncourteous attitude towards others.
And by the way, just to remain on point here, I didn't make any of this up and neither did the paleontologists, geologists, archeologists, chemists, etc., who provided the volumes of material that more than convincingly counter the dominantly held beliefs. This is one of the most exciting debates within all of the contemporary sciences and you seem not to be aware of it. What's up with that?
Dudlow
Dudlow, I think you're attitude sucks. You want to debate the issue? Fine. Present your point of view and supporting evidence and it will be debated. You want to be an obnoxious ass? That's fine, too. However, the conversation will be dramatically shorter and much more one-sided.
Yeah Dudlow, can see some of where you're coming from with the content, but the delivery sucks.
There appears to be much "unloved" archeological evidence around that's ignored because it didn't fit anyone's paradigm. The creationists like to bandy some of it about as proof of the fallibility of science. Claiming such things as faulty dating etc. However, ignoring the claims those guys put on it, you're still left with a lot of exceptional objects that didn't jibe with the classical knuckle dragger to briefcase picture, or at least the timescale of it.
There appears to be a sudden burst of activity in hominology with new finds and things appearing to shake things up a bit. I get the feeling that some of this is Gen Xers getting tenure and getting their teeth into the things that have been bugging them about accepted paradigms over the last 20 years.
Flash
There appears to be much "unloved" archeological evidence around that's ignored because it didn't fit anyone's paradigm. The creationists like to bandy some of it about as proof of the fallibility of science. Claiming such things as faulty dating etc. However, ignoring the claims those guys put on it, you're still left with a lot of exceptional objects that didn't jibe with the classical knuckle dragger to briefcase picture, or at least the timescale of it.
There appears to be a sudden burst of activity in hominology with new finds and things appearing to shake things up a bit. I get the feeling that some of this is Gen Xers getting tenure and getting their teeth into the things that have been bugging them about accepted paradigms over the last 20 years.
Flash
Folks,
I don't agree with evolution totally. not yet,I think we have much more to learn yet before we can definitavly say anything was 100 percent true. However, Some evolutionist are intellegent and smart and curtious and willing to politely listen to my views.
And on the other hand even if I disagree with someones point Evolutionist or not , there is no "Memo While You Were Out "From God saying I was right, so I listen and learn.
Micro evolution is a slam dunk we see it it happens, the same "clowns" that came up with it came up with evolution so i will give Macroevolutionists a listen even if I don't agree totally.
There are clowns in every side Creationist evolutionists and Interventionists,
There are sone well thought out people in all, I tend to listen to all and decide if their arguments are well thought out.
Me and Saskeptic for example disagree with each other on many many things, but yet when I read his arguments I can see he has thought out my positon my argument and my life experience and gives it due he is respectful and does not say he is absulutly right all the time, I try to follow his example.
None of us have the inside knowlege totally on how it all happens. Not through relegon science or just plain thinking, or a combination of it all we are all blind men felling the elephant.
I don't agree with evolution totally. not yet,I think we have much more to learn yet before we can definitavly say anything was 100 percent true. However, Some evolutionist are intellegent and smart and curtious and willing to politely listen to my views.
And on the other hand even if I disagree with someones point Evolutionist or not , there is no "Memo While You Were Out "From God saying I was right, so I listen and learn.
Micro evolution is a slam dunk we see it it happens, the same "clowns" that came up with it came up with evolution so i will give Macroevolutionists a listen even if I don't agree totally.
There are clowns in every side Creationist evolutionists and Interventionists,
There are sone well thought out people in all, I tend to listen to all and decide if their arguments are well thought out.
Me and Saskeptic for example disagree with each other on many many things, but yet when I read his arguments I can see he has thought out my positon my argument and my life experience and gives it due he is respectful and does not say he is absulutly right all the time, I try to follow his example.
None of us have the inside knowlege totally on how it all happens. Not through relegon science or just plain thinking, or a combination of it all we are all blind men felling the elephant.
SquatchCommando (and all those of similar ilk)
While I respect whatever personal beliefs you might have, and your freedom to express them as you like in this forum (within the guidelines) could we PLEASE not turn this thread into yet another creationism v. evolution thread. If anyone wants to engage in that tiresome debate, please do it elsewhere, or start your own thread. If you feel the need to write the word "creationism" in a post here, then you are in the wrong thread.
What you've stated above SC has nothing to do with the discussion that was happening re. the merits of opposing theories on human evolution; you've basically infused creationism when no one was discussing it and thereby hijacked this thread, though I don't think you intended to or perhaps even realize that you did.
Let me be clear, since I'm the one that started this thread:
THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR DEBATING CREATIONISM V. EVOLUTION. ...or the merits of one versus the other, or the incompleteness of the fossil records as it pertains to "proving" basic evolution, or anything of that sort.
I'm honestly begging.
Apeman
While I respect whatever personal beliefs you might have, and your freedom to express them as you like in this forum (within the guidelines) could we PLEASE not turn this thread into yet another creationism v. evolution thread. If anyone wants to engage in that tiresome debate, please do it elsewhere, or start your own thread. If you feel the need to write the word "creationism" in a post here, then you are in the wrong thread.
What you've stated above SC has nothing to do with the discussion that was happening re. the merits of opposing theories on human evolution; you've basically infused creationism when no one was discussing it and thereby hijacked this thread, though I don't think you intended to or perhaps even realize that you did.
Let me be clear, since I'm the one that started this thread:
THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR DEBATING CREATIONISM V. EVOLUTION. ...or the merits of one versus the other, or the incompleteness of the fossil records as it pertains to "proving" basic evolution, or anything of that sort.
I'm honestly begging.
Apeman
Dudlow,
I do believe that some members of the scientific community, as is the case in any community, are resistant to new ideas. However, I find it inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers from every varied discipline of all the sciences known to humanity could so completely and totally censor new scientific thought.
I do believe that some members of the scientific community, as is the case in any community, are resistant to new ideas. However, I find it inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers from every varied discipline of all the sciences known to humanity could so completely and totally censor new scientific thought.
QUOTE(Apeman @ Aug 10 2007, 06:29 PM)
SquatchCommando (and all those of similar ilk)
What you've stated above SC has nothing to do with the discussion that was happening re. the merits of opposing theories on human evolution; you've basically infused creationism when no one was discussing it and thereby hijacked this thread, though I don't think you intended to or perhaps even realize that you did.
Apeman
What you've stated above SC has nothing to do with the discussion that was happening re. the merits of opposing theories on human evolution; you've basically infused creationism when no one was discussing it and thereby hijacked this thread, though I don't think you intended to or perhaps even realize that you did.
Apeman
Wasn't trying to, I was suggesting that some be respectful of the opinions of people and not to be bashing ideas like Leaky's and others it is what I ment, and I am not a "creationist" nor "Evolutionist" nor a Interventionist nor whatever, when I have it figured out Ill decide, but I need abot 2000 years to live before I am wise enough to say I got it pegged, If my post wasn't clear on it's intent I am sorry .
I was suggesting we disagree without name calling basicly.
QUOTE(BobZenor @ Aug 9 2007, 04:42 PM)
Bipedalism, evolved in a common ancestor of all living apes at least 20 million years ago
First Europeans Came From Asia, Not Africa, Tooth Study Suggests
THE eruption of Mount Toba in Indonesia 74,000 years ago may not have been as cataclysmic for modern humans making their way from Africa to Australia as once thought, new research suggests.
It sounds to me like they are saying they found 74,000 year old modern humans that are not from Africa but it is risky to assume too much from press releases. If true that changes all sorts of assumptions made about when moderns first left Africa.
First Europeans Came From Asia, Not Africa, Tooth Study Suggests
THE eruption of Mount Toba in Indonesia 74,000 years ago may not have been as cataclysmic for modern humans making their way from Africa to Australia as once thought, new research suggests.
It sounds to me like they are saying they found 74,000 year old modern humans that are not from Africa but it is risky to assume too much from press releases. If true that changes all sorts of assumptions made about when moderns first left Africa.
It is hard to say when and were and what paths humans took, Human origins is a puzzle and most are missing and some of what we have are not really part of the puzzle, we we constantly be changing our theorys.
Apeman or some others that know more about evolutions than me
Is it possible that Habilis still evolved into Erectus in some areas while Habilis stayed stagnant in others and then co existed or are they suggesting now that its like the Neanderthal Cro Magnon situation that happened in Europe?
Dan
Is it possible that Habilis still evolved into Erectus in some areas while Habilis stayed stagnant in others and then co existed or are they suggesting now that its like the Neanderthal Cro Magnon situation that happened in Europe?
Dan
QUOTE(SquatchCommando @ Aug 10 2007, 09:29 PM)
Apeman or some others that know more about evolutions than me
Is it possible that Habilis still evolved into Erectus in some areas while Habilis stayed stagnant in others and then co existed...?
Is it possible that Habilis still evolved into Erectus in some areas while Habilis stayed stagnant in others and then co existed...?
That's likely what happened. Speciation tends to occur when a group of organisms are separated from the main group and develop separately for many generations. The two groups may then meet again later - depending on how much change has taken place, they may merge again, may co-exist but not interbreed, or one may displace the other.
I thought the consensus was that Homo rudolfensis was a more likely candidate for an ancestor than habilis anyway.
This one's from News@Nature.com;
"News
Published online: 8 August 2007; | doi:10.1038/news070806-5
Twin fossil find adds twist to human evolution
Homo erectus had an unexpected neighbour, and a surprising lifestyle too.
Michael Hopkin
Two fossils unearthed in Kenya have added a new dimension to our view of life at the birth of our Homo genus. They show that two ancestral human species seem to have lived cheek-by-jowl in the same area, much as gorillas and chimpanzees do today.
Both skull fragments were found by anthropologists digging near Kenya's Lake Turkana, adding to the impressive list of early human fossils unearthed here. One of the fossils, an upper jawbone from the species Homo habilis, is dated at 1.44 million years, much younger than most fossils of this species.
The other fossil is an almost complete — but faceless — Homo erectus skull. Dated at 1.55 million years, the skull is far smaller than any other from this species — suggesting to the researchers that, as is the case with modern gorillas, there was a large size differences between the sexes in H. erectus.
Walking abreast
The fact that these two species seem to have been contemporaries is a surprise to anthropologists, say Fred Spoor of University College London and his colleagues, who discovered the hominin fossils seven years ago and now describe them in this week's Nature1.
Anthropologists have tended to see the evolution of Homo species as a linear progression, beginning with H. habilis and passing through H. erectus before ending up with modern humans. But it seems the path through time was broad enough for more than one species to walk abreast, with H. erectus and H. habilis living in the same place at the same time for as much as half a million years. Spoor and his colleagues argue that this makes it less likely that H. erectus was a direct descendant of H. habilis, instead suggesting that there is a common ancestor yet to find.
The two species are thought to have lived side by side in much the same way as modern chimps and gorillas coexist in central regions of Africa — by adopting different habits and diets. "To live in the same area for half a million years they must have found their own niches — different diets, maybe different migratory routes — to minimize competition," says Spoor. "When food is scarce, when there's a drought or something, it becomes very important that you're not in each other's way."
Harem of females
The new H. erectus skull also changes our ideas about the nature of this species. "What is truly striking about this fossil is its size," comments Spoor. The fact that the skull — probably belong to a young adult — is so small suggests that the size range of H. erectus was much larger than we imagined. The researchers infer from this that the males of H. erectus were much bigger than the females. By comparison, there is a relatively slight difference seen between the sexes in our own species. A greater inequality of size has implications for the way the creatures lived.
H. erectus has always been viewed as similar to H. sapiens in both body shape and lifestyle. Spoor points out that the new discovery suggests a family set-up more akin to that of modern gorillas in which dominant males mate with a harem of females. "If we look at those primate species that have large sexual dimorphism, their groups usually involve one dominant male — the silverback if you're talking about gorillas — multiple female mates, and then perhaps a few non-dominant males that hang around, just waiting for their chance," Spoor says.
A similar set up is inferred from fossils of the earliest hominins, such as the australopithecines, but there has been a widespread assumption that sexes of more or less equal sizes arose when our ancestors ditched their more ape-like characteristics, evolving from Australopithecus into the more genteel Homo. To find such a difference in H. erectus, Spoor says, "was quite a surprise, actually"."
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070806/full/070806-5.html
This one's from News@Nature.com;
"News
Published online: 8 August 2007; | doi:10.1038/news070806-5
Twin fossil find adds twist to human evolution
Homo erectus had an unexpected neighbour, and a surprising lifestyle too.
Michael Hopkin
Two fossils unearthed in Kenya have added a new dimension to our view of life at the birth of our Homo genus. They show that two ancestral human species seem to have lived cheek-by-jowl in the same area, much as gorillas and chimpanzees do today.
Both skull fragments were found by anthropologists digging near Kenya's Lake Turkana, adding to the impressive list of early human fossils unearthed here. One of the fossils, an upper jawbone from the species Homo habilis, is dated at 1.44 million years, much younger than most fossils of this species.
The other fossil is an almost complete — but faceless — Homo erectus skull. Dated at 1.55 million years, the skull is far smaller than any other from this species — suggesting to the researchers that, as is the case with modern gorillas, there was a large size differences between the sexes in H. erectus.
Walking abreast
The fact that these two species seem to have been contemporaries is a surprise to anthropologists, say Fred Spoor of University College London and his colleagues, who discovered the hominin fossils seven years ago and now describe them in this week's Nature1.
Anthropologists have tended to see the evolution of Homo species as a linear progression, beginning with H. habilis and passing through H. erectus before ending up with modern humans. But it seems the path through time was broad enough for more than one species to walk abreast, with H. erectus and H. habilis living in the same place at the same time for as much as half a million years. Spoor and his colleagues argue that this makes it less likely that H. erectus was a direct descendant of H. habilis, instead suggesting that there is a common ancestor yet to find.
The two species are thought to have lived side by side in much the same way as modern chimps and gorillas coexist in central regions of Africa — by adopting different habits and diets. "To live in the same area for half a million years they must have found their own niches — different diets, maybe different migratory routes — to minimize competition," says Spoor. "When food is scarce, when there's a drought or something, it becomes very important that you're not in each other's way."
Harem of females
The new H. erectus skull also changes our ideas about the nature of this species. "What is truly striking about this fossil is its size," comments Spoor. The fact that the skull — probably belong to a young adult — is so small suggests that the size range of H. erectus was much larger than we imagined. The researchers infer from this that the males of H. erectus were much bigger than the females. By comparison, there is a relatively slight difference seen between the sexes in our own species. A greater inequality of size has implications for the way the creatures lived.
H. erectus has always been viewed as similar to H. sapiens in both body shape and lifestyle. Spoor points out that the new discovery suggests a family set-up more akin to that of modern gorillas in which dominant males mate with a harem of females. "If we look at those primate species that have large sexual dimorphism, their groups usually involve one dominant male — the silverback if you're talking about gorillas — multiple female mates, and then perhaps a few non-dominant males that hang around, just waiting for their chance," Spoor says.
A similar set up is inferred from fossils of the earliest hominins, such as the australopithecines, but there has been a widespread assumption that sexes of more or less equal sizes arose when our ancestors ditched their more ape-like characteristics, evolving from Australopithecus into the more genteel Homo. To find such a difference in H. erectus, Spoor says, "was quite a surprise, actually"."
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070806/full/070806-5.html
Makes me wonder.
If we had a specimen of every species and every variation on each species what our thoughts on evolution would be. I think it would be quite different than what it is now.
I am not sure what the estimates of known species are and what more learned people on the subject estimate actually existed but known is in the minority. I am curious as to what fantastic creatures we don't know about and what variations of ones we know about did exists.
Also Why is it that some animals barely change like Crocidiles and others don't change at all Celocanths(spelling?).? Dont change at all, is it that these animals reach the potential of their line? Is it that the enviorment did not pressure these animals for a need to change. I mean Sas (if in your thinking it is real) probably resembles its ancestores more closely that humans 500 000 years ago. Why is that? Why did we change more than it.
Now we know in Europe two different Homo species existed tens of thousands of years ago side by side. one did not evolve from the other but likely had a common ancestor, now this may be true with H.Erectus andH. Halibis. I wonder 20 years from now what we will learn..
If we had a specimen of every species and every variation on each species what our thoughts on evolution would be. I think it would be quite different than what it is now.
I am not sure what the estimates of known species are and what more learned people on the subject estimate actually existed but known is in the minority. I am curious as to what fantastic creatures we don't know about and what variations of ones we know about did exists.
Also Why is it that some animals barely change like Crocidiles and others don't change at all Celocanths(spelling?).? Dont change at all, is it that these animals reach the potential of their line? Is it that the enviorment did not pressure these animals for a need to change. I mean Sas (if in your thinking it is real) probably resembles its ancestores more closely that humans 500 000 years ago. Why is that? Why did we change more than it.
Now we know in Europe two different Homo species existed tens of thousands of years ago side by side. one did not evolve from the other but likely had a common ancestor, now this may be true with H.Erectus andH. Halibis. I wonder 20 years from now what we will learn..
What is surprising about this article is the emphasis on linear evolution, or anagenesis. Evolution isn't a designated timeline where every 500,000 years the species as a whole changes (contrary to the model geneticists use that ends up with the whole "Ape and human ancestors were bipedal" conundrum). Instead it's a process where one or two inividuals have a mutation and then if that mutation produces something attractive to the opposite sex or advantageous to the indviduals' survival they can pass off that gene, and hopefully repeatedly. By breaking off into a smaller population that gene has a greater chance to spread, and that population grows. Eventually they can occupy the same space as those they evolved from.
Species evolving and remaining populations living at the same time and area has been well known for some time:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
No, there was no concensus that Homo rudolphensis was a human ancestor and not habilis, it is still a matter of debate. One problem is the features of the skull and the less amount of changes needed to evolve into ergaster. Rudolphensis had a larger brain capacity than habilis, but habilis had facial features more resembling later species of Homo.
Homo georgicus had similarities to ergaster and the habilis/rudolphensis group and is thought to be a transitional species.
Species evolving and remaining populations living at the same time and area has been well known for some time:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
No, there was no concensus that Homo rudolphensis was a human ancestor and not habilis, it is still a matter of debate. One problem is the features of the skull and the less amount of changes needed to evolve into ergaster. Rudolphensis had a larger brain capacity than habilis, but habilis had facial features more resembling later species of Homo.
Homo georgicus had similarities to ergaster and the habilis/rudolphensis group and is thought to be a transitional species.
Crocodiles have changed and evolved over time.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...es_fossils.html
Click to view attachment
http://www.crystalinks.com/fossilcrocodile.html
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
http://exn.ca/CrocodileHunter/Croc_evolution_timeline.html
Here's a 40 foot croc:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...882809EC588ED9F
Click to view attachment
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...es_fossils.html
Click to view attachment
http://www.crystalinks.com/fossilcrocodile.html
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
http://exn.ca/CrocodileHunter/Croc_evolution_timeline.html
Here's a 40 foot croc:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...882809EC588ED9F
Click to view attachment
t WolfTrax,
that is not that much change in what and for the past 65 million years some have only had changes in size and vertibrea shape compared to a human that 2 millinon years ago was a upright ape and a few before that was in the trees , well we changed pretty rapidly.That 98 million year old croc is very very similar to a modern croc, for the amount of time its been around. Also show an uneducated person a picture of a Sarcosuchus croc and they will tell you it is a croc. We know so much more about ancient crocs because modern crocs are so similar. It would be as if a 25 foot long version of T rex was still walking around. with slight changes in its mouth and back.
I am not trying to shoot down the theory of evolution in this thread, many species change , there is massive evidence for it, what point I am making is this again we discovered something new, that Habilis and Erectis were side by side and that Habilis may not have been Erectus's ancestor, which most had assumed so. Again we didn't know it all What I am saying is we don't understand this thing yet thats all. we have peices to a puzzle most peices are not known to us many we have may not be real peices to the puzzle how can we say what the puzzle is yet thats all. Many many discoveries are ahead and we are not going to beleive some of the things that will be known in 30 years I think.
that is not that much change in what and for the past 65 million years some have only had changes in size and vertibrea shape compared to a human that 2 millinon years ago was a upright ape and a few before that was in the trees , well we changed pretty rapidly.That 98 million year old croc is very very similar to a modern croc, for the amount of time its been around. Also show an uneducated person a picture of a Sarcosuchus croc and they will tell you it is a croc. We know so much more about ancient crocs because modern crocs are so similar. It would be as if a 25 foot long version of T rex was still walking around. with slight changes in its mouth and back.
I am not trying to shoot down the theory of evolution in this thread, many species change , there is massive evidence for it, what point I am making is this again we discovered something new, that Habilis and Erectis were side by side and that Habilis may not have been Erectus's ancestor, which most had assumed so. Again we didn't know it all What I am saying is we don't understand this thing yet thats all. we have peices to a puzzle most peices are not known to us many we have may not be real peices to the puzzle how can we say what the puzzle is yet thats all. Many many discoveries are ahead and we are not going to beleive some of the things that will be known in 30 years I think.
Species overlap and evolution is not new:
It isnt new , agreed. And species overlap sometimes, agreed, but why do some remain unchanged, if mutations constantly happen why do some do and some don't(again I am not arguing against evolutinI am arguing that we don't fully understand it) While evolution is a fact(which is likely) I feel we do not understand how it happens, why do mutations happen and change some animal but not others or change them slowly.
your chart is fine but incomplete most species existing at one time are not known, how many branches in and out are not there that should be, how can we say this is fact when all the peices are gone. We came from Neanderthals, no wait we didn't, they are a branch of a common ancestor , and Erectus which came from Habilisthrough ergaster, oh crap wait new peices Erectus probably did not come from Habilis.
I bet when some College kid now is a Middle age Professor talking on the discovery channel, the way things are beleived then will be so different than now we wont reconize the charts and graphs and we still don't know.
The biggest lesson about habilis and Erectus is not that we know new things about them but that we have mountains to learn about things.
your chart is fine but incomplete most species existing at one time are not known, how many branches in and out are not there that should be, how can we say this is fact when all the peices are gone. We came from Neanderthals, no wait we didn't, they are a branch of a common ancestor , and Erectus which came from Habilisthrough ergaster, oh crap wait new peices Erectus probably did not come from Habilis.
I bet when some College kid now is a Middle age Professor talking on the discovery channel, the way things are beleived then will be so different than now we wont reconize the charts and graphs and we still don't know.
The biggest lesson about habilis and Erectus is not that we know new things about them but that we have mountains to learn about things.
Nice chart, I don't like the way it represents links from the end of each line, and the way it infers precision about where species started and stopped, but gives some general idea of what is currently thought. I'd like to see it redone large with points marking actual finds on the bars, so we know what is actual data points and what is fudged in between them. Or at least have a solid color between earliest find and latest find and have it shaded either side for postulated extent.
I find a lot of articles still referring to Erectus as if it were a direct ancestor.
I find a lot of articles still referring to Erectus as if it were a direct ancestor.
I didn't create the chart, but initially linked it here: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...st&p=401645
The chart came from here:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
You can actually place your cursor over the chart at the link provided and if you click on to a particular species you will be sent to a more detailed description of that species, it's features, how descendant relationships are based on those shared or developed features, and dates of discoveries as well as how we know they lived when they did.
I ended up posting the chart here as it became apparent people weren't clicking the link, which is surprising considering if they genuinely wanted to talk about it they would actually read what was presented.
The chart came from here:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
You can actually place your cursor over the chart at the link provided and if you click on to a particular species you will be sent to a more detailed description of that species, it's features, how descendant relationships are based on those shared or developed features, and dates of discoveries as well as how we know they lived when they did.
I ended up posting the chart here as it became apparent people weren't clicking the link, which is surprising considering if they genuinely wanted to talk about it they would actually read what was presented.
QUOTE(SquatchCommando @ Aug 12 2007, 02:23 AM)
...And species overlap sometimes, agreed, but why do some remain unchanged, if mutations constantly happen why do some do and some don't...
Evolution is driven by selection. Mutation will not control the direction because the direction is not random. Crocodiles don't change much because they are ideally suited for their lifestyle. I agree that humans have likely changed much more than would be expected. Perhaps we had a very violent last few million years where selection was very rapid.
QUOTE(BobZenor @ Aug 12 2007, 02:11 PM)
Evolution is driven by selection. Mutation will not control the direction because the direction is not random. Crocodiles don't change much because they are ideally suited for their lifestyle. I agree that humans have likely changed much more than would be expected. Perhaps we had a very violent last few million years where selection was very rapid.
Exactly. Mutations always occur, but most mutations are 'thrown out' because the individual carrying the mutation dies or fails to reproduce. It's only when a mutation improves the reproductive success of the individual carrying it that it starts to spread in the gene pool.
Some species appear not to change much because they are very well optimized as it is*, and nearly all mutations result in changes that put the carrier at a disadvantage compared to its peers (this is the case with nearly all mutations anyway, but in some species in some places the proportion of 'good' mutaitons to 'bad' ones is much lower).
*or their genes are such that small tweaks to the DNA tend to mess things up more often than is typical.
QUOTE(SquatchCommando @ Aug 11 2007, 01:07 AM)
Makes me wonder.
If we had a specimen of every species and every variation on each species what our thoughts on evolution would be. I think it would be quite different than what it is now.
If we had a specimen of every species and every variation on each species what our thoughts on evolution would be. I think it would be quite different than what it is now.
I honestly don't see how. New species are discovered all the time (not large mammals, but we can only hope..), and nothing has yet been discovered that has done anything to weaken the theory. Everything fits.
What would have to be discovered to cast doubt on the theory of evolution? Perhaps a bird producing an offspring with fully functioning wheels, or something...
QUOTE
Now we know in Europe two different Homo species existed tens of thousands of years ago side by side. one did not evolve from the other but likely had a common ancestor, now this may be true with H.Erectus andH. Halibis. I wonder 20 years from now what we will learn..
It's not that simple. We don't know anything more than the fact that it looks like the two species coexisted for a while. This doesn't rule anything out. One could have evolved from the other, or they could have evolved separately from a common ancestor. Actually, the difference between those two situations could be quite fuzzy.
Found another good site....
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/an...ey/central.html
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/an...ey/central.html
A "paleoanthropology, genetics, and evolution" blog...
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/
Latest ideas and commentary.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/
Latest ideas and commentary.
Just found this, I wonder if a Bigfoot would fit into it some place.
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/...%20Messy%20Bush
Click to view attachment
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/...%20Messy%20Bush
Click to view attachment
Interesting. Are Australopithecines always considered pre/non-human even though they were bipedal hominids?
If Micahn doesn't object, could we join this thread to this one?
Apeman
If Micahn doesn't object, could we join this thread to this one?
Apeman
QUOTE(Apeman @ Sep 12 2007, 02:24 PM)
Interesting. Are Australopithecines always considered pre/non-human even though they were bipedal hominids?
I've heard it both ways, though the trend lately seems to be that humans should be defined by encephalization rather than bipedalism. "Human" is kind of ambiguous, Australopithecus and Homo are different genuses, so I tend to think Australopiths shouldn't be considered human.
I increasingly feel I have entirely misunderstood what you were trying to say as I type. Sorry.
QUOTE(Apeman @ Sep 12 2007, 05:24 PM)
Interesting. Are Australopithecines always considered pre/non-human even though they were bipedal hominids?
If Micahn doesn't object, could we join this thread to this one?
Apeman
If Micahn doesn't object, could we join this thread to this one?
Apeman
I would not care at all. I just figured some would like to see it.
Link to article suggesting that starches may have been more a key to our success and not meat.
"...Previously that honour was assigned to meat: it was thought that an energy-rich non-veg diet may have been crucial for feeding and sustaining the larger human brain. But scientists from University of California Santa Cruz have found a more plausible-sounding ‘vegetarian’ alternative. According to them it just doesn’t make sense to think that two to four million years ago a small-brained, awkwardly bipedal animal could efficiently acquire meat, even by scavenging.
Instead, their genetic sleuthing suggests that man’s ability to digest starchy foods like the kanda-mula may better explain our success on the planet. Compared with our simian cousins, we humans have many more copies of a gene essential for breaking down calorie-rich starches. And these extra calories may have been crucial for turning hominids into humans, the researchers believe: our earliest human ancestors began searching for new food sources other than the ripe fruits that primates eat. These were starches, stored by plants in the form of tubers and bulbs. When early humans mastered fire, cooking starchy vegetables would have made them even easier to eat. Thus, satvic food is savvy, in more senses than one. "
"...Previously that honour was assigned to meat: it was thought that an energy-rich non-veg diet may have been crucial for feeding and sustaining the larger human brain. But scientists from University of California Santa Cruz have found a more plausible-sounding ‘vegetarian’ alternative. According to them it just doesn’t make sense to think that two to four million years ago a small-brained, awkwardly bipedal animal could efficiently acquire meat, even by scavenging.
Instead, their genetic sleuthing suggests that man’s ability to digest starchy foods like the kanda-mula may better explain our success on the planet. Compared with our simian cousins, we humans have many more copies of a gene essential for breaking down calorie-rich starches. And these extra calories may have been crucial for turning hominids into humans, the researchers believe: our earliest human ancestors began searching for new food sources other than the ripe fruits that primates eat. These were starches, stored by plants in the form of tubers and bulbs. When early humans mastered fire, cooking starchy vegetables would have made them even easier to eat. Thus, satvic food is savvy, in more senses than one. "
QUOTE(counselor @ Aug 10 2007, 07:01 PM)
Dudlow,
I do believe that some members of the scientific community, as is the case in any community, are resistant to new ideas. However, I find it inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers from every varied discipline of all the sciences known to humanity could so completely and totally censor new scientific thought.
I do believe that some members of the scientific community, as is the case in any community, are resistant to new ideas. However, I find it inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers from every varied discipline of all the sciences known to humanity could so completely and totally censor new scientific thought.
I don't know why you'd find that so inconceivable. It happens in every field man is involved with, not just "science". "Group think" is a phenomenon that is everywhere.
And I'm still wondering how "independent thought" became scientific reality.
Australopithecines are considered not human or pre-human, or human ancestors (though some are theorized to go off in different directions like to the Paranthropus).
The human genus starts at Homo habilis, because of it's brain size at 680cc on average up to 800cc and associated tools use.
I'm surprised to see fire on that chart going back 3mya, hominids at that time didn't use fire.
The human genus starts at Homo habilis, because of it's brain size at 680cc on average up to 800cc and associated tools use.
I'm surprised to see fire on that chart going back 3mya, hominids at that time didn't use fire.
I'm very surprised by the fire and the stone tools...maybe it's just a poor way to present the data?
The earliest tool use dates back to 2.6 mya, so that part is correct, but the first controlled fire use interpreted dates back to 1.5 mya, not 3 mya.
The way the graph is displayed (with the bars across the top), it infers that afarensis et al. made stone tools along with Homo habilis. They should have chosen a different display method.
QUOTE(wolftrax @ Sep 13 2007, 12:20 PM)
Australopithecines are considered not human or pre-human, or human ancestors (though some are theorized to go off in different directions like to the Paranthropus).
The human genus starts at Homo habilis, because of it's brain size at 680cc on average up to 800cc and associated tools use.
The human genus starts at Homo habilis, because of it's brain size at 680cc on average up to 800cc and associated tools use.
Yeah, "human" isn't a precise term though. I assume people mean the Homo genus when they say human. However, I've heard it said recently that standing upright made us human. I can only assume that speaker wasn't up to date or was using a looser definition.
The use of the genus name Homo is to indicate it is a species of human. Standing upright, or more accurately bipedalism did make us human eventually, it separated us from the rest of the apes, but not all bipedal apes are considered human. It was one of the traits that lead us to where we are now, just as the Paranthropus sagittal crest and large molars lead to their own species.
I agree to an extent, it is clear that walking on two legs did not make us "human." But "human" is not a precise, scientific term and shouldn't be used as one. The use of the genus Homo is the same use as any other genus, that is to link a group of species containing similar traits.
QUOTE(FredSneakers/David @ Sep 15 2007, 08:42 PM)
I agree to an extent, it is clear that walking on two legs did not make us "human."
It was a big factor.
QUOTE
But "human" is not a precise, scientific term and shouldn't be used as one.
Sure it is, it's the driving principle behind anthropology. What we are and how we came to be. You're next sentence describes it's use...
QUOTE
The use of the genus Homo is the same use as any other genus, that is to link a group of species containing similar traits.
in a nutshell.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.