LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-24-2013, 04:10 PM   #16
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Sitting in front of my computer.
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,085
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 267Reputation: 267Reputation: 267

Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
It's quite clear to me that humans evolved in coastal areas, and that they belong to the Catarrhini Parvorder. The rest is a matter of opinion, because there just isn't enough data out in the open.
What do you base that theory upon? Our fully articulating shoulders strongly suggests a past that included a significant amount of time swinging in trees. That would mean forest or savannah. What physical characteristics do we and any other apes have that suggest a coastal origin?

Quote:
I'm not convinced that humans evolved in Africa. They try to make this fit, but I'm not convinced. Just because the oldest human-like fossils have been found there, doesn't mean that they evolved there.
It could be argued that the oldest remains being in Africa and getting younger with distance away from Africa is a coincidence, but with both homo erectus and homo sapiens? That is pushing the boundaries of coincidence a little far.

Quote:
I also think that evolution is more complicated than they make it seem. Did they take into account convergent evolution ?
Convergent? When I was in university, such things were called evolutionary analogies. There is nothing complicated about it. Different organisms independently adapt similar features. Insect and bird wings both provide the ability to fly, but that is their only similarity. They are completely different structurally.

Quote:
Sure, there are similarities between humans and living apes, but does that mean that we are very closely related ?
Other than having identical skeletons, and the human and chimpanzee genomes being about 96% identical, there is no reason to believe that we are related. Species having the same parts is called an evolutionary homology. It indicates a shared common ancestor at some time in the past. Evolutionary homologies are the opposite of evolutionary analogies.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 05:13 PM   #17
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,617

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
There is no point in discussing "evolution vs. creationism", that can be done in the other thread.
So why even bring creationsim up in this thread when it is specifically about discussing evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
It's quite clear to me that humans evolved in coastal areas,
Much of the rift valley isn't near a coast, the specimins found in South Africa are not near the coast

Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
I'm not convinced that humans evolved in Africa. They try to make this fit, but I'm not convinced. Just because the oldest human-like fossils have been found there, doesn't mean that they evolved there.
I agree the sample size is to small but it is the only evidence we have so far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
I also think that evolution is more complicated than they make it seem. Did they take into account convergent evolution ?
So are you suggesting that multiple genus and or species evolved into fewer or one at the same time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
Sure, there are similarities between humans and living apes, but does that mean that we are very closely related ? I think not. But, we likely are related at some level.
Aren't all mammals are related at some level?

Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
I think there are also political/religious forces at work, because imagine the consequences of being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the human evolutionary lineage. I think they made themselves some room, as they have in other fields (physics).
Please forget religion, political, and conspiracy discussions and leave this to evolution and science.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 05:17 PM   #18
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,617

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552
I'll have to look that discovery up and see what they say then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus View Post
My palaeoanthropoly professor (who does her field research in East Africa) posed an interesting question once that I love the implications of. Chimpanzees are a real problem. There are no remains of ancestral chimpanzees more than one or two million years old (I forget which number). Most people assume there are no remains, because the humid jungle environment destroyed them. This professor's question was, "What if we do have ancestral chimpanzee remains? What if many or most australopithicus remains are chimp ancestors and ancestresses?" I love that question. If she is right, it would cause complete chaos in the field.
It does throw a spanner into the works but you'll see many old timers defend their theories to the last and not give up.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 05:22 PM   #19
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,617

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
That's a pretty good start. I did a bit of anthropology with David Pilbeam at Cambridge, more years ago than I care to remember.
I'm jealous

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
Surely the point here is that we have such a tiny sample of past populations to work on. Compare how many Australopithicene fossils survive with, for example, the current baboon population! The odds against getting all the intermediate stages between them and us is on a par with winning the lottery. The basic fact of evolution may be incontrovertable, but the details will always involve a lot of conjecture. It could even be that H. sapiens is not descended from Australopithecus, but from a contemporary that's vanished from the record, but we just have to apply Occam's Razor and fit the material we have into the most plausible pattern.
You see this is also part of the problem and doesn't help. "The basic fact of evolution may be incontrovertible" the thing is because of the gaps it isn't. I don't doubt evolution, I wouldn't have studied it and maintain an interest in it if I did, I just don't have that time and energy, but I do doubt the interpretation of it.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 05:24 PM   #20
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,617

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji View Post
Well this thread determined what I was going to watch today in the motorcycle shop. Thanks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnSf7pAjw38
I'll watch that later, I have lectures to listen to first. Should be doing that now actually, and, your welcome.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 05:31 PM   #21
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,617

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
The problem with evolution as defined by atheism is that missing link has not been found..while creationism is supported by pretty much everything with no missing links.
The problem is actually that Athiesm isn't part of the scope of this thread and starting a flamewar about atheism vs creationism is not needed.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 05:45 PM   #22
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Sitting in front of my computer.
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,085
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 267Reputation: 267Reputation: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
I'll have to look that discovery up and see what they say then.
When I move into my new residence new week, I shall have access to my library. I believe the details are in one of my books. (I am getting too old to remember what I have.)

Quote:
It does throw a spanner into the works but you'll see many old timers defend their theories to the last and not give up.
Like the Clovis First theory in the Americas.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 06:06 PM   #23
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Sitting in front of my computer.
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,085
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 267Reputation: 267Reputation: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
The problem with evolution as defined by atheism is that missing link has not been found..
1) What missing link? I thought I covered that in my first post.
2) When did evolution become the product of atheism? It is a theory to explain observed phenomena. A theory, which by the way, has been accepted by most Christians as being the product of their deity's design.
3) Most importantly, this thread is a discussion about the various aspects of evolutionary theory and how it pertains to humans. The purpose is to discuss the relationship between theory and available evidence. It is not a religious thread. There are already several of those to participate in if you want discuss religion.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 06:09 PM   #24
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,617

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus View Post
When I move into my new residence new week, I shall have access to my library. I believe the details are in one of my books. (I am getting too old to remember what I have.)
That would be appreciated, thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus View Post
Like the Clovis First theory in the Americas.
Mike Morwood had a theory that some of the people of Tiera Del Fuego at the southern tip of South America have genetic links to Indigenous Australians. He posited that they were like a remnant population of a much earlier migration. I'll see if I can find the video where it was mentioned and I'll post it up if I can.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 06:13 PM   #25
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,617

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus View Post
3) Most importantly, this thread is a discussion about the various aspects of evolutionary theory and how it pertains to humans. The purpose is to discuss the relationship between theory and available evidence. It is not a religious thread. There are already several of those to participate in if you want discuss religion.
+1

*sigh* I knew it would eventually happen but I didn't think it would happen in the first 24 hours.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 06:39 PM   #26
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Sitting in front of my computer.
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,085
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 267Reputation: 267Reputation: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
Mike Morwood had a theory that some of the people of Tiera Del Fuego at the southern tip of South America have genetic links to Indigenous Australians.
That is interesting, since I was unaware of any human remains being found.

Quote:
He posited that they were like a remnant population of a much earlier migration.
The evidence of an earlier arrival is overwhelming, but the Clovis First proponents refuse to abandon the theory. People have been in Australia for at least 50,000 years. New Guinea and Australia were part of a single land mass and only separated from the mainland by a few miles of water, but the people still had to cross water to get to what is now New Guinea (60, 80,000 years ago?). To get to North America they only had to walk across a thousand-mile-wide piece of dry land that joined the Americas and Asia into a single land mass, but it could not have happened before 14,000 years ago! 18,000 year-old hearth remains in Pennsylvania be damned.

Quote:
*sigh* I knew it would eventually happen but I didn't think it would happen in the first 24 hours.
Do not under-estimate the determination of fundamentalists.
 
Old 08-25-2013, 12:39 AM   #27
John VV
Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Posts: 12,804

Rep: Reputation: 1705Reputation: 1705Reputation: 1705Reputation: 1705Reputation: 1705Reputation: 1705Reputation: 1705Reputation: 1705Reputation: 1705Reputation: 1705Reputation: 1705
What is there to discuss !

the only things are EXACTLY when a spices diverged on " The Tree"
what EXACT branch it IS on and just HOW many years ago it happened.

The very fine tuning that profs., and grad / post grad students LOVE to publish papers on
 
Old 08-25-2013, 02:15 AM   #28
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,617

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by John VV View Post
What is there to discuss !
Whatever people want to discuss with regards to evolution and science, if you don't want to no one is forcing you to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John VV View Post
the only things are EXACTLY when a spices diverged on " The Tree"
what EXACT branch it IS on and just HOW many years ago it happened.
Not at all, there is also what caused it to happen, where it happened and a myriad of other questions that crop in in a discussion.
 
Old 08-25-2013, 02:36 AM   #29
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,617

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus View Post
That is interesting, since I was unaware of any human remains being found.

The evidence of an earlier arrival is overwhelming, but the Clovis First proponents refuse to abandon the theory. People have been in Australia for at least 50,000 years. New Guinea and Australia were part of a single land mass and only separated from the mainland by a few miles of water, but the people still had to cross water to get to what is now New Guinea (60, 80,000 years ago?). To get to North America they only had to walk across a thousand-mile-wide piece of dry land that joined the Americas and Asia into a single land mass, but it could not have happened before 14,000 years ago! 18,000 year-old hearth remains in Pennsylvania be damned.
Here is an old BBC news article on this idea. The video mentioned in the article isn't the one I was thinking of but I'm going to watch it anyway.

Here is another article on it. I'm still looking for actual academic papers to post excerpts from.
 
Old 08-25-2013, 02:46 AM   #30
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus View Post
Other than having identical skeletons, and the human and chimpanzee genomes being about 96% identical, there is no reason to believe that we are related. Species having the same parts is called an evolutionary homology. It indicates a shared common ancestor at some time in the past. Evolutionary homologies are the opposite of evolutionary analogies.
Not true. They do not have identical skeletons and that percentage is "functional" DNA and does not account for gene expression, make sure to see one of the articles I posted which says that at least 80% of the human genome has been found to be function, but only recently. Cite a source so we can see exactly what they are talking about.

Also note that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chimps and other great apes have 24. This suggests that there is a common ancestor, and I agree. However, this ancestor must be found before any more discussion.
 
  


Closed Thread

Tags
anthropology, archaeology, evolution, science, scientific method


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:06 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration