[_ Old Earth _] Is there proof we evolved from monkeys?

[Barbarian]

For example evolution claims that we all started out as small cells then after millions of years here we are, however even the "fossil record" does not agree with them, the "Cambrian" explosion debunks that.

The fossil record show unicellular organisms billions of years before the Cambrian. And complex multicellular organisms are found in deposits much older than the Cambrian.

Want to learn about it?

 

[Dave Slayer]

 

[Crying Rock]

Why would you suppose that humans evolved from monkeys? They are far too evolved in their own way to have given rise to humans. Humans evolved from other primates, not monkeys.

If you want to talk about it, you should at least learn a little bit about it. It would save a lot of embarrassment in the long run.

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html[/url]

It is possible, of course, for different species to interbreed, and that may have happened from time to time. But Neandertal DNA is well outside the normal variation among anatomically modern humans today.

Your citation deals with mtDNA versus nDNA. Even within Native American populations there are at least 5 distinct mtDNA hgs: A, B, C, D and X.

Professor Paabo's statement refers to nDNA:

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â[/quote:2tlft5ou]

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html[/url]

I’m outraged!! ;)

BTW, according to The Smithsonian, nix everything prior to H. ergaster in this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hu ... on_fossils

According to The Smithsonian, everthing prior to H. ergaster is pure conjecture.[/quote:2tlft5ou]

Barbarian observes:
Neandertals are significantly different than humans in a number of important details. Their DNA, BTW, is different enough that most scientists now put them in a separate species or subspecies.

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â

In comparison to modern DNA 27 differences are seen. The Neanderthal sequence was compared with 2051 human and 59 chimpanzee sequences over 360 base pairs. Twenty five of the 27 variable base pairs coincide with positions that vary in at least one of the human sequences. The sequence was compared with 994 human mtDNA lineages. While these lineages differ among themselves by eight substitutions on average, the range of difference with the Neanderthal sequence is 22-36. The Neanderthal sequence has 28.2 ±1.9 substitutions from the European lineage, 27.1 ±12.2 substitutions from the African lineage, 27.7 ±2.2 substitutions from the Asian lineage, 27.4 ±1.8 substitutions from the American lineage, and 28.3 ±2.7 substitutions from the Australian/Oceanic lineages. This indicates no closer a relationship with Europeans than with the other modern human subsets considered.

The comparison to chimpanzees with modern humans is 55.0 ±3.0, compared to the average between humans and Neanderthals of 25.6 ±2.2. These results indicate a divergence of the human and Neanderthal lineages long before the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of humans. Based on the estimated divergence date of 4-5 million years ago for humans and chimpanzees, the authors estimate the human and Neanderthal divergence at 550,000-690,000 years ago. The age of the common human ancestor, using the same procedure, is about 120,000-150,000 years ago.

These results do not rule out the possibility that Neanderthals contributed other genes to modern humans. However, the results support the hypothesis that modern humans arose in Africa before migrating to Europe and replacing the Neanderthal population with little or no interbreeding.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html

It is possible, of course, for different species to interbreed, and that may have happened from time to time. But Neandertal DNA is well outside the normal variation among anatomically modern humans today.

 

[Crying Rock]

Barbarian observes:
Neandertals are significantly different than humans in a number of important details. Their DNA, BTW, is different enough that most scientists now put them in a separate species or subspecies.

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â

In comparison to modern DNA 27 differences are seen. The Neanderthal sequence was compared with 2051 human and 59 chimpanzee sequences over 360 base pairs. Twenty five of the 27 variable base pairs coincide with positions that vary in at least one of the human sequences. The sequence was compared with 994 human mtDNA lineages. While these lineages differ among themselves by eight substitutions on average, the range of difference with the Neanderthal sequence is 22-36. The Neanderthal sequence has 28.2 ±1.9 substitutions from the European lineage, 27.1 ±12.2 substitutions from the African lineage, 27.7 ±2.2 substitutions from the Asian lineage, 27.4 ±1.8 substitutions from the American lineage, and 28.3 ±2.7 substitutions from the Australian/Oceanic lineages. This indicates no closer a relationship with Europeans than with the other modern human subsets considered.

The comparison to chimpanzees with modern humans is 55.0 ±3.0, compared to the average between humans and Neanderthals of 25.6 ±2.2. These results indicate a divergence of the human and Neanderthal lineages long before the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of humans. Based on the estimated divergence date of 4-5 million years ago for humans and chimpanzees, the authors estimate the human and Neanderthal divergence at 550,000-690,000 years ago. The age of the common human ancestor, using the same procedure, is about 120,000-150,000 years ago.

These results do not rule out the possibility that Neanderthals contributed other genes to modern humans. However, the results support the hypothesis that modern humans arose in Africa before migrating to Europe and replacing the Neanderthal population with little or no interbreeding.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html

It is possible, of course, for different species to interbreed, and that may have happened from time to time. But Neandertal DNA is well outside the normal variation among anatomically modern humans today.

Your citation deals with mtDNA versus nDNA. Even within Native American populations there are at least 5 distinct mtDNA hgs: A, B, C, D and X.

Professor Paabo's statement refers to nDNA:

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â

According to The Smithsonian, everthing prior to H. ergaster is pure conjecture.

Hmm... (Barbarian checks) Don't see that in your link. It would be kind of surprising, since there is a great deal of evidence for human relationships earlier. Would you be able to show me where the museum staff says it's "pure conjecture?"

Look at the question marks. Anything prior to those question marks is conjecture according the Smithsonian's official position:

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

Homo habilis was originally thought to be the ancestor to all later Homo. In a neat, linear progression, later species emerged resulting in what we call modern humans. This is now known not to be the case.

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

It is not yet certain if H. rudolfensis was ancestral to the later species in Homo

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/rud.html

 

[Barbarian]

Your citation deals with mtDNA versus nDNA. Even within Native American populations there are at least 5 distinct mtDNA hgs: A, B, C, D and X.

I'd be pleased to see any modern human population that differs as much from any other modern human population as Neandertals differ from all modern humans.

Show me.

According to The Smithsonian, everthing prior to H. ergaster is pure conjecture.

Hmm... (Barbarian checks) Don't see that in your link. It would be kind of surprising, since there is a great deal of evidence for human relationships earlier. Would you be able to show me where the museum staff says it's "pure conjecture?" H. ergaster, BTW, was originally considered to be archaic H. erectus. It is now known that modern humans evolved by cladogenesis, with anatomically modern humans existing with a common ancestor of H. ergaster, which we call H. erectus.

Look at the question marks. Anything prior to those question marks is conjecture according the Smithsonian's official position:

Yes, I know you said that. But show me where the Smithsonian says that. "Pure conjecture" seems to be your invention. Moreover, there are only several points that are unclear, with most of the rest well-demonstrated.

Homo habilis was originally thought to be the ancestor to all later Homo. In a neat, linear progression, later species emerged resulting in what we call modern humans. This is now known not to be the case.

It's much more interesting than orthogenesis. But do show me where the Smithsonian says that it's "pure conjecture."

 

[Crying Rock]

Your citation deals with mtDNA versus nDNA. Even within Native American populations there are at least 5 distinct mtDNA hgs: A, B, C, D and X.

I'd be pleased to see any modern human population that differs as much from any other modern human population as Neandertals differ from all modern humans.

Besides Paabo’s statement in the article cited:

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â

you’ll have to wait for Paabo’s formal report. He’s the lead researcher on the

Neanderthal nDNA sequencing project.

According to The Smithsonian, everything prior to H. ergaster is pure conjecture.

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

Don't see that in your link. It would be kind of surprising, since there is a great deal of evidence for human relationships earlier. Would you be able to show me where the museum staff says it's "pure conjecture?"

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

Look at the question marks. Anything prior to those question marks is conjecture according the Smithsonian's official position:

Yes, I know you said that. But show me where the Smithsonian says that. "Pure conjecture" seems to be your invention.

What do question marks mean to you?

Conjecture-

1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture

Question-

2. a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation.

4. a subject of dispute or controversy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/question

Moreover, there are only several points that are unclear,

Yeah, the most critical points: the connection between H. ergaster and anything prior.

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

 

[Barbarian]

Perhaps you don't know much about biology. Question marks in a phylogeny are where there is evidence to indicate descent, but not sufficient evidence to consider it settled. No one says it's "pure conjecture."

And, of course, the question applies only to the particular link in the phylogeny, not everything that came before it. Surely you can see that.

 

[Adullam]

Apart from various missing link type persons...there is very little to suggest that we have that much in common with the apes.....that is beyond the common Creator of each. It is a curious fact that many of these ape-like specimens are politicians! Mere coincidence!??

 

[Crying Rock]

Question marks in a phylogeny are where there is evidence to indicate descent, but not sufficient evidence to consider it settled. No one says it's "pure conjecture."

What's the difference between what you've stated and conjecture:

Conjecture-

1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture

And, of course, the question applies only to the particular link in the phylogeny, not everything that came before it.

If the link is broken between H. ergaster and everything prior to H. ergaster then the question applies to everything prior to that broken link.

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

 

[Barbarian]

The difference between "pure conjecture" (which was not what the Smithsonian said) and "evidence but not enough to call it settled" is pretty obvious. You should not add words to what other people write.

And no, even if one step in a sequence is unsure, it does not mean that the others are therefore not known.

If you limit yourself to what the site actually said, it would be better.

 

[Crying Rock]

The difference between "pure conjecture" (which was not what the Smithsonian said) and "evidence but not enough to call it settled" is pretty obvious. You should not add words to what other people write.

And no, even if one step in a sequence is unsure, it does not mean that the others are therefore not known.

As they relate to H. ergaster and subsequent subspecies they are not known.

 

[Barbarian]

If anatomically modern humans evolved from H. erectus, rather than H. eregaster, what differences would you expect? If H. erectus evolved by orthogenesis from A. africanus, what differences in modern humans would you expect?

If you argue that many of the fine details are yet to be resolved, you understand the situation. If you argue that the evolution of humans from other hominin primates is not confirmed, you have not understood the evidence.

 

[Crying Rock]

If you argue that many of the fine details are yet to be resolved, you understand the situation. If you argue that the evolution of humans from other hominin primates is not confirmed, you have not understood the evidence.

I argue there is good evidence that all Homo after Ergaster evolved (micro- variation) from Ergaster. I argue there is not good evidence that Ergaster evolved from Habilis, Rudolfensis, Australopithecus, or Ardipithecus ramidus.

Do you agree?

If so, then we're on the same page.

 

[Paidion]

Is there proof we evolved from monkeys?

Nope. No proof at all!

However, there is proof that we evolved from sharks. Just open either of your hands and look carefully. You'll see the intersection of two shark tails. That's the permanent impression on the hands of all mankind pictorially depicting the mating of your first ancestors --- sharks!

 

[Crying Rock]

Is there proof we evolved from monkeys?

Nope. No proof at all!

However, there is proof that we evolved from sharks. Just open either of your hands and look carefully. You'll see the intersection of two shark tails. That's the permanent impression on the hands of all mankind pictorially depicting the mating of your first ancestors --- sharks!

If you're serious, please elaborate Paidion.

 

[Paidion]

:biglol :biglol :biglol :rolling :rolling :rolling

 

[Crying Rock]

:biglol :biglol :biglol :rolling :rolling :rolling

:biglol

I just didn't want to disrespect your idea without hearing it through.

I'm the newbie here, and I guess it shows! ;)

 

[Barbarian]

I argue there is good evidence that all Homo after Ergaster evolved (micro- variation) from Ergaster. I argue there is not good evidence that Ergaster evolved from Habilis, Rudolfensis, Australopithecus, or Ardipithecus ramidus.

That would, by definition, be macroevolution. "Microevolution" applies to variation within a species.

Do you agree?

Since it's really a judgment call to move the fossils we now call H. ergaster from H. erectus to their own species, I don't see how anyone familiar with these hominins could agree with that. Some paleontologists think that they are different enough to be their own species, but not everyone agrees.

What is odd here, is that you are willing to accept the rather large number of evolutionary changes that would have to happen to the skull of H. ergaster to become modern human, but you are not willing to accept the relatively slight number of changes to the skull between H. erectus and H. ergaster. This is puzzling.

If so, then we're on the same page.

When you get to biology, we'll be on the same page.

 

[Crying Rock]

Crying Rock wrote:

I argue there is good evidence that all Homo after Ergaster evolved (micro- variation) from Ergaster. I argue there is not good evidence that Ergaster evolved from Habilis, Rudolfensis, Australopithecus, or Ardipithecus ramidus.

The Barbarian wrote:

That would, by definition, be macroevolution. "Microevolution" applies to variation within a species.

Yeah, but definitions change and all are man made constructs. I remind you of the recent news on Neanderthal nDNA:

The Barbarian wrote:

Neandertals are significantly different than humans in a number of important details. Their DNA, BTW, is different enough that most scientists now put them in a separate species or subspecies.

Crying Rock wrote:

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â

For years many have placed Neanderthals in a separate species from H.s.s. That evidence is not supported by the most current research, either behaviorally or genetically.

And what was previously thought to be Modern behaviour, the making of prepared cores and blades, has recently been pushed back to ca. 500mya:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/co ... 2009/402/2

Crying Rock wrote:

I argue there is good evidence that all Homo after Ergaster evolved (micro- variation) from Ergaster. I argue there is not good evidence that Ergaster evolved from Habilis, Rudolfensis, Australopithecus, or Ardipithecus ramidus.

Crying Rock wrote:

Do you agree?

The Barbarian wrote:

Since it's really a judgment call to move the fossils we now call H. ergaster from H. erectus to their own species, I don't see how anyone familiar with these hominins could agree with that. Some paleontologists think that they are different enough to be their own species, but not everyone agrees.

Yeah,

Most of anthropology literature depicts H. ergaster as “African H. Erectusâ€Â, with emphasis sometimes placed on early “African H. Erectusâ€Â. Whereas the European and Asian types are referred to H. erectus, even if early:

Crying Rock wrote:

The Peking Man fossils are a vital component of the Out of Africa 1 migration theory, which proposes that Homo erectus first appeared in Africa around two million years ago before spreading north and east (modern humans, Homo sapiens, would follow much later and supplant all other Homo species).

Evidence of the first dispersal comes from the site of Dmanisi in Georgia, where numerous hominid fossils dating to 1.75 million years ago have been unearthed. Finds from Java suggest early humans reached South-East Asia by 1.6 million years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7937351.stm

Crying Rock wrote:

Evidence of human existence dating back 1.83 million years was uncovered at Bukit Bunuh in Lenggong, Perak recently.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?fi ... sec=nation

The Barbarian wrote:

What is odd here, is that you are willing to accept the rather large number of evolutionary changes that would have to happen to the skull of H. ergaster to become modern human, but you are not willing to accept the relatively slight number of changes to the skull between H. erectus and H. ergaster. This is puzzling.

I don’t understand? In my mind, with the current data available, H. ergaster was pretty much H. erectus. As these populations spread across Europe, Asia, and Africa, selective pressures acted on the variation available in H. erectus, resulting in H. heidelbergensis, which is just a catchall for anything between Erectus and H.s.s./ H.s.n. As noted, genetically and behaviorally, H.s.s. and H.s.n are indistinguishable. I don’t if we’ll ever be lucky enough to capture Heidelbergensis or Erectus nDNA, but, behaviorally the line between Heidelbergensis and Erectus is blurred, imo.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
What is odd here, is that you are willing to accept the rather large number of evolutionary changes that would have to happen to the skull of H. ergaster to become modern human, but you are not willing to accept the relatively slight number of changes to the skull between H. erectus and H. ergaster. This is puzzling.

I don’t understand?

Yep. Over time, there were rather great changes in H. erectus. Early ones were more like australopithecines. Late ones look a lot more like anatomically modern humans.

In my mind, with the current data available, H. ergaster was pretty much H. erectus.

It was rather like early H. erectus, but with less robust face, and a relatively smaller brain, like that of very early H. erectus.

As these populations spread across Europe, Asia, and Africa, selective pressures acted on the variation available in H. erectus, resulting in H. heidelbergensis, which is just a catchall for anything between Erectus and H.s.s./ H.s.n.

No. The Mt. Carmel Neandertals were more like modern humans than later Neandertals, indicating that they are a related species, not ancestors.

As noted, genetically and behaviorally, H.s.s. and H.s.n are indistinguishable.

No, that's wrong, too. Genetically, neandertals are about half as distant from us as we are from chimpanzees:

Comparing Neanderthal to human and chimpanzee genomes showed that at multiple locations the Neanderthal DNA sequences matched chimpanzee DNA but not human.

“This enabled us to calculate for the first time when in pre-history Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis coalesced to a single genome,†Rubin said.

Comparative genomics in this study indicated that the common genetic ancestor of Neanderthal and modern humans lived about 706,000 years ago. The ancestors of all humans and Neanderthals split into two separate species some 330,000 years later. Rubin and his colleagues were also able to shed new light on the long-standing question of whether Neanderthals and humans mated during the thousands of years the two species cohabitated parts of Europe. Some scientists have suggested that rather than die out, Neanderthals as a species were bred out of existence by the overwhelming populations of Homo sapiens.

Said Rubin, “While unable to definitively conclude that interbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur, analysis of the nuclear DNA from the Neanderthal suggests the low likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level.â€Â

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Arc ... rthal.html

On the other hand, we have an array of cultural differences:

Neandertals seem to have had no projectile weapons at all. Healed injuries to bones show the same pattern as those of rodeo cowboys, indicating that Neandertals took big game by closing in and stabbing.

Neandertals were remarkably conservative culturally. Their stone toolkit remained the same for a very long time, even as their anatomically modern contemporaries were making new tools in new styles. (I have been told that some "modern" stone tools were found in a Neandertal site, but that seems like the exception that proves the rule)

Neandertals seem to have made no representative art, although they did make beads of animal teeth, and so on.

They certainly qualify as human, but so did the common ancestor of Neandertals and modern humans. Having northern European ancestry, and a few Neandertal features, it would be an attractive idea for me that they did somehow manage to leave a few genes with us. But we don't have much evidence for that.

But I'm still wondering why you think humans could evolve the rather great changes from H. ergaster, but not the relatively small ones from H. erectus.