Human Origins Theory Tested By Recent Findings

annamadrigal writes "The BBC news is reporting on findings presented in Nature which suggest that Homo Erectus and H. Habilis were in fact sister species which co-existed. This challenges the view that the upright humans evolved from the tool users."

Been there, done that.

[tonsofpcs]

This has been brought up ("challenged") before and some believe it, some don't. What's so different this time around?

Re:Been there, done that.

[iminplaya]

"The other discussions have been archived. No new comments can be posted."

Re:Been there, done that.

[Reverse Gear]

You are right this doesn't look like any real news.

The article is really written in a very unscientific way, for example this statement:
What the scientific society thinks doesn't usually change all that fast, the hypothesis first has to be verified and tested etc.
But then again in this kind of archeology this thing with verifying and testing hypothesis can be a bit difficult even though they try as they best can, but trying to figure out how humans evolved through evolution is imho as much guesswork as it is science with what we have of evidence so far.

Re:Been there, done that.

[aichpvee]

Man evolved from dirt when dinosaurs ate coconuts. It says so in the bible.

Re:Been there, done that.

[BakaHoushi]

Ugh. You're killing me here. I'm reminded of all the times I've heard "Creationist scientists say dinosaurs ate leaves and used their sharp teeth to grind leaves."

No. Just... no. No, no, no, no, NO!

Honestly, I'd LOVE to see a T-rex or an Allasaurus or another obvious carnivore TRY to eat leaves with a mouth like that. We KNOW today that flat teeth are used for grinding plants. I mean, it's basic instinct. When you eat meat, you use your slimmer and pointer front teeth to tear it into slimmer pieces. When you eat a salad, you don't use your front teeth at all, and simply let the back teeth grind the leaves.

It's pure bullshit, and it's easily debunked by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Same for sharks. They have rows upon rows of sharp, serrated teeth. Are you going to tell me they ate kelp?

Not to mention that we see hundreds of cave drawings of bison and deer and other roaming mammals... yet does anyone find it strange that no caveman decided to draw a HUGE monstrous death machine roaming the lands? I mean, not ONE SINGLE MENTION anywhere in all of human culture until we discovered their bones?

No, I am no a biologist, archaeologist, or any other professional, but I think my evidence stands as is. I'm sure a real scientist could provide FAR more examples.

Creationism science is an oxymoron, because Creationism is the polar opposite of science. You start with a conclusion (God made the Earth and the Bible shows how he did it) and then proceed to find evidence that supports that, as opposed to finding evidence and then making a conclusion based on the evidence.

The Bible is not literal. Period. It is a series of stories and ideas put into writing in ancient times to explain, back then, how they thought things came to be.

To me, believing in Creationism is like saying "I believe the sky is green." It's just wrong. Yes, there is a degree of uncertainty in it, such as how "green" something is before it's green, but with science, we can break down light and find its wavelength and say "This light is blue." You can still believe that it is green, just as you can believe men walked the earth alongside dinosaurs, that a man with a boat carried two of EVERY species of animal on Earth for over a month after a God gave him the designs for it, and the first woman came from the ribs of the first man.

But you'd be wrong. "Believing" that 2+2=5 doesn't change the fact that it's 4, even if you call it an "opinion." Facts do not care what you think.

(Note: Yes, I know the Parent was joking. But this stuff SERIOUSLY pisses me off)

Re:

[ChrisA90278]

"Creationism is the polar opposite of science. You start with a conclusion (God made the Earth and the Bible shows how he did it) and then proceed to find evidence that supports that, as opposed to finding evidence and then making a conclusion based on the evidence."

I agree with your premise but your explanation is wrong. Both types will go look for facts to support their ideas. The basic difference is that the scientist makes a statement crafted in such a way that it COULD be dis-proved and accepts the f

Proof

[Belial6]

I the infallible, omniscient, and omnipotent Belial6 made the universe 15 seconds ago. Being that I am infallible, my statement must be correct, which proves that it was I, and therefor not you who created the universe. Besides, if you can't even get the age of the universe right, how could you have possibly been the one who created it? See? More evidence to support my statement of fact.

Now where is my beer?

TO get back to the article

[COMON$]

which every time a good article comes out about human origins we degrade to creationism bashing rather than discussing the actual article. But nonetheless we cannot rule out all forms of creationism simply because a person is an atheist or some other hater of religion. There still is are very likely possibilities that could have occurred that these new finds may support regarding evolution. Such as this planet being terraformed or being used as a planting ground for a new species by an older race. Just b

Re:

[ChrisA90278]

My statement the you can not disprove my claim to have created the universe myself was actually in SUPPORT of Creationism. Logically if you could disprove my claim you also disprove all Creationist claims. You can't disprove my claim.

I don't argue against Creationism. I argue against those who do not differentiate between faith and science. The big difference of course is that science makes FALSIFIABLE claims while faith is a believe in some claim even in the face of good reasons not to. The mainstrea

Re:

[JustAnotherReader]

Beyond that, Creation Science is NOT science. Science can make predictions. With science you can form an experiment who's result should align with the prediction. If the results of your experiment doesn't match then you have to change your theory.

So, what does Creation Science or Intelligent Design teach? What does it predict? How can you form an experiment? Can the result from an experiment change the premise? If not then it's not science.

As the Dover trial [millerandlevine.com] pointed out, all of the "evidence" for

Re:

[ivano]

People quote the Bible like we quote Shakespeare. Beautiful words about the world we live in. Now if you're stupid enough to think it's a historical document then you're on your own.

Re:

[somersault]

I wouldn't usually call the bible's language 'beautiful'. Maybe some of it. It's obviously a personal choice what to believe :P It is interesting to see that not much has changed in the world in the last several thousand years anyway. If you're stupid enough to think that the book of chronicles, book of kings and all that aren't Jewish historical documents then *shrug* meh

Re:

[oliverthered]

In a thousand years time you could look at CSI and say that to some extent it was historically accurate, that doesn't make it any more than a work of fiction.

Re:

[CodeShark]

Ya lost me there AC.

Einstein predicted a certain bending of light in terms of the general "predicted theory of relativity and it was not proven to be absolutely spot on until the 1960's, I believe. So the science "predicted fact" is recognized as valid ("true") after the prediction is fulfilled.

But there are extant copies of things like Isaiah (from the Dead Sea Scrolls) that include nearly word for word what the Masoretic text used in the KJV holds, and some of the prophecies in Isaiah are fulfilled long

Re:

[CodeShark]

Goofy thinking on both posts.

The latest accepted date for the book of Daniel is still pre-Christian era, and still pre-date Julius Caesar's dictatorship/declaration of "emporer" etc around 44 BC) to around 106 AD, and the break of of big empires into little kingdoms could not have been predicted, as the history of the region from around the time of Nebuchadnezzar (sp?) through the Roman Empire was a history of empire following empire following empire. There would have been no reason for anyone to assume t

Re:

[Dragonslicer]

Now if you're stupid enough to think it's a historical document then you're on your own.

Why's that? It may not be (okay, okay, isn't) completely factual, but how many history books are? A lot of facts are always lost, leaving behind only what historians, authors, and the general populace want to remember.

Re:

[skuzzlebutt]

Wouldn't it be great if the new Kansas school board required bibles to have a sticker that stated "Supernaturalism is just a theory, and as with all theories..."?

Re:

[Dragonslicer]

Is the difference between a history book, which tries to represent historical events and a bible, which tries to represent spiritual philosophy, really that hard to comprehend?

You haven't really read the Old Testament, have you? Yes, there is a fair amount of spiritual philosophy in it. There are also vast amounts of rather boring historical and genealogical information. I would say that the only stupid people are the ones that aren't capable of reading the Bible and separating the plausible and implausible.

Re:

[MightyMartian]

This is like saying genealogy has been thrown into question because my grandfather was still alive when I was born. There's no reason than H. habilis could still have survived after H. erectus came on the scene. I mean, how can the Dutch language still exist as a language when some people speak Afrikaans?

Re:

[torrentami]

Actually, this is the prevailing theory of human evolution today. This article is merely throwing another rock on the pile. Check out Mapping Human History [amazon.com] by Steve Olsen (2002).

Re:

[Conanymous Award]

Yeah, this is ooold. Homo habilis's status as a species of Homo has been challenged many times before this. It has even been called Australopithecus habilis by some researchers. The views on the family tree of the human species are constantly changing, but AFAIK, Homo (?) habilis has for some time not been considered to be on the lineage that leads to us.

All lies

[The Bungi]

I know the truth [youtube.com].

Re:

[Architect_sasyr]

Wrong. I know the truth [venganza.org]

Re:

[StrahdVZ]

Nope, nope, nope.

This is the truth [youtube.com].

BS

[dynamo]

It doesn't "challenge" that view at all. Evolution is mutation plus competition, you need the competition part. Of course they co-existed, as must have all consecutive evolution stages in every being's evolution.

Re:BS

[Tablizer]

Indeed. Coexistence of divergent species is fairly common. Coexistence in no solid way rules out one species evolving from another. The reasoning used is not clear.
       

That's what I don't understand in TFA.

[khasim]

It talks about "their own distinct ecological niches". Given that we are omnivores, how different could their "ecological niche" have been and still support something that was almost human?

Humans and other primates have shared the same areas ever since there were humans. Yet we have only recently started wiping out other primates. And it isn't because we are competing with them for the food sources. We wipe out their environment, food sources and all.

So there thing about "Eventually, one would have out-competed the other." doesn't sound right. "Eventually", maybe. But to say that any conclusions can be derived simply because it had not happened in X years ... that's dumb.

Re:

[rtb61]

Human history tends to indicate we do a bit more than just compete with them for food sources. The reality is, we likely turned the opposition into food sources or at the very least, actively prevented them from exploiting food sources with in our territories.

P) Vengeance although a somewhat undesirable human characteristic was still very likely influential in the evolution of humans and their societies and in the extinction of competing species.

Re:

[sumdumass]

I agree with everything but the Neanderthals. Modern thinking is suggesting that they just integrated and their feature blended in or was absorbed into modern humans. I don't see any problems with that either.

Re:

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Modern thinking is suggesting that they just integrated and their feature blended in

If by modern you mean the 1980s.

Re:

[mcvos]

I agree with everything but the Neanderthals. Modern thinking is suggesting that they just integrated and their feature blended in or was absorbed into modern humans. I don't see any problems with that either.

I do. As I understand it, it's extremely unlikely that homo sapiens and Neanderthals interbred successfully.

Even even if they did integrate in, and interbred with, homo sapiens, then their genes would still have gone extinct if their descendents weren't as fit for their environment as pure hom

Re:

[sumdumass]

Imagine it this way. You have a group of people. Some move too far away in one direction and over time evolve slightly differently. Assuming their evolution was for the better of or at the time, when the two groups are reunited, their better traits are passed on to the not so advanced groups and vice versa.

So yea, their genes that made them different vanished but the ones that were the same stayed around. Newer advances in science shows they had a higher degree of inteligence then once though, had a system

Re:

[mcvos]

Look at it as they were the same species but different only in the ways an American or French person and a Chinese person would be different.

Are we still talking about Neanderthal versus Homo sapiens? Because that difference is quite a lot bigger than that between a Chinese and a European, in many different ways. Europeans and Chinese are more similar genetically than two random Africans, whereas Neanderthals had a different skull, different skeletal and muscle structure, etc. I'm not an expert on thi

Re:

[sumdumass]

Yea,we are still talking about Neanderthal versus Homo sapiens. From what I saw on the discovery channel not to long ago, that difference isn't nearly as big as we once thought. They had an entire 2 hour show on it describing the differences and how they weren't that different after all.

I used to have a link to the show but it is broken now and was probable a year or so old. It even claimed that some people have Neanderthal genes in them still today. Of course searching google seems to be worthless unless y

Re:

[elyons]

Indeed, it is called sympatric speciation. One of the two central concepts on how species arise. The other is allopartic speciation. They different in that the former happens at the same place at the same time. The latter requires some form of geographic isolation, like a river valley. No reason to think that the lineage leading to humans wasn't subjected to this kind of speciation.

Re:

[someone1234]

Really? I thought evolution is more intelligently designed! Like: from tomorrow, each egg will hatch a chicken, not a lizard. (eh, i agree with you, if that wasn't obvious)

Re:

[Hognoxious]

That lizard I saw last week must be pretty old, then! (it was quite wrinkly - scaly almost - now I think about it).

Re:BS

[greg_barton]

Evolution is mutation plus competition...

I know this wasn't the point of your post, but this is a pet peeve of mine. There's mutation, competition, and cooperation, both inter and intra species. We'd be screwed without mitochondria. We'd be screwed without each other. Nonzero sum, mutually beneficial relationships (cooperation) affect evolution, just like the zero sum (competition) ones.

Carry on. :)

Re:

[PinkyDead]

Just read the Metro version of this story: 'African find upsets theory of evolution'.

My guess is that there was a third species, Homo Stupidus that evolved into journalists.

Modern time example.

[AftanGustur]

It doesn't "challenge" that view at all. Evolution is mutation plus competition, you need the competition part. Of course they co-existed, as must have all consecutive evolution stages in every being's evolution.

Exactly my thoughts.

Think about this, archaeological and genetic evidence points to modern humans having left Africa 50000-100000 years ago. Modern humans are only about 200.000 years old as a species and yet, the Scanvinavians already have lighter skin full facial beards and some other biological features which make them distinct from those who didn't leave Africa.

We could say that the scandivavians "evolved" from the Africans to suit the cold climate, nonetheless the two are still co-habiting almost everywhere in the world.

The time period which the article states as a "proof" is 500.000 years long. Just imagine how the scandinavians, ot the inuits might look after 450.000 years if there was no communication between the two groups.

Cain and Abel

[CarpetShark]

This kind of thing always makes me wonder about the origin of tales that probably come to us from pre-history -- stuff like the Cain and Abel story. I can't help thinking that, at one time, these stories might have told of some much more important historical event than one brother killing another, and that, slowly, over time, they've been watered down into something that everyone understood in their current context -- one guy killing another.

Re:

[Johnny5000]

his kind of thing always makes me wonder about the origin of tales that probably come to us from pre-history -- stuff like the Cain and Abel story. I can't help thinking that, at one time, these stories might have told of some much more important historical event than one brother killing another, and that, slowly, over time, they've been watered down into something that everyone understood in their current context -- one guy killing another.

Adam & Eve = hunter/gatherers.
A few years later (after the dome

Re:

[jav1231]

That's what is nice about the religion of Evolution. The theory itself can evolve to absorbe the truth. Thus, it's always correct. Like an insurance company.
Oh c'mon take the tongue-in-cheek criticism, don't be so defensive....no?...okay Troll me......or Flamebait me....I know I know.

Exactly.

[oliverthered]

Evolution doeesn't work in the way, humans started using tools so we evolved to walk of two feet, the fact that we started walking on two feet was just down to chance and it happened to be really usefull for tool use then it won out due to survival of the fitest.

If there was no shortage of food and resources then there's no reason that the pre-humans that didn't walk on two feet would have died out at all so the two species could have quite happley lived together.

(Sory, the spell checker in firefox has stop

Well...

[maelfius]

After glancing over the TFA it appears that it is shown that the two species simply existed together and one eventually out-competed the other. What isn't definitively shown as not being the case is that the Evolutionary chain didn't also occur with a net result of both species existing at once. An overlap could be caused because both species in different areas (even locals) were well suited for the environment. I guess I could just want to be argumentative after a long day of meetings with the subspecies PHB which is probably more akin to the chimpanzee than anything vaguely human ... in fact I'm sure of that last statement, PHBs are NOT human. Everything has to be black and white -- nothing can be grey in science. The truth is that science is all grey and we want to see in black and white.

Re:

[lawpoop]

PHB which is probably more akin to the chimpanzee than anything vaguely human ... in fact I'm sure of that last statement, PHBs are NOT human. Everything has to be black and white -- nothing can be grey in science. The truth is that science is all grey and we want to see in black and white.

Oh, okay. Does this then explain the existence of the grey aliens, or Greys??

</sarcasm> ;)

Homo Mormonus

[Tablizer]

If erectus was very sexually dimorphic [sex size diff] it may have had multiple mates at a time. This differs from the more monogamous nature of modern humans, indicating that Homo erectus was not as human-like as once thought.

Polygomy is and was fairly common in humans.
     

Re:Homo Mormonus

[maelfius]

Monogamous nature of human mating interaction is almost exclusively due to societal changes -- mostly control reasons (from what I can see). However, humans do tend to have a stronger attachment to those they mate with than some other species out there do. Perhaps more akin to the mate-for-life (or close to it) mentality -- whether or not this is supported by actions and/or society (divorce rate is high etc), but there is the definite attachment in many cases. I should stop posting, and where are my damn mod points to mod you funny for the title.

Re:Homo Mormonus

[Mr. Bad Example]

> Polygamy is and was fairly common in humans.

Can you get that in writing? Like, from a real anthropologist?

And then send it to my wife?

Re:

[JustOK]

I'm sure one of her other husbands will give it to her.

Re:Homo Mormonus

[dave1g]

Modern humans are dimorphic as well. Not to the extent as many other species but, for example, male brains are slightly larger, even accounting for their larger body size vs female.
This suggests that throughout humans and their ancestors have been moderately polygynous.

My source being The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mating_Mind [wikipedia.org]

Equivalent Sun frontpage headline

[martin-boundary]

"Early Sisters Had No Use For Tools"

I'm not sure I see the problem

[jd]

First, the article makes it clear that the two hominids didn't compete. They operated in different environments and ate different food. Even when primates do operate in similar realms, they can coexist for millions of years - as humans have with chimps and gorillas. The relatively peaceful coexistence of humans and Neanderthals is also well documented. They simply ignored each other. It is also suspected - but unproven - in the case of Homo Florensis. Besides which, even when replacement occurs, it's going to occur slowly. Populations grow exponentially, but only over a vast timeframe. It isn't overnight. The multiple migration theory also suggests that multiple hominid types co-existed, or there wouldn't be distinct populations migrating. (In fact, the mere existence of the theory shows some paleontologists have always believed in multiple co-existing branches.)

Re:I'm not sure I see the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Other great apes were evolved for primarily eating fruit (orangutang), veggies (gorillas), or a more mixed diet (chimps). I'd say that human ancestors didn't take to the flatlands all that great but were actually well adapted to rivers and for the style of fishing known as noodling. (Paddle-like foot shape, thinned out body hair, improved hand dexterity, downturned nose, these seem better adapted for mucking in water than walking around on some grassland.) Afterall, in comparison to the great apes we're related to, humans are the only ones that can swim worth a damn. Crocodiles as a competing apex preditor would be a lot more predictable for pre-tool hominid primates than any lion, jaguar, or hyena. (Easy enough to get out of the water when crocs are around, but good luck outrunning one of those large cats.) Also there's likely more protein to be had from fish than any small grassland type creature that could be caught until toolmaking became more mainstream.

Now if only an actual anthropologist would pick up on that idea...

Re:

[sumdumass]

I have read that before. Well something close to it anyways. They didn't use it to explain why humans were different but more to why we likely won't find a link or th common ancestor in which we all split. The hypothesized that our common ancestor was along those lines you mentioned and we stuck to it in early times only to branch outwards once water levels started rising and falling rapidly. Sort of like the wet seasons in Africa desserts.

I wish I could remember the girls name. She had some interesting poi

Re:I'm not sure I see the problem

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is known as the Aquatic Ape Theory. [wikipedia.org] The mainstream anthropological view is that it is not correct. I still think most objections would disappear if you postulate partially aquatic near fresh water lakes instead of 100% aquatic life in salt water. But still, intriguing as it is, and as much as I would like to believe it is correct, the AAH (they have demoted it from theory to hypothesis) is not the current mainstream view.

Re:

[MightyMartian]

It's not the mainstream view because there is no meaningful or substantive evidence for it. The AAT crowd has to do more than provide just-so stories.

Re:

[Lariat]

I think they have, actually. Of course, Desmond Morris (zoologist, rather than anthropologist) entertained the idea in the widely read

• The Naked Ape

, but there's been other work in the same vein. At the end of the day, it's not entertained seriously because it's simply not credible--it doesn't hold up to serious criticism. You might start with http://www.aquaticape.org/ [aquaticape.org]

Re:

[mcvos]

I'd say that human ancestors didn't take to the flatlands all that great but were actually well adapted to rivers and for the style of fishing known as noodling. (Paddle-like foot shape, thinned out body hair, improved hand dexterity, downturned nose, these seem better adapted for mucking in water than walking around on some grassland.)

Actually, humans are (one of?) the best long distance runners in the animal kingdom. Why would fishers need to be able to run for days on the plains? Maybe somewhere so

continuing evolution

[sc0p3]

my coworkers provide plenty of evidence to debunk evolution

tool users?

[Lord Ender]

What is with the obsession with tools? Plenty of animals use tools. Humans aren't unique in that respect.

There is a saying amongst psychologists that at some point, each must come up with a reason why humans are fundamentally different from the other animals, only for someone to eventually prove them wrong.

Re:tool users?

[sqrt(2)]

Technically, there are examples of animals using tools. The chimp using the stick to get at termites is the commonly cited one. They even show an ability to select the best stick to use, and modify it to some extent. However, there's a big difference between fishing out termites with a stick, or using a leg bone as a cudgel to challenge a competing tribe for domination of a watering hole, and making things like hand axes, shovels, or bowls. Humans make tools that require many complex steps, most tool users in nature just pick things up off the ground. It's not a binary situation; humans and animals are all on a continuum of technical skill and complexity. Relative distance is what distinguishes us.

Re:

[atomicstrawberry]

Crows have been observed to construct tools [nationalgeographic.com] as well. In fact, they fashion more complex tools than chimps. They've learned different designs by copying other birds, and they pass their tool-building knowledge down through the generations.

Tool construction and use is not a uniquely human trait, it's not even unique to primates.

Re:

[G-funk]

Capuchins carry heavy river stones many kilometres to use them as nutcrackers.

Re:

[Danny Rathjens]

It's not an obsession; it just happened to be the one of the many distinguishing traits of the species that was used to name it. The summary calling homo habilis the "tool users" and homo erectus the "upright humans" is because that is what the latin names of the species translate or allude to.

Re:tool users?

[eddy]

>There is a saying amongst psychologists that at some point, each must come up with a reason why humans are fundamentally different from the other animals, only for someone to eventually prove them wrong.

I accept your challenge!

"Humans are fundamentally different from other animals, because we can travel into space using only tools we built."

Re:tool users?

[Yvanhoe]

"Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man-for precisely the same reason."

H2G2 -- Douglas Adams

Re: tool users?

[Black Parrot]

There is a saying amongst psychologists that at some point, each must come up with a reason why humans are fundamentally different from the other animals, only for someone to eventually prove them wrong.

I accept your challenge!

"Humans are fundamentally different from other animals, because we can travel into space using only tools we built."

I can't.

Re:

[jollyreaper]

I accept your challenge!

"Humans are fundamentally different from other animals, because we can travel into space using only tools we built."

And chimps got into space while letting us do all the work. Who looks smarter now? Damn chimps, just like my lab partners.

Re:

[Lord Ender]

"Humans are fundamentally different from other animals, because we can travel into space using only tools we built."

From a psychological view, this really could be nothing more than a very slight improvement in intelligence compared to other animals, not something fundamentally different.

Re:

[Lord Ender]

they have a notion of omnipotent Creator.

I don't. Lots of people don't. Some have notions of multiple "creators." Where did you get this little nugget of "wisdom," some Dark Ages philosopher?

Lots of animals have abstraction. Bees can communicate complex navigational routes using sign language inside their hives. That's pretty clear abstraction.

We do science right!

[Webs 101]

When writing the binomial nomenclature of a species, you capitalize the genus but not the species. Therefore, the correct way to right this would be "Homo erectus" and "H. habilis".

Next, both species walked very much erect. The primary difference between them is the skull and brain.

The BBC got it right. there's no reason the submitter, or Slashdot, should not have gotten it right, too.

As to the science, the wisest words in TFA come from Professor Spoor (snicker):

"It's always possible that Homo habilis lived, let's say, 2.5 million years ago and then in another part of Africa, away from the Turkana basin, an isolated population evolved into Homo erectus."

After a sufficient amount of time to allow both species to develop different adaptations and lifestyles, Homo erectus could have then found its way to the Turkana basin.

Of course, that assumes the new skull really is H. erectus, which is dubious. Maybe it was an H. erectus ancestor, small like H. habilis but with an H. erectus-like brain.

Why yes, I do have a degree in physical anthropology. Thank you for asking.

Re:

[FreemanPatrickHenry]

Therefore, the correct way to right this would be "Homo erectus" and "H. habilis".

You're write, sir!

I wonder...

[thatskinnyguy]

...why monkeys aren't extinct. If it's survival of the fittest and we are clearly superior to monkeys, why are they still here? They should have died-out a long time ago!

Cohabitation, not just for monkeys

[Slur]

I know you're joking, but let me reply seriously anyway.

In my theory of evolution, it's not so much that "the fittest survive," but that "those that fit survive." There's a feedback loop that occurs in the environment. Those that benefit themselves, others, and the environment as a whole tend to survive and evolve more readily than those that form an adversarial relationship to others and the environment.

Monkeys still exist because there have been - and remain - plenty of habitats that are beneficial to the

Re:

[king-manic]

It has long been understood that evolution tends towards less specialization and more generalization as environments rapidly change and become more diverse and challenging, and as species range further. The necessity of mental abstraction and self-alienation will become more evident as we delve into our more recent evolution. (And from this will come insights into the need for our so-called "religious practices" that semi-moderate this alienation. But that's a topic for another day!)

No not really. phenotype

Re:

[mcvos]

In my theory of evolution, it's not so much that "the fittest survive," but that "those that fit survive."

That's a coincidence! It's the same in Darwin's theory of evolution! (Ofcourse you have to realise that you don't fit anymore once someone else eats your food before you get the chance to.)

Those that benefit themselves, others, and the environment as a whole tend to survive and evolve more readily than those that form an adversarial relationship to others and the environment.

Those that are

Re:

[mcvos]

(re-posting the properly formatted version of my post; I really should learn to use the preview button)

In my theory of evolution, it's not so much that "the fittest survive," but that "those that fit survive."

That's a coincidence! It's the same in Darwin's theory of evolution! (Ofcourse you have to realise that you don't fit anymore once someone else eats your food before you get the chance to.)

Those that benefit themselves, others, and the environment as a whole tend to survive and evolve more re

Re:

[cioxx]

...why monkeys aren't extinct. If it's survival of the fittest and we are clearly superior to monkeys, why are they still here? They should have died-out a long time ago!

Man (Homo sapiens) did not evolve from a "monkey." Modern humans and apes share a common ancestor (NOT a monkey) and apes are the closest genetic relatives humans have in the nature.

It's also wrong to say that humans are "clearly superior" to monkeys. The superiority is only measured by your reproductive success. By this measure, insects

Re:

[huckamania]

It takes an over-educated human to think that monkeys are not inferior to humans.

It also says something about the OP that reproductive prowess is the first measuring stick pulled out. How about using mobility, communications or creativity as a yard stick? How about we pull out wallets and compare those? Well, monkeys don't have wallets, do they.

I'm sure there's some really deep academic argument for this. It probably has been peer reviewed, the mark of good science is consensus.

Re:

[meglon]

"....and we are clearly superior to monkeys...."

You obviously have not been keeping up on world events....

Re:

[nanoakron]

Taking this submitter's comment in another light, it's actually an astute critique of one of the news report's main arguments against direct descent.

News report: H. erectus and habilis couldn'tve lived side-by-side because one would outcompete the other.

Submitter: Monkeys live alongside species with superior intelligence, but they haven't been 'outcompeted'.

So I'd give subby +1, insightful.

Re:

[pkphilip]

You raise an interesting point. Actually, it raises multiple interesting points.

About monkeys themselves - humans are not considered to have evolved from monkeys but the great apes. Specifically, chimpanzees are supposed to be our close ancestors.

http://www.unisci.com/stories/20013/0712011.htm [unisci.com]

The earliest chimpanzee fossils date from 500000 years ago near fossils of Homo erectus or Homo rhodensiensis. So it is considered that chimpanzees and Homo erectus were contemporaries.
http://www.newscientist.com/artic [newscientist.com]

Re:

[deleveld]

I hardly think its a mystery why chimps havent evolved and we have. Chimps have remained unchanged while humans have evolved because we dont (and probably didnt) occupy the same niche. Chimps dont have the right kind of evolutionary pressure. Chimps seem to reproduce just fine from generation-on-generation without any important advantage of brain size. Humans with tiny brains dont reproduce well, hence the evolutionary pressure for (sufficient for good human reproduction) larger brain sizes.

Chimps see

Re:

[at_slashdot]

I know that's a joke but monkey are very close to extinction and humans are more than 6 billion, so yes, it's the survival of the fittest and humans are clearly the fittest.

At least we know

[wamerocity]

from the creationism museum that they lived with Velociraptors.

Re:

[jimicus]

Noah did not really have two of every species on the ark (I guess somebody calculated that the ark would not have been able to hold all of them), rather he had two of each "type". For example a pair of wolves would stand in for their species as well as dogs, dingos and coyotes, etc.


Do they explain how you get from wolf to chihuahua without some sort of evolution, either directed (as in selective breeding) or natural?

Re:

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Aren't all domestic dogs descended from wolves by selective breeding?

I've heard that some zoologists consider that speciation between wolves & dogs isn't quite complete yet.

Re:

[Abcd1234]

I've heard that some zoologists consider that speciation between wolves & dogs isn't quite complete yet.

It's not. Speciation is, generally speaking, marked by the inability to produce viable offspring (where viable == can reproduce successfully). This isn't true for dogs and wolves.

Re:At least we know

[TheRaven64]

Noah did not really have two of every species on the ark (I guess somebody calculated that the ark would not have been able to hold all of them), rather he had two of each "type".

This is something I really don't understand. You can accept that the bible is true, and discount evidence to the contrary by saying 'God did it with magic,' and you have a fairly consistent set of beliefs. Alternatively, you can say 'much of the bible was written a long time ago by people who didn't know much,' and accept that bits that contradict observable evidence are just plain wrong, but continue to believe that it carries an important philosophical and ethical message (for example, don't crucify people, because it might turn out their dad is someone important). Again, you are left with a consistent set of beliefs. Once you start saying 'this bit of the bible is the literal truth, but this bit is made up,' where do you stop? Why couldn't a god capable of feeding 5,000 with two fish and five loaves of bread and flooding the entire world have twisted space a little so that two of every kind of animal could fit inside an ark? And if you're going to start placing arbitrary limits on the abilities of God, why bother with religion at all?

Still could have evolved

[jshriverWVU]

"Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis,"

I don't see why co-existence would discount evolving from Homo Habilis. Since after all if we really did evolve from primates, there would be no primates today under this logic.

It' still possible that some Homo Habilis evolved into Homo erectus while others remained homo habilis. Just as monkeys evolved into whatever became the H. Habilis, yet monkeys still exist.

Common Ancestors Diverged Due to Different Habitat

[internic]

I don't see why co-existence would discount evolving from Homo Habilis. Since after all if we really did evolve from primates, there would be no primates today under this logic. It' still possible that some Homo Habilis evolved into Homo erectus while others remained homo habilis. Just as monkeys evolved into whatever became the H. Habilis, yet monkeys still exist.

As far as I understand it, in order for one species to split into two distinct species the original group has to be split up into two distin

Nah... evidence of early archaeology!

[macraig]

All they have found here is evidence of very early archaeology: an H. erectus unearthed the fascinating bones of a young H. habilis ancestor, but got caught off guard by the sabretooth and never got to report his shocking discovery. Archaeology was set back a million years by a sabretooth!

The real story here...

[Yusaku Godai]

...is not that H. habilis and H. erectus may have coexisted. It's been believed for some time that the direct lineage of H. habilis -> H. erectus may be naive. To quote the Scientific American article [sciam.com] on the finding:

"Many of us have already abandoned this simple scheme" of habilis begetting erectus, says paleoanthropologist Philip Rightmire of Binghamton University in New York State and Harvard University, who was not involved in the study. "For me, it seems increasingly reasonable to suppose that a habilislike creature managed to disperse from Africa into Eurasia, sometime prior to 1.8 [million] to 1.7 [million years ago]."

Anyways, the real story here is the incredibly poor coverage of this finding by the mainstream press. The BBC article linked to here isn't so bad, but just go to Google News and look at some of the headlines, in what I would consider increasing order of ridiculousness:

"Fossil find casts doubt on origins of man"
"new theory on the dawn of humanity"
"Fossils Paint Messy Picture of Evolution"
"Fossil Discoveries Challenge Theory of Human Evolution"
"Darwin's rolling over"

They make it look like this is somehow a CHALLENGE to THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ITSELF. In other words, "let's take some story we don't really understand, but it hey it has the word 'evolution' in it, so we can manipulate this to stir up that ol' hornet's nest and sell papers!"

I think this is the most disappointing example in a while of the sorry state of science journalism.

not "not evolved", just not "anagenetic"

[mapkinase]

According to original article in Nature [nature.com].

Anagenetic means one type of an organism is a direct descendant of the other type without splitting. Co-existance by definition eliminates that, meaning the individuals that lived at the same time are not descendants of one another but descendants of earlier generations. If you and I are of the same age, I cannot be your father and vice versa, but we still can share the same father, grandfather, etc...

This is is because of the mess with nomenclature which essentially

Re:

[c6gunner]

Well while you're being all "logical" and such, maybe you can explain how "God" got here.

Root said let there be God, and there was God?

Re:My own $0.02

[meringuoid]

The other thing I'd like to have an atheist tell me is how they believe water got here initially, and more specifically, why the water cycle starts on some planets and not on others. From what I was reading a while back, water actually initially gets produced in a closed-circuit chemical reaction, with the three elements, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Once it gets started, the loop can keep going as long as those three elements are all present; my question is, how did those three elements become present here on Earth, especially when oxygen in particular seems to be rare almost to the point of being entirely unique in the universe, from what I've seen?

Hydrogen is by far the most abundant chemical element in the Universe. Helium is second. Oxygen is third. Carbon is fourth. None of these are in any way scarce; I have no idea where you got the notion that there was a shortage of oxygen in the Universe. As for water, the solar system is full of the stuff; water vapour is present in the atmosphere of Venus, water ice is present at the Martian poles, and the outer solar system is practically made of ice. The only thing that's unusual about Earth is the presence of liquid water.

Re:

[JohnFluxx]

For water to form, it requires the planet to have a certain temperature. This in turn requires the planet to be a certain distance from the Sun. We are at that distance, and hence funnily enough none of the other planets in our solar system are.

Around other stars, it is quite likely that if there are planets at the correct distance from the sun, then they water on them.

I don't know where you got the idea that it's extremely rare. We really don't know, but current estimates are that there should be million

Re:My own $0.02

[Ginger Unicorn]

From the AI stuff I read, I got the impression that in order for the entire evolutionary process to occur at all, you need a pre-existing set of heuristics (the "genetic algorithm") that define what "evolutionary fitness" means for a given species.

Hence, a chicken-and-egg problem. Once you've got the GA, the whole process can go along just fine, working according to the rules of the GA. However, the burning question is, how did the GA itself get there? I've never heard of any scenario where a GA itself can evolve via an atheistic process, but if anyone knows of one, please share.

In the context of natural evolution, the heuristic is physical survival. As opposed to a simulation, where the heuristic is whatever characteristic the programmer is trying to induce.

I'm not sure I entirely understand the point you are making but if you are saying how can a computer simulation evolve naturally, all I can say is GAs are designed by humans. Humans evolved naturally. So such simulations are ultimately the product of natural processes.

If on the other hand you are likening biological evolution to a GA, and then saying since GAs are designed, so must biological evolution be, then you are making a rather confused point. GAs were originally inspired by the natural process of biological evolution. We stole the idea from nature. Mutation with natural selection and heredity are self evidently intrinsic to the logic of our physical universe. Your question implies circularity but only by implying its own answer.

Thus, when I think about it at all, at least at the moment I'm inclined towards a hybrid theory of how we got here, which actually includes elements of both creationism and evolutionary thinking. My own perspective is that yes, evolution happens. We see the end products of it all the time, and yes, to a degree the process has been successfully simulated (with some interesting results) in the AI field.

However, where God steps into the picture for me in this context is as the provider of the initial GA, after which organisms can themselves take over the process from there. I'm not claiming (at least in this context) to have any definite idea of what God actually is or was, either...but I do think that there are at least a couple of areas, (such as the GA question) which atheistic evolutionary theory alone can't really account for.

You're talking about aspects of the universe outside of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory describes how biological organisms change over generations. The gap you are filling with god is the creation of the physical laws of the universe. This has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It's an important distinction to make, as a lot of anti-evolution crackpots use the tactic of lumping the stupendously well established theory of evolution in with a bunch of questions that have yet to be satisfactorily answered, such as abiogenesis and the source of the universe, in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the theory of evolution in a kind of guilt-by-association. Your position regarding the creation of the universe is covered here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument [wikipedia.org]

The other thing I'd like to have an atheist tell me is how they believe water got here initially, and more specifically, why the water cycle starts on some planets and not on others. From what I was reading a while back, water actually initially gets produced in a closed-circuit chemical reaction, with the three elements, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Once it gets started, the loop can keep going as long as those three elements are all present; my question is, how did those three elements become present here on Earth, especially when oxygen in particular seems to be rare almost to the point of being entirely unique in the universe, from what I've seen?

All I can say about that is that you really need to do some reading.

Re:

[Ginger Unicorn]

You mean no conclusive proof, rather than no evidence. Miller's experiment proved nothing of the sort. You are equivocating proof with evidence in order to mislead people.

100% conclusive proof is an impossible target for anything. There is simply a sliding scale of certitude that every scientific claims falls upon. You are using this technicality to give the impression that anything that is not 100% certain must be false.