|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/26/2004 : 12:06:27
|
The pot continues to boil, as well it should.
quote:
Believe it or not, they're all the same species
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 26/12/2004)
It is one of the best-known stories in science: the evolution of mankind from ape-like creatures to modern humans via knuckle-grazing cave-dwellers. Now it has been blown apart by the first comprehensive study of all the fossils, which has revealed that they are probably all variants of Homo sapiens.
The discovery comes as fossil-hunters in Indonesia continue to defend claims to have found yet another new species of human, dubbed "Hobbit Man". If true, the diminutive creature would join such famous specimens as Lucy, Java Man and the Neanderthals in the complex family tree of mankind.
The findings have significant implications for the often bitter debates between fossil-hunters about the significance of their finds. While they no longer bicker over the so-called "Missing Link" - the now-derided idea of a creature linking humans to chimpanzees - experts continue to argue over the relationship between Australopithecines and early humans, and between Neanderthals and modern humans.
I do not expect this argument to be wrapped up to everyone's satisfaction in my lifetime. But to me, Professor Henneberg's hypothisis seems to be a bit of an oversimplifaction.
I wonder what the YECs'll make of it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2004 : 15:50:53 [Permalink]
|
You asked what the YEKs will say.
EVOLUTION PROVED FALSE!!!!!!
THE GREAT LIE DESTROYED!!!!!
CHARLES DARWIN REFUSES TO COMMENT!!!!!
but that's just my guess.
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2004 : 17:04:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
You asked what the YEKs will say.
EVOLUTION PROVED FALSE!!!!!!
THE GREAT LIE DESTROYED!!!!!
CHARLES DARWIN REFUSES TO COMMENT!!!!!
but that's just my guess.
Yeah, but we've heard it all before. Just sayin' it don't make it so....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2004 : 23:26:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just sayin' it don't make it so....
Apparently, if you say it often enough, it does make it true.
As evidenced by the number of fucking morons voters who state that they believe there is a direct link between Saddam/Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.
W and his media arm (FOX/Limbaugh) pounded that assertion into peoples ears day after day. When the 9/11 commision stated that their exaustive investigation found zero evidence to link the two... it was already to late. To many people believed the lie.
Saying something over and over doesn't make it true, but it makes stupid people think its true.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2005 : 16:55:17 [Permalink]
|
This is wikipedia's definition of species
quote:
Originaly posted by filthy
I do not expect this argument to be wrapped up to everyone's satisfaction in my lifetime. But to me, Professor Henneberg's hypothisis seems to be a bit of an oversimplifaction.
Indeed. I would say that it is a massive oversimplification. The abbiguous definition of species and the fact that the professor was only able to examine fossils (ie only morphology and not breeding behaviour) should call for caution. Perhaps this is an example of extreme jounalistic "point sharpening."
|
|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2005 : 11:15:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
This is wikipedia's definition of species
And from the above site: "As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are 'groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups'". Mayr's definition is the one most often used in biology and taxonomy. This does not take into effect interfertility between species but rather the propensity for gene pool isolation which is actually more important. This is very important when looking at the relationship between neanderthals and anatomically modern humans. Both species were extant in Europe at the same time yet mitochondrial DNA evidence seems to indicate that interbreeding was non-existant or at least rare. Unfortunately, Y chromosome DNA evidence is not available which would really seal the deal for neanderthals and humans being separate species. On a similar note, there are fossils that could be considered half way between modern humans and neanderthals which might support limited interbreeding.
quote:
quote:
Originaly posted by filthy
I do not expect this argument to be wrapped up to everyone's satisfaction in my lifetime. But to me, Professor Henneberg's hypothisis seems to be a bit of an oversimplifaction.
Indeed. I would say that it is a massive oversimplification. The abbiguous definition of species and the fact that the professor was only able to examine fossils (ie only morphology and not breeding behaviour) should call for caution. Perhaps this is an example of extreme jounalistic "point sharpening."
The fact remains that A. afarensis and A. africanus have both homonid and ape like characteristics. This can be seen in both the arrangement of the pelvis, specialization of the foot, and cranium size. Australopithecines are more human like than any other ape alive today and they are also more ape like than any homo species in the fossil record. They are, by definition, transitional fosils between apes and humans. Whether or not they are part of the human lineage is a different discussion. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 21:39:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peptide
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
This is wikipedia's definition of species
And from the above site: "As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are 'groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups'". Mayr's definition is the one most often used in biology and taxonomy. This does not take into effect interfertility between species but rather the propensity for gene pool isolation which is actually more important. This is very important when looking at the relationship between neanderthals and anatomically modern humans. Both species were extant in Europe at the same time yet mitochondrial DNA evidence seems to indicate that interbreeding was non-existant or at least rare. Unfortunately, Y chromosome DNA evidence is not available which would really seal the deal for neanderthals and humans being separate species. On a similar note, there are fossils that could be considered half way between modern humans and neanderthals which might support limited interbreeding.
I take it that your point is one of clarification? I agree with your statements but my understanding is that in practice observing breeding behavior is one of the main ways of determining whether two populations are reproductively isolated. ie the same or different species. Of course in long extinct species this is not an option nor, in most cases, is DNA analysis possible.quote:
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Indeed. I would say that it is a massive oversimplification. The abbiguous definition of species and the fact that the professor was only able to examine fossils (ie only morphology and not breeding behaviour) should call for caution. Perhaps this is an example of extreme jounalistic "point sharpening."
The fact remains that A. afarensis and A. africanus have both homonid and ape like characteristics. This can be seen in both the arrangement of the pelvis, specialization of the foot, and cranium size. Australopithecines are more human like than any other ape alive today and they are also more ape like than any homo species in the fossil record. They are, by definition, transitional fosils between apes and humans. Whether or not they are part of the human lineage is a different discussion.
I agree with what you are saying but I was responding to this article, originally posted by filthy. I'd be intrested in your take on it.
PS: I am no expert in the subject. Are you a biologist or in a related field? I'm just guessing that you are based on your user tag. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
