Evolution of Homo Erectus - Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums

DISCLAIMER: I am trying to start a science discussion of a topic in paleoanthropology. I am not planning to discuss evolution per se. I refuse to answer any posts by evolution deniers and I strongly suggest that nobody else answer any of them either. All such discussions should be taken over to Not Quite Science, which is the proper forum for them.

Having said that: Pardon me if I get a bit long winded in the back ground of my post. I'm not sure just how much the regulars here at SAGG know about evolution and the spread of mankind.

There is a report in Nature News about new tool findings from Dmanisi, Georgia (that's Eastern Europe just East of the Black Sea, not the USA). The findings seem to indicate that there were hominins living in that area around 1.85 million year ago (MYA). This is before the the time of the first Out-of-Africa (OoA) episode, as we understand it right now. It has long been believed that Homo Erectus was the first form of man to leave Africa for a bigger world. However, it has been believed that H. Erectus evolved in Africa between 1.78 and 1.65 MYA, so these findings apparently preclude any possibility of H. Erectus having been the tool maker at Dmanisi. The researchers suggest the possibility that H. Erectus did not evolve in Africa, but rather in the Dmanisi area, then spread from there to Asia, where the first H. Erectus fossils were found, and back to Africa. So that the first OoA spread would have been some predecessor of H. Erectus.

Now to my not extremely well informed comments on the story. I recall that a year or 2 back there was a story on PBS about the hobbit, Homo floresiensis. In that story they visited Dmanisi and told about some hominin fossils found there that weren't H. Erectus, and suggested that there may have been earlier OoA movements by other, and more primitive, hominins. They suggested that the hobbit may have been a remainder from this earlier OoA movement. Wikipedia has an article about the hobbit. Any way I have other sources that suggest that H. Erectus may not have been an African development. Ian Tattersall in his 1995 book "The Fossil Trail" suggests that the African fossils attributed to H. Erectus were in fact not H. Erectus. He suggests that Asian H. Erectus evolved separately in Asia. So There might not be a good reason to suggest a back flow from Dmanisi to Africa.

Any good science comments?

Bill Gill

would there be any photographs of the evidence?

human footprints have been found in the U.S. alongside
dinosaur footprints , the footprints ended where water erosion did not uncover the prints so they lifted up slabs of sediment to follow the footprints and underneath the slabs the footprints continued.

that's pretty good evidence I would think.

is there anything that can be viewed or should we just think of it as a hoax?

could the shards or flakes of rock have been a natural occurrence?

I have only losely following the DNA story from the human genome project. Not my area at all but was interesting so I throw up the link

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtml

The DNA certainly shows that there were many version of species of our ancestors in those era's and infact that is one of the key findings.

My view is the idea that we were the "perfect species" and there was only one ancestor is a human ego thing not a science fact. We seem to always want to set ourselves as special in the world of nature. So I have no problem with the finding but I know a few in the science community will because of human ego.

You might try looking up the famous, 1977 Laetoli footprints...

They are the 3,5 million year old footprints of three humans
walking close together in the damp ash, by the side of a river bed.
One larger (heavier) individual (a male?) a lighter female, and a child.
All three were walking together seemingly in a hurry. (Their gait, stride, heel and toe prints left in the
sandstone rock gave the Anthropologist months of interesting work at that time)
The best complete set of photos, and write up are, in the Sept 1998 issue of Scientific America.
You are still able to purchase a copy of this magazine from Scientific America. (I advise you to do that)
It is the best and easiest source to read, about the Laetoli Footprints
since many religious bigots, unbelievers including Creationists, and the 'Intelligent Design' followers,
have deliberately hacked and damaged all of the interesting scientific comments made at that time (1977-1978)
plus many other amateur photos taken by the many people that came to view the Laetoli site, before it was sealed and covered up for posterity protection.

It was uncovered some years later to remove tree roots that had grown thru the Glass fibre coverings threatning to destroy the site. I beleve it was the American Paul Getty who put up a few million $'s to reopen and reclose the site, a dozen years after it was first covered?
I cannot remember, or be sure of that, but I do remember that the Creationists or others tried to discredit the whole scene 20 years ago.
So much so that it is impossible to find anything today about the Laetoli site.
I just have this item in my files.....I did have much more, but as soon as I put them out on the NET 20 years ago, they were damaged and virused away...unfortunately not realising the anti scientific comments at that time, were for real....So I did not keep copies of the excellent close up photos and comments of the 3 hominids footsteps.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/footprints.html

Originally Posted By: paul

would there be any photographs of the evidence?

Photos won't show it isn't a hoax. Anyone can make old-looking footprints or tools and take a photo of them.

If you don't trust the authors you'd need to inspect the actual items and make measurements yourself.

For a long time the accepted idea was that there was a straight line of descent from some ape-like ancestor. From the fossil record they assumed that the line led through Homo Habilis, to Homo Erectus, to Homo Neanderthalensis, and finally to Homo Sapiens. Most of those ideas have been shown to be wrong, with the DNA evidence strongly supporting a more diverse background. The story I referenced in my first post certainly seems to indicate that the line is much more like a bush than the straight line in the older idea. For one thing it seems that the Neanderthals have been moved out of the line of descent, although some people apparently are still trying to claim that the Neanderthals are just a sub-species of Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis). In my opinion that has been completely shot down.

A lot of what I think is based on the writings of Ian Tattersall, so it kind of follows his view point. But to me what he says really makes sense. A lot more than the idea of just one straight line kind of aimed at us. Since evolution is a random thing it make sense that a number of different trials would occur before finding the one that works good enough to last.

And for the link with the Neanderthals. I saw a report last year that somebody who has been studying the Neanderthal genes had found a small amount of their DNA in our DNA. But it was found only in non-African populations. It suggested that there may have been some cross-breeding around 100 KYA, probably in the Middle East, after the last OoA episode. Of course this is the same time frame when they have found modern fossils in Israel in fairly close proximity to Neanderthal fossils at around the same time. Maybe there was some cross-breeding between the neighbors. And of course I figure that there will be more about the DNA evidence as time goes by. I will keep looking.

Bill Gill

I personaly have several items that are some type of metal
embeded in rock.

one looks like a piece of a fence or something.

and one looks like a tooth !!!

Im not saying that they are really old , its just that where I found the items was beside a cannal that was recently dug on a piece of land that had never been developed.

they are each embeded in what looks like sediment.
and the rock resembles the same type of rock that the
popular hammer below was found in.

it was that the area has never been disturbed in the past that causes me to wonder how these metal items got there at a depth of 5 - 6 ft underground.

the metal seems so old that even when you use a file to etch the metal it only shines for a few days then dulls again but never rust.

this is why I asked if there were any photos. that would help the thread or at least the exact location where the stone chips were found.

it may be simple glacier action that produced the chips or shards of stone.

I wish you still had the photos , 3.5 million year old footprints !!

and walking side by side !!

I believe this even upsets the sumerian 450 thousand year
old alien dna manipulation of hominids so that they would have a work force on earth to mine gold.

Originally Posted By: paul

I wish you still had the photos , 3.5 million year old footprints !!

and walking side by side !!

I wonder if they were actually walking side by side. Apparently one was walking the footprints of another, so they could have been separated in time.

Of course photos still exist. There's one on that website. I guess other copies in libraries. Unless it's all a hoax, then that would explain nobody else paying attention!

Quote:

I believe this even upsets the sumerian 450 thousand year
old alien dna manipulation of hominids so that they would have a work force on earth to mine gold.

Haha.

First, don't pander to Creationist myths. For Creationist stuff go to my post in NQS.

The Laetoli footprints are well documented. Wiki has an article on them, with photos. They were found by Mary Leakey in 1974 and have been studied by very credible scientists and documented in very credible journals. They demonstrate that there were bipedal hominins at around 3.5 MYA. The chances of the walkers being separated in time are rather poor. They were created because the creatures were walking in volcanic ash that had been recently wetted by rain fall. Then they were preserved because the volcano erupted again and covered them up. If there had been much time between the 3 walkers the ash would have been dry and the foot prints would not have been preserved. The fact that they were preserved in volcanic ash was also very valuable, because volcanic ash is very easily datable using atomic decay rates.

However, the Laetoli walkers, presumably Pithecanthropus Africanus, were not the first bipedal animals. Aridpithecus Ramidus was developing bipedalism at 4.4 MYA. Aridpithecus Ramidus was a part time bipedal animal. He was bipedal on the ground and quadrupedal in trees. According to This article in Wiki Ardi was not ancestral to Homo. So there were apparently several species working on bipedalism at the time.

Bill Gill

Originally Posted By: Bill

First, don't pander to Creationist myths. For Creationist stuff go to my post in NQS.

Huh?

Quote:

erupted again and covered them up. If there had been much time between the 3 walkers the ash would have been dry and the foot prints would not have been preserved. The fact

Maybe you have your creationist radar set too sensitively. I was wondering how they knew they were walking side by side. Even a few seconds time difference would mean they're not walking side by side. Maybe they were an hour apart and just following the trail left by the previous ones to get somewhere independently.

The side-by-side was supposed to show some social behavior. But I don't see how it can. Surely many animals would take the easiest route (the one already made) or follow the trail of others - well OK that's social, but not as much as modern humans.

The creationist remark wasn't so much about your post, just a general warning to watch what you are replying to. I definitely would like to keep this thread about science. So any replies that seem to be aimed at creationist myths should be take over to NQS.

As far as walking side by side. There have been some that speculated beyond the evidence of the tracks. Some have tried to claim that the 2 in the lead were showing affection for each other by walking close together. We don't really know that, there are probably all kinds of reasons why they might have been walking close together. What we can say is that they were probably a group. After all there was not a big crowd of them there. It wasn't like walking down the street in a city. They were probably living in relatively small groups. Assuming that they were searching for food, or traveling to a place where they could find food or a place to spend the night then the group as a whole would probably be somewhat spread out over the landscape. We do know that they were close in time to one another. They were walking in what amounted to thin mud, which would probably have dried fairly quickly.

Bill Gill

Originally Posted By: bill

the Laetoli walkers, presumably Pithecanthropus Africanus

Now all you people will learn that I am not omniscient. I do occasionally make a mistake. Where I said "Pithecanthropus Africanus" I should have said "Pithecanthropus Afarensis". Sorry about that.

Bill Gill

Originally Posted By: Bill

........................> I definitely would like to keep this thread about science. So any replies that seem to be aimed at creationist myths should be take over to NQS.

As far as walking side by side. There have been some that speculated beyond the evidence of the tracks. Some have tried to claim that the 2 in the lead were showing affection for each other by walking close together. We don't really know that, there are probably all kinds of reasons why they might have been walking close together. What we can say is that they were probably a group. After all there was not a big crowd of them there. It wasn't like walking down the street in a city. They were probably living in relatively small groups. Assuming that they were searching for food, or traveling to a place where they could find food or a place to spend the night then the group as a whole would probably be somewhat spread out over the landscape. We do know that they were close in time to one another. They were walking in what amounted to thin mud, which would probably have dried fairly quickly.

Bill Gill

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

You make a lot of sense Bill Gill, especially in regard to the two walking close together 3.6 million years ago.

I have taken some items from the afore mentioned Scientific America article, which bears out what you said above.
>
Since Darwin's time it was thought that once upright posture and bipedalism had developed, the hands were then free to evolve manipulative skills. Stone toolmaking, it was supposed, was the critical factor in the emergence of early man. This view, however, was not universally accepted. Some believed that the brain, not erect posture, led the way. Although functional analysis of hominid bones from Africa pointed to early bipedalism, the fossils themselves could not provide the definitive answer.

The Laetoli trackway settled the issue. Excavated by Mary Leakey and her team in 1978 and 1979, the trackway consists of some 70 footprints in two parallel trails about 30 meters long, preserved in hardened volcanic ash. The best-preserved footprints are unmistakably human in appearance and yield evidence of soft tissue anatomy that fossil bones cannot provide. It is significant that the earliest stone tools known are about 2.6 million years old, made nearly a million years after the footprints at Laetoli. The Laetoli hominids were therefore fully bipedal well before the advent of toolmaking�an event considered to define the beginning of culture�and the traces they left behind provide evidence that the feet led the way in the evolution of the modern human brain.

The Laetoli footprints are the most ancient traces yet found of humanity's ancestors.
The prints were impressed in volcanic ash in that location 3.6 million years ago, in sight of the Sadiman volcano 20 kilometers away, whose subsequent ash falls buried them under 30 meters of deposit. Over the aeons the landscape eroded, until now, less than a few feet of soil protects the fragile surface.
While lifting the tracks is doubtless technically possible, it would be enormously costly, require much research, and risk damage or loss. For these reasons, the decision to rebury the site has been made, and if future conditions allow the site to be opened to visitors, it will have been saved.

Mary Leakey may have had the last word when she examined the tracks together with other Anthropologists. She said:-

"Here at this point, and you do not need to be an expert tracker to discern that the lighter hominid stops, pauses, and turns slightly to the left, as though briefly scanning the landscape and then both continue on to the north.
This motion, so intensely human, transcends time. Three million six hundred thousand years ago, a remote ancestor�just as you or I�experienced a moment of doubt." <

Originally Posted By: Bill

The creationist remark wasn't so much about your post, just a general warning to watch what you are replying to.

Still confused. I was replying to Paul wishing somebody still had photos. I have no idea how these footprints have anything to do with creationism.

Quote:

reasons why they might have been walking close together.

Still don't see how we know or even remotely suspect they were walking close together. If it took an hour for the mud to dry out, they could have been a mile apart.

If there's no evidence they were walking next to each other then the "showing affection" you mentioned wasn't there. So it really would be just speculation.

Originally Posted By: kallog

Still don't see how we know or even remotely suspect they were walking close together.

The probability is that they were walking together. If they had passed that way at different times, even a few minutes apart, it is unlikely that their tracks would have stayed aligned. They would have wandered back and forth, even if just a short distance. When people, or animals, walk together the tracks tend to stay somewhat aligned. So they were probably together. Saying anything beyond that about them is getting to be pure speculation.

I think the important thing about the tracks is that they show bipedalism at that early stage in our evolution. There is still some controversy as to whether they show full time bipedalism. Some think they do, some think they don't. The difference is whether A. Afarensis lived on the ground, or moved back and forth between the ground and trees. And of course if they switched between walking and climbing, how much of the time did they spend doing each one.

My opinion is that they probably did both walking and climbing. However, a million and a half years later Homo Ergaster was definitely a dedicated walker. So sometime in between A. Afarensis and H. Ergaster there was a breakthrough in the evolution of modern H. Sapiens that led, after another million and a half years to us.

Bill Gill

Originally Posted By: Bill

stayed aligned. They would have wandered back and forth, even if just a short distance. When people, or animals,

Ah.

Quote:

full time bipedalism. Some think they do, some think they don't. The difference is whether A. Afarensis lived on the ground, or moved back and forth between the ground and trees. And of course if they switched between walking and

I guess it depends how full time it has to be. Even modern humans can live in trees (sort of). Seems to me that the walking shaped foot they had might have been less flexible for use as a hand like monkeys do.

Still, I never realized anything like humans was alive 3.6 million years ago! Seems like they spent a long time not evolving much, or maybe getting killed off and having to start again.

Originally Posted By: kallog

Still, I never realized anything like humans was alive 3.6 million years ago! Seems like they spent a long time not evolving much, or maybe getting killed off and having to start again.

Well, there is some question about how human they were. Notice that they were Australopithecus Afarensis, not Homo Afarensis. However they are definitely counted as our cousins at a large remove. They were definitely not apes. If I recall correctly Australopithecus means Southern Ape Man, kind of part way between apes and men. They had larger brains than apes, but not as big as Homo. The first of our ancestors that was actually considered Homo was Homo Habilis (handy man). H. Habilis fossils were the first to be found associated with stone tools, hence their name. The first tools are dated around 2.5 MYA, and H. Habilis fossils first appear some time after that. Since the earliest H. Afarensis fossils go back almost 4 MYA the line of descent of human ancestors goes back to around 4 MYA, depending on how you count it. Ardipithecus Ramidus dates from around 4.6 MYA, and was a part time biped.

Bill Gill

Originally Posted By: Bill

If I recall correctly Australopithecus means Southern Ape Man, kind of part way between apes and men.

We are apes, Bill, of the family Hominidae, i.e. great apes, together with chimps, gorillas and orangutans. But I expect you know that, and I've just misunderstood you.

Originally Posted By: redewenur

We are apes, Bill, of the family Hominidae, i.e. great apes, together with chimps, gorillas and orangutans

Well, and your family pet is a wolf who is much more closely related to the wild wolves than we are to the apes. The dog evolved from a wild predator to a human companion around 15,000 years ago. The last common ancestor of man and the living apes was something like 5 to 7 MYA. I think most everybody understands what we mean when we talk about man and apes separately.

Bill Gill

Originally Posted By: Bill

Well, and your family pet is a wolf who is much more closely related to the wild wolves than we are to the apes.

I'm curious as to why you continue to state that we are merely related to apes. We are apes, and the time since the minor genetic divergence from chimpanzees is irrelevant to the taxonomic facts. Of course people recognize the difference between humans and other apes. Unfortunately, as with yourself, that tends to lead them into insisting that we're not apes.

By the same logic then dogs are still wolves.

And if you continue that backward you don't have any species at all???

He is using the standard biological science defininiton of species life-domain-kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species you are using some other species definition which you will need to define.

Under life-domain-kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species
dog and wolf are different as are man and ape. They merely share a common ancestory.

You want to define a different species definition they may not be, wont be sure until you define it.

Of course it doesn't follow that dogs are still wolves. The point here is that dogs are still of the family Canidae, which includes wolves, just as Homo sapiens is still of the family Hominidae, which includes the rest of the Great Apes.

Talk of species is an irrelevant diversion from that point.

Well, if you are going to be that way about it then chimpanzees are human. They belong to the family Hominidae the same as we do. It all depends on your point of view. And my point of view is that there are enough differences between us and the other Hominidae that I will consider us to be completely different beings. There is a relationship, but then you may have some relations you would like to have no connections with.

That being said there is a huge question of just when our ancestors started being Homo. Ian Tattersall in his writings has made the point that the definition of the genus Homo is a very subjective thing. The most accepted criteria are brain size and tool making. But it appears that some of the australopithecines may have been tool makers. Their brains though were not much larger than the brains of modern chimpanzees. Any way the definition of homo is very vague, except that we are now the only species in the genus.

Bill: "Well, if you are going to be that way about it then chimpanzees are human."

That's a curious and unreasonable thing to say, Bill. Okay, you reject the current classification system, and evidently have your own reasons for placing humans in their own separate family rather than in that of the other Great Apes. No more to said on that point then.

What I am trying to get across is that apes and humans may share a common ancestor, but does not make us apes and it doesn't make apes humans. For example, I suspect that if I could trace my family tree far enough back I could probably find that I am related to the Queen of England. But that doesn't make me royal. So sharing an ancestor with the apes doesn't make me an ape. While we share a lot of our genetic material with the apes it still doesn't mean that much. After all I have heard that we share 60% of our genetic material with fruit flies. That sure doesn't make me a fruit fly.

The way that the Linnaean classification system works is to classify life forms by what other life forms they are like. The ones that are the most alike are classified as being a species. Groups of life forms that are somewhat alike, but not enough alike to be considered species are genera. Then they diversify up to the family. And from that on to more general classifications. But while these classifications are based on similarities, the thing that makes different taxa are things that are different. So if you get up to the family, you are just saying that there is a relationship between them. So all you can say when you say that humans and the apes are in the same family is that there is some distant relationship and they are somewhat alike. That doesn't mean that you can then assign the same lower level classification. Apes are enough different from homo sapiens that trying to say they are the same is not a realistic statement.

Bill Gill

Originally Posted By: Bill Gill

Bill Gill said...

What I am trying to get across is that apes and humans may share a common ancestor, but does not make us apes and it doesn't make apes humans. ..............................> So sharing an ancestor with the apes doesn't make me an ape. While we share a lot of our genetic material with the apes it still doesn't mean that much. After all I have heard that we share 60% of our genetic material with fruit flies. That sure doesn't make me a fruit fly.

Bill Gill

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Well said Bill,
of course while we share a lot of Genetic material with the apes.
There are also a number of great ureconcilable differences between ape and man.
Notably, Man the world over, everywhere, truly communicate thru speech and a developed language.
Apes, the world over, communicate using their voice-box for making
various single vocal notes.

Originally Posted By: Bill Gill

Bill Gill said,

The way that the Linnaean classification system works is to classify life forms by what other life forms they are like. The ones that are the most alike are classified as being a species. Groups of life forms that are somewhat alike, but not enough alike to be considered species are genera. Then they diversify up to the family. And from that on to more general classifications. But while these classifications are based on similarities, the thing that makes different taxa are things that are different. So if you get up to the family, you are just saying that there is a relationship between them. So all you can say when you say that humans and the apes are in the same family is that there is some distant relationship and they are somewhat alike. That doesn't mean that you can then assign the same lower level classification. Apes are enough different from homo sapiens that trying to say they are the same is not a realistic statement.

Bill Gill

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Mike Kremer said,
Carl Linnaeus attempted to classify similar looking plants, flowers and animals back in the 1750's. Things that looked similar, were placed in the same box. Science has advanced greatly in the last 260 years, where there have been a number of re-classifications.

Is it your opinion that there might be...even should be...a human/ape re-classification in the future due to the use of DNA?

I wonder if a change has been noted, but not officialy registered, for fear of upsetting the preverbial 'apple-cart?'

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Is it your opinion that there might be...even should be...a human/ape re-classification in the future due to the use of DNA?

Personally I don't see that there is any need to do a such a re-classification. The DNA evidence seems to indicate that the apes are our nearest relatives. So the current classifications seem to me to be perfectly satisfactory.

Bill Gill

Bill- I think most of us understand "what we mean when we talk about man and apes separately". Rede was pointing out that in fact we are not separate species. We too are a form of ape. There are branches to the evolutionary tree, I know, but do we not carry with us the evidence of our origin in our genetic make-up?

Since I posted this (whilst I was typing it), Mike and Bill expertly disposed of the point I was trying to make!

I have left it there as I feel strongly that we need to acknowledge that we have evolved on this planet, as have other species, and we are not the most important, just very much more noisy and opinionated than most. And more destructive, often because we feel we are different and special.

Originally Posted By: Bill

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Is it your opinion that there might be...even should be...a human/ape re-classification in the future due to the use of DNA?

Personally I don't see that there is any need to do a such a re-classification. The DNA evidence seems to indicate that the apes are our nearest relatives. So the current classifications seem to me to be perfectly satisfactory.

Glad to see we're clear on that then. For a moment I thought you were suggesting that we're not, or ought not to be, in the Great Ape family.

Originally Posted By: redewenur

Glad to see we're clear on that then. For a moment I thought you were suggesting that we're not, or ought not to be, in the Great Ape family.

Actually I think that the better way to say that is that we and the apes are in the same family. Saying that we are apes doesn't say much about the many differences between humans and apes. And remember that the family name is Hominidae. Which is based on homo, or human. So it isn't that we are apes, but we have admitted the apes into our exclusive company, as poor relations.

And don't forget that we are special. Because we are the only species on Earth that can make major changes in the way the Earth is organized. Claiming that we are just apes is simply a way to try to put down our humanity. We are human and we are special. Keep in mind of course that there is no good reason why we are special. There is no great plan that we are following, it just happened that way.

And of course if horses were the intelligent lifeforms, then they would be special. The same way we are special.

Bill Gill

Thanks for your opinions, Bill. Obviously, I see things differently. I have no objection to the term 'ape'. It's simply a label for a particular group of genetically related animals that includes us. The differences in capabilities between species are of no account in the taxonomic system.

Originally Posted By: redewenur

Thanks for your opinions, Bill. Obviously, I see things differently. I have no objection to the term 'ape'. It's simply a label for a particular group of genetically related animals that includes us. The differences in capabilities between species are of no account in the taxonomic system.

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Mike said...
Well I am afraid I am another (of many millions?) who sees things differently.
Nor am I too happy with your above last sentence Rede.
Prehaps you ought to add- "The differences in capabilities between species are of no account in the taxonomic system as recognised at the present time?
For I feel sure that eventually it will be scientificly recognised that Apes and Humans are indeed different species.

Originally Posted By: Bill Gill

Bill Gill said-
"And don't forget that we are special. Because we are the only species on Earth that can make major changes in the way the Earth is organized. Claiming that we are just apes is simply a way to try to put down our humanity. We are human and we are special. Keep in mind of course that there is no good reason why we are special. There is no great plan that we are following, it just happened that way."

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Yes Bill, we are special, due to the huge differences in capabilitys... besides our Speech, Art and Writing, and our ability to re-shape the the World (as you mentioned) that we live in....I cannot see any species of monkey or ape, even given another 50 or 100 million years of time... ever develop the technology or ability to leave our Earth and walk on the Moon.
That seems the best proof to me, that we are supremely unique in our intellectual and cognitive skills.
That said, I do believe we will eventually name ourselves, as a separate species.
All Species of animals upon Earth have developed to the top of their particular tree, accordingly to their location, their interaction with other species, the local fauna, food chain, weather, and historical time line etc. etc.

Hundreds of thousands of seemingly perfect Ok Darwinean species have become extinct, over the last few million years.
Most of these single species having reached the 'top of their tree', did not develop any further than we were able to unfold, or tease out from their Darwinian and Archeological historys.

If as humans, we really did develop from Lemurs, or tree Shrews etc, (one school of thought) then it must have taken a few million years of Darwinian development, all the while keeping a very low profile, together with a lot of luck.

If true, we deserve to be in our own seperate species.
If we humans arrived by any other means, we still deserve to have a seperate classification.

Nor do I see much point in using or talking about DNA to back up theories.
We all know that every form of life upon this Earth, is based upon DNA
So there is not a lot of argument to be gained by stating that we have
a certain percentage DNA simularitys to Monkeys.
Dont forget we all have DNA simularities to all other species of Earth life, (as well other forms of life yet to be found within our Universe)?
For I believe the DNA Double Helix, as the basis of life, is probably everywhere.

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

[quote=redewenur]Thanks for your opinions, Bill. Obviously, I see things differently. I have no objection to the term 'ape'. It's simply a label for a particular group of genetically related animals that includes us. The differences in capabilities between species are of no account in the taxonomic system.

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Mike said...
Well I am afraid I am another (of many millions?) who sees things differently.
Nor am I too happy with your above last sentence Rede.
Prehaps you ought to add- "The differences in capabilities between species are of no account in the taxonomic system as recognised at the present time?
For I feel sure that eventually it will be scientificly recognised that Apes and Humans are indeed different species.

Mike, it would help if you understood the difference between family and species. Presently you are clearly unaware of the distinction. There is no scientific dispute - and there never has been as far as I know - regarding the fact that humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans are each of a different species. No taxonomist ever said that any one of those species is the same as any other. You may wish to see a different system that doesn't offend your sensiblities regarding human superiority, but I see very little hope for you in that respect.

Is it really not enough for you that humans are patently superior in certain respects? Do you really require that the most logical, accurate and scientifically verifiable system of classification ever achieved, i.e. DNA sequencing and analysis, be thrown out to satisfy your pride and indignation.

Frankly, Mike - and I very much regret having to say this to you - the fact is, you don't have a clue what you're talking about re both taxonomy and DNA.

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

All Species of animals upon Earth have developed to the top of their particular tree, accordingly to their location, their interaction with other species, the local fauna, food chain, weather, and historical time line etc. etc.

Mike, I'm not sure just what you mean by that. One way of reading it is that a species has a natural 'lid' on how far it can develop. I'm afraid I can't go along with that. It implies that there is some sort of goal for evolution. If that isn't what you meant I apologize. But one thing about evolution is that there is no direction to it. It is strictly random. If a species happens strictly by chance to develop a characteristic that makes it a better fit for its environment then it will expand to fill that environment. In the process it may become a new species. This usually happens when there is some change which will cut off a small group from contact with the main body of the existing species. So in fact there is nothing to keep any other animal on this planet from developing, through a long process of evolution and speciation, into another intelligent species. Of course there is nothing to make them do it either.

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

For I believe the DNA Double Helix, as the basis of life, is probably everywhere.

Well, it seems to me that something like the DNA double helix will be used, but we don't really know enough about the original development of life on this planet to make any hard and fast statements about how it would develop on other planets. Right now we have just one example of life. That is really not enough to generalize to all possible forms of life.

Rede, I think we are pretty much in agreement, except that I don't think of us as being apes, just remote relatives of the apes.

Bill Gill

Originally Posted By: Bill

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

All Species of animals upon Earth have developed to the top of their particular tree, accordingly to their location, their interaction with other species, the local fauna, food chain, weather, and historical time line etc. etc.

Mike, I'm not sure just what you mean by that. One way of reading it is that a species has a natural 'lid' on how far it can develop. I'm afraid I can't go along with that. It implies that there is some sort of goal for evolution. If that isn't what you meant I apologize. But one thing about evolution is that there is no direction to it. It is strictly random. If a species happens strictly by chance to develop a characteristic that makes it a better fit for its environment then it will expand to fill that environment. In the process it may become a new species. This usually happens when there is some change which will cut off a small group from contact with the main body of the existing species. So in fact there is nothing to keep any other animal on this planet from developing, through a long process of evolution and speciation, into another intelligent species. Of course there is nothing to make them do it either.

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Yes I do understand you Bill. thank you for being so patient.
I realise my explanations are often very poor. It is a slight dyslexic failing that I have at times.
I realise I should not have mentioned "top" with regard to animal/species tree.
What i meant to convey is that hundreds of our Earth species have died out over time...
dependant upon their location, their interaction with other species, the local fauna, food chain, weather, and historical time line etc.
Meaning...that as far as we humans are concerned, they did reach the top of their evolutionary tree at the time they died out.
Of course they could have gone on developing (if thats the correct word)with no natural lid (as you mentioned) were they not subject to those above pressures that I mentioned.

Then again they they might not have progressed up the evolutionary tree, but remained virtually static ...similar to the crocodillian famillies, which don't seemed to have changed over millions of years.

I wonder what progressing UP the evolutionary tree... really means for us humans?

As usual I have my own very peculiar thoughts upon various subjects, one of them being evolution.
Here I believe that the longer any species lives....the less likely any
Genetic or evolutionary change will be for the good, or of benefit to that species.

My basis for saying that is ...that earler genetic changes are (always) good, because the species is/and was, still around, and muliplying.
Until it sucuumbed to various evolutionary pressures... and then went extinct.
Hope i have explained my thoughts a bit better this time.

I do agree with you Bill, that theoretically there should be no end to the development of a particular species up the evolutionary tree....
providing there is not any serious competition from the interactions I mentioned previously??.(i.e location, their interaction with other species, the local fauna, food chain, weather, and historical time line etc) bringing everything to an extinct halt.

Your thoughts upon what progressing up the evolutionary tree means for us humans?
....and has it a different meaning for other (non human)species??
I mean if a species does NOT go extinct, is it theoretically climing up the evolutionary tree.?..Or..would you say that it is ultimately putting extinction pressures upon the other remaining species ....to their detriment?

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

For I believe the DNA Double Helix, as the basis of life, is probably everywhere.

Originally Posted By: Bill Gill

Bill Gill said in reply..

Well, it seems to me that something like the DNA double helix will be used, but we don't really know enough about the original development of life on this planet to make any hard and fast statements about how it would develop on other planets. Right now we have just one example of life. That is really not enough to generalize to all possible forms of life.

Rede, I think we are pretty much in agreement, except that I don't think of us as being apes, just remote relatives of the apes.

Bill Gill

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Your thoughts upon what progressing up the evolutionary tree means for us humans?
....and has it a different meaning for other (non human)species??

I have some question about what "progressing up the evolutionary tree" means. It almost sounds like there is some kind of a path that evolution follows. From what you said up above I don't think that is what you mean. The problem to me is the idea of progress in relation to evolution. I have problems myself trying to keep from using the general idea of progress, but as I understand evolution it is not a matter of progress.

Evolution is a matter of undirected random change in the genome, which is voted up or down by natural selection. Under that regime we can't really say that any organism has progressed over any other organism. All we can say is that it has changed, and it either succeeded or died out. I think we can talk about primitive organisms, but only as long as we are clear that what we mean is an earlier version of the organism, not that the new organism is better. It may or may not be better, in the environment in which it finds itself. But better just means that it has a greater survival rate.

Bill Gill

I agree totally with you Bill but have a couple of additions.

Not only does primitive organism mean earlier the earlier organism may infact be more complex. It is a myth that primitive organisms are infact simplier than later decendants (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13...complexity.html)

People assume natural selection is a linear process and Human's are even somehow outside it. Events occur outside the sphere of biology can and do abruptly change the enviroment and hence as per Bill's comment there is no possible concept of progressing. If a massive metorite plowed into Earth tomorrow the most likely survivor would be (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20534-goldmine-worm-shows-animals-could-be-living-on-mars.html). It requires no light, its temperature is very well protected it has a very good survival prospect in such an event we and most other animals and organisms do not.

Originally Posted By: Bill

reading it is that a species has a natural 'lid' on how far it can develop. I'm afraid I can't go along with that. It implies that there is some sort of goal for evolution.

Surely there must be some sort of 'lid' which organisms at least approach. I had the impression that they pretty much stabilize after a long enough time. Then if the environment changes and they're suddenly not so well suited to it, they'll start to evolve more rapidly in a different direction - possibly becoming worse at surviving in their former environment.

This does imply there's a goal of being best able to survive in whatever environment it's in. But that goal would only be approached if the environment remains stable for a long enough time. Surely that's already true for many species?

Obviously there's no possibility of a "perfect" human or "perfect" bird, because none will be best suited to all possible environments.

Originally Posted By: kallog

Surely there must be some sort of 'lid' which organisms at least approach. I had the impression that they pretty much stabilize after a long enough time.

The problem with saying something like lid is that it somewhat implies something in the form of a guide. In fact organisms do tend to stabilize when they reach a level where they can successfully utilize the environment where they are established. After that evolution for that organism will be very slow unless something comes along to disrupt the environment. Their adaptation to the environment also isn't necessarily the "best" adaptation possible. It is an adaptation that is simply "good enough". There isn't any goal for evolution, unless you want to say that the goal is to keep on with life. But evolution has no interest in any given species of organism. If the random changes which occur in the DNA of a particular species cause it to be better adapted to its environment, well that is good for that species. If it isn't good for the species, well that is too bad, but evolution doesn't keep score.

As far as perfection is concerned, if we were perfect then we would have fewer backaches, fallen arches, and sinus headaches. A lot of the physical ails of humans are caused by the fact that evolution never starts over, it just twists things around so they will do the job, and keeps on going. I would fire any engineer who did as bad a job of designing a system as we show.

Bill Gill

Originally Posted By: Bill

disrupt the environment. Their adaptation to the environment also isn't necessarily the "best" adaptation possible. It is an adaptation that is simply "good enough".

Yea I guess that's a handy advantage of mass extinctions, it does give it a chance to start over. Loss of dinosaurs gave mammals a chance, and mammals we able to evolve to have higher intelligence than dinosaurs. But then again we weren't able to be as big (small human mammals tend to kill off big ponderous ones). So it's all a bit meaningless to say what's better or worse. Maybe with a human extinction something even more "interesting" might replace us.

Quote:

headaches. A lot of the physical ails of humans are caused by the fact that evolution never starts over, it just twists things around so they will do the job, and keeps on

A lot of those things won't have a significant impact on survival, so they don't really matter. Those problems might have been worse in the past but now they're at a level where we can still reproduce just about as well despite them. It reminds me of a control system where the error is below the sensitivity level or the noise, so it doesn't get corrected.

There's also the issue that "bad" characteristics can just be more strongly expressed forms of good ones - like nature is still oscillating around the optimum. I saw an article on here explaining that people with some schizoid characteristics have a reproductive advantage over normal people, and that stops schizophrenia from being weeded out. There's a similar theory (maybe not well accepted) about male homosexuality - Being more attracted to males helps women reproduce more, but it also means their male children can inherit the same characteristic and it becomes a fault.

Aside from main subject -

A problem with Linnaean taxonomy is that it results in paraphyletic groups.

"Turns out we DID come from monkeys!"
http://www.youtube.com/aronra#p/search/1/4A-dMqEbSk8

At about t=0:53s
"... humans can be and already are properly classified currently both as apes and as monkeys."

Even Linnaeus had trouble not including humans as simians.

"It is not pleasing to me that I must place humans among the primates, but man is intimately familiar with himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name is applied. But I desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general difference between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. I certainly know of none. If only someone might tell me one! If I called man a simian or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to, in accordance with the law of the discipline [Natural History]."

from letter (1747) to the local Lutheran Archbishop Gmelin, who accused Linneaus of �impiety� for classifying humans with other primates

Snagged this quote from the pdf:
http://facstaff.unca.edu/cnicolay/BIO108/108-02a-classification.pdf

I should note that I have not read the original source of this quote. It's possible it is taken out of context, but I doubt it at this point, as it's from a professor's lecture notes. I've read elsewhere that Linnaeus faced this problem, but for all I know they derive from the same incorrect source. I mention this only because I don't want to sound like a creationist when they write "Even Darwin said ... X." You can bet your behind when a creationist starts a sentence with some variant of that phrase that he hasn't actually read the quote in context and is unaware that the context indicates the exact opposite intent that the isolated quote is intended to convey.

A concise explanation of the relationship between ourselves and the other Great Apes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OSmTPThWD_c