|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 08:42:43 [Permalink]
|
The research done by Grehan and Schwartz is interesting and it looks like it will lead to some interesting debates and further research into which of the living apes humans are most closely related. This is, after all, how science progresses.
That said, Grehan and Schwartz's claims are kind of a longshot. Malte Ebach was quoted toward the end of article saying: "Palaeoanthropology is based solely on morphology, and there is no scientific justification to favor DNA over morphological data."
Yes, there is. It is much easier for morphological similarities to be due to parallel evolution, which has nothing to do with how closely related two species are on the evolutionary tree. Just look at all the marsupials that have morphological similarities with mammals which occupy similar habitats.
The multiregional hypothesis of human evolution was also largely based on morphological similarities, but increasingly fossil evidence as well as genetic evidence is pushing that hypothesis to the very fringes of the field of physical anthropology.
Of course this has no connection to the "Out of Africa" hypothesis of human evolution, as was suggested by justintime here:
Now tie that with an earlier post of mine that challenged the out of Africa theory about early primate migration. |
How do we tie an evolutionary event that happened around 11-15 million years ago with an evolutionary event that happened 200,000-2 million years ago?
And it certainly doesn't justify justintime's truly idiotic statement: | There are wide speculation blacks are closer to gorillas, whites to chimpanzees and Asians to Orangutans. This was an attempt to explain the morphological/phenotype difference in the races and their possible branching in he evolutionary tree. |
Such speculation hasn't been seriously proposed by biologists/naturalists for decades, it was never supported by evidence, and it was never "wide" speculation.
See, just more classic bullshit from justintime; he finds one tiny shred of something based in truth and then goes on all kinds of ridiculous and often inflammatory tangents and tried to hide behind one that tiny shred of truth as if all his other idiotic statements and claims never happened. Textbook troll behavior.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/08/2011 08:44:57 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 10/08/2011 : 09:53:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by justintime
But that is exactly the opposite of what is being proposed by new scientific evidence. We are not closer to chimpanzees we are closer to orangutans. |
Baloney.| In fact the 2nd link by KY demonstrated Retroviral Insertions found "These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans." |
Read it again: "some fraction of the genome." Not the whole thing. Read the damn paper, in which the authors leave no doubt that looking at the whole genome, we are more closely related to chimps and bonobos than to anything else.
|
OK, then try explaining this.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084304.htm
|
Two words. Convergent evolution. Two more words that are probably more correct, that Marf brought up. Parallel evolution.
In either case, morphological similarities can be explained by similar environments that favore certain traits.
You have one anthropologist, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, who has been pushing his morphology trumps molecular hypothesis, orangutan vs. chimp and human relationship for years now. He even wrote a book about his hypothesis called Red Ape Orangutans and Human Origins. It was published in 1987, so you see he has been at this for a while. And while morphology is important, especially when looking at the fossil recored where DNA isn't available, it can't explain relationship as accurately as molecular biology does. I did bother to look and I can't find a single biologist who has jumped ship in favor of Schwartz's hypothesis.
Come back when the consensus changes. Or when even one other paper is written that supports Schwartz's view. Hell! Right now there isn't even a debate among evolutionary biologists, anthropologists or paleontologists on the subject.
But let's say there really is a debate. Lets even say that Schwartz is correct for a moment. That still wouldn't explain this total piece of horse-shit that you are still trying to justify:
Justintime:
There are wide speculation blacks are closer to gorillas, whites to chimpanzees and Asians to Orangutans. This was an attempt to explain the morphological/phenotype difference in the races and their possible branching in he evolutionary tree. |
Edited: because I think Paralel evolution is a better explanation than convergent evolution is. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 10:39:55 [Permalink]
|
This is not justifying anything. It is keeping an open mind on what evolutionist are saying and trying to connect the dots....
1. There is an Out of Africa theory. Gorillas are found in Africa.
2. There is a neanderthal-human hybrid. Theory out of Europe.
3. Orangutans are only found in Asia. Out of Asia theory.
The bold is my comments. Where do you think I am wrong? |
| Edited by - justintime on 10/08/2011 10:41:10 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 11:13:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
This is not justifying anything. It is keeping an open mind on what evolutionist are saying and trying to connect the dots....
1. There is an Out of Africa theory. Gorillas are found in Africa.
2. There is a neanderthal-human hybrid. Theory out of Europe.
3. Orangutans are only found in Asia. Out of Asia theory.
The bold is my comments. Where do you think I am wrong?
|
1. True
2. There is evidence that there was some interbreeding. But that would make ALL of us hybrids. There is no living human that is anything but human. It also doesn't erase the theory that homo-sapiens evolved in Africa. The competing theories have nothing to do with Neanderthal's. The idea of races are based on such insignificant differences in the genome, and the fact that all humans alive are basically genetically identical, (there are phenotypes) pretty much means that there is only one race. Humans. We're all that's left of the genus Homo.
3. ONCE AGAIN, it doesn't really matter where EARLY PRIMATES evolved. Apes evolved in Africa. So the ORIGINS of Orangutans is also out of Africa, even if they are only found in Asia.
You are confused. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 13:25:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by justintime
This is not justifying anything. It is keeping an open mind on what evolutionist are saying and trying to connect the dots....
1. There is an Out of Africa theory. Gorillas are found in Africa.
2. There is a neanderthal-human hybrid. Theory out of Europe.
3. Orangutans are only found in Asia. Out of Asia theory.
The bold is my comments. Where do you think I am wrong?
|
1. True
2. There is evidence that there was some interbreeding. But that would make ALL of us hybrids. There is no living human that is anything but human. It also doesn't erase the theory that homo-sapiens evolved in Africa. The competing theories have nothing to do with Neanderthal's. The idea of races are based on such insignificant differences in the genome, and the fact that all humans alive are basically genetically identical, (there are phenotypes) pretty much means that there is only one race. Humans. We're all that's left of the genus Homo.
3. ONCE AGAIN, it doesn't really matter where EARLY PRIMATES evolved. Apes evolved in Africa. So the ORIGINS of Orangutans is also out of Africa, even if they are only found in Asia.
You are confused.
|
Another link challenging the Out of Africa theory and that different races of humans developed separately and independently.
http://www.articlesafari.com/2010/09/critique-of-the-african-origin-theory/ |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 10/08/2011 : 15:04:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by justintime
This is not justifying anything. It is keeping an open mind on what evolutionist are saying and trying to connect the dots....
1. There is an Out of Africa theory. Gorillas are found in Africa.
2. There is a neanderthal-human hybrid. Theory out of Europe.
3. Orangutans are only found in Asia. Out of Asia theory.
The bold is my comments. Where do you think I am wrong?
|
1. True
2. There is evidence that there was some interbreeding. But that would make ALL of us hybrids. There is no living human that is anything but human. It also doesn't erase the theory that homo-sapiens evolved in Africa. The competing theories have nothing to do with Neanderthal's. The idea of races are based on such insignificant differences in the genome, and the fact that all humans alive are basically genetically identical, (there are phenotypes) pretty much means that there is only one race. Humans. We're all that's left of the genus Homo.
3. ONCE AGAIN, it doesn't really matter where EARLY PRIMATES evolved. Apes evolved in Africa. So the ORIGINS of Orangutans is also out of Africa, even if they are only found in Asia.
You are confused.
|
Another link challenging the Out of Africa theory and that different races of humans developed separately and independently.
http://www.articlesafari.com/2010/09/critique-of-the-african-origin-theory/
|
This from a site that has an article titled Apes descended from Humans – NOT the other way around., They cite Owen Lovejoy, who says no such thing.
Oh... Her's a good one:
Aryan homeland found?
I hit most viewed articles and came up with this list:
New Race/Species of Human Discovered - 32,750 views
Humans Not As Genetically Identical As We Thought - 28,560 views
Gobekli Tepe 10,000BC Monolithic Temples - 25,286 views
Studies contradict view that race doesn’t exist - 22,387 views
Blacks, Whites and Asians have different ancestors – and did not come from Africa, claims scientist - 22,188 views
So guess what? I ran a search on the author and came up with this and this, and a whole lot of sites that couldn't believe that anyone could hold such views.
Nice work. You found us a racist writing for a racist site. And no, he isn't even a scientist. He's a freaking photographer.
Now go look for your next stupid link. Whatever you do, don't back down. That wouldn't be proper trolling.
Edited to add: Oh wait! Maybe I should ask? Are you racist? Are you a white supremacist?
I mean, let's face it. You did post one of the most racist comments I have ever seen on this stie. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 16:06:16 [Permalink]
|
justintime wrote: This is not justifying anything. It is keeping an open mind on what evolutionist are saying and trying to connect the dots....
1. There is an Out of Africa theory. Gorillas are found in Africa.
2. There is a neanderthal-human hybrid. Theory out of Europe.
3. Orangutans are only found in Asia. Out of Asia theory.
The bold is my comments. Where do you think I am wrong? |
1. The Out of Africa theory refers to the hypothesis that modern humans evolved in Africa and then migrated to other parts of the world. Has nothing to do with gorillas. You just as well could have put in bold Zebras are in Africa. Shit, maybe black people are evolved from zebras! Holy crappola, my eyes are opened for the first time! I only needed to connect the dots.
2. The increasing evidence for archaic human and neanderthal interbreeding is leading to the re-classification of neanderthals as a subspecies of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.) So that certainly doesn't disprove the prevailing Out of Africa hypothesis that modern humans evolved in Africa and then migrated out of Africa. There is no "Out of Europe" hypothesis in competition with the prevailing view.
3. Orangutans are separated from modern humans by several millions of years of evolution; no one in the field of biology disputes that fact. So what is this "Out of Asia" theory?
There are only two major hypothesis regarding the origins of anatomically modern humans: multiregional and out of africa. Neither of them has ever suggested that different human races evolved from different species of modern apes. Multiregional hypothesis argues that homo erectus diverged into various subspecies starting about 2 million years ago and that the different subspecies kept interbreeding with each other as they traveled, thus collectively evolving into modern humans. Out of Africa argues that homo sapiens evolved in Africa around 200,000 years ago and proceeded to migrate and displace the Homo erectus species occupying the Old World. Again, neither has shit to do with gorillas and orangutans.
As Kil said, you are confused. And a troll.
The last article you linked to was ridiculous. Right from the get-go it shows incredible ignorance regarding the Out of Africa hypothesis, repeatedly saying shit like this: | But just because the oldest hominid fossils have been found in regions, where ideal conditions exist for their preservation, it cannot be concluded that man originated in Africa. |
Hello, dumbass, the best evidence for African origins has been genetic evidence, not fossils (although overwhelmingly the fossils also support African origins.) Genetic evidence isn't even mentioned!
The author also displays incredible ignorance of evolution, saying shit like this: | If the Negroid race could have evolved in Africa from mammals – then could the same mammals not also evolve into the Negroid race on the landmasses of South America, Australia-Papua New Guinea and India – that were once joined to Africa and shared similar ecosystem and ancestral conditions? Reason and Darwinian logic says it should be possible. |
There has never been an example in nature of species A (group 1) evolving into species B, while a different population of that same species A (group 2) separately and with no contact with group 1 evolves again into species B, and then the two separately evolved species Bs come together and are shown to be able to interbreed and have closer genomes to each other than they do to species A. This NEVER happens. Anyone with even a basic understanding on how biological evolution words can realize that it is absurd to think this could happen.
This idiot goes on about dinosaurs evolving into birds. He apparently doesn't understand what a discreet species is. Birds are not all the same species! For fuck's sake, they aren't even all the same genus, family, or order! All "races" of humans are not only the same genus and species, we're the same sub-species. How is this idiot's comparisons even remotely valid?
justintime, if you think stupidity like this is valid: | If from this life, Homo erectus could have evolved in Africa, over millions of years, why then, from the same life forms, could he not also have evolved on other continents that had a similar ecosystem and ancestral conditions? One branch of an orang utan could have evolved into an Asiatic Ape-man who also eventually stood upright and developed Mongoloid features (Java Man, Peking Man) – today’s yellow race of Chinese, Japanese, etc. The African primates and gorillas branched off into the African Ape-man – that evolved into the present Negroid race that further evolved independently in the southern continents that were all once a part of the supercontinent of Gondwanaland. A branch of another primate in Europe, now perhaps extinct and so far untraceable, could have evolved into a European Ape-man – that eventually evolved from Cro-Magnon into the Caucasian race. |
Then you are a much bigger idiot than I have given you credit for. Fucking A, the idea of several totally different species evolving into the same subspecies... my head hurts from the stupidity of it. I don't even want to get into how the genetic evidence absolutely disproves without a shadow of a doubt that this sort of hypothesis is impossible because if you give this stuff any credit at all I really doubt your ability to understand the significance of the genetic evidence. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 16:42:02 [Permalink]
|
I am not a racist nor do I subscribe to any form of racism. But I do have an insatiable curiosity and am in good company to explore such variances. I hope.
Call me what you will. I would take it all personally if that was what I professed my specialty was. But this is a skeptics friends network and it is the place to iron out some radical explanations even if it borders on the intellectual fringe.
I guess it is causing some strong resentment or judgmental reaction from a few members. My only challenge is to articulate my position and gather supporting evidence.
I could just as easily ask if being a skeptic has served any beneficial function to enhance mankind anymore than conspiracy theories contributed to the exposure of any salient defensible position that revolutionized our way of thinking. It is a marginalized few against the establishment.
Am I a minority among a minority. Then my unfiltered resistance is of the purest form.
|
| Edited by - justintime on 10/08/2011 16:43:33 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 17:14:25 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
My only challenge is to articulate my position and gather supporting evidence. |
After admitting that this is not an area that you are particularly familiar with, why do you take a position that is contrary to accepted science? That's not being a skeptic. As Dave would say, that's being a contrarian. And let me add, science itself can't function without skepticism. The positions that have become strongly held have been scrutinized for years. And while all conclusions are tentative, going to fringe sites to look for evidence against an accepted theory is silly. "Be open minded. But not so open your brains fall out." You shouldn't have needed me to tell you that the site you linked to is racist, and has a clear agenda to separate the races. And you shouldn't have needed me to tell you that a photographer is not a good source for an extraordinary hypothesis. If you want to play, be smart about it.
Also, lacking filters just makes you credulous. What we promote is critical thinking. How about applying some of that?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 17:40:00 [Permalink]
|
I applaud your patience. And admit I am besides myself to recognize critical thinking is also an applicable bias against frivolous assumptions.
The simplest explanation with the least number of assumptions is often the best explanation has guided me to navigate along the line of least resistance. So to be found confrontational is starkingly contradictory to my intended cause. How much more simpler can I get? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 20:19:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
In this very thread several links have been provided to challenge humans are closer to chimpanzees when new study suggest humans are closer to orangutans.
There are growing discrepancies and contradictions even in the evolutionist camps. One would assume the topic is ripe for skeptics and should not be so easily dismissed. |
The reason to dismiss it is that you refuse to do the work to support it. As Hitchens said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You keep on popping up with unrelated, one-off articles instead of digging deep to build a solid case for your position. Nobody here is going to do the work for you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 21:38:57 [Permalink]
|
| And instead of continuing with the discussion of the subjects at hand and responding to the counters to his claims about human evolution, justintime reverts to generally talking about himself, his intentions, and skepticism in general. I'll come back when we're back on topic. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 09:02:55 [Permalink]
|
There was a time when it was objectionable to even suggest humans are close to monkeys and share a common ancestor. Today humans are grouped with apes and in fact is an ape. The logical progression would be to identify specifically which ape is whose ancestor. We should have advanced beyond generalization given the progressive nature of scientific inquiry.
To suggest all humans came from a single black women in Africa and migrated to other parts of the world and morphologically changed to the different types of races we see today is to bring us closer to the concept of Eve in Genesis.
Or, that different races of humans developed separately and independently. Kil mentioned convergent evolution which might explain why there exist common traits even though the ancestor are unspecified or unknown as in which specific ape is whose ancestor. Our ancestors had to be different because we are morphologically different and so are the apes.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 10:49:56 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
Our ancestors had to be different because we are morphologically different and so are the apes. |
What do you mean by "we?" Are you still suggesting that humans had different ancestors that gave rise to different races? There ARE no different races of humans.
The molecular "Eve" is a metaphor and is not ment to "bring us closer to the concept of Eve in Genesis."
Hell... I don't get what you are trying to say here. Could you be more clear?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 11:12:59 [Permalink]
|
justintime wrote: There was a time when it was objectionable to even suggest humans are close to monkeys and share a common ancestor. Today humans are grouped with apes and in fact is an ape. The logical progression would be to identify specifically which ape is whose ancestor. We should have advanced beyond generalization given the progressive nature of scientific inquiry.
To suggest all humans came from a single black women in Africa and migrated to other parts of the world and morphologically changed to the different types of races we see today is to bring us closer to the concept of Eve in Genesis.
Or, that different races of humans developed separately and independently. Kil mentioned convergent evolution which might explain why there exist common traits even though the ancestor are unspecified or unknown as in which specific ape is whose ancestor. Our ancestors had to be different because we are morphologically different and so are the apes. |
None of this responds to the biological impossibility of two different species (you know what different species are, right? That means they can't produce viable offspring with each other) separately evolving into the same species.
Convergent evolution has nothing to do with it: bats and birds both having wings are an example of convergent evolution, but they aren't even remotely the same species. Marsupial lions are much more closely related to kangaroos, even though they have more in common morphologically with lions.
Put a gorilla in one environment, and an orangutan in a separate but identical environment, and over a few million years they might evolve into creatures with extremely similar traits, but those two creatures will not be able to interbreed with each other and they will not be close relatives. But that you exactly what you are suggesting happened with the different human "races".
To summarize, your argument is stupid because it is not only contradicted by molecular, fossil, and morphological evidence, but it is a biological impossibility. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/09/2011 11:13:59 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evolution Questions
