Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 4:39 PM
404 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,867 Year: 16,473/21,208 Month: 2,362/3,593 Week: 475/882 Day: 96/97 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Author Topic:   Human Evolution (re: If evolved from apes, why still apes?)
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 136 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 76 of 128 (455834)
02-14-2008 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Wounded King
02-13-2008 7:36 PM


Re: Keeping up with the literature
Wounded King writes:

In terms of the topic in the immediate past molbiogirl was specifically talking about genetic similarity.

After another review, I have to concede this point to you. I guess I got a little muddled by reading too fast.

I would agree that for constructing a phylogenetic tree you would probably be better of going with traditional approaches, I'm not sure if anyone has really tried using indels and other forms of copy number variation as a basis for such analyses.Building a phylogeny is not the be all and end all of evolutionary relatedness I would suggest.

I'm not sure I understand what else you think there could be to evolutionary relatedness than phylogeny. After all, phylogenies, when done correctly, are taken to directly represent evolutionary relatedness. Furthermore, the basic definition of "phylogenetics" is the study of evolutionary relationships between organisms.

I guess ecological and behavioral differences are important, too, but these can't really be considered evolutionary distinctions, because dolphins and penguins aren't fish, even though they live in the water and swim like fish.

Anyway, this is all off-topic. Maybe we could start a new thread to discuss genetic factors in evolutionary relatedness. I'm not a geneticist (though I did do undergrad research in proteomics and bioinformatics), but I'm sure there's plenty I could learn from you about genetics and evolution.

Thanks.


Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Wounded King, posted 02-13-2008 7:36 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Wounded King, posted 02-14-2008 4:28 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1533 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 77 of 128 (455845)
02-14-2008 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Blue Jay
02-14-2008 12:17 AM


Re: Keeping up with the literature
I'm not sure I understand what else you think there could be to evolutionary relatedness than phylogeny. After all, phylogenies, when done correctly, are taken to directly represent evolutionary relatedness.

...

Anyway, this is all off-topic. Maybe we could start a new thread to discuss genetic factors in evolutionary relatedness.

I'm not sure that there is a thread's worth to it. All I mean is that while classical phylogenetics can tell you plenty about who is most closely related to you and reconstruct an evolutionary history of cladogenesis, it tells you very little about what the actual functional basis is for the differences between one species from another in terms of phenotype.

My own research is in Developmental biology and I come at this more from an evo-devo perspective. I am therefore more interested in changes in gene regulation and the effects of large scale genetic events such as gene duplication and divergence, or even wholesale genome duplications. I don't really care when chickens and frogs last had a common ancestor, I just want to know what is different and what is the same in the way they develop and what the genetic basis of those differences is.

You might think of it as a more functional form of evolutionary relatedness, connected to the genetic basis of functional morphological/phenotypic change rather than to in many cases neutral genetic change used as a yardstick for measuring divergence times and determining phylogeny.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Blue Jay, posted 02-14-2008 12:17 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Blue Jay, posted 02-16-2008 6:04 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 136 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 78 of 128 (456265)
02-16-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Wounded King
02-14-2008 4:28 AM


Re: Keeping up with the literature
All I mean is that while classical phylogenetics can tell you plenty about who is most closely related to you and reconstruct an evolutionary history of cladogenesis, it tells you very little about what the actual functional basis is for the differences between one species from another in terms of phenotype.

See, I understand this perfectly. And, this fits right back in with kakip's original topic, and with skepticfaith's continuation thereof.

The differences between us and chimpanzees in behavior and phenotype are the reason we can coexist with the chimpanzees, as opposed to requiring their destruction or assimilation into us as a condition of our rise to the "civilized condition." We didn't have to remove or replace them, because their use of a different habitat and a different way of life (both more suited to their phenotypes) didn't place them as competitors for our niche. To the contrary, we competed with ourselves more than with them.

I think the misconception happening here is that the chimpanzee and the gorilla are relict populations of the lower life-forms from which evolutionists purport our species to have evolved, and that they are therefore mindless brutes who failed to make the transition to human. They are a failure, and we are the success story.

The problem is that the theory of evolution is not anthropocentric in nature. The chimpanzee has evolved from our common ancestor as much as we have, and is therefore equally "advanced," if the term must be used (evolutionists prefer 'derived').

It has been stated by skepticfaith (and refuted by molbiogirl) that chimpanzees are more like our common ancestor than we are. The problem is that the fossil record for chimpanzees isn't as complete as the record for humans, so we can't confidently identify the common ancestor, per se. Australopithecus seems most logical of the fossils we know for sure, because it has facial and cranial features that more closely resemble a chimpanzee's (boxed dental arcade, long canine roots, no nose bridge, larger brow ridge, etc.), but hips, legs and foramen magnum more like us than them.

For the time being, Australopithecus serves as a grand transitional fossil (and will continue to serve as such for some time), because of its mix of human-like and chimpanzee-like traits. However, we may, in the future, find an earlier fossil which shows better the transition from chimpanzee-like ape to Lucy (such fossils have been reported, but their remains are too few to be of diagnostic quality).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Wounded King, posted 02-14-2008 4:28 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Eclogite
Junior Member (Idle past 3285 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 79 of 128 (458273)
02-28-2008 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by molbiogirl
02-01-2008 5:35 PM


The Truth is Down There
molbiogirl said:
You can't tell from a fossil that it "died in a flood". If, by some stretch of the imagination you think you can, please tell me how. And back up your "theories" with evidence from the scientific literature. Your word is not good enough for me.

Well, I am pretty rusty, but I wouldn't find this especially difficult.

Since we are talking flood sedimentation then we are speaking of deposition in a terrestrial environment: flood plain, delta, lake. So I am looking for clastic sediments and, since this is a flood deposit, sediments that display the characteristics of high energy and rapid deposition. I expect to find my fossil towards the bottom of the bed; I will not be surprised to see the lower bed boundary is erosional; I expect a wide range of particle sizes (i.e. poor sorting)that fine upwards. If my fossil is found in that situation, ideally along with a mixture of others not typically found in the same environment, and the remains are broken or disarticulated, then I shall be pretty confident I have a thanatoassemblage (I see that thanatocoenosis is now the preferred term) and that the beastie has "died in a flood".

These, by the way, are not 'theories', but a standard approach that would be known to any undergraduate geology major. However you, justifiably, ask for evidence from the scientific literature. The aspects relating to the character of flood sediments may be found in any elementary sedimentology text. I am from a vintage that used Pettijohn, or Krumbein and Sloss, but I am sure they have long joined their own thanatoassemblage.

The logic of the foregoing for identifying a beastie that "died in a flood" should be self evident and compelling. If it is not let me know and I shall try to locate a field geology textbook that addressess it.

I mention all this for a single reason: if we intend to decry scientific ignorance on the part of creationists (as has been done and defended several times in this thread) I think we should also decry it on the part of evolutionists. I hope all, especially molbiogirl, will agree with this. I look forward to a return admonition when I utter some foolishness about gel electrophoresis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 5:35 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by molbiogirl, posted 02-28-2008 11:23 PM Eclogite has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 80 of 128 (458414)
02-28-2008 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Crooked to what standard
02-01-2008 4:51 PM


"The" Creation Theory
Fourth, Creationism is not recycled feces. My point is thus: Every major civilization at the beginning of time (dated around 6,000 A.D. has believed not only in a God (or gods), but in a creation. There was absolutely no way that these civilizations, separated by at most seventeen thousand miles, the world's biggest (and possibly roughest) ocean, and the world's highest mountains. Therefore, the only explanation would be that all of these stories came from a real event. If you disagree, please do so and explain your theory on how these civilizations could have communicated the creation theory over this time.

"The" creation theory?

quote:
“Glooskap came first of all into this country, into Nova Scotia, Maine, Canada, into the land of the Wabanaki, next to sunrise. There were no Indians here then (only wild Indians very far to the west). First born were the Mikumwess, the Oonahgemessuk, the small Elves, little men, dwellers in rocks. And in this way he made Man: He took his bow and arrows and shot at trees, the basket-trees, the Ash. Then Indians came out of the bark of the Ash-trees...

Glooskap made all the animals. He made them at first very large. Then he said to Moose, the great Moose who was as tall as Ketawkqu's, "What would you do should you see an Indian coming?" Moose replied, "I would tear down the trees on him." Then Glooskap saw that the Moose was too strong, and made him smaller, so that Indians could kill him.

Then he said to the Squirrel, who was of the size of a Wolf, What would you do if you should meet an Indian? And the Squirrel answered, "I would scratch down trees on him." Then Glooskap said, "You also are too strong," and he made him little.

Then he asked the great White Bear what he would do if he met an Indian; and the Bear said, "Eat him." And the Master bade him go and live among rocks and ice, where he would see no Indians. So he questioned all the beasts, changing their size or allotting their lives according to their answers.”


quote:
At the time that turned the heat of the earth, / At the time when the heavens turned and changed, / At the time when the light of the sun was subdued / To cause light to break forth, / At the time of the night of Makalii [winter] / Then began the slime which established the earth, / The source of deepest darkness. / Of the depth of darkness, of the depth of darkness, / Of the darkness of the sun, in the depth of night, / It is night, / So was night born.

Kumulipo was born in the night, a male. / Poele was born in the night, a female. / A coral insect was born, from which was born perforated coral. / The earth worm was born, which gathered earth into mounds, / From it were born worms full of holes. / The starfish was born, whose children were born starry.


quote:
The earth is a great island floating in a sea of water, and suspended at each of the four cardinal points by a cord hanging down from the sky vault, which is of solid rock. When the world grows old and worn out, the people will die and the cords will break and let the earth sink down into the ocean, and all will be water again. The Indians are afraid of this.

When all was water, the animals were above in Gälûñ'lätï, beyond the arch; but it was very much crowded, and they were wanting more room. They wondered what was below the water, and at last Dâyuni'sï, "Beaver's Grandchild," the little Water-beetle, offered to go and see if it could learn. It darted in every direction over the surface of the water, but could find no firm place to rest. Then it dived to the bottom and came up with some soft mud, which began to grow and spread on every side until it became the island which we call the earth. It was afterward fastened to the sky with four cords, but no one remembers who did this...

When the animals and plants were first made -- we do not know by whom -- they were told to watch and keep awake for seven nights, just as young men now fast and keep awake when they pray to their medicine. They tried to do this, and nearly all were awake through the first night, but the next night several dropped off to sleep, and the third night others were asleep, and then others, until, on the seventh night, of all the animals only the owl, the panther, and one or two more were still awake. To these were given the power to see and to go about in the dark, and to make prey of the birds and animals which must sleep at night. Of the trees only the cedar, the pine, the spruce, the holly, and the laurel were awake to the end, and to them it was given to be always green and to be greatest for medicine, but to the others it was said: "Because you have not endured to the end you shall lose your hair every winter."

Men came after the animals and plants. At first there were only a brother and sister until he struck her with a fish and told her to multiply, and so it was. In seven days a child was born to her, and thereafter every seven days another, and they increased very fast until there was danger that the world could not keep them. Then it was made that a woman should have only one child in a year, and it has been so ever since.


quote:
Of old, Heaven and Earth were not yet separated, and the In and Yo not yet divided. They formed a chaotic mass like an egg which was of obscurely defined limits and contained germs. The purer and clearer part was thinly drawn out, and formed Heaven, while the heavier and grosser element settled down and became Earth. The finer element easily became a united body, but the consolidation of the heavy and gross element was accomplished with difficulty. Heaven was therefore formed first, and Earth was established subsequently. Thereafter divine beings were produced between them.

Hence it is said that when the world began to be created, the soil of which lands were composed floated about in a manner which might be compared to the floating of a fish sporting on the surface of the water.

At this time a certain thing was produced between Heaven and Earth. It was in form like a reed-shoot. Now this became transformed into a God, and was called Kuni-toko-tachi no Mikoto. Next there was Kuni no sa-tsuchi no Mikoto, and next Toyo-kumu-nu no Mikoto, in all three deities. These were pure males spontaneously developed by the operation of the principle of Heaven.


quote:
The Raven and his wife created the world. They made the cape of Uñi´sak out of a nose of an eider-duck [Somatheria spectabilis]; the peninsula of Alaska, of a long belt-knife; and the island Ima´lik [one of the Diomedes], of a button of the scabbard [with which it is clasped around the hip]. They made reindeer of their hair, and dogs of their nails, and sea-water of their urine.

P.S. Just as a side-note, evolutionism only came into being in the 1800's. According to creationists, that'd be only 200 out of 6000-8000 years, or 3%-2.5% of humanity. To evolutionists, it'd be 0.00013% of humanity.

You could make the same claim about any sufficiently recent concept.

Should we give up on the theory that lightning is an electrical discharge, and go back to the "thunder god is angry" hypothesis?

How about the germ theory of disease? Witchcraft has historically been the more popular explanation.

Splitting the atom? Why, the very name means "unsplittable", and has done for 2500 years.

The Periodic Table hasn't been around nearly as long as the "four elements" of earth, air, fire, and water.

(Image courtesy of the Rediscovery Institute.)

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 4:51 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 81 of 128 (458448)
02-28-2008 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Eclogite
02-28-2008 1:51 AM


Re: The Truth is Down There
Ec ... I am well aware of how we would determine whether or not an animal died in a flood.

However. I got the distinct impression this particular creo was convinced that something about the fossil itself would tell us it died in a flood.

What with the whole "it died a violent death" line of ... um ... "reasoning".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Eclogite, posted 02-28-2008 1:51 AM Eclogite has not yet responded

  
helena 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3283 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 03-27-2008


Message 82 of 128 (461767)
03-27-2008 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nator
12-25-2007 7:27 AM


Spam post hidden
just watch these videos and then make a comment on it.

But dont tell any frauds, cheatings,fakes AND ALSO DO NOT MAKE ANY STORY OF THAT.... becoz THESE VİDEOS İNCLUDE SCİENTİFİC FACTS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1aVYfavMA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QHZSWpqyRs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV-fYlhHZzc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUjjFTsKJmU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jPlZRNpiq4

Edited by Admin, : Hide spam.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 12-25-2007 7:27 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by bluegenes, posted 03-27-2008 6:32 PM helena has not yet responded
 Message 84 by teen4christ, posted 03-27-2008 8:36 PM helena has not yet responded
 Message 85 by Admin, posted 03-27-2008 9:18 PM helena has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 83 of 128 (461772)
03-27-2008 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by helena
03-27-2008 6:17 PM


Re: IT İS TOO ASHAME FOR PEOPLE WHO BELİEVE THAT MAN EVOLVED FROM APES
alexandra writes:

But dont tell any frauds, cheatings,fakes AND ALSO DO NOT MAKE ANY STORY OF THAT.... becoz THESE VİDEOS İNCLUDE SCİENTİFİC FACTS.

"Too ashame" isn't English, and superstition based assertions are not scientific facts. Come back when you've finished school.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by helena, posted 03-27-2008 6:17 PM helena has not yet responded

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 84 of 128 (461806)
03-27-2008 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by helena
03-27-2008 6:17 PM


Re: IT İS TOO ASHAME FOR PEOPLE WHO BELİEVE THAT MAN EVOLVED FROM APES
The second video from the top presents a strawman argument. If you don't know why I say it is a strawman argument, perhaps you should consider finishing up school first?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by helena, posted 03-27-2008 6:17 PM helena has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 85 of 128 (461809)
03-27-2008 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by helena
03-27-2008 6:17 PM


Re: Spam post hidden
Helena,

If you register another account with this site I will report you to your ISP, the RIPE Network Coordination Center in Amsterdam.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by helena, posted 03-27-2008 6:17 PM helena has not yet responded

    
thief
Junior Member (Idle past 2971 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 86 of 128 (492139)
12-28-2008 4:02 PM


Greetings..Thief here...for your consideration
off topic material hidden

Just got away from a similar debate.
As I scanned the discussion here, I find something missing
Allow me to demonstrate.
You will need three geometrical points for reference (plane geometry)
Label each point as you please with numbers one through six
(each point will share two numbers)
Choose a forth point within the confines of the triangle
Using one cube of dice.. a direction is obtained
Measure half way to the point shown by the roll
Make a point
Roll again...measure half to the next corner...make a point
This process is time consuming
As you continue..a pattern will emerge...triangles within the triangle
All triangles will be proportionate to the original
This effort is a demonstration of random events producing a known result
This effect is known as chaos
Just for fun..let's make the model large...very large
Now let's add another random event..for drama...a very heavy meteor shower
Without the shower...retracing your progression would very difficult
With the shower the trace would be impossible
Searching through long dead bones would be a long shot
Genetic research is more likely...but finding a genome like ours?
Good luck
Thief

Edited by AdminNosy, : not on topic, use peek to see it.


  
djwray
Junior Member (Idle past 2752 days)
Posts: 5
From: Australia
Joined: 06-06-2009


Message 87 of 128 (523213)
09-08-2009 9:58 PM


Why still apes
Hi folks

My opinion is that humans didn't evolve from apes. Instead they evolved from Homo Erectus (and probably Neanderthals), which in turn evolved from another, probably Homo Habilis. Humans and apes are so diverse that humans couldn't evolve from them. I also believe that members of the Homo Erectus species gave birth to humans.

Good luck

DJ
www.atotalawareness.com
"Mr. Dawkins, your greatest achievements have been wrapped in something much greater. You have been owned."


Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by DrJones*, posted 09-08-2009 10:17 PM djwray has not yet responded
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2009 7:34 AM djwray has not yet responded
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-09-2009 8:26 AM djwray has not yet responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1657
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 88 of 128 (523216)
09-08-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by djwray
09-08-2009 9:58 PM


Re: Why still apes
humans didn't evolve from apes. Instead they evolved from Homo Erectus (and probably Neanderthals), which in turn evolved from another, probably Homo Habilis.

Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo Neaderthalensis, and Homo habilis are all apes.

Humans and apes are so diverse that humans couldn't evolve from them

We share ~95% of our DNA with chimps, how much diversity is there in that ~5%?

I also believe that members of the Homo Erectus species gave birth to humans.

Well depending on how you define "human" (I've seen some people with that opinion that "anything in the genus Homo is human) that could be true. But if you mean a H. erectus birthing a H. sapiens then you're out to lunch.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by djwray, posted 09-08-2009 9:58 PM djwray has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 89 of 128 (523254)
09-09-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by djwray
09-08-2009 9:58 PM


Re: Why still apes
welcome to the fray, djwray,

My opinion is that humans didn't evolve from apes.

Unfortunately for you, your opinion has absolutely no effect on reality.

Instead they evolved from Homo Erectus (and probably Neanderthals), which in turn evolved from another, probably Homo Habilis.

Both H. erectus and H. neanderthals are considered cousin branches of the hominid tree.

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


Click to enlarge

Humans and apes are so diverse that humans couldn't evolve from them.

Can you show the diversity line that clearly divides these skulls?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html


Click to enlarge

I also believe that members of the Homo Erectus species gave birth to humans.

Curiously, what you believe is irrelevant to reality, and may interfere with your learning new knowldege.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by djwray, posted 09-08-2009 9:58 PM djwray has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by valentin.d, posted 09-20-2009 7:14 PM RAZD has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 90 of 128 (523270)
09-09-2009 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by djwray
09-08-2009 9:58 PM


Re: Why still apes
So where do the australopithecines fit into all this?

A. africanus, cranial capacity 400 - 500 cm3

H. habilis, cranial capacity (this specimen) 510 cm3

H. sapiens, average cranial capacity about 1500 cm3

It would seem perverse to allow a relationship between H. habilis and H. sapiens but to deny the possibility of a relationship between the australopithecines and H. habilis.

Humans and apes, you say, are "so diverse" --- yet the difference between australopithecines, outside genus Homo, and H. habilis, inside genus Homo, seem markedly less than the differences that we can find within genus Homo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by djwray, posted 09-08-2009 9:58 PM djwray has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017