Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What if Homo erectus was alive today?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 16 of 49 (510624)
06-01-2009 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AustinG
05-28-2009 11:34 PM


Noah was an Erectus, and Erectus built the Babel tower!
AustinG writes:
Obviously, a discovery of a living population of Homo erectus would stir up the EvC debate. My question is, would this be the smoking gun of evolution for creationists? If not, what arguments could be made in defense of creationism?
That Noah and the people who built the tower of Babel were Erectus, not Sapiens. This is already known to smart creationists like Kurt Wise, on the basis that Erectus is found on three continents, and therefore must be part of the scattering of tribes (Neanderthal too)!
http://EvC Forum: Did Homo Erectus build the Tower of Babel? -->EvC Forum: Did Homo Erectus build the Tower of Babel?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AustinG, posted 05-28-2009 11:34 PM AustinG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 06-01-2009 11:08 PM bluegenes has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 17 of 49 (510634)
06-01-2009 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by bluegenes
06-01-2009 7:35 PM


Re: Noah was an Erectus, and Erectus built the Babel tower!
AustinG writes:
Obviously, a discovery of a living population of Homo erectus would stir up the EvC debate. My question is, would this be the smoking gun of evolution for creationists? If not, what arguments could be made in defense of creationism?
That Noah and the people who built the tower of Babel were Erectus, not Sapiens. This is already known to smart creationists like Kurt Wise, on the basis that Erectus is found on three continents, and therefore must be part of the scattering of tribes (Neanderthal too)!
http://EvC Forum: Did Homo Erectus build the Tower of Babel? -->EvC Forum: Did Homo Erectus build the Tower of Babel?
Another example of the anti-science and anti-rational approach creationists take in order to try to justify their beliefs.
They propose these wild "what ifs" without any thought to what the consequences of those "what ifs" might be.
Scientists see the change from Home erectus to modern man taking place over some two million years. Creationists generally balk at the idea that evolution can produce new kinds in two million years--or at all--but now are proposing that such change can occur in a couple of thousand years.
But that's not the best example of creation "science!"
Creationists Lubenow and Woodmorappe write that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
If this was the case, the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago. The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times faster than scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!
And they wonder that we call them anti-science, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by bluegenes, posted 06-01-2009 7:35 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Perdition, posted 06-02-2009 11:12 AM Coyote has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 18 of 49 (510670)
06-02-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
06-01-2009 11:08 PM


Re: Noah was an Erectus, and Erectus built the Babel tower!
Scientists see the change from Home erectus to modern man taking place over some two million years. Creationists generally balk at the idea that evolution can produce new kinds in two million years--or at all--but now are proposing that such change can occur in a couple of thousand years.
Wouldn't this also go against the doctrine of "The Fall" which purports that the only change that can occur is a downward one? Wouldn't most people living, including creationists, consider our current state as being "better" than that of Homo erectus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 06-01-2009 11:08 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2009 1:21 PM Perdition has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 19 of 49 (510682)
06-02-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Perdition
06-02-2009 11:12 AM


Re: Noah was an Erectus, and Erectus built the Babel tower!
Perdition writes:
Wouldn't this also go against the doctrine of "The Fall" which purports that the only change that can occur is a downward one? Wouldn't most people living, including creationists, consider our current state as being "better" than that of Homo erectus?
That occurred to me, as well. However, I realised that from a creationist point of view, an increase in brain power probably is a "downward" change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Perdition, posted 06-02-2009 11:12 AM Perdition has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 20 of 49 (510683)
06-02-2009 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by AustinG
05-31-2009 11:50 PM


Re: Procreation
Hi, AustinG.
AustinG writes:
Keep in mind that race has no meaning anthropologically; its cultural creation no grounded in science.
That's completely untrue!
There are hundreds of physical and physiological traits that distinguish different ethnic groups from one another. For instance, Africans and Caucasians have four-cusped molars, and Asians have five-cusped molars; African skulls are prognathic, while Caucasians and Asians have flatter facial bones; body hair patterns and fat-storage patterns are also different; races that live in bright places (deserts and snowfields) often have epicanthal folds to protect their eyes; and, of course, races have different distributions of skin, eye and hair pigments.
The distinctness of the differen races in terms of appearance is evidence of genetic divergence. It's just that there's no real reproductive isolation, as yet (although most people generally marry within their own race). If Europeans, Africans, Asians and Amerindians were to stay isolated from one another, there's no reason why they wouldn't have each evolved into a different species.
Taboo is the only reason someone would say that race is a purely cultural construct. Perhaps this very taboo would be the only hope for Homo erectus in our modern world. But, if we are reproductively isolated from H. erectus, I don't think the taboo would protect them in the slightest.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AustinG, posted 05-31-2009 11:50 PM AustinG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by AustinG, posted 06-02-2009 5:29 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 21 of 49 (510684)
06-02-2009 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Perdition
06-01-2009 12:18 PM


Re: Procreation
Hi, Perdition.
Perdition writes:
I don't think we could interbreed with them, otherwise, they'd be the same species as us, definitionally.
I don't know of a reason to think that they're not the same species as us, other than that archaeology defines them as such.
There would be a number of factors involved: some erectus obviously were in Asia a long time before sapiens evolved in Africa, so these would probably be sufficiently divergent from us to prevent interbreeding. However, those in Africa, which are sometimes called Homo ergaster, a different species, are thought to be our direct ancestors, which means their population would only have diverged from ours about a quarter million years ago. I have no idea whether a quarter million years is enough time to become reproductively isolated.
-----
Perdition writes:
Though, I suppose, we could have infertile children, like horses and donkeys do...
Mules are infertile because horses and donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes. So, a mule has one horse chromosome that doesn't pair up with a donkey chromosome.
Similarly, chimpanzees and gorillas have one more pair of chromosomes than we do. Whether the change occurred before or after H. erectus (I suspect it was before) might play into whether or not hybrid children would be fertile.
I think the big cats all have the same number of chromosomes, though, and they have reduced hybrid fertility, so it's still possible.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Perdition, posted 06-01-2009 12:18 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Perdition, posted 06-02-2009 2:16 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 06-03-2009 11:03 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 22 of 49 (510688)
06-02-2009 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Blue Jay
06-02-2009 1:57 PM


Re: Procreation
I don't know of a reason to think that they're not the same species as us, other than that archaeology defines them as such.
There would be a number of factors involved: some erectus obviously were in Asia a long time before sapiens evolved in Africa, so these would probably be sufficiently divergent from us to prevent interbreeding. However, those in Africa, which are sometimes called Homo ergaster, a different species, are thought to be our direct ancestors, which means their population would only have diverged from ours about a quarter million years ago. I have no idea whether a quarter million years is enough time to become reproductively isolated.
While the possibility exists that we are the same species, or at least interfertile, I would guess the probability is low.
This was brought up recently on one of the threads dealing with whether humans are still evolving. I would think the amount of time that has elapsed since humans split from Homo erectus, coupled with any changes that would have accumulated in an isolated group of H. erectus living presently would be enough to make them at best minimally compatible, in the same sense as lions and tigers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2009 1:57 PM Blue Jay has not replied

AustinG
Member (Idle past 5168 days)
Posts: 36
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 23 of 49 (510698)
06-02-2009 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Blue Jay
06-02-2009 1:42 PM


Re: Procreation
Bluejay writes:
Hi, AustinG.
AustinG writes:
Keep in mind that race has no meaning anthropologically; its cultural creation no grounded in science.
That's completely untrue!
There are hundreds of physical and physiological traits that distinguish different ethnic groups from one another...
I understand what you are trying to say; however
quote:
Most anthropologists recognize that race is a social concept, not a biological one. That is, it stigmatizes some individuals as different and reinforces the privileges of others. There is no evidence that there are large groups of biologically distinct human beings (i.e. subspecies) that correspond to what people refer to when they talk about "race." Furthermore, to base any kind of biological category on a single physical characteristic, such as skin color (which, in itself is incredibly varied and determined by multiple genes), is clearly nonsense.
and
quote:
Most anthropologists no longer take the idea of race seriously. Human populations do differ in some respects in their genetic makeup (e.g. blood types), but there is little use in trying to lump groups into racial groupings based on often, physically meaningless characteristics (e.g. skin pigmentation).
Taken from here.
For more information on race click below:
American Anthopolical Accociation's Statement on Race
Ethnicity and Race in anthropology by Franz Boas
Edited by AustinG, : added more sources
Edited by AustinG, : Added quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2009 1:42 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by TheWhale, posted 06-03-2009 1:34 AM AustinG has not replied

TheWhale
Junior Member (Idle past 5411 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 06-03-2009


Message 24 of 49 (510719)
06-03-2009 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by AustinG
06-02-2009 5:29 PM


Re: Most anthropologists recognize that race is a social concept,
I understand what you are trying to say however...
This is nothing more than mental slop from academic highbrows.
It resonates well with people who have an affinity for signing on to any concoction they see as edgy or 'cutting-edge', feeling that it gives them a air of exclusivity.
The rest of the rational world isn't deferring to anthropologists for a decision on whether the concept of race is null and void.
1. race is not a cultural creation or merely a social concept
2. there are very real genetic differences between races, that is fact, so it is fair to say that it IS grounded in science
3. the genetic differences between races manifests in physical differences that a 3 year old child can recognize
Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.
Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AustinG, posted 06-02-2009 5:29 PM AustinG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Meldinoor, posted 06-03-2009 2:52 AM TheWhale has replied
 Message 26 by caffeine, posted 06-03-2009 6:19 AM TheWhale has not replied
 Message 27 by bluegenes, posted 06-03-2009 7:45 AM TheWhale has not replied
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2009 12:30 PM TheWhale has not replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 25 of 49 (510725)
06-03-2009 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by TheWhale
06-03-2009 1:34 AM


Re: Most anthropologists recognize that race is a social concept,
TheWhale writes:
1. race is not a cultural creation or merely a social concept
2. there are very real genetic differences between races, that is fact, so it is fair to say that it IS grounded in science
3. the genetic differences between races manifests in physical differences that a 3 year old child can recognize
Isn't there more genetic diversity within what most people consider a "race" than between "races". It seems to me I've heard that there is more diversity among Africans, which most people would consider one "race", than among all other races. Can anyone confirm this, or am I wrong?
My point is that a race is not defined other than culturally. Is Obama black, white, or somewhere in between? Most would say black, but many of his genes can be traced to Europe.
A child may be able to tell the difference between two skin colors, but can he tell the difference between sinhalese and tamils? Can he tell the difference between tutsis and hutus? Slavic and scandinavian? What I'm saying is that there is plenty of variation within culturally defined "races". Our definitions are not so much scientific, as superficial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TheWhale, posted 06-03-2009 1:34 AM TheWhale has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 06-03-2009 1:14 PM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 32 by TheWhale, posted 06-03-2009 2:20 PM Meldinoor has not replied

caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 26 of 49 (510733)
06-03-2009 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by TheWhale
06-03-2009 1:34 AM


Re: Most anthropologists recognize that race is a social concept,
quote:
3. the genetic differences between races manifests in physical differences that a 3 year old child can recognize
And yet, when Bruce Willis referred to Maggie Q's character as an Asian chick in Die Hard yesterday; it prompted a heated argument in our living room about whether she looked at all Asian.
I think both viewpoints are right in a way. There are physical differences between races, but because there's no reproductive isolation it's incredibly difficult to actually categorise people by them. Race as we usually talk about it is a social construct, as the definitions we use are decided by our social history. As Meldinoor points out, Obama is considered black - despite having plenty of European ancestry and not being very dark-skinned at all. People like Maggie Q are considered Asian, even though she's half-European. In parts of Latin America, people are still lumped into categories such as black, white, Indian, mestizo, mulatto etc. even though these are often poorly representative of their genetic heritage in such a mongrelised region.
A three year old cannot identify someone's genetics just by looking at them - they'd pick up on a few obvious visual clues like skin tone. Take a look at this chap:
Now, I'd guess which race most three year olds (or 33 year olds) would place him in. But analysis of 40 different genetic markers produced an estimate of only 31% African heritage, contrasted with 67% European. This is what's meant when people talk about race as social construct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TheWhale, posted 06-03-2009 1:34 AM TheWhale has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 27 of 49 (510741)
06-03-2009 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by TheWhale
06-03-2009 1:34 AM


"Race" is a bit of a blurred concept.
TheWhale writes:
1. race is not a cultural creation or merely a social concept
2. there are very real genetic differences between races, that is fact, so it is fair to say that it IS grounded in science
3. the genetic differences between races manifests in physical differences that a 3 year old child can recognize
All generally true, although it might have been better if you'd put "merely" before "a cultural creation" (because there are elements of illusion and fiction about it).
What should be said is that it's a much more nebulous concept than many people think, because human population movements out of Africa would have involved all kinds of crossing and mixing of groups, including migration back into Africa, etc. Many of us would find surprising relatives on a genetic level for certain features - people who don't look like us at all! The mixing of tribes is not a modern phenomenon at all (and by modern, I'd include all the mixing that would have gone on during the Roman Empire, for example, as "modern").
Here's something interesting to look at:
Haplogroup - Wikipedia
Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup - Wikipedia
Haplogroup H - Wikipedia(mtDNA)
Now look at the picture below. Supposing we have four EvC members. One considers himself African, another European, a third Jewish, and the fourth Arabic. All four could happen to share a particular mutation in their Mt DNA due to a common ancestor on the direct maternal line that the rest of us don't have, and that most people in the "racial" groups that they identify with don't have.
So, "so called race" (as Darwin called it when talking about humans) is a complicated and nebulous thing.
Distribution density of E1b1b1a (E-M78) according to Cruciani et al. (2007).
Edited by bluegenes, : Added picture caption

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TheWhale, posted 06-03-2009 1:34 AM TheWhale has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 28 of 49 (510767)
06-03-2009 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Blue Jay
06-02-2009 1:57 PM


Re: Procreation
Bluejay writes:
Mules are infertile because horses and donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes. So, a mule has one horse chromosome that doesn't pair up with a donkey chromosome.
I'm not sure about this, Bluejay. A very small number of mules (about 1%) are fertile. Also, Przewalski's Horse has 66 chromosomes (to 64 for all other horses and 62 for mules) and produces fertile offspring when crossed with domestic horses. Also, changes in the number of chromosomes cannot mean infertile offspring, because the mutation would happen in one individual, and it could never become fixed in the population if that were the case. So:
Similarly, chimpanzees and gorillas have one more pair of chromosomes than we do. Whether the change occurred before or after H. erectus (I suspect it was before) might play into whether or not hybrid children would be fertile.
I agree that it could play a role, but it certainly wouldn't be decisive (and I think our fusion was before the split, also). Although it's possible that we might be able to produce offspring with Erectus, it's much more likely with Neanderthal. In their case, we've got the genome to look at, but we'll need to know exactly what genetic factors actually are important in reproductive isolation first.
As for how we'd treat Erectus if we found them alive, it's an interesting question. In the past, they would have had a rough time, I'm sure, but now I think they'd be treated very well, and given space to live in, and basic rights. We've got a lot more civilized over the last century or so in many ways.
We would also want to study him in detail, so there wouldn't be too much privacy!
Another aspect to the breeding question is sexual selection, and I'm sure we'd find them very unattractive because of the divergence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2009 1:57 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 29 of 49 (510773)
06-03-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by TheWhale
06-03-2009 1:34 AM


Re: Most anthropologists recognize that race is a social concept,
Hi, TheWhale.
TheWhale writes:
The rest of the rational world isn't deferring to anthropologists for a decision on whether the concept of race is null and void.
1. race is not a cultural creation or merely a social concept
2. there are very real genetic differences between races, that is fact, so it is fair to say that it IS grounded in science
3. the genetic differences between races manifests in physical differences that a 3 year old child can recognize
No, I was wrong: the genetic differences are not consistent enough within "races" to show that "races" are distinct, cohesive groups, at least genetically.
Sure, there is some biological component to race, but it's more in the distribution of haplotypes within a race, rather than in the distinct genetic identity of a race. Bluegenes provided a link to a Wiki page on haplogroups. Haplogroups are where you see the actual genetic diversity of humans, and, as you can see in the following image, each haplogroup is distributed across many races:
For instance, we could say that the Amerindian race is defined by a broad distribution of Y-DNA Haplogroup Q. But, Q also occurs in many Asian populations, so many Amerindian people are more similar to some Asian people genetically than they are to other people within their own tribe.
-----
Now, you could argue that "culture" is equivalent to "ecology," and make the case that ecological distinction is sufficient to define subspecies, but we have yet to find strong reasons to suggest that human ecology is anything more than a learned behavior.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TheWhale, posted 06-03-2009 1:34 AM TheWhale has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by caffeine, posted 06-04-2009 9:12 AM Blue Jay has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 30 of 49 (510784)
06-03-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Meldinoor
06-03-2009 2:52 AM


Re: Most anthropologists recognize that race is a social concept,
It seems to me I've heard that there is more diversity among Africans, which most people would consider one "race", than among all other races. Can anyone confirm this, or am I wrong?
You are correct here's a link to a recent study which confirms that:
Page not found | University of Pennsylvania
Wikipedia treats the subject at "human genetic diversity," as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Meldinoor, posted 06-03-2009 2:52 AM Meldinoor has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024