Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Definition and Description of a "Transitional"
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 110 (168582)
12-15-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Loudmouth
12-15-2004 12:22 PM


Loudmouth writes:
The reality of the matter is that we have very nice transitional fossils for the transition between reptile and mammal, land mammal and whale, ape-like ancestor and man, etc.
Can you post a link to this/these "very nice" transitional fossil(s) for ape-like ancestor and man?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Loudmouth, posted 12-15-2004 12:22 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Jazzns, posted 12-15-2004 3:33 PM dpardo has replied
 Message 93 by Loudmouth, posted 12-15-2004 4:23 PM dpardo has not replied

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 110 (168633)
12-15-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jazzns
12-15-2004 3:33 PM


Thank you.
I will check them out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jazzns, posted 12-15-2004 3:33 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 110 (168637)
12-15-2004 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jazzns
12-15-2004 3:33 PM


From the second link...
Australopithecus ramidus (mid-Pliocene, 4.4 Ma) -- A recently discovered very early hominid (or early chimp?), from just after the split with the apes. Not well known. Possibly bipedal (only the skull was found). Teeth both apelike and humanlike; one baby tooth is very chimp-like. (White et al., 1994; Wood 1994)
Australopithecus afarensis (late Pliocene, 3.9 Ma) -- Some excellent fossils ("Lucy", etc.) make clear that this was fully bipedal and definitely a hominid. But it was an extremely ape-like hominid; only four feet tall, still had an ape-sized brain of just 375-500 cc (finally answering the question of which came first, large brain or bipedality) and ape-like teeth. This lineage gradually split into a husky large-toothed lineage and a more slender, smaller- toothed lineage. The husky lineage (A. robustus, A. boisei) eventually went extinct.
Australopithecus africanus (later Pliocene, 3.0 Ma) -- The more slender lineage. Up to five feet tall, with slightly larger brain (430-550 cc) and smaller incisors. Teeth gradually became more and more like Homo teeth. These hominds are almost perfect ape- human intermediates, and it's now pretty clear that the slender australopithecines led to the first Homo species.
Homo habilis (latest Pliocene/earliest Pleistocene, 2.5 Ma) -- Straddles the boundary between australopithecines and humans, such that it's sometimes lumped with the australopithecines. About five feet tall, face still primitive but projects less, molars smaller. Brain 500-800 cc, overlapping australopithecines at the low end and and early Homo erectus at the high end. Capable of rudimentary speech? First clumsy stone tools.
Homo erectus (incl. "Java Man", "Peking Man", "Heidelberg Man"; Pleist., 1.8 Ma) -- Looking much more human now with a brain of 775-1225 cc, but still has thick brow ridges & no chin. Spread out of Africa & across Europe and Asia. Good tools, first fire.
Archaic Homo sapiens (Pleistocene, 500,000 yrs ago) -- These first primitive humans were perfectly intermediate between H. erectus and modern humans, with a brain of 1200 cc and less robust skeleton & teeth. Over the next 300,000 years, brain gradually increased, molars got still smaller, skeleton less muscular. Clearly arose from H erectus, but there are continuing arguments about where this happened.
One famous offshoot group, the Neandertals, developed in Europe 125,000 years ago. They are considered to be the same species as us, but a different subspecies, H. sapiens neandertalensis. They were more muscular, with a slightly larger brain of 1450 cc, a distinctive brow ridge, and differently shaped throat (possibly limiting their language?). They are known to have buried their dead.
H. sapiens sapiens (incl. "Cro-magnons"; late Pleist., 40,000 yrs ago) -- All modern humans. Average brain size 1350 cc. In Europe, gradually supplanted the Neanderthals.
What I see here are distinctions made on the basis of height, brain size, teeth size, build, etc.
Are these distinctions not simply possible between different human beings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jazzns, posted 12-15-2004 3:33 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Loudmouth, posted 12-15-2004 4:27 PM dpardo has replied
 Message 98 by Jazzns, posted 12-16-2004 10:41 AM dpardo has replied

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 110 (168663)
12-15-2004 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Loudmouth
12-15-2004 4:27 PM


Loudmouth writes:
Also, look at the photos above and focus on the brain case. You will notice that humans obviously have bigger craniums than the earlier fossils.
But don't human heads vary, sometimes greatly, in size from one to another?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Loudmouth, posted 12-15-2004 4:27 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Darwin Redux, posted 12-16-2004 1:22 AM dpardo has not replied
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2004 1:28 AM dpardo has replied
 Message 103 by Loudmouth, posted 12-16-2004 12:51 PM dpardo has replied

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 110 (168893)
12-16-2004 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by NosyNed
12-16-2004 1:28 AM


Re: For fun, what if....
NosyNed writes:
How come when they are laid out in time various features are closer to the current norms when they are nearer in time and further from those norms when they are further away in time? (With some variance since I don't see that any feature would constantly and smoothly approach the current state)?
Laid out in time?
How do we know how old they are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2004 1:28 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Jazzns, posted 12-16-2004 11:53 AM dpardo has not replied
 Message 106 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2004 1:37 PM dpardo has replied

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 110 (168899)
12-16-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Jazzns
12-16-2004 10:41 AM


Jazzns writes:
When you see them all lined up it there is a nice gradient and it is very hard to draw the line between what is an ape and what is a human.
Have we ever confused a human skull for an ape skull or vice versa?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Jazzns, posted 12-16-2004 10:41 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Jazzns, posted 12-16-2004 12:36 PM dpardo has not replied

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 110 (168916)
12-16-2004 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Loudmouth
12-16-2004 12:51 PM


Loudmouth writes:
As you can see, A. afarensis and A. africanus fall well outside normal ranges for living humans, as do A. robustus and A. boisei.
Loudmouth,
Is it possible for a "transitional" skull to be very simply a deformed human or ape skull? Aren't some humans born with gross deformities, sometimes in many features?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Loudmouth, posted 12-16-2004 12:51 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Jazzns, posted 12-16-2004 1:33 PM dpardo has not replied
 Message 107 by Loudmouth, posted 12-16-2004 1:51 PM dpardo has replied

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 110 (168952)
12-16-2004 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Loudmouth
12-16-2004 1:51 PM


Loudmouth writes:
But as Jazzns says in the post above, why would we only find these deformities as a function of geologic depth? Why don't we find normal, modern human/ape skulls at the same depth?
Are the details of these digs in the links that were provided by Jazzns?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Loudmouth, posted 12-16-2004 1:51 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Jazzns, posted 12-16-2004 2:34 PM dpardo has not replied

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 110 (168961)
12-16-2004 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by NosyNed
12-16-2004 1:37 PM


Thank you Ned.
I will check out the Correlations thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2004 1:37 PM NosyNed 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