Slashdot Mirror
Human Origins Theory Tested By Recent Findings
annamadrigal writes "The BBC news is reporting on findings presented in Nature which suggest that Homo Erectus and H. Habilis were in fact sister species which co-existed. This challenges the view that the upright humans evolved from the tool users."
"The other discussions have been archived. No new comments can be posted."
What?
It doesn't "challenge" that view at all. Evolution is mutation plus competition, you need the competition part. Of course they co-existed, as must have all consecutive evolution stages in every being's evolution.
After glancing over the TFA it appears that it is shown that the two species simply existed together and one eventually out-competed the other. What isn't definitively shown as not being the case is that the Evolutionary chain didn't also occur with a net result of both species existing at once. An overlap could be caused because both species in different areas (even locals) were well suited for the environment. I guess I could just want to be argumentative after a long day of meetings with the subspecies PHB which is probably more akin to the chimpanzee than anything vaguely human ... in fact I'm sure of that last statement, PHBs are NOT human.
Everything has to be black and white -- nothing can be grey in science. The truth is that science is all grey and we want to see in black and white.
Information is not Knowledge.
If erectus was very sexually dimorphic [sex size diff] it may have had multiple mates at a time. This differs from the more monogamous nature of modern humans, indicating that Homo erectus was not as human-like as once thought.
Polygomy is and was fairly common in humans.
Table-ized A.I.
It talks about "their own distinct ecological niches". Given that we are omnivores, how different could their "ecological niche" have been and still support something that was almost human?
... that's dumb.
Humans and other primates have shared the same areas ever since there were humans. Yet we have only recently started wiping out other primates. And it isn't because we are competing with them for the food sources. We wipe out their environment, food sources and all.
So there thing about "Eventually, one would have out-competed the other." doesn't sound right. "Eventually", maybe. But to say that any conclusions can be derived simply because it had not happened in X years
You are right this doesn't look like any real news.
The article is really written in a very unscientific way, for example this statement:
What the scientific society thinks doesn't usually change all that fast, the hypothesis first has to be verified and tested etc.
But then again in this kind of archeology this thing with verifying and testing hypothesis can be a bit difficult even though they try as they best can, but trying to figure out how humans evolved through evolution is imho as much guesswork as it is science with what we have of evidence so far.
First, the article makes it clear that the two hominids didn't compete. They operated in different environments and ate different food. Even when primates do operate in similar realms, they can coexist for millions of years - as humans have with chimps and gorillas. The relatively peaceful coexistence of humans and Neanderthals is also well documented. They simply ignored each other. It is also suspected - but unproven - in the case of Homo Florensis. Besides which, even when replacement occurs, it's going to occur slowly. Populations grow exponentially, but only over a vast timeframe. It isn't overnight. The multiple migration theory also suggests that multiple hominid types co-existed, or there wouldn't be distinct populations migrating. (In fact, the mere existence of the theory shows some paleontologists have always believed in multiple co-existing branches.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
my coworkers provide plenty of evidence to debunk evolution
What is with the obsession with tools? Plenty of animals use tools. Humans aren't unique in that respect.
There is a saying amongst psychologists that at some point, each must come up with a reason why humans are fundamentally different from the other animals, only for someone to eventually prove them wrong.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Next, both species walked very much erect. The primary difference between them is the skull and brain.
The BBC got it right. there's no reason the submitter, or Slashdot, should not have gotten it right, too.
As to the science, the wisest words in TFA come from Professor Spoor (snicker):
Of course, that assumes the new skull really is H. erectus, which is dubious. Maybe it was an H. erectus ancestor, small like H. habilis but with an H. erectus-like brain.
Why yes, I do have a degree in physical anthropology. Thank you for asking.
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
...why monkeys aren't extinct. If it's survival of the fittest and we are clearly superior to monkeys, why are they still here? They should have died-out a long time ago!
The game.
Man evolved from dirt when dinosaurs ate coconuts. It says so in the bible.
The Farewell Tour II
from the creationism museum that they lived with Velociraptors.
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
I don't see why co-existence would discount evolving from Homo Habilis. Since after all if we really did evolve from primates, there would be no primates today under this logic.
It' still possible that some Homo Habilis evolved into Homo erectus while others remained homo habilis. Just as monkeys evolved into whatever became the H. Habilis, yet monkeys still exist.
Hydrogen is by far the most abundant chemical element in the Universe. Helium is second. Oxygen is third. Carbon is fourth. None of these are in any way scarce; I have no idea where you got the notion that there was a shortage of oxygen in the Universe. As for water, the solar system is full of the stuff; water vapour is present in the atmosphere of Venus, water ice is present at the Martian poles, and the outer solar system is practically made of ice. The only thing that's unusual about Earth is the presence of liquid water.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
It doesn't "challenge" that view at all. Evolution is mutation plus competition, you need the competition part. Of course they co-existed, as must have all consecutive evolution stages in every being's evolution.
Exactly my thoughts.
Think about this, archaeological and genetic evidence points to modern humans having left Africa 50000-100000 years ago. Modern humans are only about 200.000 years old as a species and yet, the Scanvinavians already have lighter skin full facial beards and some other biological features which make them distinct from those who didn't leave Africa.
We could say that the scandivavians "evolved" from the Africans to suit the cold climate, nonetheless the two are still co-habiting almost everywhere in the world.
The time period which the article states as a "proof" is 500.000 years long. Just imagine how the scandinavians, ot the inuits might look after 450.000 years if there was no communication between the two groups.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
This kind of thing always makes me wonder about the origin of tales that probably come to us from pre-history -- stuff like the Cain and Abel story. I can't help thinking that, at one time, these stories might have told of some much more important historical event than one brother killing another, and that, slowly, over time, they've been watered down into something that everyone understood in their current context -- one guy killing another.
Ugh. You're killing me here. I'm reminded of all the times I've heard "Creationist scientists say dinosaurs ate leaves and used their sharp teeth to grind leaves."
No. Just... no. No, no, no, no, NO!
Honestly, I'd LOVE to see a T-rex or an Allasaurus or another obvious carnivore TRY to eat leaves with a mouth like that. We KNOW today that flat teeth are used for grinding plants. I mean, it's basic instinct. When you eat meat, you use your slimmer and pointer front teeth to tear it into slimmer pieces. When you eat a salad, you don't use your front teeth at all, and simply let the back teeth grind the leaves.
It's pure bullshit, and it's easily debunked by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Same for sharks. They have rows upon rows of sharp, serrated teeth. Are you going to tell me they ate kelp?
Not to mention that we see hundreds of cave drawings of bison and deer and other roaming mammals... yet does anyone find it strange that no caveman decided to draw a HUGE monstrous death machine roaming the lands? I mean, not ONE SINGLE MENTION anywhere in all of human culture until we discovered their bones?
No, I am no a biologist, archaeologist, or any other professional, but I think my evidence stands as is. I'm sure a real scientist could provide FAR more examples.
Creationism science is an oxymoron, because Creationism is the polar opposite of science. You start with a conclusion (God made the Earth and the Bible shows how he did it) and then proceed to find evidence that supports that, as opposed to finding evidence and then making a conclusion based on the evidence.
The Bible is not literal. Period. It is a series of stories and ideas put into writing in ancient times to explain, back then, how they thought things came to be.
To me, believing in Creationism is like saying "I believe the sky is green." It's just wrong. Yes, there is a degree of uncertainty in it, such as how "green" something is before it's green, but with science, we can break down light and find its wavelength and say "This light is blue." You can still believe that it is green, just as you can believe men walked the earth alongside dinosaurs, that a man with a boat carried two of EVERY species of animal on Earth for over a month after a God gave him the designs for it, and the first woman came from the ribs of the first man.
But you'd be wrong. "Believing" that 2+2=5 doesn't change the fact that it's 4, even if you call it an "opinion." Facts do not care what you think.
(Note: Yes, I know the Parent was joking. But this stuff SERIOUSLY pisses me off)
Hence, a chicken-and-egg problem. Once you've got the GA, the whole process can go along just fine, working according to the rules of the GA. However, the burning question is, how did the GA itself get there? I've never heard of any scenario where a GA itself can evolve via an atheistic process, but if anyone knows of one, please share.
In the context of natural evolution, the heuristic is physical survival. As opposed to a simulation, where the heuristic is whatever characteristic the programmer is trying to induce.
I'm not sure I entirely understand the point you are making but if you are saying how can a computer simulation evolve naturally, all I can say is GAs are designed by humans. Humans evolved naturally. So such simulations are ultimately the product of natural processes.
If on the other hand you are likening biological evolution to a GA, and then saying since GAs are designed, so must biological evolution be, then you are making a rather confused point. GAs were originally inspired by the natural process of biological evolution. We stole the idea from nature. Mutation with natural selection and heredity are self evidently intrinsic to the logic of our physical universe. Your question implies circularity but only by implying its own answer.
Thus, when I think about it at all, at least at the moment I'm inclined towards a hybrid theory of how we got here, which actually includes elements of both creationism and evolutionary thinking. My own perspective is that yes, evolution happens. We see the end products of it all the time, and yes, to a degree the process has been successfully simulated (with some interesting results) in the AI field.
However, where God steps into the picture for me in this context is as the provider of the initial GA, after which organisms can themselves take over the process from there. I'm not claiming (at least in this context) to have any definite idea of what God actually is or was, either...but I do think that there are at least a couple of areas, (such as the GA question) which atheistic evolutionary theory alone can't really account for.
You're talking about aspects of the universe outside of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory describes how biological organisms change over generations. The gap you are filling with god is the creation of the physical laws of the universe. This has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It's an important distinction to make, as a lot of anti-evolution crackpots use the tactic of lumping the stupendously well established theory of evolution in with a bunch of questions that have yet to be satisfactorily answered, such as abiogenesis and the source of the universe, in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the theory of evolution in a kind of guilt-by-association. Your position regarding the creation of the universe is covered here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
The other thing I'd like to have an atheist tell me is how they believe water got here initially, and more specifically, why the water cycle starts on some planets and not on others. From what I was reading a while back, water actually initially gets produced in a closed-circuit chemical reaction, with the three elements, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Once it gets started, the loop can keep going as long as those three elements are all present; my question is, how did those three elements become present here on Earth, especially when oxygen in particular seems to be rare almost to the point of being entirely unique in the universe, from what I've seen?
All I can say about that is that you really need to do some reading.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Anyways, the real story here is the incredibly poor coverage of this finding by the mainstream press. The BBC article linked to here isn't so bad, but just go to Google News and look at some of the headlines, in what I would consider increasing order of ridiculousness:
"Fossil find casts doubt on origins of man"
"new theory on the dawn of humanity"
"Fossils Paint Messy Picture of Evolution"
"Fossil Discoveries Challenge Theory of Human Evolution"
"Darwin's rolling over"
They make it look like this is somehow a CHALLENGE to THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ITSELF. In other words, "let's take some story we don't really understand, but it hey it has the word 'evolution' in it, so we can manipulate this to stir up that ol' hornet's nest and sell papers!"
I think this is the most disappointing example in a while of the sorry state of science journalism.
Ya lost me there AC.
Einstein predicted a certain bending of light in terms of the general "predicted theory of relativity and it was not proven to be absolutely spot on until the 1960's, I believe. So the science "predicted fact" is recognized as valid ("true") after the prediction is fulfilled.
But there are extant copies of things like Isaiah (from the Dead Sea Scrolls) that include nearly word for word what the Masoretic text used in the KJV holds, and some of the prophecies in Isaiah are fulfilled long after the DSS were placed in the caves. Or much of the book of Daniel -- which not only correctly foretells the decline of the Persion empire(s) but the rise later of the Greek, still later the Roman, and then a bunch of little kingdoms, some strong, some weak. (the feet of iron and clay), for example. Predates the rise of the little kingdoms...
So if the predictions in the OT are evaluated after the fact, --and the source document predates the fulfillment of the "prophecy", it's the same method as science is using and therefore equally valid as "truth".
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...