March 12th, 2014, 04:37 PM
I've looked at many Wikipedia articles, but there seems to be a gap in human evolution. Homo sapiens is presumed to have originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago. What were its African companions at the time? It was supposed to have evolved from Heidelberg, but these seemed to have died out around 300,000 years ago. Other species at the time (Neanderthal, Denisovan, Erectus) were in Europe or Asia, but not in Africa.
I don't see any gaps in this particular wiki timeline Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Though I do have serious doubts about those suggested dates for migration to Asia, Australia, Europe. My feeling is that they're several 10s of 1000s of years off the mark. But it doesn't really matter. The evolutionary steps seem fairly well marked. )
The gap, as far as I can tell is between Heidelberg man and 200,000 years ago. Other sources seem to have Heidelberg man ending ~ 300,000 ago.Originally Posted by adelady
I had asked the question on another forum and was given a reference that there was Rhodesian man in Africa at the time sapiens first arose. This appears to be the answer.
there seems to be a lot of variation within "heidelberg man"
I suspect that eventually the close to 1 million year continuity of heidelberg man will eventually be broken into 2-3-4 different groups.
for speciation, I always look to the glacial cycles--------we and neanderthalensis seem to have changed during the tobo event during the last glaciation. As in the taller more gracial eastern neanderthals seem to have died out leaving only the more robust western neanderthals.
Choosing morphology as the determinant may limit the perspective. But that is the best we have(so far).
All will change in a generation or 2(justaguess)
Africa in the period from 300,000 years ago to 100,000 years ago seems to be largely unknown. It starts with the ending of heidelbeg man, fossils of rhodesian man and homo sapiens appear and by the end of this period homo sapiens seems to dominate the continent. Obviously a lot happened but details are sparse.
This could be due to the sparseness of the hominids too.
The Omo remains are hybrid fossils. So it's possible that the archaic homo sapiens and emergent homo sapiens co-existed for a given period until archaic homo sapiens died out in Africa. I don't really see a discrepancy.
Oh no - here comes the 'gap' excuse.
There were obviously evolving going on in the period of 100,000 years. Species don't spontaneously give birth to a brand new species, so the descendants of heidelbergensis would slowly but surely become archaic homo sapiens.
I agree. I should have made it clear that I was interested in the gap in our knowlege, not that there was a gap in the evolution.Oh no - here comes the 'gap' excuse.
There were obviously evolving going on in the period of 100,000 years. Species don't spontaneously give birth to a brand new species, so the descendants of heidelbergensis would slowly but surely become archaic homo sapiens.
I hate pedantry, but homo heidelbergensis as well as the Neanderthals and other species are collectively called archaic homo sapiens.
I hate pedantry, but I believe you are wrong. My understanding is that archaic homo sapiens refers to homo sapiens from about 200,000 years ago to about 50,000 years ago. At the latter time there seems to have been a jump in the level of intelligence shown by artifacts (tools, cave drawings, etc.).
Archaic humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So essentially our immediate predecessor species.
I am not sure that details are sparse for everyone, all the knowledge pertaining to the planet has not left the planet, the problem is some of it is hidden or kept secret, at least for some. I have heard that the Vatican has a lot of information to many questions, however true that is.
What I find is, there are many breaks in the line of evolution which tend to throw us back and pitch us forward. I am sure there will always be corrections and adjustment as we continue along the path searching for clues as to where we are coming from.
According to the article the archaic homo genera are sometyimes refered to as homo sapiens, while others don't use the expression. However it is generally recognized that anatomically homo sapiens arose about 200,000 years ago.
I don't think that there can be evidence of a species "dying out" as we just go by what fossils are available. If you find a fossil for a certain species that is 200,000 years old and another fossil of that same species that is 100,000 years old, we can say for sure that this species was around from 200,000-100,000 years ago. But this doesn't mean they didn't exist before or after this period. It would just be an assumption until fossil evidence were found. So, these gaps may not be gaps at all but without more fossil evidence, we just cannot be certain about those time periods until new evidence is found.
HUH? That was very oddly worded to be honest, and I dont get what you are attempting to say.
I thought he was wanting the video of the last 200,000 years before he will accept it.HUH? That was very oddly worded to be honest, and I dont get what you are attempting to say.
Rob, clearly you have no idea what I am referring to. I study anthropology in college and no where did I even hint at not believing in evolution. I am just trying to explain the time lines of each humanoid species in the archeological record. We don't see species die out necessarily but rather we just haven't found fossils for certain time periods. Fossils aren't bones and are rare to form so it's no surprise to find what seems to be "gaps" in the record of human evolution.I thought he was wanting the video of the last 200,000 years before he will accept it.HUH? That was very oddly worded to be honest, and I dont get what you are attempting to say.
Okay...well science doesn't like to make unnecessary assumptions. We understand the time span of certain species by using dating techniques on the fossils. So if we have only 2 fossils from a certain species that date at 200,000 years and 100,000 years, we can positively state that species was around from 200,000-100,000 years ago. The more fossils we get, the more accurate the time span becomes. Let's say we find a third fossil from this hypothetical species that dates older than 200,000 years...we then can expand the lifespan of the species to correlate with the fossil. Reading my response in light of the original post will show what I am responding to.
Hope this is clearer, it's hard to make comprehensive posts on my phone while at work so sorry about the confusion.
There was no confusion. The video would be the ultimate evidence.
So you don't think we have evidence of Dinosaurs dying out?
Mammoths, in just the last app 10,000 years?
The flightless Moa (app 600 yrs ago), Carrier Pigeons (app 100 yrs ago)?
This response is somewhat out of context of what I said but since I wasn't all that clear I will make it as clear as possible.So you don't think we have evidence of Dinosaurs dying out?
Mammoths, in just the last app 10,000 years?
The flightless Moa (app 600 yrs ago), Carrier Pigeons (app 100 yrs ago)?
The original post says "I've looked at many Wikipedia articles, but there seems to be a gap in human evolution. Homo sapiens is presumed to have originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago. What were its African companions at the time? It was supposed to have evolved from Heidelberg, but these seemed to have died out around 300,000 years ago. Other species at the time (Neanderthal, Denisovan, Erectus) were in Europe or Asia, but not in Africa."
His main point is that Heidelbergensis existed 300,000 years ago and evidence of homo sapiens didn't exist until 200,000 years ago and therefore there is a 100,000 year gap in between Heidelbergensis and sapiens. I was simply stating that just because we only have evidence of Heidelbergensis living up to 300,000 years ago, this doesn't mean they "died out" at that time. It means we only have fossil evidence of this period and they could have lived after this 300,000 year period. Just because we put a date on the lifespan of a species, doesn't mean it's exactly how long it existed for...it just means it's all we have evidence for.
How many anthropology classes have you taken, out of curiosity?Rob, clearly you have no idea what I am referring to. I study anthropology in college and no where did I even hint at not believing in evolution. I am just trying to explain the time lines of each humanoid species in the archeological record. We don't see species die out necessarily but rather we just haven't found fossils for certain time periods. Fossils aren't bones and are rare to form so it's no surprise to find what seems to be "gaps" in the record of human evolution.I thought he was wanting the video of the last 200,000 years before he will accept it.HUH? That was very oddly worded to be honest, and I dont get what you are attempting to say.
Okay...well science doesn't like to make unnecessary assumptions. We understand the time span of certain species by using dating techniques on the fossils. So if we have only 2 fossils from a certain species that date at 200,000 years and 100,000 years, we can positively state that species was around from 200,000-100,000 years ago. The more fossils we get, the more accurate the time span becomes. Let's say we find a third fossil from this hypothetical species that dates older than 200,000 years...we then can expand the lifespan of the species to correlate with the fossil. Reading my response in light of the original post will show what I am responding to.
Hope this is clearer, it's hard to make comprehensive posts on my phone while at work so sorry about the confusion.
You seem to have an odd view of how the fossil record works at least, from a paleontology perspective.
Lol.
I have taken about 15 as I have fulfilled my anthro courses for my degree and am working on a psychology minor for my last year. Please explain why it's odd. It's actually pretty basic when it comes to human evolution. You don't assume things you don't have evidence for...a pretty basic tenet of all science.
How many hours of your coarse work were dedicated to paleontology and geology topics?
Its odd because its is trending against Occam's razor, if there is no fossil record prior to or post a certain point, then the simplest explanation is that is had not evolved yet, and/or had already gone extinct.
That is good logic, provided there is enough fossils to be found.How many hours of your coarse work were dedicated to paleontology and geology topics?
Its odd because its is trending against Occam's razor, if there is no fossil record prior to or post a certain point, then the simplest explanation is that is had not evolved yet, and/or had already gone extinct.
Hmm, how many is "enough"? One fossil is enough to describe a new species/family/order of insects from.That is good logic, provided there is enough fossils to be found.How many hours of your coarse work were dedicated to paleontology and geology topics?
Its odd because its is trending against Occam's razor, if there is no fossil record prior to or post a certain point, then the simplest explanation is that is had not evolved yet, and/or had already gone extinct.
If there had only been 1 fossil of its type could you make inferences from that? It would be risky unless you can see others like it, then you might assume it evolved to this other form.Hmm, how many is "enough"? One fossil is enough to describe a new species/family/order of insects from.That is good logic, provided there is enough fossils to be found.How many hours of your coarse work were dedicated to paleontology and geology topics?
Its odd because its is trending against Occam's razor, if there is no fossil record prior to or post a certain point, then the simplest explanation is that is had not evolved yet, and/or had already gone extinct.
HUH, what are you basing that assertion on? If the fossil has a unique set of traits then why wouldn't you go with that?
You would call it a species but the inferences I was referring to was estimating when it began or if it was extinct.
Even better question, what are you basing your assertion on? Who do you think we date fossils? Please explain. Who is going against occurs razor? And what does having course experience in paleontology and geology have anything to do with our conversation about biological anthropology (human evolution)?
Im asking as this falls just as firmly into the paleoanthropology, paleomammology areas of study as it does into classic anthropology. paleontology bases extinction dating on the last known fossil of a member taxon, until and unless younger fossils are found, same for older fossils and oldest appearance.Even better question, what are you basing your assertion on? Who do you think we date fossils? Please explain. Who is going against occurs razor? And what does having course experience in paleontology and geology have anything to do with our conversation about biological anthropology (human evolution)?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because the most recent fossil you have found is 200,000 years old does not mean that was the last time that species was alive. It is the latest date we can prove it was alive, but it is not proof that the species was not still alive at a later date.
Ah yes, the old proving a negative problem. It is best approached from a probability analysis, Bayesian, not frequentist.
If there is no evidence that something exists then it probably does not exist. If a specimen is found then the probability becomes one, everybody is amazed, papers are written etc etc etc.
Coelecanth, case in point:
Coelacanth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Until and unless younger fossils are found." Isn't that exactly what ReligionOfTheSemites said in the first place?
*Like*Ah yes, the old proving a negative problem. It is best approached from a probability analysis, Bayesian, not frequentist.
If there is no evidence that something exists then it probably does not exist. If a specimen is found then the probability becomes one, everybody is amazed, papers are written etc etc etc.
Coelecanth, case in point:
Coelacanth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not really. RotS was making a similarly worded point that is not the same."Until and unless younger fossils are found." Isn't that exactly what ReligionOfTheSemites said in the first place?
How is what your saying any different from what I said?Not really. RotS was making a similarly worded point that is not the same."Until and unless younger fossils are found." Isn't that exactly what ReligionOfTheSemites said in the first place?
Maybe not, but the predecessor also doesn't immediately die out. I'm not sure Heidelbergensis is even the nearest ancestor (I think it was homo-erectus) but if modern Cro Magnons did come from them then they were just a subspecies of a larger group at first.Oh no - here comes the 'gap' excuse.
There were obviously evolving going on in the period of 100,000 years. Species don't spontaneously give birth to a brand new species, so the descendants of heidelbergensis would slowly but surely become archaic homo sapiens.
Homo erectus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's kind of like how pygmies still exist today, and there are certain other populations of humans that look a bit different from the "normal".
| « Where a chimp out smarts you | Neanderthal and human lethal interaction » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
