Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Human Evolution

  1. #1 Human Evolution 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6
    I've just published a new theory on human evolution see, www.stonehengetheanswer.com and click on Human Evolution.

    I would welcome any comments or objections.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    33
    That's a rather gandiose claim :wink:

    We have quite a good idea about where we came from and you have your work cut out for you if you wish to re-write our evolutionary paradigm... So good luck! Firstly, I find it disingenuous to describe and dismiss the aquatic ape theory in 2 sentences. Secondly, you also might like to look at neoteny and developmental allometry as an explanation for brain size.

    I think you have a good story and you might like to look at integration along side other theories and see how that takes.


    ~TaO!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,631
    Hmm, the use of tools, versus the use of massive muscles.

    Anyway, what race is the furthest evolved?

    - Native american
    - Afrikans (black)
    - Europeans (white)
    - Aborigonals
    - Aziatics
    - Middle eastern

    My idea is that it can not be determined because the only difference seems to be the looks. And some antigens are also variating in certain races.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6
    [quote="TaO!"]That's a rather gandiose claim :wink:

    Hi TaO, I can see nothing grandiose in having a theory, a theory is just a theory after all. What I am doing by publishing on this forum is testing the theory in the only way I can think of.

    I have been able to test some of my theories on Neolithic Stone-moving by means of practical experiments with real stones, an option that is not available with a theory on human evolution.

    I have tested it on several other forums and so far no-one as blown any holes in it, not as far as I am concerned anyway. Unless someone does just that, then the theory deserves to stand alongside the existing theories in my humble opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver
    Hmm, the use of tools, versus the use of massive muscles.

    Anyway, what race is the furthest evolved?

    - Native american
    - Afrikans (black)
    - Europeans (white)
    - Aborigonals
    - Aziatics
    - Middle eastern

    My idea is that it can not be determined because the only difference seems to be the looks. And some antigens are also variating in certain races.
    There's no such thing as "furthest evolved". The qualities by which people usually measure how "evolved" something is, usually coloquially, are anthropocentric. That is, the qualities that humans judge by are usually qualities that we already know we are well equiped with like complexity and intelligence. However, if we were to measure the success of a species by it's ability to breed quickly, how much of the planet it ccupies or it's total mass, Homo sapiens sapiens lose out the majority of the time to animals most people would consider inferior. The same phenomena occurs across race aswell where someone might consider one race more "civilised" than another.

    Most of our organs are usually better 'designed' by other animals. Our kidneys are functionally inferior to those of desert marsupials and our eyes don't come close to the visual acuity possessed by predatory birds.
    ~TaO!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6
    Anyway, what race is the furthest evolved?

    I'm talking about the evolution of a species, not a race. Every race on earth is a member of the same species and all are at the same stage of evolution to the best of my knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    33
    [quote="GordonP"]
    Quote Originally Posted by TaO!
    That's a rather gandiose claim :wink:

    Hi TaO, I can see nothing grandiose in having a theory, a theory is just a theory after all. What I am doing by publishing on this forum is testing the theory in the only way I can think of.

    I have been able to test some of my theories on Neolithic Stone-moving by means of practical experiments with real stones, an option that is not available with a theory on human evolution.

    I have tested it on several other forums and so far no-one as blown any holes in it, not as far as I am concerned anyway. Unless someone does just that, then the theory deserves to stand alongside the existing theories in my humble opinion.
    What you have is not a scientific theory, it's a hypothesis. You need to sufficiently discredit the existing theories by accurately representing them, then tell us why they are wrong, either philosophically or scientifically. You can't do this to the AAH in two sentences by simply saying "it doesn't make sense". You haven't represented several of the ideas that are floating around academia, or provided even one reference. Even undergraduate essays have at least 10 references. By replacing current theories, what you need to do for human evolutionary theories is something along the lines of a doctoral thesis. These things usually take people a lifetime to research. Welcome to the world of science.
    ~TaO!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6
    [quote

    What you have is not a scientific theory, it's a hypothesis. You need to sufficiently discredit the existing theories by accurately representing them, then tell us why they are wrong, either philosophically or scientifically. You can't do this to the AAH in two sentences by simply saying "it doesn't make sense". You haven't represented several of the ideas that are floating around academia, or provided even one reference. Even undergraduate essays have at least 10 references. By replacing current theories, what you need to do for human evolutionary theories is something along the lines of a doctoral thesis. These things usually take people a lifetime to research. Welcome to the world of science.[/quote]

    As a sixtyone year old carpenter of limited education I seem to be running out of time. Perhaps you can help?

    I'll start with the plains theory. How did a small ape, totally defenceless away from the trees, survive on the plains long enough, for the evolution to the stage of Australapithices, to take place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    33
    Seeing as you seem quite keen on writing this, I'm quite happy to help you out. Please understand that most of us scientists are very busy and I can't dedicate hours of my time to do research for you. However I'm quite happy to provide you with scientific articles if you cannot access them yourself because I have institutional access.

    For starters, here's an overview of the hominids: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

    The language here is much easier to digest than "hardcore" science journals but I can give you some of these if you want to have a go.

    After a brief search of the literature, I found this journal article. Let me know if you would like it or you can grab it yourself.

    McHenry, H., Coffing, C. 2000. Astralipithecus to Homo: Transformations in body and mind. Annual Review of Anthropology. 29p. 125.

    Usually when a scientist reads an article, if what he reads is not basic common knowledge, the first thing he ask is "How do we know this?". So we provide references for everything we write. Some documents carry more "weight" than others and at the bottom, the "featherweights", are web pages. NO-ONE would seriously reference a web site unless it was relevant to the field, or if it was a list of articles or something like that. The most powerful references are from 'peer reviewed journals'. These papers are written by scientists and then reviewed by experts in the field before they are published. The two most well known peer review journals are probably "Science" and "Nature". If you don't know how to reference, I'm happy to give you examples.

    I suggest you pick one aspect of your area of interest, in this case, the survival of the Australopithecines and learn as much as you can. Perhaps you would like to firstly describe the species. What makes it different from hominid species that occured before and after it? Was it the only homind species at the time? What fossils do we have? Why was it considered bipedal? How long ago and for how long did this species occur? How intelligent was this species?

    Then you might like to describe their habitat and consider some aspects of evolutionary ecology. Where were they discovered? What advantages and dis-advantages did they have? (Some of this you already covered). What predators did they have to deal with and where did they live? Etc, etc.

    I have to get back to work, so good luck.
    ~TaO!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    25
    As Jackie Giles would say,
    "It's outrageous, preposterous, incomprehensible... It just doesn't make sense."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6
    Thanks TaO,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6
    [b]Skull Fossil Opens Window Into Early Period Of Human Origins.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...adskull_2.html

    It seems that scientists are having to consider the possiblity that bipedalism may have evolved while our ancestors still lived in a wooded enviroment. The discovery of the skull which has been classed as hominid and named Sahelanthropus tchadensis took place in an area 1500 miles west of the Rift Valley in Africa. The skull is estimated to be between 6 and 7 million years old. At that time the environment in this area is thought to have been forests and wooded savanna.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    33
    Generally if the news you read is more than 2 years old, there's a good chance some more research has been done on it. If you look down the bottom of the page, in the references section there's the "Nature" link.

    If you go to the Nature page and then search for "Sahelanthropus" and sort by date, it gives you the most recent papers on this Genus and related topics. You need a nature subscription for the papers but let me know which one or two you find the most interesting. Have a good read of the abstracts first.
    ~TaO!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •