Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: The Upright Ape

  1. #1 The Upright Ape 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155


    This is a book offering a new evolutionary theory, my friend has read it, but I find it quite complicated. I do not think this is a pseudoscientific book, but I have seen it little mentioned, I would to know what you think about this.

    The Upright Ape - A New Origin of the Species: A Book that Revolutionizes Human Origins and Updates the Theory of Evolution

    Can natural selection and Darwinian adaptation fully explain all of the major events in biological evolution? Since the 1870's leading scientists including William Bateson - the founder of modern genetics, and Stephen Jay Gould - the most widely read evolutionary theorist of the 20th century have argued that major sudden changes that do not involve the classic Darwinian mechanisms may also be important.Now, modern Hox genetics shows some of the major events in the history of life involved what may be called non-Darwinian mechanisms. Two examples are the origin of the bilaterally symmetric bilaterians (including all the insects and vertebrates). The first bilaterian group did not gradually develop a left side under the pressure of natural selection over millions of years - this was an abrupt left/right mirror duplication.
    This is a description of the book:

    "Sudden large scale abrupt changes in which entirely new types of organisms come into existence almost instantaneously do not fit the model of Modern Evolutionary Theory and the Darwinian model. In this remarkable 288 page book written by Harvard trained evolutionary biologist Aaron Filler, MD, PhD, we learn how modern biological evidence finally proves that sudden non-Darwinian evolution has played a major role in a number of major events in the history of life including the origin of humans. Based on this updated biological information, Dr. Filler re-examines the latest fossil evidence to reveal that the human body form is far more ancient than has been widely accepted - dating to the time of Morotopithecus 21.6 million years ago. As a consequence, Filler argues, there is now compelling evidence that apes descended from humans and not the other way around."
    He seems to be claiming there is an upright ancestor for the apes?

    The discovery of an ancient fossil in Moroto, Uganda from 21 million years ago was the first sign of a major flaw in our models of human evolution. It is almost identical to a modern human lumbar vertebra.But it was just one fossil against a world full of scientific opinion that humans, with their upright bipedal walking did not emerge until the chimpanzee-human split 6 million years ago.
    Then fossils of another upright bipedal ape - Oreopithecus - were found. Then another - Pierolapithecus. And then Sahelanthropus. First there was one. Now there are four upright bipedal species of apes before the chimp-human split. Paleoanthropology as a field has not yet come to grips with the revolutionary implications. The first "human" was probably Morotopithecus and probably lived 21 million years ago. The existing apes have a human ancestor.
    For fifty years we have defined the first humans by the acquisition of upright bipedal posture in creatures like Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) who had brains like other apes. However, it now appears that based on this definition human history must reach back to the Miocene of 21 million years ago.
    Did apes evolve from humans?

    Sudden abrupt changes in which entirely new types of organisms come into existence almost instantaneously do not fit the model of Modern
    Evolutionary Theory and the Darwinian model. In this remarkable 288 page book written by Harvard trained evolutionary biologist Aaron Filler, MD, Ph.D.--a student of Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr--we learn how modern biological evidence finally proves that sudden non-Darwinian evolution has played a major role in a number of major events in the history of life including the origin of humans.

    Based on this updated biological information, Dr. Filler re-examines the latest fossil evidence to reveal that the human body form is far more ancient than has been widely accepted--emerging abruptly, apparently due to a Pax gene change--at the time of Morotopithecus 21.6 million years ago. As a consequence, Filler argues, there is now compelling evidence that apes descended from humans and not the other way around.

    I would like to know your opinions about this, is this groundbreaking new research?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I would like to know your opinions about this, is this groundbreaking new research?
    Hardly. The oldest humanoid fossils that we know of date back to about 7 million years or so, and even those were really only borderline human. So if the human body form ( incl skulls ) originate from more than 21 million years ago, how come no one has ever found any fossils from the remaining 14 million years in between ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Sudden abrupt changes in which entirely new types of organisms come into existence almost instantaneously do not fit the model of Modern
    Evolutionary Theory and the Darwinian model.
    It does. Adversity is a strong driver for evolution, because new niches open up that can be exploited. A first come, first served kind of deal. These huge evolutionary jumps are all preceded by large extinction events.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I would like to know your opinions about this, is this groundbreaking new research?
    Hardly. The oldest humanoid fossils that we know of date back to about 7 million years or so, and even those were really only borderline human. So if the human body form ( incl skulls ) originate from more than 21 million years ago, how come no one has ever found any fossils from the remaining 14 million years in between ?
    ok thats a good question, I will ask the author that over email.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    ok thats a good question, I will ask the author that over email.
    I think it is a very poor question and not at all up to Marcus's usual standard. Human and primate fossils are extremely rare. We need not only great skill, but time, patience and luck to discover them. And we need to be looking in the right place. Frankly Marcus your question was rather silly.

    As to the book, forests, once again we see this dramatisation of the facts so that they become unrecognisable. I understand why it's done - it means thrill seekers such as yourself will go out and buy a copy. It is ludicrous that the extracts and promotions you have posted are implying that Mayr was non-Darwinian in his thinking.

    The role of hox genes in facilitating major evolutionary advances has been recognised practically since their discovery. This is important, but to claim it does not fit into the Natural Selection paradigm is just ignorant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I think it is a very poor question and not at all up to Marcus's usual standard. Human and primate fossils are extremely rare. We need not only great skill, but time, patience and luck to discover them. And we need to be looking in the right place. Frankly Marcus your question was rather silly.
    Sorry...like I said, this isn't my area of expertise.
    I should probably stick to the physics & maths sub-forums. At least there I know what I am talking about...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I think it is a very poor question and not at all up to Marcus's usual standard. Human and primate fossils are extremely rare. We need not only great skill, but time, patience and luck to discover them. And we need to be looking in the right place. Frankly Marcus your question was rather silly.
    Sorry...like I said, this isn't my area of expertise.
    I should probably stick to the physics & maths sub-forums. At least there I know what I am talking about...
    It wasn't that poor a question. I don't have any expertise, but that doesn't stop me from posting all over. Despite that, I think I don't make the forum any worse by doing that. In your case, it usually means the quality goes up. Don't be discouraged.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I think it is a very poor question and not at all up to Marcus's usual standard. Human and primate fossils are extremely rare. We need not only great skill, but time, patience and luck to discover them. And we need to be looking in the right place. Frankly Marcus your question was rather silly.
    Sorry...like I said, this isn't my area of expertise.
    I should probably stick to the physics & maths sub-forums. At least there I know what I am talking about...
    I was a bit harsh Marcus, it's just that you lulled me in to a false sense of expectation.

    Your posts are always so uniformly accurate and informative that I was quite taken by surprise at that one. The problem is that your point was similar (almost identical) to the question creationists ask - you know the one "so where are all the missing links?".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I was a bit harsh Marcus, it's just that you lulled me in to a false sense of expectation.

    Your posts are always so uniformly accurate and informative that I was quite taken by surprise at that one. The problem is that your point was similar (almost identical) to the question creationists ask - you know the one "so where are all the missing links?".
    No problem John.
    I was being too mathematical in my thinking; I saw one find at 21 million years, and then a bunch of finds in the range 7 million years - present, with nothing in between. Such a probability distribution is somewhat unlikely. My mistake was of course to not take into consideration the fact that the total sample size is very small.
    I can assure you however that I have no connections whatsoever to the Creationist camp. In fact I normally keep out of these discussions altogether, don't know why I decided to post this time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    I was being too mathematical in my thinking
    Are you a mathematician? I am taking a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc) are you shocked?

    So perhaps I am more qualified on the subject and study of evolution than you? And you thought I was a crackpot?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    I understand why it's done - it means thrill seekers such as yourself will go out and buy a copy. It is ludicrous that the extracts and promotions you have posted are implying that Mayr was non-Darwinian in his thinking.
    No I am not going to buy the book, for a start you can read most of it on his website. The author is a Darwinian I have spoken to him, he was a student of Gould, and he is a world leading expert on treatment of nerve pain. He just advocates a non-Darwinian mechanism against the gradual hypothesis, he takes it a further step then Gould. His ideas are not that radical despite the way they sound, but I have not seen much reviews from the scientific community about his book and that is why I started this thread, to see what the mainstream scientific view would be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post

    Are you a mathematician?
    No.
    My real world profession has nothing to do with science of any kind.

    I am taking a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc) are you shocked?
    Your background, education and qualifications are irrelevant to me. I judge participants simply by the merits ( or lack thereof ) of their posts on this forum.

    So perhaps I am more qualified on the subject and study of evolution than you?
    That may very well be the case. I have made it clear on several occasions that this isn't my area of expertise; I am more the maths & physics kind of guy.
    However, that won't stop me from pointing out things which I don't agree with, and I will continue doing so. Now, I may not be an expert in this area, but I do know where to go in order to obtain further information, and learn more about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Aquatic Ape Hypothesis
    By CEngelbrecht in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 981
    Last Post: July 1st, 2014, 01:59 AM
  2. Aquatic Ape Hypothesis
    By Lothar in forum Biology
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2011, 01:52 PM
  3. Aquatic Ape Theory
    By BioHazard in forum Biology
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: May 18th, 2009, 08:01 PM
  4. Aquatic ape
    By Pong in forum Biology
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: April 28th, 2008, 01:26 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

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
  •