Notices
Results 1 to 48 of 48
Like Tree5Likes
  • 3 Post By Alec Bing
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By CEngelbrecht

Thread: Which conditions transformed primates into homo sapiens?

  1. #1 Which conditions transformed primates into homo sapiens? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Which were these conditions?

    In a future, could the conditions of the animal leap to human be recreated in laboratory?

    Statistically, how improbable is it to occur naturally?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    how improbable is it to occur naturally?
    It's pretty unlikely to happen in the same way again. What you need is what we started out with - a few more species of primates, some of which have the spine and skull meeting in a way that allows a "heads up" posture that is suited to walking on two legs more than on four. (The spine has to enter the skull from beneath as it does in us, rather than from behind as it does in chimps and all the others. See Anatomical differences here. Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

    Then you need all the other climatic and other circumstances to work in your favour - along with pure, unadulterated luck. Remember, our species came within a hair's breadth of being wiped out entirely in one of the ice ages, being reduced to 10,000 or so individuals is not a recommended strategy for species survival. But here we are.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    how improbable is it to occur naturally?
    It's pretty unlikely to happen in the same way again. What you need is what we started out with - a few more species of primates, some of which have the spine and skull meeting in a way that allows a "heads up" posture that is suited to walking on two legs more than on four. (The spine has to enter the skull from beneath as it does in us, rather than from behind as it does in chimps and all the others)
    Suricat walks in two legs more than i Meerkat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    But suricats and chimps can use hands to manipulate objects but, with not shade of dude, they will never became homo sapiens. Their intelligence is static, not evolves.



    Then you need all the other climatic and other circumstances to work in your favour - along with pure, unadulterated luck. Remember, our species came within a hair's breadth of being wiped out entirely in one of the ice ages, being reduced to 10,000 or so individuals is not a recommended strategy for species survival. But here we are
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Then you need all the other climatic and other circumstances to work in your favour - along with pure, unadulterated luck. Remember, our species came within a hair's breadth of being wiped out entirely in one of the ice ages, being reduced to 10,000 or so individuals is not a recommended strategy for species survival. But here we are.
    I don't understand. Climatic circumstances? Please be more specific. Why we can't recreate the same enviroment for a horde of chimps and wait to see what happens?...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Why we can't recreate the same enviroment for a horde of chimps and wait to see what happens?...
    1. There are currently no species or sub-species of chimps that I know of with the skull-spine features of our forebears so a "horde" of unsuitable chimps might come up with something interesting but it wouldn't be recognisably like us.

    2. We don't have the time to wait and see what happens. These processes take tens or, more likely, hundreds of thousands of years.

    3. We have the power to make the climate much warmer and more unstable - we're doing it now. We're also eliminating certainly one, and possibly several, glacial cycles, so we're eliminating yet another important influence in our development and dispersal.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    I like to think that the automobile pre-dates human beings. You see, the dinosaurs made them. Then, when the less intelligent apes couldn't figure out how to drive, only the smart ones lived on. Then, after years of driving over animals for food, they lost the need for being able to hunt, therefore losing fur and most muscle mass. It's still a mystery to me how we lost the archaeological evidence of these cars, but it's bound to turn up somewhere.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    From what I have read, the single leap was a mutative joining of two chromosomes, creating a single chromosome in humans where apes have two.
    Apparently this allowed for more folds in our brain and the ability to cram more thinking power in a regular skull.

    All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.. Chromosome fusion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    bezoar , Default March 12th, 2013, 02:58 PM

    Which were these conditions?

    In a future, could the conditions of the animal leap to human be recreated in laboratory?

    Statistically, how improbable is it to occur naturally?
    We can see today how natural evolution has affected other hominids. What you see is what you get from normal evolutionary processes.

    Homo sapiens is a lucky accident, a mutation and probably very rare, but then there are other animals with very high intelligence, albeit non-human.

    But given enough time and environmental conditions, it seems that there is no limit to how life in nature is able to express itself .

    Note, all hominids except the orangutan live as families in communities. But you may want to check this out, to see the fundamental similarities between apes and humans.
    The orangutan and the hound dog. [VIDEO]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    There were transitional species between modern Homo sapiens and the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees/bonobos. Modern humans didn't just spring up out of nowhere with the abilities that they have today. I would say that the things that distinguish humans from other great apes (including our brains) evolved gradually. All great apes manufacture tools, for example; it's just the complexity of the tools that has changed.

    Edit: There's a hypothesis that the development of the modern human brain is linked to an increase in meat consumption.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    It is true that the leap was not one single change from ape to homo sapiens. But it is also accepted that this was not a gradual evolutionary process. This was a mutation and accidental fusing of two critical chromosomes, which allowed subsequent increase in brain power.

    The chromosome fusion has been credited with the increase in brain folds and greater processing power, which led to better hunting skills, which led to meat consumption, which led to smaller jaw muscles, which led to more room inside the skull, which led to yet greater brains and thinking power.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    It is true that the leap was not one single change from ape to homo sapiens. But it is also accepted that this was not a gradual evolutionary process. This was a mutation and accidental fusing of two critical chromosomes, which allowed subsequent increase in brain power.

    The chromosome fusion has been credited with the increase in brain folds and greater processing power, which led to better hunting skills, which led to meat consumption, which led to smaller jaw muscles, which led to more room inside the skull, which led to yet greater brains and thinking power.
    Yes, I thought the wording of the original question was unclear. Primates (or apes) were not transformed into Homo sapiens, BTW. Homo sapiens still are primates and apes. A better way to word the question would have been something like "What engendered the split between the human and chimpanzee/bonobo line?" Sorry if I sound nitpicky, but language is important when communicating scientific ideas.
    adelady, tk421 and seagypsy like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    um... homo sapiens are primates. We didn't change from being primates to homo sapiens. did you mean to ask why some primates became homo sapiens and others did not?
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Alec Bing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    It is true that the leap was not one single change from ape to homo sapiens. But it is also accepted that this was not a gradual evolutionary process. This was a mutation and accidental fusing of two critical chromosomes, which allowed subsequent increase in brain power.

    The chromosome fusion has been credited with the increase in brain folds and greater processing power, which led to better hunting skills, which led to meat consumption, which led to smaller jaw muscles, which led to more room inside the skull, which led to yet greater brains and thinking power.
    Yes, I thought the wording of the original question was unclear. Primates (or apes) were not transformed into Homo sapiens, BTW. Homo sapiens still are primates and apes. A better way to word the question would have been something like "What engendered the split between the human and chimpanzee/bonobo line?" Sorry if I sound nitpicky, but language is important when communicating scientific ideas.
    Sorry, I was sloppy.

    from wiki;
    The term "hominid" is also used in the more restricted sense as hominins or "humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees".[2] In this usage, all hominid species other than Homo sapiens are extinct. A number of known extinct genera are grouped with humans in the Homininae subfamily, others with orangutans in the Ponginae subfamily. The most recent common ancestor of the Hominidae lived roughly 14 million years ago,[3] when the ancestors of the orangutans speciated from the ancestors of the other three genera.[4] The ancestors of the Hominidae family had already speciated from those of the Hylobatidae family, perhaps 15 million to 20 million years ago.[4][5]....Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    I don't understand. Climatic circumstances? Please be more specific. Why we can't recreate the same enviroment for a horde of chimps and wait to see what happens?...
    1. We did not evolve from chimpanzees. The chimpanzee has evolved as much from its last common ancestor with us as we have, so the starting point is lost forever.
    2. The environment consists, in detail, of thousands of dependent and independent variables. We have no means for quantifying all of these and duplicating them.
    3. The mutations that led to us were random.
    Alec Bing likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Not trying to be picky, but you brought up an interesting question.

    Has the chimpanzee evolved as much from our common ancestor as homo sapiens? Obviously we have had equal time to do so. But IMO, in a very stable environment where there is strength in numbers, abundant food, natural shelter, and once a rudimentary ability to analyze and plan actions is acquired, there is very little natural pressure for evolution of specific survival techniques and versatility is the most successful asset.

    OTOH, this need was amplified in humans who were placed under much greater natural stresses due to their migration from So Africa to the tip of Alaska. As versatility is a particular strength of brain power in a variety of environments, with the knowledge of that environment our understanding (and additional brain growth) expanded in a exponential fashion, a trend which seems to continue to day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Not trying to be picky, but you brought up an interesting question.

    Has the chimpanzee evolved as much from our common ancestor as homo sapiens?
    The simple answer is yes. Indeed one could argue that the chimpanzee underwent more evolution from the time of the last common ancestor than did Homo sapiens. This is dealt with in this paper.

    Bakewell, M.A. et al "More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution" PNAS Vol104 no. 18 2007

    Abstract
    Observations of numerous dramatic and presumably adaptive phenotypic modifications during human evolution prompt the common belief that more genes have undergone positive Darwinian selection in the human lineage than in the chimpanzee lineage since their evolutionary divergence 6–7 million years ago. Here, we test this hypothesis by analyzing nearly 14,000 genes of humans and chimps. To ensure an accurate and unbiased comparison, we select a proper outgroup, avoid sequencing errors, and verify statistical methods. Our results show that the number of positively selected genes is substantially smaller in humans than in chimps, despite a generally higher nonsynonymous substitution rate in humans. These observations are explainable by the reduced efficacy of natural selection in humans because of their smaller long-term effective population size but refute the anthropocentric view that a grand enhancement in Darwinian selection underlies human origins. Although human and chimp positively selected genes have different molecular functions and participate in different biological processes, the differences do not ostensibly correspond to the widely assumed adaptations of these species, suggesting how little is currently known about which traits have been under positive selection. Our analysis of the identified positively selected genes lends support to the association between human Mendelian diseases and past adaptations but provides no evidence for either the chromosomal speciation hypothesis or the widespread brain-gene acceleration hypothesis of human origins.

    What may be distinctive is the apparent difference in the rate of change in the genes governing nervous system development. Primates have a high rate compared with, for example, rodents, but the rate in hominids is higher still. This study explores that issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore laza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Serbia, Belgrade
    Posts
    116
    "There is grandeur in this view of life,from so simple beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
    Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by laza View Post
    I think i hurt myself watching that lol.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore laza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Serbia, Belgrade
    Posts
    116
    hahaha dont be like that, Elaine Morgan disagrees
    "There is grandeur in this view of life,from so simple beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
    Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Evolution occasionally results in similar, but not exactly alike, organisms. Dolphins are, to a degree, similar to ichthyosaurs, and of course, both evolved completely separately. Dolphins and ichthyosaurs, of course, are very, very different when we look at their make up in detail.

    In the same way, there is no reason in theory why an intelligent biped superficially similar to humans could not evolve. It would not be human, though. In detail, it would be very different.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Perhaps one of them fell out of a tree onto its head. Upon injuring its brain, a small, and extraordinarily unfortunate thing occurred. The ape increased in intelligence, and began pondering its infinitely insignificant existence.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    did you mean to ask why some primates became homo sapiens and others did not?
    I think I can address the crux of that. Our common ancestor with chimpanzees we can guess had traits which both modern humans and modern chimps have. A curious trait shared by both species is an innate drive to self-speciate. That is, to divide along cultural or tribal lines and exclude the other group even to the point of attempted genocide. Chimps willfully split into clans like hill clan, valley clan, etc. and proceed as if each population should evolve in opposite directions. Humans have been known to do the same.

    In that narrative, one could say chimps are what they are because half our common ancestors drove them deeper into the jungle; but likewise we are what we are because the "chimp-minded" or "chimp race" drove us out. We became genetically incapable of interbreeding with this other population much later than we became culturally (technologically?) exclusive. I know it sounds mean and too deliberate for usual explanations of evolution but this is observable in both species so I think it best explains the root cause of the split.

    And thank goodness homo sapiens rose above its various niches and caste divides before that happened a second time.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post

    And thank goodness homo sapiens rose above its various niches and caste divides before that happened a second time.
    I am not necessarily agreeing with your hypothesis or assuming anything about it. It isn't something I give much thought to. But for fun, let's assume your hypothesis is dead on. And that's exactly what caused our evolution to split off. What leads you to be so sure that homo sapiens rose above its various niches and caste divides? These behaviors are very much a part of what makes humans humans today. Still killing each other over religion, territory, skin color, language differences. There are tribal peoples in the rain forests who have disappeared due to logging and how can we be sure we haven't bred out entire ethnicities without realizing it. And don't get me started on Native Americans being nearly wiped out completely.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    There are tribal peoples in the rain forests who have disappeared due to logging and how can we be sure we haven't bred out entire ethnicities without realizing it. And don't get me started on Native Americans being nearly wiped out completely.
    And big foots.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Bigfoots weren't wiped out. One of the more intelligible members of the species raided a campsite. Where it came upon a shaving razer. The Bigfoot species has since made it habitual to shave their entire bodies, and have assimilated into human culture successfully as basketball players and NFL linemen.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Except for Larry Byrd, who was not a Big Foot but a Big Nose, cousins of the Sasquatch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Bigfoots weren't wiped out. One of the more intelligible members of the species raided a campsite. Where it came upon a shaving razer. The Bigfoot species has since made it habitual to shave their entire bodies, and have assimilated into human culture successfully as basketball players and NFL linemen.
    I thought they did what so many other physically different people do, join circuses and hollywood. Chewbaca being the most famous of the bigfoots. He had enough sense to NOT shave.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I thought they did what so many other physically different people do, join circuses and hollywood. Chewbaca being the most famous of the bigfoots. He had enough sense to NOT shave.
    Later, he shaved and took on the screen name 'Ron Perlman.'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by laza View Post
    hahaha dont be like that, Elaine Morgan disagrees
    Elaine is not talking about mermaids, don't you dare claim that. The proper term used about the consensus on "aquatic apes" in human evolution is semiaquatic. Like a hippo is semiaquatic, or an otter. Nobody takes these aquatic apes out to sea, there are no observations to support such a level of aquaticism ever in human evolution. The above Animal Planet feature is a silly mockumentary for the sake of entertainment, far from the notion of human beings some kind of beach ape biologically speaking.
    John Galt likes this.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore laza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Serbia, Belgrade
    Posts
    116
    they are not talking about mermaids as well, do you agree with elaine ?
    "There is grandeur in this view of life,from so simple beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
    Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by laza View Post
    they are not talking about mermaids as well, do you agree with elaine ?
    The short answer to that is a resounding yes.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Because the original question was so poorly framed (humans are primates)....and the branching into big foot, mermaids and still unsupported aquatic ape hypothesis, this is being moved to pseudoscience.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    What leads you to be so sure that homo sapiens rose above its various niches and caste divides?... Still killing each other over religion, territory, skin color, language differences.
    Many still attempt speciation - I mean: not interbreeding in practice - but meanwhile genes are better distributed than ever. Contrast dogs and wolves, which can yet technically interbreed but do so rarely. Or common chimps and black chimps (bonobos) going their separate ways. Those species divisions are about cultural incompatibility, first; then genetic incompatibility as the ultimate result. Now with humans we still play up cultural distinctions at every turn but not in a very sustained way (looking at the last million years) so that our actual genes beneath the racial or national distinctions are better distributed than ever.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Because the original question was so poorly framed (humans are primates)....and the branching into big foot, mermaids and still unsupported aquatic ape hypothesis, this is being moved to pseudoscience.
    Still, huh?
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    I agree with Lynx with that move.
    The aquatic ape hypothesis has never moved beyond hypothesis level. In science, a hypothesis is just as valuable as the testable predictions it makes. With no testable predictions, or worse, testable predictions that do not pan out, the hypothesis rapidly becomes a very poor hypothesis.

    The aquatic ape hypothesis makes one very obvious testable prediction. It predicts that pre-human fossils will be found in marine sediments, even if they are sediments characteristic of shallow water. No such fossils have ever been found, which weakens that hypothesis dramatically, and pushes it firmly into the category of pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    From what I understood so far, there is a large set of factors. But summarized:
    Climate change -> less dense forests -> longer travels -> walking on two legs (massive energy conservation, other primates still do it) -> bigger ass -> hands became available to do tasks, even on the road -> Increased dexterity significantly favoured evolution of larger brain -> Increase of diet -> living near water -> loss of hair -> emigration over continets etc. Mind you homo sapiens is just one of the homonids that eventually prevailed over the other homonids that evolved alongside it.
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I agree with Lynx with that move.
    The aquatic ape hypothesis has never moved beyond hypothesis level. In science, a hypothesis is just as valuable as the testable predictions it makes. With no testable predictions, or worse, testable predictions that do not pan out, the hypothesis rapidly becomes a very poor hypothesis.

    The aquatic ape hypothesis makes one very obvious testable prediction. It predicts that pre-human fossils will be found in marine sediments, even if they are sediments characteristic of shallow water. No such fossils have ever been found, which weakens that hypothesis dramatically, and pushes it firmly into the category of pseudoscience.
    There are twenty million things wrong in your post, but I'm not gonna discuss this topic in this subforum.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    There are twenty million things wrong in your post, but I'm not gonna discuss this topic in this subforum.
    Where are you going to discuss it, then? Because I'd like to see those twenty million things, along with an explanation for the conspiracy theory as to why Aquatic Ape (aka sea monkey) idea is repressed by ebil gubmint sinuses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Well, there's always Kuliukas' specific forum:
    Waterside-Hypotheses • Index page
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Well, there's always Kuliukas' specific forum:
    Waterside-Hypotheses • Index page
    Thanks for the link.
    But that is another forum, this forum is not a sub-forum. I would prefer to not register at too many places as it generally depresses the internet for me to be in too many places at once.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    We can't debate it here. The moderators here refuse to allow this particular topic to be debated in the forum where it belongs. And those disparaging terms are unacceptable.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    For good reason.

    The aquatic ape hypothesis is pseudoscience, since it is just someone's speculation. There is no proper scientific evidence, so it remains speculation. If you want to indulge in speculation (and I like doing that also), then it needs to be kept in the right place, which is pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    What leads you to be so sure that homo sapiens rose above its various niches and caste divides?... Still killing each other over religion, territory, skin color, language differences.
    Many still attempt speciation - I mean: not interbreeding in practice - but meanwhile genes are better distributed than ever. Contrast dogs and wolves, which can yet technically interbreed but do so rarely. Or common chimps and black chimps (bonobos) going their separate ways. Those species divisions are about cultural incompatibility, first; then genetic incompatibility as the ultimate result. Now with humans we still play up cultural distinctions at every turn but not in a very sustained way (looking at the last million years) so that our actual genes beneath the racial or national distinctions are better distributed than ever.
    there are situations that are rare but present still where two humans cannot successfully breed. Reason being Rh compatibility of blood types.

    So biological speciation stands to be conceivable though unlikely since we have the intelligence to counter its effects with proper medical treatment.

    Rh Incompatibility
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I agree with Lynx with that move.
    The aquatic ape hypothesis has never moved beyond hypothesis level. In science, a hypothesis is just as valuable as the testable predictions it makes. With no testable predictions, or worse, testable predictions that do not pan out, the hypothesis rapidly becomes a very poor hypothesis.

    The aquatic ape hypothesis makes one very obvious testable prediction. It predicts that pre-human fossils will be found in marine sediments, even if they are sediments characteristic of shallow water. No such fossils have ever been found, which weakens that hypothesis dramatically, and pushes it firmly into the category of pseudoscience.
    There are twenty million things wrong in your post, but I'm not gonna discuss this topic in this subforum.
    I think your count is off by at least 19,999,999 especially considering there are less than 10 actual claims in the entire post.

    The only way it will be pulled out of pseudoscience back into real science subforums is if you can bring some substantiated claims regarding aquatic or semiaquatic ape hypothesis to the table. However in the mean time, I don't believe the OP intended aquatic ape to be the subject of choice so it would be nice if the hypothesis can be discussed elsewhere so that the OP can be discussed a bit more meaningfully. The OP's only mistake was poorly framing the question. Perhaps we can get back on track by helping him restate what exactly he is asking about and move on from there. Then maybe the sea monkey stuff can be moved to its own thread where it belongs and the OP thread can go back to where it started.

    (sea monkey can only be disparaging if the ones that it is supposed to offend actually exist. If some aquatic ape presents itself and demands that we stop calling him a sea monkey I will stop doing so. But I can call mythological made up animals anything I like. If I want to call, what some people refer to as a unicorn, a horny horse, I can.)
    Last edited by seagypsy; March 18th, 2013 at 08:09 PM. Reason: missing punctuation
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    21
    Very interesting question. I am not very well learned upon the topic of human evolution outside the realm of advanced college human biology courses (i.e. I am not an expert on the topic), but I have a question regarding future human evolution that I feel would be discussed intellectually on this post. If the modern day homosapiens evolved from a more primitive species/animal, could/will humans, in our current state, evolve into a different animal? This would of course be over the period of many thousands, possibly millions of years, but is it feasible to believe humans could evolve into a more advanced species, making us view the new advanced human species to our current homosapien species in the same view that we view the gap between modern human beings and other primates, such as baboons?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceRocks View Post
    If the modern day homosapiens evolved from a more primitive species/animal, could/will humans, in our current state, evolve into a different animal? This would of course be over the period of many thousands, possibly millions of years, but is it feasible to believe humans could evolve into a more advanced species, making us view the new advanced human species to our current homosapien species in the same view that we view the gap between modern human beings and other primates, such as baboons?
    Absolutely. But bear in mind that continued evolution does not necessarily mean "advanced."
    If our survival is better suited by our evolving a less intellectual brain, that is how we will evolve.


    And I think the process has already begun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Just a couple thoughts of mine (speculations, really).

    Bearing in mind
    - Geographic isolation of small populations is a major spur to evolutionary change
    - Human technological development should mean some humans will explore and settle on/near other star systems within less than 10,000 years.
    - The speed of light limit means those extra-solar colonies will be geographically and genetically isolated.

    Then, we can expect evolution to occur on those separate populations. This will probably be more than 50% driven by artificial genetic engineering. Over enough time, the end result will be a number of daughter species. Descended from human, but no longer human.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    21
    Very interesting. Thanks for the input.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Hello fellow homo sapiens~
    By Hassnhadi in forum Introductions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2013, 03:51 PM
  2. Replies: 37
    Last Post: December 23rd, 2012, 07:11 AM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 4th, 2012, 03:19 AM
  4. Homo Sapiens vs Natural Selection
    By TalkingMonkey in forum Biology
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: June 24th, 2010, 07:58 AM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: February 17th, 2010, 07:03 PM
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
  •