AgnosticWeb.com - Human ancestors

Human ancestors (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 03:56:38 +0000

Our splits from chimps, orangutans, apes and Neanderthals all earlier than previously thought:-http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/putting-our-dna-clocks-back/

Human ancestors (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 16:52:54 +0000

There were four branches of humans. We are the one left, but there was some sexual interplay:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=denisovan-genome&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_MB_20120905

Human ancestors (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:11:09 +0000

Further commentary on Neanderthal trists with sapiens, or not, as covered by my previous entries. There may or may not have been hanky-panky:-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577587483438679926.html?KEYWORDS=matt+ridley+articles

Human ancestors: are hiding? (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 02:11:37 +0000

You expected something different? I'm sorry, but evolution is the real God of gaps... I will gladly admit that some level of evolution occurred, but you can't use it to explain away everything you don't understand any more than you can use God to explain it away.

Human ancestors: are hiding? (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:36:43 +0000

The gap between australopithicus and homo is fuzzy:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/a_big_bang_theo063141.html-"Of the various transitions that occurred during human evolution, the transition from Australopithecus to Homo was undoubtedly one of the most critical in its magnitude and consequences. As with many key evolutionary events, there is both good and bad news. First, the bad news is that many details of this transition are obscure because of the paucity of the fossil and archaeological records.111 As for the "good news," they still admit: "[A]lthough we lack many details about exactly how, when, and where the transition occurred from Australopithecus to Homo, we have sufficient data from before and after the transition to make some inferences about the overall nature of key changes that did occur."112-In other words, the fossil record provides ape-like australopithecines, and human-like Homo, but not fossils documenting a transition between them.-In the absence of fossil evidence, evolutionary claims about the transition to Homo are said to be mere "inferences" made by studying the non-transitional fossils we do have, and then assuming that a transition must have occurred somehow, sometime, and someplace."

Human ancestors (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:21:26 +0000

We are definitely part Neanderthal: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2238-And now we might be only kissing cousins with a common ancestor. Dueling studies:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120813155521.htm

Human ancestors (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:49:07 +0000

We are definitely part Neanderthal:-http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2238

Human ancestors (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:58:33 +0000

We haven't a clue how humans really evolved. Similarly, experiments on the brain tell us nothing except that we just don't know how the processes of consciousness (including the will) actually work. There is absolutely no consensus on either of these subjects, and although I think it's one of the most admirable of our human characteristics that we continue to seek the truth about ourselves, I do wish (a) that scientists and their media would stop making sensational announcements as if they really had uncovered some "truth", and (b) that scientists would own up to their personal limitations as well as to the limitations of their field.-The entire field of science writing would have nothing to do most of the time, if your wish is granted.-Fortuitously found this confusing mess:-Read article and ask yourself, how did they study single neurons 'in vivo'? Open skulls? Of course not. Can't get at the real article so I don't know:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120809141629.htm

Human ancestors (reply)

dhw — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:48:47 +0000

DAVID : Lucy is a problem:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/later_hominins_062891.html-But later ancestors are becoming more plentiful:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120808132705.htm-DAVID: (under "FREE WILL; DISSING LIBET") New findings doubt his approach:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-wi...-All these entries serve to remind us that found objects and experiments are one thing, and interpretation is another. Even though we are continually making astonishing progress in certain fields (e.g. technology and medicine), we should stop kidding ourselves that there is objectivity in all fields. Science does not function without scientists, and they are as subjective in their judgements as the rest of us. All these different so-called ancestors tell us nothing except that we had lots of different ancestors. We haven't a clue how humans really evolved. Similarly, experiments on the brain tell us nothing except that we just don't know how the processes of consciousness (including the will) actually work. There is absolutely no consensus on either of these subjects, and although I think it's one of the most admirable of our human characteristics that we continue to seek the truth about ourselves, I do wish (a) that scientists and their media would stop making sensational announcements as if they really had uncovered some "truth", and (b) that scientists would own up to their personal limitations as well as to the limitations of their field.

Human ancestors

David Turell — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:07:51 +0000

Lucy is a problem:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/later_hominins_062891.html-But later ancestors are becoming more plentiful:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120808132705.htm