by solameguy12 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Press releases comparing DNA between species can be pretty confusing. Typically the story fails to say what was actually measured, mtDNA, coding or noncoding DNA, how long a sequence, etc. Ratios and percentages are often not what is assumed.
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals
Regardless the way the AIG article spins the data, the conclusion of the two scientific papers/articles are as follows 1:
," this suggests that Neandertals and present-day human populations separated between 270,000 and 440,000 years ago (SOM Text 14), a date that is compatible with some interpretations of the paleontological and archaeological record (2, 72)."
2.By way of chart:
Your rather anticlimactic YouTube video shows the paleontologist patiently explaining to the interviewer how the skull was reconstructed from the existing fossils and what can be inferred through anatomical necessity and similar fossils. The nostrils must have been approximately where they were located in the reconstruction, as they were not anywhere else. Ultimately the exact nostril position does not determine the value of the fossil and is open to refinement if/when another specimen is found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthiacetus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus
etc.
peacefulpete I appreciate your posts. Though I am convinced of human evolution there is something which troubles me about the science pertaining to it. My stating the concern might give Sea Breeze some consolation, but I will state it anyway.
One thing that greatly annoys(and troubles) me regarding evolutionary science (including physical anthropology) is that every chart I come across of human evolution disagrees with every other chart of such to some degree! When the charts have lines connecting species they show different ancestor-descendant relationships. For example, older charts showed Homo sapiens having Homo erectus as their most recent ancestor, but the chart posted you shows Homo erectus as not being our ancestor at all. The chart posted by you shows Homo heidebergensis as our most recent ancestor, but a number of other charts show that species as not leading to us. Some science articles said that Homo heidebergensis is not a separate species but rather a variant of Homo erectus, whereas other science articles said that Homo heidebergensis is a variant of early Homo sapiens. Likewise some science articles don't consider Homo ergaster as being a separate species, but rather as an early form of Homo erectus. Some scientists assign certain fossils to one species, but a different scientist assigns them to a different species, and a third scientist to neither of the other two species, but instead to a different one.
Some scientists say that the Neanderthals have Homo erectus as their most recent ancestor, but the chart posted by you doesn't depict that - unless we interpret that which some call Homo heidebergensis as actually being a variant of Homo erectus.
The fossil skull labeled/cataloged KNM-ER 1470 is assigned to Homo habilis by some, to Homo rudolfensis by some, to Kenyanthropus rudolfensis by some, to the genus Australopithecus by others, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis says the following about Homo rudolfensis. "Consequently, both its generic classification and validity are debated without any wide consensus, with some recommending the species to actually belong to the genus Australopithecus as A. rudolfensis or Kenyanthropus as K. rudolfensis, or that it is synonymous with the contemporaneous and anatomically similar H. habilis."
The chart posted by you depicts Homo floresiensis as descending from Homo erectus and some scientists say it descended (as a dwarf) from such, but other scientists say it definitely did not descend from such and not a dwarf species, and that its limb proportions (arms relative to legs) is much more like that of Homo habilis and of Australopithecus afarensis. Regarding Homo floresiensis https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/homo-floresiensis-making-sense-of-the-small-91387735/ says the following.
"A second model advanced to explain the presence of the hominin fossils on the island of Flores in the Pleistocene states that this population was the offshoot of a more primitive, pre-erectus hominin species with a small body size and small brain. Evidence from the mandible and the rest of the skeleton supports this hypothesis (Argue et al., 2009). The size and morphology of the teeth and mandible share more resemblances to Australopithecus and the earliest Homo species than to Homo erectus (Brown and Maeda, 2009). In particular, the very short legs (relative both to the arms and to the feet) are a pattern seen in apes and australopiths rather than Homo erectus (a good Homo habilis skeletal comparison has not yet been discovered). LB1 was also disproportionately heavy for her height — a pattern closely approximated by the famous 3.2 million year old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton of "Lucy" (Jungers and Baab, 2009). Despite being only 106 cm in height, LB1 is estimated to have weighed close to 32.5 kg (71.7 lbs.). The carpal bones (bones of the wrist) in Homo floresiensis look more like those of chimpanzees than of modern humans (Tocheri et al., 2007). While the evolution of the wrist is not well documented in early members of the genus Homo (e.g., Homo habilis and Homo erectus), it is clear that the wrist morphology is more primitive than that of modern humans and Neanderthals. Like the wrist, the foot morphology, although exhibiting some human-like traits (including a non-grasping big toe), also retains several quite primitive features: a long forefoot with curved toes and the lack of a medial longitudinal arch (Jungers et al., 2009)."
Disi....The chart represents a model, a proposed reconstruction. Debates are the lifeblood of science. Sure there are uncertainties about the minutia. Just as today there are those who argue for regarding Bonobos a subspecies rather than a separate species, there are legitimate debates about where to spit the species lines in the deep past. The best part of science is the process. New evidence is always refining the big picture.
That can be frustrating to those who impatiently crave absolutes. There is simply no way to be dogmatic (tho individuals often are) about the details. Sadly conspiracy theories (I include Creationism) thrive on uncertainties and complexity.
Ironically, the new DNA evidence has illuminated the pictured by making it more complicated. While there always those who suspected it, the DNA evidence from Neanderthals seems to support the intermixing of distinct line of hominids. Simple models that look like a tree are oversimplifications, (and are recognized as such) in reality there were branches that merged, more dead ends, and branches that occasionally bumped into each other while remaining largely separate. It looked more like a matrix, a network of lineages.
Fossils can only show changes to bone, DNA can show much more. Subtle changes in protein signals that effect changes in cognition and immunity. Unfortunately this wonderful new window into the past is very limited by time and environmental conditions. But the Neanderthal. DNA seems to be proof of concept, distant cousins can and did interact and effect evolution of our species.
My reason for posting the chart wasn't to assert that that exact proposal was the last word on the topic but to show the authors of the papers did not doubt the relationship of Neanderthals to us.
Thanks peacefulpete.
Regarding Bonobos (formerly commonly known as Pygmy Chimpanzee) [with scientific species name of Pan paniscus] I didn't know there were any who argue they are a subspecies, though I know some classify them as chimpanzees. Are they arguing they are a subspecies of the Common Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)? In looking up the spelling of scientific names a moment ago I found an article at https://www.britannica.com/animal/bonobo which says the following. "bonobo, (Pan paniscus), also called pygmy chimpanzee, ape that was regarded as a subspecies of the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) until 1933, when it was first classified separately."
The point I was trying to make is that there are parallels between the Sapien/Neandrethal relationship and the Bonobo/Chimpanzee relationship. There are still many who would define 'species' by the inability to successfully interbreed. By that definition bonobos are a subspecies not a distinct species as DNA evidence has shown occasional interbreeding.
On page two of this topic thread Sea Breeze said "Javaman or Homo Erectus was a Gibbon monkey skull". There is at least one big problem with that claim. It is that Gibbon species is an ape species (what is called a Lessor Ape) not a monkey species! [However I admit that some countries the vernacular meaning of the word "monkey" includes what scientists say is an ape instead.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbon says the following. "Gibbons (/ˈɡɪbənz/) are apes in the family Hylobatidae (/ˌhaɪləˈbætɪdiː/). ... Also called the lesser apes, gibbons differ from great apes (bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans) in being smaller, exhibiting low sexual dimorphism, and not making nests.[5] Like all apes, gibbons are tailless." While that source says that humans are apes, not all scientists classify humans as apes, but some began doing classifying them as apes several years ago.
Regarding the claim made by Sea Breeze and some other young Earth creationists that Java Man was a gibbon and that Eugène Dubois later confessed it was a hoax, see https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gibbon.html which proves those two claims of some creationists (including of Sea Breeze) as false!
Young Earth creationists often spread lies against evolution and I am sick and tired of them doing so. Granted some of them (including Sea Breeze) are sincere, but what they are sometimes spreading are nonetheless lies originated by others. Those 'damn' (figuratively speaking) lies deceive many people into rejecting evolution!
See also https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/if-humans-evolved-from-apes-why-do-apes-exist-today/ . It is a young Earth creationist article which says creationists should not argue "If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today?" The reasons it gives are correct ones! Some of the things the article say are the following."This argument shows a misunderstanding of what evolutionists actually believe about human evolution. The evolutionary concept of the origin of humans is not based on humans descending from modern apes but, rather, argues that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor.
According to the evolutionary worldview, several million years ago there existed a group of creatures that would ultimately give rise to both modern apes and modern humans. At some point, a small group of creatures became reproductively isolated from the main group. These two groups then followed different evolutionary pathways, resulting in the modern apes and modern humans. So, in reality, there is nothing about the existence of modern apes that would trouble an evolutionist. In fact, raising this issue only shows a lack of understanding on the part of those believing that the existence of modern apes is a stumbling block for evolution. This argument also seems to imply that creationists are deliberately committing a straw-man fallacy (misrepresentation of an opponent’s position), but in reality, creationists who use this argument simply misunderstand what evolutionists believe."
Otherwise trustworthy people have blind spots. I certainly did. Honesty is not all that matters in determining what to believe. Discipline and emotional maturity, which we all imagine we have, are actually rarer than honesty.
Maybe the language in the caption below the chart I posted might help:
Figure 3Hypothetical evolutionary relationships among modern human populations, Neanderthals and Denisovans as inferred from genomic data.
