Re: Some evolution questions
- From: j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins)
- Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:08:24 +1000
TomS <TomS_member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:31:33 +1000, in article
<1hwxkdf.1wlsd031qu5xzbN%j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx>, John Wilkins stated..."
Chris <christo9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
mate with?
There are at least four human species between us and the last common
ancestor we had with chimps. As there are two species of chimp now, it's
likely that there were several species between them and the LCA. It
happens that few of them have been fossilised.
Why do you think this is so "far away"? Ten or so species is not all
that distant. There's a lot more species diversity among other groups
with that sort of distance betwwen existing/surviving species. And what
does "100% human" mean? Were Homo erectus, H ergaster, H
neanderthalensis (not an ancestor but a cousin) 100% human?
There *were* human species (that is, species in the human branch of that
split) that are not completely *modern* human. They are extinct. Had
things gone somewhat differently, they may well have survived through to
now. In fact, erectus was alive as recently as 50,000 years ago, and
probably coexisted with modern humans, who most likely competitively
excluded them to extinction.
What qualifies as a *human* species? Does that refer to any species
which is on the Homo sapiens side of the division between chimps
and "fully modern humans"? So that, for example, Australopithecines
were human? Or would be draw the line so that even Neandertals
weren't human?
I take it as the first ape that was an upright walker that is not also
an ancestor of any chimp.
And single species do not evolved from a single breeding par, an "Adam
and Eve". They evolve from populations of thousands or millions.
Chris
If life seems jolly rotten
There's spmething you've forgotten
and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
- References:
- Some evolution questions
- From: Chris
- Re: Some evolution questions
- From: John Wilkins
- Re: Some evolution questions
- From: TomS
- Some evolution questions
- Prev by Date: Re: Creationist: Teaching 'evolution-only' dampens respect for human
- Next by Date: Re: Philosophy specifies: organisms process information
- Previous by thread: Re: Some evolution questions
- Next by thread: Re: Some evolution questions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|