Evolutionary news

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:28 pm

Ah, yeah....good stuff.

As our third example, consider the African apes. Humans are most closely related to the great apes that are indigenous to Africa (as determined by cladistic morphological analysis and confirmed by DNA sequence analysis). Why did the Leakeys, Raymond Dart, and Robert Broom go to Africa in search of early hominid fossils? Why not dig in Australia, North America, South America, Siberia, or Mesopotamia? Charles Darwin gave an answer for this question over 130 years ago - long before any early hominid fossils had been found.

"We are naturally led to enquire, where was the birthplace of man at that stage of descent when our progenitors diverged from the Catarrhine stock? The fact that they belonged to this stock clearly shews that they inhabited the Old World; but not Australia nor any oceanic island, as we may infer from the laws of geographical distribution. In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere." (Darwin 1871, p. 161)

Thus, the theory of common descent predicts that we may find early hominid fossils on the African continent.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:39 pm

Ah yes, the ol' "unknown common ancestor," how conveeeeeenient.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:11 pm

Minimalist wrote:Ah, yeah....good stuff.

As our third example, consider the African apes. Humans are most closely related to the great apes that are indigenous to Africa (as determined by cladistic morphological analysis and confirmed by DNA sequence analysis). Why did the Leakeys, Raymond Dart, and Robert Broom go to Africa in search of early hominid fossils? Why not dig in Australia, North America, South America, Siberia, or Mesopotamia? Charles Darwin gave an answer for this question over 130 years ago - long before any early hominid fossils had been found.

"We are naturally led to enquire, where was the birthplace of man at that stage of descent when our progenitors diverged from the Catarrhine stock? The fact that they belonged to this stock clearly shews that they inhabited the Old World; but not Australia nor any oceanic island, as we may infer from the laws of geographical distribution. In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere." (Darwin 1871, p. 161)

Thus, the theory of common descent predicts that we may find early hominid fossils on the African continent.

Which raises a great question about human differentiation. When did it occur and over what kind of time period? If caucasian and asiatic are adaptations to local environment it explains why the KKK likes to root itself in religion. It's either that or face the possibility that their blood relative ancestors were black.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:14 pm

Great point oas, variation within the human syngameon, not Darwinian evolution, you're beginning to get it.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:41 pm

[quote="Genesis Veracity"]Great point oas, variation within the human syngameon, not Darwinian evolution, you're beginning to get it.[/quote]

This didn't start to happen until many hundreds of thousands of years after we became fully human.

And as per one of your previous posts. No one, especially the ones who believe in evolution, thinks for a second that a tree shrew wil morph into a leopard; any more than I believe that my watch will, in three million years, evolve into a grandfather clock.

So fear not,[color=darkred] WE GOT IT. [/color]

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:50 pm

I don't know that I buy the "climatic reaction" theory, Leona.

The Ancient Egyptians were white while the Nubians directly to their south were black.

Was it that much hotter in Nubia than Egypt? I don't think so.

Of course, then one has to figure out what the mechanism for racial diversification may have been.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:51 pm

This is interesting - robotic modelling has been used to prove that a. Afarensis was fully bipedal. I bet they had a lot of back problems....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4697977.stm

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:11 pm

But Leona, Darwinites say that tree shrews morphed into humans, didn't you know this, so why not into leopards too I ask.

If the development of the so-called races of humans didn't begin for, as you say, hundreds of thousands of years after we had become fully human, then what color were those humans supposedly hundreds of thousands of years ago, and were they all hairy like a monkey or a tree shrew?

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 pm

another BBC link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2844287.stm

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 pm

oldarchystudent wrote:This is interesting - robotic modelling has been used to prove that a. Afarensis was fully bipedal. I bet they had a lot of back problems....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4697977.stm

Perhaps with the new, nearly complete skeleton, recently discovered they will be able to examine their model in more detail?

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:22 pm

Maybe. It will be an interesting look at the aging process in Afarensis.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:23 pm

oldarchystudent wrote:another BBC link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2844287.stm

The prints were found in the western margin of the Roccamonfina volcanic complex in southern Italy, in a pyroclastic flow dated between 385,000 and 325,000 years ago.

"We found three sets of footprints. One set came down in a zig-zag, while another showed that the person didn't run but walked normally," Dr Mietto told BBC News Online.

Interesting dates....the Young Earthers will scream bloody murder.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:28 pm

When you consider that at current erosion rates, all of the earth's geology above sea level should have been eroded into the sea within about 15 millions years, a rational person will see that your numbers, min, are absurd. Run the numbers, min, so what does that do to your Fundamentalist Darwinte mindset of delusion?

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:30 pm

Minimalist wrote:
oldarchystudent wrote:another BBC link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2844287.stm

The prints were found in the western margin of the Roccamonfina volcanic complex in southern Italy, in a pyroclastic flow dated between 385,000 and 325,000 years ago.

"We found three sets of footprints. One set came down in a zig-zag, while another showed that the person didn't run but walked normally," Dr Mietto told BBC News Online.

Interesting dates....the Young Earthers will scream bloody murder.

Still nowhere near the dates for Lucy, but interesting all the same.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:19 pm

Yeh, Lucy was real monkey like, dig that picture, I think she does look a little bit like the tree shrew, her distant ancestor, according to Darwinites.