If these groups have lived together at the same time what are the chance of our differant races all evolving ron diferant groups

If these groups have lived together at the same time what are the chance of our differant races all evolving ron diferant groups

It will never be an easy task to untangle the unplanned route of evolution.
Mind you, looking at some of the mouth breathing lager louts you see everywhere, I'm not sure Homo habilis died out-he just evolved into Homo nedus.

Scullion, if he drank enough maybe he belonged to the homo non-erectus subgroup.

#4--Tricia---"homo non-erectus subgroup"..kinda like our resident 'GC'??

#4 Tricia

That's funny!

#4 Tricia LOL

They are not extinct. One lives next door to me.

I believe most of the Australopithecine humanoids are still with us today, since (being humanoids) they'd have sex with anything else that looked similar (also dissimilar but that's a different joke!) and you can see them gathered in various watering holes in specific suburbs where these subhumans live. The young are invariably called Kyle or Kylie though this s not a racial subdivide, and have a tendency to strut about in white plumage which isd most unbecoming. Intelligence is always low and cunning!

4. Tricia / 2:09am 9 Aug 2007
5. sandy, USA..land of the free, home of the brave

Hey Dudes
you 2 wouldn't happen to be a couple of frigid homo habilis in a boring darke wet wooden cupboard.

With the old timer 57Nomad, california, sitting on a bar stool ,on guard, twidling his thumb and his pinky. And reading Book #7 Harry Potter.

Say what !!!

GC

Let face it we all evolved from the dark continent . Which makes us all Negros.

But skin pigmentation lightened as we trawled our of the jungles, and into the bright cold lanscapes of the then planet.

Prove otherwise dudes.

And this post will probably be removed, as GC used bad N word. But if GC used say words, like rape or kill or steal that's OK

Happy Hypocrites Day

GC

Not forgetting words like ...war , genocide,, attack, bomb, bullet

GC

Jeez,You scientists are behind, I've known this about my Mother in law for AGES!!!

"The small size of the erectus skull is a sign of 'sexual dimorphism', where males are much larger than females."

Maybe the females were smaller because the bigger ones could run faster!

Why is it of any importance what your relatives looked like, or where they came from, a million years ago.

We're here.

Now.

That's all you need to know.

15. Conan, Here

Technically U are correct.

But Dude, in shroom world its different but very Psychedelic and loose .

Where you can travel faster than 299 792 458 m / s or a light wave particle, and in 5 dimensional universe.

Beats Disneyland and getting blasted in a dark dreary Pub

Happy Shroomy Day

GC

Come back here , Darwin...I want a word with you.

This is only for those who believes in apes:

From the article: "Sexual dimorphism is believed to be a primitive, or ancestral, feature during human evolution, so the new fossil skull implies that erectus was less human-like than once thought."

Sexual dimorphism explains why males with several wifes have relatively smaller brain than males with only one wife.

Any similarity with humans is unintended.

ehhhhh???? did they not just cross breed?????DOHH

African skulls find throws story of human evolution into disarray
IAN JOHNSTON ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT ( ijohnston@scotsman.com)
Sir the best one I have had, I am in Africa is … Three skulls were for sale… one American priced at usd 1000 one Indian priced 500, 00, the other African priced 50,000.00. I asked why so expensive. Came back the reply. New .Not used. Sir.

I thank you

Maybe this helps to explain the observation by my school PE teacher, after a rope-climbing exercise, that the Wilkies had obviously come down from the tree a couple of million years after everyone else.

Call me what you want is this not true. See Obama against Hillary. There is charisma that needs to put you in the seat of the president not a man from Tarzan land including me???

Unspoken secret among many scientists: the different races were seeded by aliens from various planets. In return their ships brought back erectus and habilis to crossbreed with. The results were re-seeded on earth with their genes wired with special leadership qualities. They became the ancestors of the Alexander the Greats, the Genghis Khans, the Neros, the Xerxeses, the Bushes. The original seeds became the ancestors of the ruled and colonized. But among each of the crossbreeds were truly high-quality, very versatile and special strains and they became crossdressers.

Another lot of speculation and conjecture passed off as scientific research.

Dear ED you spoiled the good news. Sir

Sexual dimorphism is believed to be a primitive, or ancestral, feature during human evolution, so the new fossil skull implies that erectus was less human-like than once thought.

"In gorillas, males are much larger than females, related to their strategy of having multiple mates," said co-author Susan Antón. "The new Kenyan fossil suggests that, contrary to common belief, this may have been true of Homo erectus as well."

No porno no brains no sex how are we going to live

God obviously had to do a bit of doodling before he got it right.Frankly,I think he is an under-acheiver.

the idea of branching parallel evolutions of humans is bloody obvious! geeez have these researchers been reading kindergarten books instead of real science books?

This article is worded so benignly even monkeys would laugh at it.

Benignly?

If it throws the story of human evolution into disarray, just think what it does to the fairy tales promoted by religions!

#24: Okay, but that doesn't explain Wally!

#20 Firozali,
I'll second Jennifer's....naughty, naughty!! :)

#31, yes.. benignly, like "pathetic", "lame", "humble", etc.

#20 Firozali,

Good job. But I've heard that joke before and it was regarding the price difference between a male and female brain - the former being the unused one. ;)

All these different human origins theories are interesting, but outdated. The human genome consortium reported a very strange finding,but, as usual, few articles even mention It.They reported that the human genome contains 223 genes that have no predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree. that means we are not related to any creatures that have been found on this planet. Comments please!

#38
Don't be fooled by the "math" of genetics. Of the (at last best count) 30,000 human genes only about 20,000 actually produce proteins. The rest are simply vestiges or "nonsense" genes (a fruit fly has about 15,000-20,000 genes and a species of weed has about 25,000 so that shows you that there is no relationship between complexity and gene number).
In fact these "new", and probably non-protein producing, genes are excellent examples of evolution which can be defined as the change in the frequency of a certain allele (the DNA sequence that makes up a gene) in a population over a given period of time-though some, like Ernst Mayr, disputed this admittedly "minimalist" description.

#40

"Not speculation. The bones exist. Explain them."

Not speculation?

The bones exist.

It's the explanation that requires speculation and conjecture.

Infidel 44:

I understand the point you are making but as I see it the explanation only stands up if one assumes the the unproveable supposition about origins.

Having the explanation agreed by a peer group who all hold to the same presupposition demonstrates nothing apart from the fact that they agree on the starting point. It does not actually tell us any truth about the relationship between man and ape.

If I found two old car engines in the desert I can speculate on how they got there and how or where they were made. If I can find enough people to agree with me about the most likely story does that make it true and not just speculation or conjecture?

If everyone in the world agreed that these explanations are probable or even true I would still have to be sceptical because of the flaws in the logic and the unproveable nature of the presupposition.

In the end I have to make a choice about what I believe as does everyone and science does not come into that decision.
Science does however follow belief because it affects the interpretation of evidence.

Bones is bones and tribal peoples (all our ancestors ) use them for magic tricks.

Then along comes Bill Gates and Windows

Get the message dudes.

GC

Future anthropologists will conclude that humans of this era still allowed primitive superstitions and their proponents to influence their societies - in some cases, amazingly, to hold political power.
This is very embarassing.

#38 Yoki

Yoki said:

"They reported that the human genome contains 223 genes that have no predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree. that means we are not related to any creatures that have been found on this planet."

Really? How do you know what it means? Do you know what genes are? Nevertheless, it's beside the point. Here's why. There is an underlying and unspoken assumption that the number and type of genes shared is a valid metric for measuring the similarities and dissimilarities of various forms of life.

This is not a sound judgment. It is not the compliment of genes that separate animals, it is the nature of the consciousness of the various animals that determine their similarity or lack thereof. The components of consciousness are a function of cerebral complexity, not genetic similarity.

The human brain has approximately 150,000,000 neurons. That's a lot, but not in comparison to the 170 trillion cells in a human body. However, there is a remarkable property of the cerebral neurons. Because of the way they are structured, there are more possible combinations of of unique connections between them than there are atoms in the Universe. A deft piece of work by the Chief of Design.

It is the activity of these neurons that create the various aspects of consciousness and it is this, the nature of consciousness, that separates the species, not the number of shared genes.

#32 What this boils down to is simple: Man really is an original design and creation. The theory of evolution still remains a theory to this day; evolution is not fact. We want desperately to believe it is true but are stumped by missing links nearly every step of the way. Even in this advanced age, we cannot cause favorable mutations to occur in our physiology. How do you expect primitive habilis and erectus to evolve into sapiens even given eons to play with?

51 enlightened (!) - Lettuce pray that religious people will finally refrain from foisting their absurd brand of logic on subjects on which their willful abdication of reason makes them particularly unfit to comment. Stick to the ethereal. Reality and its history are not within your purview.

The unprovable assumption is that life started from a collection of chemicals by some natural process.
Since no one has been able to replicate this or adequately explain how this might have occured then it is at the present time unproveable.
And it follows that the subsequent assumption that simple organisms mutated into more complex organisms is also unproveable. (and no - natural selection does not demonstrate this)

The belief in the truth of the assumption is what drives the interpretation of the evidence.
The interpretation then purports to demonstrate the truth of the assumption. The argument is circular.

All the peer reviewed literature in the world does not alter this.

As I said we have to make a choice about our primary assumption and that is a matter of belief not science.

53 Mart on Skye - That's better, but a tad metaphysical - I think. Long ago Iwas a philosophy student, among other things, though I seldom found my way into class. Anyway, it does not trouble me that as yet we have not definitively solved all the mysteries of our origins. We really aren't that clever, after all. But surely our beliefs ought to be based more heavily on reasonable, rational thinking than an emotional desire for the existence of Tinkerbell or whatever one might call a divine creator.

We are all created in God's image, no doubt.

There is no indication in the Holy Book that He was religious, so I have to moderate my statement.

We, the atheists are all created in God's image.

#50 Infidel

I had no idea that you were so certain of the state of consciousness of other living things. Would you mind sharing with all of us how you came to know these things?

Consciousness is the ability of an organism to react adaptively to its environment. You are perhaps referring to a similar but non-identical term "self-consciousness," the knowledge of a organism of itself as an independent entity. It's an easy mistake to make but it is still a mistake. Watch a flower track the sun across the sky during the day, it isn't self-conscious, but it certainly knows where the sun is and how to position itself to gather in the most rays.

As far as animal consciousness goes, you are completely off base. Ants and slugs are conscious without a doubt. If you have the misfortune of finding a spider crawling along your floor sometime, chase it around with you fingers instead of squashing it. It will prove to you with out any doubt that it is conscious and capable of quick and effective countermeasures.

Toward the end of your post you veered completely off target. A cat and a dog have the same level of consciousness? What are you talking about? You have no idea of what their consciousness is like so why would you say something like that?

Your comments are a product of your consciousness. Consciousness precedes your knowledge of DNA and the notion of DNA itself is a product of consciousness. You've got it backwards.

#57 & 58 Infidel

Infidel said:

"No it does not follow, and that organisms have evolved (more than just "mutated") into others is not an assumption but is about as proven as things get in science, with natural selection the prime candidate as the mechanism. Again it was the extensive and detailed evidence presented by Darwin (and generations of scientists since) which swayed scientific opinion. You really do seem to badly misunderstand evolution."

Infidel, you are the one who is misinformed about the the nature of evolution. You contradict yourself in the same paragraph. Random mutation is the essence of Darwinian evolutionary theory. You draw a distinction Darwin never did. Darwin is famous, nobody's ever heard of you, so why do you take it upon yourself to correct Darwin. And, then to cite him as an authority?

You had better ditch the moth deal to, it's a hoax and zero scientists cite it today. The poster you try to refute is correct. There is no observable record of one species slowly evolving into another. And your attempt to dismiss it with the words, 'patchy fossil record' contradicts the basis of your own claims, e.g., the Pakistani Whale. Furthermore the most reputable scientists in the world reject the notion outright. Steven J. Gould has posited the most accepted version and it's called, "punctuated equilibrium" and it is an outright refutation of Darwinian evolution.

#60 Infidel

Absurd post. Absurd is something you know are an expert in. Spiders and bugs are automatons? Perhaps you'd like to define that term. You are mouthing bits and pieces of things you've heard but have no in depth knowledge of whatsoever. You obviously have zero scientific training as is evidenced by you're interweaving of scientific jargon and your own made up terminology.

Science is grounded in the basic laws of logic. What you are posting contradicts these laws. The effect, my little dufus, can never, ever precede the cause. The notion of DNA is entirely a product of consciousness. Consciousness precedes the notion of DNA and can therefore not be caused by it. DNA is a mental construct and can be deconstructed with ease. Here's one way.

2-deoxyribonucleic acid is made of a handful of atoms. These atoms are exactly the same atoms that are found in the dirt and in the air. There is no difference whatsoever. Are you saying the the dirt is the same as DNA? No? Why not. Their atoms are identical and interchangeable.

It is your consciousness that has made the artificial distinction, because, in fact, there is no difference in reality. I didn't appreciate the "absurd post" comment and you have offered no refutation whatsoever. Keep it up, Skippy, I'm not busy this morning so if you want I'll keep slapping you around in front of everybody just to pass the time of day.

#61 Infidel

Concluding beyond your evidence is the mark of the scientific dolt as you have amply demonstrated. Where, oh, where did you get the notion that I'm a creationist? Point it out to everyone or apologize to me in public for the ridiculous attribution.

It is obvious that the term "Darwinian" is something that you know little or nothing about. Darwin posited that speciation is the product of minute randomly caused mutations and that these minuscule mutations create a reproductive advantage. Darwin lived before he or anyone else on earth had any idea of what genes were and was totally ignorant of what DNA is.

It may be true that Gould doesn't care to be cited by creationists. So, what does that have to do with me, nitwit? Oh, by the way thanks for the spelling correction, Mr. Webster. Nonetheless, and as you well know, punctuated equilibrium, which is rapid speciation followed by long periods of stability is completely different than Darwin's notion of tiny changes over long periods of time.

Look, Sport, you'd better regroup. You're out on a thin limb, and if you keep it up I'll saw it off for you. If you'd care to make a gentlemanly inquiry into my actual views on the subject I'd be happy to engage you in that for the edification of all. If you want to slug it out, you won't last a round with me.