RE: Evolution of Man
If I feel I have something to contribute, then I will post, I owe HP that,
LeoXXXXXXXXXXXXX
RE: Evolution of Man
Dear Paul,
If you have different knowledge about the evolution of man, please do share.
Love,
Patsy.
[8D]
RE: Evolution of Man
Yes Paul,
please share, as far as I know the oldest human(oid) footprints dating from 385,000 to 325,000 years ago, were discovered in Italy, in what was then volcanic ash, see:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0312_030312_firsttracks.html
Are you refering to the 'Creationist' views, popularised by the book The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, re the Paluxy "man tracks" and the film Footprints in Stone (Taylor, 1972) by Stanley Taylor, or the 1988 claims by John Morris.
As far as I know, all these and other claims have been repudiated by Glen Kuban and quietly dropped by Creationists.
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs106.html
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/creationism_footprints.HTM
may make interesting reading.
Leo
RE: Evolution of Man
"It has even been suggested that the dino was stalking the human."
Are you certain there is no confusion here with an SF short (I believe by Clarke) in which palaeontologists found human (and jeep) tracks crossing those of an allosaur. The tale involved time travel of course.
You claim that the Smithsonian destroys evidence which does not fit their theories. You have evidence to support this claim, or are you merely repeating an anecdote you can't support, on a subject you know little about ? The accusation you make would be slanderous and actionable, were it not so hilariously silly.
It tells me you know nothing of scientists.
Scientists LOVE to overturn the theories of their predecessors. It's how they make their name. It's what they live for.
If a palaeontologist could produce the evidence you claim exists, he would be the most famous scientist since Aristotle. Believe me, no palaeontologist would let such fossil evidence be destroyed.
It is emphatically not the scientists who are refusing to face the evidence on this issue.
As to the "origin"of humans- they originate in the same place as every other living creature, wherever that was. (Some small warm pond?) The evidence for the origins of Homo habilis in Africa seems pretty firm. Whether we choose to call H.habilis the "first human" is merely a subjective issue of labelling. Others would prefer to choose different species. This is not science, but politics. Europeans till recently considered Jews and Africans "sub human", because it suited the political agenda of the time.
There seems to be fossil and genetic data for at least two major expansions out of Africa prior to the first "modern" H.sapiens sp. fossils.
But there is no clear evidence that these events gave rise to modern humans in Asia. Again, politics rears it's head here- there are elements in Asia who reject an African origin for reasons that are purely political and unscientific.
The jury on separate development is still out, but it looks less and less probable. The big selection event that affects human "racial" (spit) variation, was the climatic split between the tropics and the periglacial areas in the north. That's a recent phenomenon- in the time range Leo mentions or younger.
The degree of genetic difference between Inuit, Chinese, Viking and Celt is so small as to be barely detectable. The variation within Africa is far greater than the difference between an average African and anyone outside Africa. Africa is the melting pot. What we find outside Africa is all descended from a small subset of the primary human gene pool. Which remains Africa. We are all Africans as humans. Where the ancestors of humans evolved is something else. There was a time, as Leo makes clear, when Africa did not exist as such. But whatever land mass existed at any moment after 400 million years ago, it probably had human ancestors on it.
Incidentally on the matter of walking across the planet.:- Imagine a small group- perhaps a few hundred individuals, reproducing and increasing with each generation, moving thirty miles or so over twenty years, perhaps shifting annual hunting campsites to follow changed migration routes, or to stay near a source of timber or water. Youngsters looking for territory away from the old folks.
Thats thirty miles per generation- a distance many of we latter day wimps can still walk in a day. Now do the arithmetic. 8000 years puts their descendents on the other side of the world, with a network of other families branching off in a fan along the way. The prehistory of modern H.sapiens is at least ten times that long.
RE: Evolution of Man
Sam,
thanks for that.
Brilliant: clear, thorough, reasoned; everything a scientific discussion should be, and so woefully lacking here.
Leonardo