Oldest known hominid suggests humans didn't evolve from apes

[mtnbkr]

When did our evolution cease?

Ever visit Old Ironsides, or whatever that other Revolutionary era man-of-war is (the Constellation?) that's docked in Baltimore Harbor? Take a stroll on the cannon deck (which is the level below the main deck). I'm 6'-2" and I couldn't stand up down there. Most adult males around the time of the Revolution were no taller than 5'-6" or so. When I was in high school in the early 1960s I was considered TALL at 6'-2". By today's standards, I'm a midget. Half the women on any of the NCAA Division 1 teams are taller than I am.

That's not evolution, but the result of more and better nutrition.  The same thing happened to Japan after WWII.

Chris

[MicroBalrog]

That's mostly better food, though. And better knowledge of proper nutrition.

But then I'd argue that's part of our artificial evolution.

[Matthew Carberry]

How do we distinguish between a change in size due to an improved environment (nutrition) from any other change due to environmental effect?

[Seenterman]

Well, I would argue that we are actually achieving greater things through technological progress than any kind of evolutionary process might have given us.

Psssh. Says you I'm still waiting to evolve super powers and really get to work. 

[mellestad]

How do we distinguish between a change in size due to an improved environment (nutrition) from any other change due to environmental effect?

You could test existing remains of our shorter ancestors and see if there was a genetic difference that explained height when compared to a modern person.  Or you could use separated twins who grew up in different countries to see if food supply has a dramatic impact on height.

According to wiki, height is determined by a combination of genetics and environmental factors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Determinants_of_growth_and_height

I doubt there is much genetic difference in the last few generations though...off the cuff, I don't think tall people are terribly more likely to reproduce on modern society.

[MicroBalrog]

Psssh. Says you I'm still waiting to evolve super powers and really get to work. 

You called?

[roo_ster]

Exactly. I'm not sure how that's a bad thing, though.

Idiocracy.

[grampster]

One of the cable channels had a long show about Ardi the other day.  Interesting to see scientists who are so sure about something, to the point at times of smugness, discover they have been wrong.  I do credit them with not trying to manipulate what they find into a foregone conclusion.  At least in this case.

I'm more of a fan of adaptation rather than evolution.  Evolution, to me, means something new comes from something old.  I don't think that's been proven.

As for modern human size, it's because we got to eat all the tasty red meat, mashed potatoes and real gravy and other stuff cooked in lard and butter.  Since the liberals have come along and are requiring by federal law to make us eat seeds and stems upon pain of imprisonment, we'll be short again in a hundred years.

As for me, I like the old Jewish adage;  Man plans and G-d laughs.

[tyme]

One of the cable channels had a long show about Ardi the other day.  Interesting to see scientists who are so sure about something, to the point at times of smugness, discover they have been wrong.  I do credit them with not trying to manipulate what they find into a foregone conclusion.  At least in this case.

"Humans descended from the species we know as modern chimpanzees" was never a working theory within the scientific community.  Don't confuse media soundbites, caricatures and oversimplifications of science with scientific consensus.  I'm not sure who these "smug" scientists are who you're referring to, but personally I think it's interesting to see someone call scientists smug and then go on to demonstrate a woeful lack of understanding about science.

I'm more of a fan of adaptation rather than evolution.  Evolution, to me, means something new comes from something old.  I don't think that's been proven.

The definition of evolution as "something new... from something old" is so vague as to be useless.  If you want to have a meaningful discussion on the issue, you'll have to acquire a deeper understanding of biological evolution than that.

Science doesn't prove anything.  That doesn't make it less valuable.  Sometimes scientists loosely refer to some theory as being "proven", but what they mean is that the theory is a sufficient approximation of reality that's superior than any other existing theory in predicting experimental results.  Until a better theory comes along, existing theory is "proven" in an empirical sense, not in a mathematical sense.

As for modern human size, it's because we got to eat all the tasty red meat, mashed potatoes and real gravy and other stuff cooked in lard and butter.  Since the liberals have come along and are requiring by federal law to make us eat seeds and stems upon pain of imprisonment, we'll be short again in a hundred years.

Is there a point you're trying to make there?  I can't see one through the hyperbole and hysteria.

[Gewehr98]

He's being tongue-in-cheek, Tyme.  Take it for what it's worth. 

[MechAg94]

"Humans descended from the species we know as modern chimpanzees" was never a working theory within the scientific community.  Don't confuse media soundbites, caricatures and oversimplifications of science with scientific consensus.  I'm not sure who these "smug" scientists are who you're referring to, but personally I think it's interesting to see someone call scientists smug and then go on to demonstrate a woeful lack of understanding about science.

The definition of evolution as "something new... from something old" is so vague as to be useless.  If you want to have a meaningful discussion on the issue, you'll have to acquire a deeper understanding of biological evolution than that.

Science doesn't prove anything.  That doesn't make it less valuable.  Sometimes scientists loosely refer to some theory as being "proven", but what they mean is that the theory is a sufficient approximation of reality that's superior than any other existing theory in predicting experimental results.  Until a better theory comes along, existing theory is "proven" in an empirical sense, not in a mathematical sense.

Is there a point you're trying to make there?  I can't see one through the hyperbole and hysteria.

The media generally gets all those oversimplifications and such from the scientists who are trying to get media attention.  They often don't make it up out of whole cloth.  Global warming is a great example of this.  Lots of research groups have put out hysterical predictions unsupported by their own data just to get headlines.    

I do remember "scientists" saying our closest relative was a little monkey or lemur in South America.  

Stuff like this also tends to reinforce that monkey to humans message even if it isn't the "official" scientific theory.  

[mtnbkr]

Since the liberals have come along and are requiring by federal law to make us eat seeds and stems upon pain of imprisonment, we'll be short again in a hundred years.

I should introduce you to a couple of my vegetarian coworkers.  Neither one is short or scrawny.  One is built like a football player, works out and participates in martial arts (also doesn't watch much TV, home schools his kids, and spends free time studying the Bible).

Chris

[Tallpine]

I should introduce you to a couple of my vegetarian coworkers.  Neither one is short or scrawny.

But what did they eat growing up...?

[mellestad]

But what did they eat growing up...?

Nutrition isn't rocket science.  There is nothing a meat based diet can do that a plant based diet cannot, besides sheer caloric density.  Plus a plant based diet tends to have far lower levels of stuff meat is overabundant in, like saturated fats.  Plants are also far cheaper, and you can get more plant calories per acre than meat calories per acre in typically farming terrain.

Simple fact: If I raised my daughter as a vegetarian, statistically she would have a longer, healthier life.

(This is from a committed omnivore, by the way...I think about taste before I think about health.)

[grampster]

Gewher described my state of mind when I made that post.  I should know better, but....

Perhaps smug was a poor choice of words.  I've maybe spent too much time watching the global warming gurus blaming human progress for lifiting us out of caves and huts as a planet killer.  I don't think, iirc, that I was making a direct comment about the particular researchers in the Ardi program and was woefully unclear about that.   I did note the expressions on the faces of the researchers and probably misinterpreted the joy of discovery for crushed beliefs. 

As an informally educated, elderly observer I have tended to become a bit cynical about some science as well as the absolutism about a thing or two by formally educated people 1/3 or 1/2 of my age.  Call me grumpily dismissive with seniority, I guess.  I'm pretty sure that's harmless and maybe even amusing to those who are smarter than me, especially since I don't have my finger on any suspicious red toggle switches.  I was impressed with the time spent (years) and the lengths the researchers went using modern technology as well human reconstruction of Ardi's remains in the search for knowledge. 

My layman's understanding of evolution is probably no more vague than some theories alluded to as fact by some.  I think I heard the "missing link" is still missing.  Actually Ardi seems to have changed the thinking in that regard if I understood what was presented on the show.

My last remarks about human size and diet was presented totally tongue in cheek.   The scary reality is that there are people who would like to make those remarks a reality by imposing their will on others.  As an analogy, walk into a gun shop and try and buy a fully automatic rifle to play with.

[MechAg94]

As an informally educated, elderly observer I have tended to become a bit cynical about some science as well as the absolutism about a thing or two by formally educated people 1/3 or 1/2 of my age.  Call me grumpily dismissive with seniority, I guess. 

I agree with you about the absolutist mentality of some.  It is obvious to anyone who pays attention that knowledge is always moving forward and changing as new things are learned and new technology opens up new approaches.  Yet I always seem to come across people who treat the science they learned in school as the "Absolute Truth" and act like anyone who questions it is an uneducated fool.  Subjects like evolution have a lot of people like that.

[tyme]

My layman's understanding of evolution is probably no more vague than some theories alluded to as fact by some.  I think I heard the "missing link" is still missing.  Actually Ardi seems to have changed the thinking in that regard if I understood what was presented on the show.

If I understand your earlier comment about something new coming from something old, how would a "missing link", if found, help to convince you of evolution?

Isn't Ardi something old, and aren't modern Humans (homo sapiens) something new?  Either you accept that Ardi probably is a representative example of our distant ancestors, or you don't.  If you do, isn't the discovery of Ardi solid evidence of evolution as you've stated it?  If you don't think Ardi is our distant ancestor, why do you care about a "missing link" (a link that you wouldn't accept as a human ancestor at all)?

My last remarks about human size and diet was presented totally tongue in cheek.   The scary reality is that there are people who would like to make those remarks a reality by imposing their will on others.  As an analogy, walk into a gun shop and try and buy a fully automatic rifle to play with.

I have no problem with sarcasm, although I personally never use it.  My main objection is that meats and fats are not necessary to be healthy or to grow tall.  Your caricature of liberal legislation is so far from reality that it seems more like an attempted smear of liberals in general, rather than a particular complaint about some kind of food they want banned.  Starting with food regulation that has gone through in some cities, do you object to bans on trans-fats?