15. Habilis, Erectus, Ardi, and Other Hominids


 The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below. 

WASHINGTON — Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man. The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches. The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis (upper left) evolved into Homo erectus (left), which then became us, Homo sapiens.  But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday’s journal London. The two species lived near each other, but probably didn’t interact with each other, each having their own “ecological niche,” Spoor said.
Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian and Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and gorillas, “they’d just avoid each other, they don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said. They have some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said. Overall what it paints for human evolution is a “chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us,” Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.

That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, keeps getting proven wrong and too simple, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings.  He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn’t involved in the research team.
“The more we know, the more complex the story gets,” he said. Scientists used to think H. sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, a closely related species, he said, but now know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals. Now a similar discovery applies further back in time. Leakey’s team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing their findings that it was time to redraw the family tree — and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history, especially about our most immediate ancestor, H. erectus. Because the H. erectus skull Leakey recovered was much smaller than others, scientists had to first prove that it was erectus and not another species nor a genetic freak. The jaw, probably from an 18- or 19-year-old female, was adult and showed no signs of any type of malformations or genetic mutations, Spoor said. The scientists also know it isn’t H. habilis from several distinct features on the jaw. That caused researchers to re-examine the 30 other erectus skulls they have and the dozens of partial fossils. They realized that the females of that species are much smaller than the males — something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said study co-author Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist. Scientists hadn’t looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females. Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primate species that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.
This suggests that our ancestor H. erectus reproduced with multiple partners. The H. habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It enabled scientists to say that H. erectus and H. habilis lived at the same time. All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said. (Now we’ve lost Neanderthal, Homo Habilis, and most of Australopithecus. Just keep hoping that the evidence fits the theory. Why not just say it may not or doesn’t!)

  • Ever since an influential Science paper by Wilson & King in 1975, reported that humans and chimpanzees are genetically 99% the same, evillusionists have been jumping for joy. But in the same journal that figure has now been described as an error. Human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4%’, and researchers are finding that chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, different connections in gene networks and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification of “humanness” versus “chimpness”. In the case of the brain cortex, 17.4% of connections have been found to be specific to humans. In short, ‘there isn’t one single way to express the genetic distance between two complicated living organisms.’

 


ArdiArdi: News clip summation: On Oct. 1st, 2009, paleontologists unveiled the fossil skeleton of Ardi, the newest missing link between humans and chimpanzees. Ardi, short for ardipithecus ramidus, was first discovered in 1992 on a barren region in the Awash River of Ethiopia. Approximately 4.4 million years old, Ardi predates Lucy, the famous hominid found in 1974 and previously thought to have been the oldest ancestor to humans, by over 1.2 million years. Dr. Tim D. White of UC-Berkeley, who led a team of international scientists in the discovery of Ardi, told The New York Times that Ardi is very crucial to understanding human evolution and that she will shed light on “the initial stage of [human] evolutionary adaptation.”

A few commenst on Ardi:

She is just assumed to be a precursor to man, without the slightest bit of discussion that maybe she isn’t. It is simply a given that any ape-like creature found from many years ago evolved into (or branched into) man. A rather HUGE assumption.

Her feet are made to both walk upright, and grasp.  She has a long skewed big “toe” that looks more like a grasping thumb. She also had a narrowed pelvis, which is better for upright walking. Her cuspid ardi2teeth are short; not long like modern day chimps. The upright walking and short teeth are tied together as some sort of common evolutionary goal.  As if upright walking and short teeth go together. Why this is assumed, I have no idea.

Her hands and wrists make her a non-knuckle walker,

Ardi is actually a real killer for Darwinian evolution. According to Darwin, short cuspids evolved because we gained the knowledge to make tools. Long cuspids were then not needed for predation and defense. But 4.4 million year old Ardi had short cuspids like ours.  Primate apes of today have long ones. The shape and swing of Ardi’s wrists and knuckles mean Ardi was not a “knuckle walker”; apes of today are.  So it is assumed Ardi walked upright. Apes of today have long limbs and “wrap around” fingers, which are good for grasping tree branches. Not Ardi. This means human hands, limbs, fingers, wrists, knuckles, and cuspids are actually more primitive than  modern corresponding ape parts. Can we conclude that apes evolved from modern man, since our body parts are more primitive than those of apes? What other conclusion can be drawn? Another major chink in the Darwinian model.  But science, of course, won’t recognize that fact.  We are sure to get more stories about how this major conundrum is really good evidence for Darwin’s theory. Evolution scientists say Darwin would have been happy to know that Ardi was found. I think he would have been pretty depressed.   This will be fun to watch.

The big question here is why did man evolve upright walking? Quadrupeds are faster at running than man by a factor of four or five. Imagine if we evolved as quadrupeds, and we were able to run fifty miles an hour, instead of the twelve miles an hour we are capable of running now. Wouldn’t we be much better at catching prey?   At avoiding predators? A show on the Discovery channel (“Ardi”, October 11, 2009)  discusses this conundrum. And their answer?  Upright walking hominids could carry MORE FOOD! Yes, that is why we evolved a far slower mode of transportation: so we could carry the groceries. The males that carried more groceries were favored by the females. So sexual selection stepped in, the women picked the men that carried the most groceries, and voila: upright walking evolved.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is science at its BEST!  Is it scientific to assume that carrying more food would entirely change the skeletel design, genetic code, and brain function of a species? Of course! This is evolution. All evidence, be it file:///C:/Users/Steve/Desktop/Pictures%20-%20Shortcut.lnkgood or bad for evolution, is good for evolution.

Here is a video I made on the subject:

Incredibly, in 2003 BBC/Discovery Channel Co-production documentary had another take on the subject of bipedalism in  “Walking with Cavemen”

“Two legs have, in fact, made Lucy neither quicker nor safer. So what is the advantage to afarensis of walking upright in this new world? The truth is, walking on two legs has become a defining feature of my life and yours for the most surprising of reasons. Ultimately, its all about sex. In the natural world, sex and raising babies is the key to a species surviving, so that anything that gives you extra energy to do it better is like gold dust and extra energy is what walking upright has given afarensis. In this mix of trees and grass, walking on two legs is more efficient for them than walking on four. The energy saved by changing from a four-legged way of life is tiny. The total number of calories saved by afarensis in a year is probably no more than that found in a packet of chocolate biscuits. But even such a tiny amount makes a difference. Lucy is able to recover that bit quicker after giving birth. It could mean, in a lifetime, she could raise just one more baby. And one more baby might be the difference between survival of the species and extinction”.

Yes folks. this is the stuff of great science. This MUST be taught in schools! Or else!! OMG

17 Comments

  1. 9pt9 said,

    OMG!! Drop evolution already!! Lol!!

  2. louisa (louisa) said,

    hi Steve they are showing the ardi documentary in the UK on the 18th October i am looking forward to watching it.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      They found it in 1992, and are just bringing it out now? Isn’t that strange.Let me know what you think. Pretty bad for Charles.

  3. Radhacharan said,

    lol pretty funny vid. good job steve.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks. You can’t imagine the number of evos that want to argue the point! Their own point!

  4. imran said,

    I would also like to say steve that evolving bipedalism is a little tricky isnt it. I mean evolving a sraight back would mean that therewould have to be and intermideate stage when it was neither straight nor curved or whatever. Wouldnt this in between stage be a waste of energy or very unlikeley and if it happened in puncuated equilibrum or whatever then there should be a case in modern time of that happening suddenly the way equilibrim predicts……. i would like to know your thoughts on this

  5. Phyerbyrd said,

    Seeing as you blocked me on youtube mid-discussion, I thought the argument could extend to here. Why do you think that the way evolution happened is crucial in proving that it’s possible? Something being possible and something actually happening are two very different things. Did you know that although we aren’t as fast as quadrupeds, we can run for much longer? Most animals can only run in fast but short bursts, while humans can keep at a running pace for a very large amount of time. You may say that being quadrupeds would be better for speed, but many animals are slow but still thrive. There is no such thing as being “less evolved”; we gain and lose abilities as we need them. We may be weaker and slower, but we more than make up for it in terms of dexterity and endurance.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Your problem is that you think somehow if one trait of a species is better than a corresponding trait of another species, that proves they evolved. Got it? Something being BETTER? Proves evolution? It doesn’t. And I have been given that as an argument over and over. “Skin is better than fur….therefore….” Try analyzing the notion yourself. Better means evolution was the causative agent? That crashes fast.
      There are so many impossible events required to make evolution plausible, that it just can’t be the sole formative force for the formation of all of nature. One impossible step should be all that is needed to disprove evolution. There cannot be two major sources for nature….evo and something else. If evo for sure couldn’t do the task, let’s look elsewhere, for some other causative agent.
      I never block respectful intelligent conversation. Constant over-the-top repetitive circular discussions, needling, and constant demeaning, are so tiresome. That is what I get from way too many evos. I don’t know who your were on YT, or why I terminated, but that may give you a hint.

  6. Al Barrs said,

    Re: “Science paper by Wilson & King in 1975, reported that humans and chimpanzees are genetically 99% the same, evillusionists have been jumping for joy.”

    All living things are made up of “genes”. What else is there? It is how the genes are arranged and what functions they perform and influence that makes things differently. It has nothing to do with the percentage game.

    If humans separated from Chimpanzees some six million years ago why are Chimps still Chimps and humans have envisioned, planned, designed, built and used all the trapping of modern humans, including production of machines to go into outer space, while Chimps are still Chimps after six million years?

    #

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Right on. And why aren’t there gradual transitions between humans and apes? Where is all the gradualness? Humans with ape fur. Talking thinking apes. It’s only man and animal. Where is the mix that evolution would predict? They always talk about how things are just as evolution would predict. Except that they are not. Not at all.

  7. albarrs said,

    When I first read that Neanderthal DNA had been extracted and compared to Modern Humans I was elated. Then I read that there was no genetic relationship between Neanderthal and Modern Humans even though both had coexisted in Europe for thousands of years. Then I suddenly had a light bulb go on in my head…WOOooo! Back up the wagon I thought!

    If Neanderthal and Modern Humans had no genetic relationship I got to thinking, which is a dangerous thing, but nevertheless I came to a personal conclusion about the relationship of all the so called hominid specimens that have been discovered in Africa and other locations that have been claimed by “scientists” to be we Modern Humans’ direct ancestral lineage. First, no DNA has ever been collected from this rather long list of hominid fossils “scientists” claim we Modern Humans are related. That being the case, how can “scientists” know that we are descended from them? Second, they can’t know! They can only speculate and speculation is not evidence or proof of anything…in fact “scientists” have no evidence the Modern Humans are related to any of the hominids including Neanderthal. Now third, Neanderthal may perhaps be related to all of the know ancient hominids and that makes sense. They look more like Neanderthal than Modern Humans. That would fit the species evolution theory that one species of hominid evolved or changed over time to eventually become Neanderthal. What it does not do is prove that Modern Humans branched off somewhere along the line. But and this is the big stick in the cog, None of the ancient hominids would be related to we Modern Humans because there is no genetic link between any of them and us. Maybe there might be if there was some DNA but there isn’t so all that we have to hang out hat is logic. Finally, we believe Modern Humans appeared some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago with a surprisingly different appearance, tool kit, art, etc. that non of the early hominid specimens had.

    The jury is still out on where Modern Humans originated and migrated, and from where, or who, they gained all their knowledge and technical skill.

    Al Barrs

    • stevebee92653 said,

      That’s a great question. They say they go by science and evidence. So why don’t they?

  8. albarrs said,

    Here is what the Smithsonian “experts” had to say about my questions…

    Al Barrs sent a message using the contact form at
    http://humanorigins.si.edu/contact.
    Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 10:46 AM
    To: Human Origins
    Subject: [Ask a question] DNA linkage of hominoids?

    Al Barrs sent a message using the contact form at
    http://humanorigins.si.edu/contact.

    Will you please supply your evidence of DNA lineage of the progressive line of hominoids you depict on your http://humanorigins.si.edu Website?

    Thank you,

    Al Barrs

    From: humanorigins@si.edu [humanorigins@si.edu]

    Thank you for your email and your interest in the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program! Your questions are important to us, and we’ll do our best to reply as soon as possible if we are able to answer your question. Our response time can range from a few days to a few weeks depending on the nature of your question and the volume of questions we are currently answering.

    Regards,

    The Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program

    Hello Mr. Barrs,

    Thank you for your email, and your interest in the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program.

    Most of the evidence for the human family tree that we have depicted on our website (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/human-family-tree) comes from fossil evidence, as DNA has only been extracted from fossils of two early human species (so far). One of those species is the Neanderthal, and you can read more about the DNA evidence from Neanderthal fossils here:
    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals.

    But, “fossil evidence” is no evidence at all. Fossil evidence only shows similarity between the specimens, not evidence they were related along any connecting lineage. Only DNA would be “evidence” and “proof”. –Al Barrs

    Recently, DNA was extracted from a fossil “pinky bone” of a yet unnamed species of early human, called “Denisovans” after the cave in Siberia where the “pinky bone” was found. You can read more about that on this link to a National Geographic story: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101222-new-human-species-dna-nature-science-evolution-fossil-finger/ and a Nature News story: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101222/full/4681012a.html. The genetic evidence from both of these fossil species strongly supports the family tree on our Website.

    What does “strongly supports” prove? Nothing! –Al Barrs

    Warm Regards,

    The Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program

    From: Al Barrs
    Date: THR OCT 30th

    Thanks for responding to my request for evidence that Modern Humans are related to the list of hominids found in Africa. I have a question about your reply that your “evidence comes from fossil evidence”. It appears to me that fossils only supports similarity evidence, not hard evidence that there is a connection between ancient African hominids or primates and Modern Humans. The fact that ancient hominids had similar bone structure to Modern Humans does not, in my opinion, make ancient African hominids related to Modern Humans…again it is only speculation. Speculation would not be sufficient evidence to win a case in court. Here is my problem: 1) Recent DNA tests of Neanderthal proves that Neanderthal do not match Modern Human DNA. Therefore, Neanderthal may have been related to the list of African hominids found with similar body structure but not Modern Humans. Neanderthal also had similar body structure but is not DNA and proves nothing towards a genetic link to Modern Humans; and 2) Recently I read an article that stated that ancient hominids ate wild grain because scientists had found evidence in an ancient hominid’s teeth. The digestive system of Modern Humans was and is unable to digest wild grains. That is why wild plants were hybridized. Why bother to hybridize wild grains and other plants if Modern Humans could eat the wild grain without it being hybridized? One must conclude that these ancient hominids or primates, who ate wild grains, were members of another species like the ancient hominids and primates found in Africa, themselves wild animals like apes and monkeys, not Modern Humans. Finally, without DNA there is no conclusive evidence that Modern Humans were related to any of the Great Ape lineage; and finally 3) Why is Modern Humans alone on earth so much more advanced intellectually and technically while all other life forms on earth are millions of years behind in their “evolutionary” intelligence and technological development? This makes no sense if Modern Humans are an integral member of all life forms on Earth. If Modern Humans branched from Chimpanzees some six million years ago, it means Chimps are much older than Modern Humans, so why are Chimps still chimps using the same survival skills they used millions of years ago and Modern Human have faired much better?

    Thanks you for taking the time to discuss this troubling problem of evidence and speculation. I’ll look forward to hearing from you.

    Sincerely,

    Al Barrs
    albarrs@wfeca.net

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Emessage from the Smithsonian about DNA linkage to hominids

    From: Human Origins

    Dear Mr. Barrs,

    We appreciate your questions and interest in the science of human origins. It is valuable to ask these types of questions as science, itself, is driven by inquiry. You raise a few different issues which we hope we can address for you.

    Regarding genetics, it is agreed among all geneticists that similarity in DNA reflects evolutionary relationship. (Emphasis added by Al Barrs) COMMENT by Al Barrs: Your start off your response using the very word that I claim any connection of we Modern Humans to ancient hominids, including Neanderthal, is nothing more than scientific speculation or as you put it “similarity in DNA”. All living forms have similarities and DNA is just one of them, but that doesn’t mean that “similarity in DNA” means that we are of that group of living forms. What you are saying is that all living forms have DNA therefore all living forms are directly related. That is not proof. That is speculation without facts, proof or evidence. My position is, until there are hard facts to replace speculation of similarity there is no direct connection, DNA or otherwise. There is no other way to view life in any form than genetically! Speculation is simply jumping to conclusions without concrete irrefutable evidentiary proof. And, that there is none… This is a prediction of evolutionary science which has been confirmed by the study of DNA over the last half century. We see this conclusion reflected in studies of families — we can identify relationship between parents and siblings, for example, using DNA analysis. The understanding of relationship based on genetics is the foundation of many large research endeavors, such as the Genographic Project (https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html). Studies of the human genome have compared the genetic sequences of DNA in modern humans to many other living organisms, including our closest living relative, the modern chimpanzee. The chimpanzee genome has also been closely studied, which is how we are able to draw conclusions about our relatedness to chimpanzees. In addition, we are able to compare modern human DNA to the DNA recovered from extinct hominins, such as the Neandertals. Though DNA is not typically recoverable from fossils, this process is dependent on the preservation environment and permineralization of the specimens, and Neandertal remains have been discovered in environments conducive to DNA preservation. Just in the last couple weeks, Carl Zimmer wrote a wonderful post for Discovery that summarizes the information we can obtain from ancient DNA and explains in much more detail the information about which you are interested regarding the relationship between Neandertals and Homo sapiens (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2011/11/14/neanderthal-neuroscience/). There is also excellent information on the Berkeley Understanding Evolution website under the heading “Making sense of ancient hominin DNA” (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100501_xwoman). COMMENT by Al Barrs: How can one make sense of ancient hominid DNA when there is no ancient DNA to make sense of? The oldest DNA found todate that I have heard about was Neanderthal and it proved that Neanderthals and we Modern Humans were not related. That DNA comparisons is more compelling evidence than trying to make sense of something that does not exist, for example the Tooth Ferry, Santa Clause, etc. Please also visit our webpage for more information about ancient DNA and Neandertals (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals).

    Regarding your questions about diet and cooking, we have some information on our Website about cooking and hominin diets (scroll down the page): http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/tools-food. In addition, you will probably be interested in (and may have been referring to in your email) the work of Dr. Amanda Henry and colleagues who have explored the use of cooking by Neandertals for transforming plant foods into more easily digestible foods (http://www.pnas.org/content/108/2/486.short). The earliest Homo sapiens would also have used cooking as a way to process foods, in addition to crushing and grinding. We know the advent of agriculture dates long after the origin of our species, Homo sapiens.

    Finally, we will draw your attention to research documenting the amazing array of intelligence in non-humans, such as the great apes and dolphins. For example, great apes, humans and dolphins are the only creatures who have so far documented the cognitive abilities associated with recognizing oneself in a mirror (see: http://www.pnas.org/content/98/10/5937.abstract?sid=ce623e06-fbd5-46cc-8257-8318468e2708 ). Cetaceans, up until about 2 million years ago, had the largest brain size-body size ratio of any creatures on the planet (i.e., until they were surpassed by hominins), which is sometimes used as a proxy for intelligence. Intelligence, as is the case with so many other qualities, has been shown to be an adaptation to the demands of a specific environment or niche, as well as a result of other evolutionary mechanisms. Of course, how intelligence is quantified and compared within groups or species needs to be considered. But, evidence from evolutionary neuroscience teaches us that the evolution of intelligence in humans and our ancestors is tied to rearrangements and expansions of specific networks in and regions of the brain, some of which can be documented by studying endocasts (casts of the inside of the brain case of extinct species). Understanding and accepting this, in no way, of course, detracts from the remarkable advances humans have made or are capable of compared to other living creatures — in fact, each advance in our study of brain evolution makes the evolution of humans all that more fascinating.

    For more information about human evolution, please visit our website (http://humanorigins.si.edu) or search some of the many informative sites available via the internet. Many of them are listed in a blog post we recommend: http://paleophile.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/human-evolution-education-resources/

    Thank you for your inquiries. We hope you found this information useful.

    Warm regards,

    The Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program

    For more information about human origins:
    Website: http://humanorigins.si.edu
    Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/humanorigins
    Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/smithsonian.humanorigins

    By Al Barrs: Nowhere in your response have you given your proof or any evidence in regard to my original question. I can only conclude that you have none and prefer instead to continue the long established practice that we have faith in your speculation and guesses. I only have faith in hard evidence and proof as it would prevail in a court of law…
    ________________________________

    From: Al Barrs [albarrs@wfeca.net]

    Thanks for responding to my request for evidence that Modern Humans are related to the list of hominids found in Africa. I have a question about your reply that your “evidence comes from fossil evidence”. It appears to me that fossils only support similarity evidence, not hard defensible evidence that there is a connection between ancient African hominids or primates and Modern Humans. The fact that ancient hominids had similar bone structure to Modern Humans does not, in my opinion, make ancient African hominids related to Modern Humans… again it is only speculation and guesswork. Speculation would not be sufficient evidence to win a case in court. Here is my problem: 1) Recent DNA tests of Neanderthal proves that Neanderthal do not match Modern Human DNA. Therefore, Neanderthal may have been related to the list of African hominids found with similar body structure but not Modern Humans. Neanderthal also had similar body structure but is not DNA and proves nothing towards a genetic link to Modern Humans; and 2) Recently I read an article that stated that ancient hominids ate wild grain because scientists had found evidence in an ancient hominid’s teeth. The digestive system of Modern Humans was and is unable to digest wild grains. That is why wild plants were hybridized. Why bother to hybridize wild grains and other plants if Modern Humans could eat the wild grain without it being hybridized? One must conclude that these ancient hominids or primates, who ate wild grains, were members of another species like the ancient hominids and primates found in Africa, themselves wild animals like apes and monkeys, not Modern Humans. Finally, without DNA there is no conclusive evidence that Modern Humans were related to any of the Great Ape lineage; and finally 3) Why is Modern Humans alone on earth so much more advanced intellectually and technically while all other life forms on earth are millions of years behind in their intelligence and technological development? This makes no sense if Modern Humans are an integral member of all life forms on Earth.

    Thanks you for taking the time to discuss this troubling problem of evidence and speculation. I’ll look forward to hearing from you.

    Sincerely,

    Al Barrs
    albarrs@wfeca.net

    Hello Mr. Barrs,

    Thank you for your email, and your interest in the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program.
    Most of the evidence for the human family tree that we have depicted on our website (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/human-family-tree) comes from fossil evidence, as DNA has only been extracted from fossils of two early human species (so far). One of those species is the Neanderthal, and you can read more about the DNA evidence from Neanderthal fossils here:
    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals. Recently, DNA was extracted from a fossil pinky bone of a yet unnamed species of early human, called “Denisovans” after the cave in Siberia where the pinky bone was found. You can read more about that on this link to a National Geographic story: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101222-new-human-species-dna-nature-science-evolution-fossil-finger/ and a Nature News story: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101222/full/4681012a.html. The genetic evidence from both of these fossil species strongly supports the family tree on our website.

    Warm Regards,

    The Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program

    At this point I stopped conversing because the discussion was going nowhere…Al Barrs

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the great read. I love how they constantly give you the: for more information on the evolution of homo sapeins, go to http://www.evolution of homo sapeins.com What a laugh. You are copied to my favorites page…..Great stuff.

  9. wolfgang said,

    The main advantage of going upright for a very smart monkey but not superfast specimen would be to be able to go out in the savannah scavenging and gathering roots and nuts and see way ahead the predators coming before they could smell him (us), and then climb in a tree, as we all still would do as soon as we would spot a group of hyenas closing in. Imagine yourself what you would do on the serengiti, watchover the tall grasses and hop in atree at the first lion. So the advantage of going upright imo is an easy one for which we don’t need absurd ones like the aquatic ape theory or to carry things or to be able to speak and so forth. However any babboon or chimp can do this temporarily, have a glimpse and and is still on all fours most of his time. We could even wonder why wolves never thought of sitting on their behinds to see fartehr away. 🙂

  10. albarrs said,

    These and many other falsehoods have plagued our learning and experience in the U.S.A. for a very long time. Teaching species evolution in our schools goes right along with teaching “revised” Marxist based American History and false histories of our U.S. leaders… The theory of species evolution goes right along with all the other false history based not on period documents but ideologies of anti-United States factions and groups both inside our nation, government and outside our country.

    For example, the theory that we Modern Humans “evolved” from the bipedal animals discussed in this article are purely “speculative” guesses. I even got a “scientists” at the Smithsonian to admit that it was speculation… They are based on “similarity” of random fossil fragments. Only DNA testing can join them to our Modern Human species! And, no DNA has been found. DNA was found in Neanderthal fossils which apparently lived until about 25,000 years ago before going extinct, but DNA testing proved that they were not related to we Modern Humans. Neanderthal was probably related to the bi-pedals discussed in this article but even then there is NO DNA to test…

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hi albarrs
      You are right on. I am writing book 2. Five chapters are on human evolution. It’s an astounding subject. Small chunks of skulls are found in completely unlikely places, like Peking and Java, and these skull fragments are turned into full human precursors. Their mere existence is the only proof science offers. We still have one foot in the Dark Ages as far as good science goes. In this venue, our knowledge has increased proportional to our fables.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: