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
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.
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.
Phyerbyrd said, “Why do you think that the way evolution happened is crucial in proving that it’s possible?”
To assume that it is possible when there is a lack of evidence is Appealing to Possibility – when a conclusion is assumed because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable.
Phyerbyrd said, “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.”
This is a Hasty generalization fallacy – making predictions based on a few facts or observations extrapolating them to the point of storytelling….or more simply guessing.
1 Cor 2:14, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Rom 1:20, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead…”
John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 🙂
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…
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.
Evolution: An Objective Look
9pt9 said,
October 8, 2009 at 2:35 am
OMG!! Drop evolution already!! Lol!!
louisa (louisa) said,
October 16, 2009 at 11:23 pm
hi Steve they are showing the ardi documentary in the UK on the 18th October i am looking forward to watching it.
stevebee92653 said,
October 17, 2009 at 1:42 am
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.
Radhacharan said,
October 24, 2009 at 5:48 pm
lol pretty funny vid. good job steve.
stevebee92653 said,
October 24, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Thanks. You can’t imagine the number of evos that want to argue the point! Their own point!
imran said,
January 12, 2010 at 10:15 pm
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
Phyerbyrd said,
May 21, 2010 at 9:12 pm
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,
May 21, 2010 at 9:43 pm
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.
Jason Head said,
March 5, 2018 at 1:44 am
Phyerbyrd said, “Why do you think that the way evolution happened is crucial in proving that it’s possible?”
To assume that it is possible when there is a lack of evidence is Appealing to Possibility – when a conclusion is assumed because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable.
Phyerbyrd said, “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.”
This is a Hasty generalization fallacy – making predictions based on a few facts or observations extrapolating them to the point of storytelling….or more simply guessing.
1 Cor 2:14, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Rom 1:20, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead…”
John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
Al Barrs said,
June 11, 2010 at 11:04 am
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,
June 11, 2010 at 6:13 pm
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.
albarrs said,
December 9, 2011 at 11:49 pm
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,
December 12, 2011 at 6:57 am
That’s a great question. They say they go by science and evidence. So why don’t they?
albarrs said,
December 12, 2011 at 1:40 pm
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,
December 12, 2011 at 9:24 pm
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.
wolfgang said,
May 28, 2013 at 11:11 am
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. 🙂
albarrs said,
March 11, 2015 at 1:19 pm
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,
March 13, 2015 at 6:08 am
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.