EvoWiki Update
zosdad
I'd just like to mention some nifty pages that have appeared on the
EvoWiki in the few short weeks of its existence. For those who missed
the previous thread, the EvoWiki, or Evolution Education Wiki, is
intended to serve as a supplement to websites like talkorigins.org,
for the purposes of collaborative FAQ building, rapid response to
current issues, etc. The software and format are based on the model
of wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/ ), although the editorial
philosophy is to support mainstream science rather than the viewpoint
neutrality of Wikipedia.
Steinsky, the host, has done a bang-up job organizing the front page
and organizational pages:
EvoWiki Front Page
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page
Some pages that I think are already useful, although as with all
things Wiki they can always use more material, improvement, etc.:
Flagella
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Flagella
Evolution of flagella
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Evolution_of_flagella
Suboptimal design
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Suboptimal_design
Peppered moths
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Peppered_moth
Fake fossils
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Fake_fossils
Linguistic evolution
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Linguistic_Evolution
Thus far, vandalism has not been a problem, and a page on how to fix
it if it occurs is here:
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Vandalism
So, everyone feel free to contribute, and spread the word (repost this
post if you like).
zosdad
FAQ and add it to the EvoWiki peppered moth page. I did a bit o'
editing and added an outline of what might get discussed in the
"middle" section. Hopefully, people who've also done reading/writing
on the peppered moth can also add their stuff and eventually we will
have a SuperFAQ.
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Peppered_moth
Edits etc. are also encouraged.
zosdad
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Of_Moths_And_Men
Peppered moth SuperFAQ under development:
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Peppered_moth
Joe Dunckley
the topics, and to see what was linking to it so far, and came accross
this:
http://keithdevens.com/wiki/Evolution
A creationist's wiki! ... and filled it with links to t.o faqs,
creationist claims pages etc.. Thought I'd pass the link on so we can
vand.. er.. correct it some more.
--
Joe Dunckley <m...@steinsky.me.uk>
www.cotch.net - wiki.cotch.net - www.steinsky.me.uk
Check out the MooIRCd network: irc.mooircd.org
Harlequin
news:oprvpml7...@news.steinsky.me.uk:
> I did a google for various things evo wiki related, both for research on
> the topics, and to see what was linking to it so far, and came accross
> this:
>
> http://keithdevens.com/wiki/Evolution
>
> A creationist's wiki! ... and filled it with links to t.o faqs,
> creationist claims pages etc.. Thought I'd pass the link on so we can
> vand.. er.. correct it some more.
>
This is probably not a good idea. We don't want to start a precedent
that it is okay to edit the Wikis of one's opponents. It could very
easily get out of hand and we will not be able to complain when
they do it to us.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
zosdad
> Joe Dunckley <sp...@steinsky.me.uk> wrote in
> news:oprvpml7...@news.steinsky.me.uk:
>
> > I did a google for various things evo wiki related, both for research on
> > the topics, and to see what was linking to it so far, and came accross
> > this:
> >
> > http://keithdevens.com/wiki/Evolution
> >
> > A creationist's wiki! ... and filled it with links to t.o faqs,
> > creationist claims pages etc.. Thought I'd pass the link on so we can
> > vand.. er.. correct it some more.
> >
>
> This is probably not a good idea. We don't want to start a precedent
> that it is okay to edit the Wikis of one's opponents. It could very
> easily get out of hand and we will not be able to complain when
> they do it to us.
I agree. Let the creos wiki in peace. Basically all creationist
material is out on the public web already anyhow, so I'm not sure what
they would gain from having a wiki, but its their deal. The last
thing we need is a WikiWar.
I just reverted the page to its original, pro-creo state. So there.
Floyd
> Howdy all,
>
> I'd just like to mention some nifty pages that have appeared on the
> EvoWiki in the few short weeks of its existence.
> So, everyone feel free to contribute, and spread the word (repost this
> post if you like).
I noted that you had an unfulfilled request for an article on the
Out-Of-Africa hypothesis, so I started free-forming, but by the time I
was done, it was about four pages long, which seemed a bit much, so I
don't know if you'll want it. I'm posting it here for your
evaluation, and if you think it fits, and isn't excessive, I'll gladly
submit it. Otherwise, well, maybe someone in t.o. will find it
interesting.
[begin proposed EvoWiki OOA article]
Introduction:
Among the most contentious current debates that divide
paleoanthropologists is the question of the origin of anatomically
modern humans ourselves. The debate actually ranges across a broad
spectrum of opinion, but is generally described and discussed in terms
of two opposing poles, known as the "Out Of Africa" hypothesis and the
"Multiregional hypothesis." The current majority opinion supports the
out of Africa hypothesis, predominantly on the basis of the genetic
evidence, but both hypotheses remain viable. The question revolves
around the degree to which erectus-grade hominids outside of Africa
contributed to modern human gene pools.
Both sides of the debate agree that the erectus-grade hominids appear
first in Africa, and ultimately spread beyond, into Southwest and
South Asia, and from there into Europe and East Asia, respectively.
Current evidence suggests that this first expansion took place
approximately 2 MYA, and the recently discovered Dmanisi fossils
(http://www.dmanisi.org.ge/) are some of the earliest known
extra-African populations of hominids. The debate centers around
whether or not these extra-African hominids were directly ancestral to
modern humans, or instead were evolutionary "dead ends" and modern
humans all descend from the African hominids exclusively. For
convenience, many paleoanthropologists label the African erectus-grade
hominids _Homo ergaster_ and their European contemporaries _Homo
heidelbergensis_, and reserve the name _Homo erectus_ exclusively for
the south and east Asian variants. Although this taxonomic convention
is not universally accepted, it is used here to avoid confusion.
Multiregional evolution:
The supporters of the multiregional hypothesis (also known as the
"regional continuity" model) propose that _H. erectus_, _H.
heidelbergensis_, and _H. ergaster_ remained a single, interbreeding
species, (and the taxon _H. erectus_ has priority) despite their
geographic distance, and gene flow between distantly located
populations, through intermediate populations, prevented speciation.
Under this hypothesis, modern human anatomy and behavior occurred all
over Africa and Eurasia, so modern humans evolved in all three
regions. Following the multiregional hypothesis, the neandertals (_H.
neanderthalensis_) were simply an archaic version of _H. sapiens_ and
are ancestral to modern humans (Jacobs, 2000a, Thorne and Wolpoff
1981, Wolpoff et al. 1994).
Out of Africa:
The contrasting "pole" of the debate is commonly referred to as the
"Out of Africa" or "Out of Africa-2" (hereafter, "OOA2") hypothesis.
This hypothesis generally argues that the extra-African erectus-grade
hominids were sufficiently geographically separated that they were
effectively reproductively isolated from each other. The Asian _H.
erectus_ went extinct, apparently without issue, and the European _H.
heidelbergensis_ evolved into the neandertals, who in turn went
extinct after the arrival of anatomically and behaviorally modern
humans in Europe. The OOA2 hypothesis argues that modern human
anatomy evolved only in the African _H. ergaster_ lineage, and that
_H. ergaster_ alone, is an immediate ancestor of humans, and the other
branches of the Middle Pleistocene hominids went extinct without
contributing to moderns (Cann et al 1987, Jacobs 2000b, Stringer
1985).
Evidence:
The debate can not currently be resolved on the basis of the East and
South Asian evidence, since too little is known about both the
behaviors and the genetics of the Asian _H. erectus_ populations.
Although Thorne and Wolpoff (1981) argued that cranial measurements of
_H. erectus_ in South Asia bear similarities to the remains of early
modern humans in Australia, the authors recognize that the cranial
features they measured also appear in other populations. Until
further evidence from East and South Asia is recovered, the resolution
of the debate must therefore rely on the currently more thorough
analyses of European and African hominids. The current evidence is
drawn from archaeology and genetics, and tends on the whole to favor
the OOA2 model.
The Pleistocene archaeological record of Europe is divided into three
distinct periods, the Lower, Middle, and Upper Paleolithic (analogous
to the Early, Middle, and Late Stone Age of African Archaeology), each
of which is subdivided into several distinct phases. For the purposes
of the Multiregional/Out of Africa debate, the most important period
is the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic, which
occurred approximately 40,000 years ago.
The Middle Paleolithic is characterized by flake tools
(http://www.ipa.min-cultura.pt/coa/paleouk/mediouk.html) that, in
Europe, are commonly referred to as "Mousterian" technology, and are
associated with _H. neanderthalensis_ (sometimes called _H. sapiens
neanderthalensis_). The Upper Paleolithic is characterized by "blade
tools," which are stone tools made from flakes that are at least twice
as long as they are wide, and also by tools made from bone, antler,
ivory, and other materials. The Upper Paleolithic also contains a
much more diverse array of tools than the Middle Paleolithic, and in
deposits where Upper Paleolithic tools are associated with hominid
remains, the remains are usually those of anatomically modern _H.
sapiens_. One exception is a stone tool industry known as the
Châtelperronian (also "Castelperronian" and "Lower Périgordian").
Harold (1989) notes that the Châtelperronian technologies appear to be
an indigenous development of the earlier Mousterian, possibly due to
diffusion of ideas from contemporaneous migrations of modern humans
into the area, and that both tool making styles are associated with
neandertals. The Aurignacian technologies that appear in Europe at
roughly the same time as the Châtelperronian and persist even after
its disappearance around 30,000 years ago are exclusively associated
with modern humans. Thus the archaeological evidence points to a
discontinuity between Châtelperronian and Aurignacian, even while
suggesting that neandertals did have some contact with modern humans.
The archaeological evidence is supportive of the OOA2 hypothesis, but
is currently tentative at best. The genetic evidence is much
stronger.
In 1987, Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson published their study of
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of living humans, and determined that all
humans share a single common ancestor who lived at some time between
100-200,000 years ago. Their article also noted that the greatest
range of mitochondrial diversity today exists in central Africa, and
that non-African mitochondrial lineages formed a subset or sample of
the lineages that exist in Africa (c.f. Armour et al. 1996). They
concluded therefore that the lineage that lead to modern humans began
in Africa, and the greater diversity of African mtDNA was accounted
for by a longer history of _in situ_ evolution. More recently, Krings
et al. (1997, 1999) were able to recover a sample of mtDNA from the
neandertal type specimen and determined that it fell well outside the
range of any anatomically modern humans. Further, the mtDNA of the
neandertal type specimen was no more similar to the mtDNA of modern
Europeans than to any other modern population, which would be expected
if neandertals had contributed to modern human ancestry. In addition,
using the rate of mutation (as did Caan et al. 1997) as a standard,
Krings et al. (1997) estimated that the time of divergence of the
modern and neandertal mitochondrial lineages was approximately 600,000
years ago, which is roughly the date of the earliest known _H.
heidelbergensis_ occupation of Europe. This finding confirms that
neandertals were the direct descendants of _H. heidelbergensis_, and
also suggests that the _H. heidelbergensis_ lineage diverged without
reticulation from its African and Asian contemporaries.
Evaluating the OOA2 Hypothesis:
The possibility that neandertals contributed to modern human DNA, and
were part of our ancestry is not entirely precluded by the genetic
evidence. It is possible that neandertal mitochondrial lineages were
lost through drift, and that we retain neandertal nuclear DNA.
Unfortunately, there is insufficient nuclear DNA present in any known
neandertal remains for us to test this hypothesis. It is also
possible that humans and neandertals were only partially
inter-fertile, and that a female human, male neandertal hybrid was
viable, but a male human, female neandertal hybrid was not. That
hypothesis is equally consistent with the mtDNA evidence, and it is
only Occam's Razor that causes us to favor the alternative; that
humans and neandertals were distinct species, and the OOA2 hypothesis
is the better explanation.
Conclusion:
While the evidence remains inconclusive, and new evidence from
archaeology, anatomy, and genetic analyses may alter our understanding
of the relationship between humans and neandertals (and thus our
resolution of the multiregional/OOA2 debate), the best current
evidence favors a recent African origin of all modern humans, with the
Asian and European erectus-grade hominids as evolutionary "dead ends."
Neandertals, in short, were our "cousins," and not our
"grandparents."
References Cited
____
Armour JA, T. Anttinen, C. A. May, E. E.Vega, A. Sajantila, J. R.
Kidd, K. K. Kidd, J. Bertranpetit, S. Paabo, and A. J. Jeffreys
1996 Minisatellite diversity supports a recent African origin for
modern
humans. Nat Genet. Jun;13(2):154-60.
Cann, R. L., M. Stoneking, and A. C. Wilson
1987 Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution. Nature 325:31-36.
Harold, F. B.
1989 Mousterian, Châtelperronian and Early Aurignacian in Western
Europe:
Continuity or Discontinuity? In Mellers, P. and C. Stringer (eds) The
Human
Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of
Modern
Humans. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Jacobs, J. Q.
2000a Multiregional Evolution. In Paleoanthropology in the 1990s;
Essays by James Q. Jacobs. Internet document
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/multiregional.html, accessed 19
September, 2003.
2000b The 'Replacement' or 'Out of Africa 2' Hypothesis: The Recent
African Genesis of Humans In Paleoanthropology in the 1990s; Essays by
James Q. Jacobs. Internet document
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/genome.html, accessed 19
September, 2003.
Krings M, A. Stone, R.W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S.
Paabo
1997 Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans.
Cell. Jul 11;90(1):19-30.
Krings, M., H. Geisert, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, and S. Pääbo
1999 DNA sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from
the Neandertal type specimen. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science 96 (10), 5581-5585.
Stringer, C. B.
1985 Middle Pleistocene Hominid Variability and the Origin of Late
Pleistocene Humans. Pp. 289-295 in Ancestors: The Hard Evidence E.
Delson (ed) New York, Alan R. Liss Inc.
Thorne, A. G. and M. H. Wolpoff
1981 Regional Continuity in Australasian Pleistocene Hominid
Evolution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 55:337-349.
Wolpoff, M. H., A. G. Thorne, F. H. Smith, D. W. Frayer, and G. G.
Pope
1994 Multiregional Evolution: A World-Wide Source for Modern Human
Populations. Pp. 175-199 in Nitecki, M. H. and D. V. Nitecki (eds.)
Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans, New York, Plenum Publishing
Corporation.
[/proposed article]
Sorry the italics, underlining, and other markup got a bit distorted
in the translation. In any case, is this too long for the EvoWiki?
Cheers;
-Floyd