The Origin Question
dcee
Since this is the talk.origins NG, I tought we could try to discuss a
little bit about the human origins... Who or What was the Missing
Link, and why did IT evolved into something related to us?
What are the current theories on that.
What are you own toughts on that.
I just read a nice book from Bernard Werber (its in french, I dont
think it was translated) "Le père de nos pères" (Father of our
Fathers) and the conclusion about this missing link is quite
troubling, and yet, I can't refute it... I won't spoil the book, but,
I'm pretty curious to know if anyone can come to something like that
here!
This could be a really nice thread, I hope it is!
Richard Uhrich
Please define "the Missing Link." Is it a quiz show?
Tom
<86fd27ab.01052...@posting.google.com>, lord...@hotmail.com
stated..."
>
>Good morning everyone,
>
>Since this is the talk.origins NG, I tought we could try to discuss a
>little bit about the human origins... Who or What was the Missing
>Link, and why did IT evolved into something related to us?
I think that the idea of a "missing link" is something which
should be retired. It might have been a leftover from eariler
ideas about a "Great Chain of Being", with humans at the top of
the chain; and then, when it began to be accepted that humans
were related to the rest of the world of life, that there was a
"link" between apes and humans.
There still is some of this in the idea that there is a
linear "progression" of hominids, maybe something like Homo
erectus to Homo neanderthalensis to Homo sapiens. So, somewhere
in that "chain", we look for "missing links".
What we should really look for is, just like in any other
part of the "tree of life" is a number of species, each
successful on its own terms (not merely as part of the "progress"
to modern humans). In other words, just like any place else we
look in the evolution of life over time.
This is IMHO, speaking as a non-scientist.
Tom
Ronald Okimoto
dcee wrote:
You have to define "missing link." All species that have ever existed
are not among the extant species. Most of the species are now extinct.
The vast majority of extinct species have not, yet, been identified in
the fossil record. There used to be a huge gap in the fossil record of
hominids, but this has been replaced by a lot of smaller gaps. Is
anything important missing? The process of making even more smaller
gaps continues. Every time that a new fossil hominid species is found
it creates two gaps where there used to be one. This should be no
comfort to the people that base their assertions on there being a
"missing link." It is just what we expect to find based on what we know
of the incompletness of the fossil record. There is also no controversy
over our apparent genetic link to other primates. The same inferences
that are used to do modern paternity testing in humans is used to infer
that we shared a genetic common ancestor with the great apes. You have
to define "missing link" in this context and then ask yourself if this
concept has any value.
The way that most people use "missing link" to their advantage has no
value in infering anything from the data. It usually means something
that we haven't found, yet. People that tout a "missing link" have to
account for the data that we have and not the data that we do not have,
at this time.
Ron Okimoto
Noelie S. Alito
"dcee" <lord...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:86fd27ab.01052...@posting.google.com...
> Good morning everyone,
>
> Since this is the talk.origins NG, I tought we could try to discuss a
> little bit about the human origins... Who or What was the Missing
> Link, and why did IT evolved into something related to us?
"Missing Link" was a popular term used back when the hominid
fossil tree was scanty. It referred to the as-yet-undiscovered
critical proto-hominid which was the "link" between hominids
and the other apes. The human ancestral fossil tree (including
some dead ends of recent splits) has been filled in quite a bit
in the century since that term was first used. Hence, the term
is obsolete.
> What are the current theories on that.
There are debates about various _details_ of hominid development,
and the relative order and nature of splits, but that would be like
comparing the 19th-century theories about the structure of the
atom with quantum mechanics.
> What are you own toughts on that.
That it's a catchy phrase useful to sow doubts about the current
status of paleontology.
There's a joke that comes up on t.o every now and then about
gaps (!) in the fossil record: You start with ONE "gap" between
fossils A and Z. If you find fossil K with intermediate features
between A and Z, you now have TWO gaps (A<=>K and
K<=>Z). When you find P with intermediate features between
K and Z, you then have THREE gaps (A<=>K, K<=>P and
P<=>Z). The more fossils you find, the more gaps ("missing
links") you have in the fossil record.
> I just read a nice book from Bernard Werber (its in french, I dont
> think it was translated) "Le père de nos pères" (Father of our
> Fathers) and the conclusion about this missing link is quite
> troubling, and yet, I can't refute it... I won't spoil the book, but,
> I'm pretty curious to know if anyone can come to something like that
> here!
For the lurkers: BW is a novelist. LPdNP is a "paleontological
thriller".
http://www.werber.imaginet.fr/sommaire/livres/resume/resume.htm
[Language issue: The blurb about LPdNP begins: "D'où venons
nous? Du singe? Pas si sur!"
In French, "singe" can mean either "ape" or "monkey". I would
have translated it as "From where do we come? [Monkey/Ape]?
Not so sure!" The Google translator produced "From which let
us come? Monkey? Not if on!" ;-) ]
> This could be a really nice thread, I hope it is!
Uh-oh. In 19th century English (or contemporary Mexican),
"nice" means "selective" or "picky". ;-)
Noelie
--
It was a dark and stormy night....
dcee
Tom <Tom_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<9egga...@drn.newsguy.com>...
Nick Lilavois
>Good morning everyone,
>
>Since this is the talk.origins NG, I tought we could try to discuss a
>little bit about the human origins... Who or What was the Missing
>Link, and why did IT evolved into something related to us?
It still lives...
It's Bigfoot!!!
;-)
**********************************************
* Unique, Artistic T-Shirt Designs and More! *
* http://shop.MagentaStudios.com/ *
* If the server is down, try mirror site: *
* http://www.lilavois.com/magentastudios/ *
**********************************************
Floyd
dcee <lord...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<86fd27ab.01052...@posting.google.com>...
> Ok, what I meant was, why and how did the first one of us began to think.
That really depends on how narrowly you define "thinking." The first
evidence of foresight is just under 2 million years ago. _Homo erectus_
toolmakers in eastern Africa made what we call "Acheulean hand-axes" that
were sharpened, chipped, teardrop-shaped stone tools. Previous hominids
had made stone tools, but the tools tended to be very simple and
"expedient." They were made at the time that they were used, from material
that was right in the area, and discarded as soon as the hominid was
finished using it.
Acheulean hand axes were made of a very specific type of stone, and were
chipped to a very specific pattern. The fact that these stone tools
continued to be manufactured in the same shape for thousands of years tells
us that the people making them had an idea in their heads about what they
were going to make, before they started making it. In other words, they
weren't just whacking a couple of rocks together and hoping for the best;
they were working towards a deliberate, pre-conceived plan.
Beause these tools were made of a very specific type of silicon-rich flint
or chert, we know that _H. erectus_ traveled to a source for this type of
stone, and made the tools before they were needed. That means that these
people had the ability to imagine things that might happen in the future
and prepare for them. For example, they may have thought they would find
some animal to eat, and that if they did, they would need a tool to kill
and butcher the animal and break its bones for marrow. (We don't know for
certain that they hunted animals, they may have scavenged animal corpses
that were killed by other predators, but even so, we know they had
foresight.)
Earlier hominids may have had foresight as well, but the development of
complex, regularly shaped stone tools (which preserve well) is the earliest
evidence we have of this. Earlier hominids may have made complex tools out
of perishable materials like wood, bone, or hide, but if so, these tools
have decayed and we can't recover them.
So, foresight is first evident at around 2 million years ago (actually 1.8
million is probably more accurate, but "guestimates" are acceptable. :-)
Other "mental skills" appear later in time.
The earliest evidence of decoration, which hints at a sense of aesthetics,
appears at around 80,000 years ago. In some contexts (also in Africa) we
have discovered shells that look like they were used as beads, and we've
discovered the remains of pigments made from ground-up minerals that were
probably used as paint. We haven't discovered what these early
anatomically modern humans were decorating with this paint or these beads.
It was probably something perishable like their clothes, or perhaps their
skin. People may have used these pigments as a form of cosmetics, like
lipstick or eye shadow. We aren't really sure. In any case, whatever they
were decorating, we know they were painting *something*, so we know they
had a sense of aesthetic beauty by 80,000 years ago.
By around 45,000 years ago, modern humans like the famous "Cro Magnons"
were making tailored clothing, not just for fashion, but for protection
against the cold Pleistocene winters in Europe. We know this because,
although the clothing from that time is not preserved, we have found things
like needlles and leather punches that were used to make these clothes.
People were also decorating themselves much more elaborately than ever
before, which suggests that everyone in a community had aesthetic
sensibilities. People also started regularly burying their dead at this
time. Burial had been done earlier, of course, but it was rare, and
apparently pretty informal. Only around 45,000-50,000 years ago do we see
people start to include "grave goods" in their burials. Food, weapons, and
items of personal decoration such as necklaces and bracelets were placed in
the graves with the dead. We have know way to reconstruct thier death
rituals, but the inclusion of grave goods suggests that they thought that
the deceased might have some use for these items. That suggests that they
had a belief in an afterlife, which implies some sort of spiritual or
"religious" beliefs (although probably not anything we would recognise...my
mother would say that "they certianly weren't good Catholics!" ;-).
By 30,000 years ago, people were painting very elaborate representations of
animals (and other symbols) in caves. Many archaeologists have interpreted
these paintings as "religious" or "shamanic" symbols, perhaps as a form of
hunting magic. They may be correct, we really don't know. What we *do*
know is that they understood concepts like realist art, perspective (which
wasn't "rediscovered" until the Rennaisance), and the division of space.
Placement of the various animal paintings is not random; there were clearly
defined and delimited places to paint bulls, places to paint horses, places
to paint elephants, and so on. This suggests that they not only understood
the division of space (don't poop where you eat!) but also that they had a
system of classification of some sort. They knew there was a difference
between cows and horses, for example, rather than just thinking of them as
"food animals." Even though the people of 30,000 years ago used cows,
horses, reindeer (caribou) and other animals all in the same way, (as
food,) they recognised differences between species that correspond with the
species we recognise.
That seems to have been the last real "breakthrough" of human thought.
After 30,000 years ago (some say after 60-80,000) our ancestors were
thinking pretty much like we do. Onyone alive at that time posessed all
the necessary mental hardware to make it in today's world.
In short, there was no "one first guy" who could think. Instead, the
abilities that we lump together as "intelligence" arose in a piecemeal,
staggered fashion; drips and drops accumulating over hundreds of
generations.
As far as "missing links" are concerned, Tom is right, that's not a really
useful term, because it implies a "chain of progress" that is the exact
opposite of what evolution predicts. Evolution is a much more "organic"
way of thinking, and the appropriate metaphor is a bush with ever-diverging
branches, rather than the "mechanistic" chain that is implied by the phrase
"missing link." Hope that helps.
-Floyd
P.S. one of the traditions of this group is not to "top-post" in
follow-ups, but to bottom-post or, when necessary, intersperse responses.
Thanks.
Ken Cox
> Ok, what I meant was, why and how did the first one of us began to think.
Most vertebrates think. The rest of the apes certainly
all think, and even reason abstractly, so there isn't
any "missing link" in that respect.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Robert Carroll
"Floyd" <far...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:01c0e3b5$3afb3020$c9aa...@localhost.u.washington.edu...
Thank you for the time-line and especially for the protocol comment. I, and
lots of others I bet, would like to have a source of guidelines on this.
Bob
Adam Marczyk
>
> Since this is the talk.origins NG, I tought we could try to discuss a
> little bit about the human origins... Who or What was the Missing
> Link, and why did IT evolved into something related to us?
There is no missing link, as far as I know. The hominid family tree is
pretty complete.
[snip]
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Floyd
Robert Carroll <rcar...@bestweb.net> wrote in article
<t7UO6.2797$gA.10...@monger.newsread.com>...
>
> "Floyd" <far...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:01c0e3b5$3afb3020$c9aa...@localhost.u.washington.edu...
> >
> >
> > dcee <lord...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> > <86fd27ab.01052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Ok, what I meant was, why and how did the first one of us began to
> think.
> >
> > That really depends on how narrowly you define "thinking."
[snip]
> Thank you for the time-line and especially for the protocol comment. I,
and
> lots of others I bet, would like to have a source of guidelines on this.
>
> Bob
"This" being the timeline, or the protocol? If the former, one good quick
reference is Richard Klein's article _Anatomy, Behavior, and Modern Human
Origins_ p. 167-198 in /Journal of World Prehistory/ Vol 9:2, June 1995.
Klein sort of sums up the basics (as of five years ago) and his references
include most of the "big names."
If you meant guidelines on protocol, yeah, that would be great. AFAIK,
talk.origins doesn't have a protocol FAQ available. It's a pretty informal
group, AFA top, bottom, or interspersed replies, as long as the previous
post is quoted. Since we don't all view the group threaded, quoting is
pretty much a requirement if you want people to be able to follow you.
Bottom replies are better than top ones, IMHO, particularly in long posts,
for the same reason. Bottom replies preserve conversation linearity, so if
you come in on a thread already in progress, it sequences:
Q1
A1
Q2
A2
Q3
part a
part b
part c
A3
a
b
c
instead of
A3
a
b
c
Q3
a
b
c
A2
Q2
A1
Q1
so you are able to read down the page, like you'd read a conversation in a
book, rather than having to scroll down past the answer to read the
question, then back up again to read the answer. This is particularly
helpful here because so many posts end up quite long, and so many threads
last a long time (compared to many other groups) and accumulate "preserved"
text. Without consistent sequencing, decyphering who is saying what
approaches impossible. Still, this is just my personal feeling on it.
Other folks have no problem, and nobody is (or should be) really domatic
about any of it. This isn't the Times, after all! ;-) Cheers;
-Floyd
Nick Lilavois
>Ok, what I meant was, why and how did the first one of us began to think.
Many animal studies have shown that animals are not quite as dumb as
we think they are- so "ability to think" is not an on/off "there it
is" type of thing- it is just as gradual as the rest of the
evolutionary process.
Claude Shouse
> dcee wrote:
> > Ok, what I meant was, why and how did the first one of us began to think.
>
> Most vertebrates think. The rest of the apes certainly
> all think, and even reason abstractly, so there isn't
> any "missing link" in that respect.
Hello all. I am a returnee to the group after about a ten year hiatus.
I have been lurking for a few days and wonder whatever happened to
Bob Bales, Richard Day, Chris Colby and a few of the others
I used to see regularly.
On to the topic at hand.
About 35 or 40 years ago I read a neat book entitled
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"
I just checked on Amazon and it apparantly is still in print. The thrust
of the book is that self-awareness has come about as a result of the
evolutionary development of pathways between the right and left hemispheres
of the brain. The inference is made because of the seeming loss the sense
of self when these pathways are severed.
I was wondering if by thinking you meant to say when did we first begin to
become conscious of our selves.
Richard Harter
(Claude Shouse) wrote:
>Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<3B0C0432...@research.bell-labs.com>...
>> dcee wrote:
>Hello all. I am a returnee to the group after about a ten year hiatus.
>I have been lurking for a few days and wonder whatever happened to
>Bob Bales, Richard Day, Chris Colby and a few of the others
>I used to see regularly.
Chris Colby dropped out of academia to make Beer. Rumor hath it that
he is in Texas. His old email address appears in the email
directories but was last updated in 1998. Bob Bales moved on to other
venues. He was in misc.education for a while but my impression is
that he posts in Christian bulletin boards. He hasn't been in
talk.origins for a long time. Richard Day surfaced a couple of times
but I don't have any info on him.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Ever wonder about those people who spend $2.00 a pop on those
little bottles of Evian water? Try spelling Evian backwards.
--
Posted from mail.sbtc.net [137.118.129.5]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Ken Cox
> Bob Bales moved on to other
> venues. He was in misc.education for a while but my impression is
> that he posts in Christian bulletin boards.
One might draw an analogy with the way that some species
survive by moving from environments where they cannot
compete to more protected environments.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Bloody Viking
dcee (lord...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Since this is the talk.origins NG, I tought we could try to discuss a
: little bit about the human origins... Who or What was the Missing
: Link, and why did IT evolved into something related to us?
The last common ancestor animal was a human/chimpanzee precursor ape 5 million
years ago. What happened was a split of population groups, one remaining in
the trees while the other either hitting the beach or wandering into the
prairie (savannah).
At the time, Earth was a "planet of the apes" with many models of the Ape make
competing. It worked out that the model of ape to serve as the human/chimp
precursor was the one to work out. Once a group decided to climb down from the
trees, it was a matter of time until someone figured out the Fire trick. We
are a chimpanzee with an oversized overclocked brain. We are the Automotive
Ape.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
CUIDADO: Las Puertas Estan Listo Para Cerrar.