A new Homo erectus specimen

| 15 Comments
homo erectus skulls

Carl Zimmer places the recent discovery of a new Homo erectus specimen in the broader context of human evolution—read his article on The Little Ones.

15 Comments

It’s still just a mammal. It doesn’t prove mammal-to-human evolution.

I can’t resist pointing out to R.A. Cartwright that humans such as you and I are in fact mammals already. Oh, and the concept of ‘proof’ doesn’t mean anything in science. You got yer observational evidence and you got yer hypotheses and theories to integrate the evidence into a more comprehensible synthesis, but there is no such thing as proving a scientific theory.

“It’s still just a MAMMAL[sic]”

(What the.…!?! Did he have some sort of vocabulary seizure, or is he willing to state a creationist “view” when literally 100% ignorant? Is he a “evolutionist” trying to make the Xians look bad? Beyond explanation, this sort of thing.)

VKW & darwinfinch:

Where’s your sense of humor? Unless he just had a massive stroke, Reed is a very sapiens homo.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 257, byte 257 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on July 2, 2004 01:40 PM

It’s still just a mammal. It doesn’t prove mammal-to-human evolution.

WHOA Stop the presses an evolutionist told the truth. There is no evidence of human-to-mammal transitional fossils. Kangaroos do not just turn into Humans. In future debates my side can now quote this as an example of an evolutionist admitting it is false in a moment of weakness. Since a Kangaroo is a collection of Irreducibly Complex machines, it must be multiply IC. Therefore, if you change one thing in a Kangaroo, the whole thing would cease to work, as Dr. Casey Luskin indirectly pointed out. So the first mutation (which are always all bad anyway) would kill any Kangaroo that was even beginning to try to evolve into a human.

monkey… daaaaah.…..

Let’s try this again.

Sheesh. Well anyway, just click on the URL.

Skeletons of the Gibbon. Orang. Chimpanzee. Gorilla. Man.

Photographically reduced from Diagrams of the natural size (except that of the Gibbon, which was twice as large as nature), drawn by Mr. Waterhouse Hawkins from specimens in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons

This is from “On the Relations of Man to the Lower Animals” (1861)Collected Essays VII” by T. H. Huxley. As far as I can tell, it is the first version of the “March of Man” image.

I also found this one fun:

Jon Wells made this one of his “Icons of Evolution” targets. So many errors, so little time.

Creationist Timmy Wrote:

WHOA Stop the presses…

Steve, this stopped being funny long, long ago, confuses first time visitors, and just clogs up the comments area. Could you please stop it.

Like most of the creationists, CT doesn’t come around much anymore. However, when he does show up, his comments are no less insightful than other creationists. There’s little reason for him to be around right now, because what he likes doing, is agreeing with and expanding on other creationists’ thoughts. I think we all have to learn to tolerate them. They are beautiful, in a way, these Creationists in the Mist.

Me, I prefer better activities, like linking PLOS articles, summarizing creationist positions, etc. Right now I’m reading On the Origin of Species. Dude, it’s a must-read. What’s great about it is, you see this guy fighting through the data jungle, deciding what’s reliable, fitting data to his theory, and determining how seriously other data conflicts, and possible reasons for it. At this point, evolution’s irrefutable, but 140 years ago, he really had to fight through a mess of somewhat conflicting knowledge, and it’s a treat to see the brilliance.

Like most of the creationists, CT doesn’t come around much anymore. However, when he does show up, his comments are no less insightful than other creationists. There’s little reason for him to be around right now, because what he likes doing, is agreeing with and expanding on other creationists’ thoughts. I think we all have to learn to tolerate them. They are beautiful, in a way, these Creationists in the Mist. Anyway, ignoring creationists is easy. I do it all the time. ;-)

Me, I prefer better activities, like linking PLOS articles, summarizing creationist positions, etc. Right now I’m reading On the Origin of Species. Dude, it’s a must-read. What’s great about it is, you see this guy fighting through the data jungle, deciding what’s reliable, fitting data to his theory, and determining how seriously other data conflicts, and possible reasons for it. At this point, evolution’s irrefutable, but 140 years ago, he really had to fight through a mess of somewhat conflicting knowledge, and it’s a treat to see the brilliance.

Speaking of actual science, for whatever reason I can’t get

Ferro-Novick S, Jahn R. Vesicle fusion from yeast to man. Nature. 1994 Jul 21;370(6486):191-3.

via NCSU online. They only seem to have full-text Nature from 1997-on. If anyone has it, could you please send it to me? I’m interested in it for work, but it has a broader aspect, which is that this class of proteins, which is involved in some very basic cellular events, is very similar between yeast cells and humans, though the two split hundreds of millions of years ago. The really cool thing is, there’s huge differences in the sequences, but the sites which create the functional faces are much more similar than the rest of the structure–mutations which are functionally important have been weeded out, but so much of the protein isn’t so important, and the differences there are huge. If you were to look at the genetic and amino acid sequences, you wouldn’t even guess they were similar, but toss it into RasMol and they’re wickid close, structurally. Align the sequences, and amidst all the differences, you can see reqular similarities, which are the parts which create the faces. The paper I mentioned examines the similarities and differences between the SNARE proteins across nature. How cool is it, to see details of how evolution worked over hundreds of millions of years.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 11, column 2, byte 414 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Opps. My bad!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on July 2, 2004 1:18 PM.

NCSE RSS Syndication was the previous entry in this blog.

Tangled Bank #6 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter