Visit our other dedicated websites
Asha Bhonsle Geeta Dutt Hamara Forums Hamara Photos Kishore Kumar Mohd Rafi Nice Songs Shreya Ghoshal
Hamara Forums

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Homo Futuris

 
3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Homo Futuris
shivani
post Feb 10 2006, 10:43 PM
Post #1


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3886
Joined: 1-August 05
Member No.: 2848



I was watching a program , which suggests that Apes evolved into Homo Sapiens, not only because of adaption, but also that the process was driven by some genes inside us. We remembered what we have to become, and that memory helped us become human.

But the process is not yet over. We are still evolving.
Most of the information available is in french though sad1.gif.

Any other info on same??

MJ ???
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mandrake
post Feb 10 2006, 10:58 PM
Post #2


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: 11-April 05
From: Mumbai, India
Member No.: 2066



Will post some thoughts tomorrow.... time to sleep :yawn:

Self - belief is the most potent force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shivani
post Feb 10 2006, 11:01 PM
Post #3


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3886
Joined: 1-August 05
Member No.: 2848



sad1.gif

neend ud jaye teri chain se sone wale
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bibhas
post Feb 11 2006, 10:46 AM
Post #4


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1721
Joined: 23-November 04
From: USA
Member No.: 1314



QUOTE(shivani @ Feb 10 2006, 12:13 PM) *

I was watching a program , which suggests that Apes evolved into Homo Sapiens, not only because of adaption, but also that the process was driven by some genes inside us. We remembered what we have to become, and that memory helped us become human.

Personally, I find this very hard to believe. In my opinion, evolution is not directed. It, however, appears to be so due to the selection pressure which confers specific survival advantages to the species that adapt and wipes out the ones that don't.

QUOTE(shivani @ Feb 10 2006, 12:13 PM) *
But the process is not yet over. We are still evolving.

This part though, I believe, is accurate laugh.gif

-B

A science that does not deliver us to the portals of metaphysics is a failed science and a religion that does not embrace physics is not grounded in reality.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mandrake
post Feb 11 2006, 02:02 PM
Post #5


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: 11-April 05
From: Mumbai, India
Member No.: 2066



Bibhas comes out of Hibernation. Time for me to go there wink2.gif

Self - belief is the most potent force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shivani
post Feb 11 2006, 07:21 PM
Post #6


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3886
Joined: 1-August 05
Member No.: 2848



QUOTE
Time for me to go there (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink2.gif)


look.gif fight.gif

sad1.gif .. rather take me along as well..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bibhas
post Feb 12 2006, 07:08 AM
Post #7


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1721
Joined: 23-November 04
From: USA
Member No.: 1314



tum donon hibernation mein gaye to mera yahaan aane ka kya faayda? doh.gif Ruko, main bhi tumhare saath aata hoon. chase.gif

A science that does not deliver us to the portals of metaphysics is a failed science and a religion that does not embrace physics is not grounded in reality.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shivani
post Feb 16 2006, 05:14 PM
Post #8


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3886
Joined: 1-August 05
Member No.: 2848



QUOTE
Personally, I find this very hard to believe. In my opinion, evolution is not directed. It, however, appears to be so due to the selection pressure which confers specific survival advantages to the species that adapt and wipes out the ones that don't.


mmm I too am skeptic about it.. but then it could be a possibility and cannot and should not be just brushed aside.
Tried a lot to find more info on this, but its all french to me (literally).
Either of you found more material ?

BTW Bibhas they mentioned that the genetic memory was specifically stored in the jaw area (dont remeber which part of it exactly). Different parts of body contain different kind of genetic information ???? Kind of strange.

QUOTE
tum donon hibernation mein gaye to mera yahaan aane ka kya faayda?

Ji bilkul nahi.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mandrake
post Feb 16 2006, 06:18 PM
Post #9


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: 11-April 05
From: Mumbai, India
Member No.: 2066



Since Bibhas is a biologist by profession, I wouldn't dare to discuss things on an unscientific basis with him. Hence I was resisting from putting my thoughts here.

But, on second thoughts, I think it would be interesting to put them here anyway wink2.gif

I have tangled with Bibhas earlier on this issue too, where I stated that I do not believe in the evolution theory.
Almost an year later, nothing has changed in my belief on that.

And about the point that our genes 'remember' what we are supposed to be only reinforces my pet theory of genetic time-locks. That our genes have encoded data that will be available to us only when we cross a certain number of biological years.

Besides, the Human Genome Project has thrown up some mind-boggling surprises that make is take a solid second-take on what we had thought/assumed so far, only complicates matter further...

That inspite of the so-called 'evolution' we still use only 10% of our brain should really start us thinking. Why, as per the rules/laws/whatever of evolution, the unused 90% didn't shrink into nothingness? Why does the brain have no sensation like other parts of the body?

No, I don't think we understand ourselves yet. So the Homo Futuris will certainly happen, but with a major surprise embedded in there: Homo Futuris will surprisingly be Homo 'Pastis' wink2.gif, the man we've all known before - the kind of people that existed as mentioned in the epics - those who could harness mental powers... those who realized that nature had to be protected, as it was a key element....

Self - belief is the most potent force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shivani
post Feb 16 2006, 06:46 PM
Post #10


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3886
Joined: 1-August 05
Member No.: 2848



MJ .. you are biased.. I cant trust you.
Please post the links
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mandrake
post Feb 16 2006, 06:57 PM
Post #11


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: 11-April 05
From: Mumbai, India
Member No.: 2066



1) Biased? For believing in something strongly after thinking over it for years?
I'd rather call those biased who believe in evolution, where not a single shred of evidence has been uncovered about the changeover from ape to man. No fossil records, no oral records, no references in any of our mythologies, no nothing... just pure belief!!

I'd rather be biased my way than that way wink2.gif

2) You don't trust me... I know that. You perpetually make me shrivel in my shoes, reminding me that immortal line of Seeta "dharti maa, mujhe apne andar samaa ley" sad1.gif

3) Post links?.... to what?

4) and after whatever you wrote about me in the preceding post, why post links?

I rather sever my links with this thread.... cry.gif

(M's latest car cd-player goes into 'attenuation off' mode. KK croons heart-brokenly:
teri duniyase hoke majboor chala-a-a-a-a
main bahut door, bahut door, bahut doooooooooooooooor chala....)

Self - belief is the most potent force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shivani
post Feb 16 2006, 07:03 PM
Post #12


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3886
Joined: 1-August 05
Member No.: 2848



sigh! mahanautank.

spank.gif
sharaft se links post kijiye.. and aap kahin nahija rahe hain.
Unless you and Bibhas thrash it out how would I learn sad1.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bibhas
post Feb 19 2006, 12:08 AM
Post #13


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1721
Joined: 23-November 04
From: USA
Member No.: 1314



QUOTE(shivani @ Feb 16 2006, 06:44 AM) *

QUOTE
Personally, I find this very hard to believe. In my opinion, evolution is not directed. It, however, appears to be so due to the selection pressure which confers specific survival advantages to the species that adapt and wipes out the ones that don't.


mmm I too am skeptic about it.. but then it could be a possibility and cannot and should not be just brushed aside.
Tried a lot to find more info on this, but its all french to me (literally).
Either of you found more material ?


No Shivani. I'll have to learn French for that !
Let me explain what I mean when I say "evolution appears to be directed due to the selection pressure".
Let's say you embark on a home decoration project and decide to decorate part of your living room with conch-shells. So you go to the beach searching for some. Since you want them to "match" the decor of the rest of the living room, you choose only to collect those that are perfectly spiral and off-white with choco-brown streaks on the body of the shell. It takes you a while because your criteria are tough but eventually you find enough, discard the rest and decorate your room with them. A guest who has never seen a conch shell in his life arrives from Timbuktu and admires your conch-chell collection a lot. How would he describe a conch-chell to his fellow Timbuktuites upon returning home ? A perfect off-white spiral with choco-brown streaks on the body- right ?
See where I'm going with that? In that example you are mother nature who imposed the "selection pressure" of your criteria such that only the "perfectly off-white spiral conch-shells with choco-brown streaks on the body" survived into your living room, because "mother nature" discared the rest. For a person whose world is only limited to your living room (or the fish that was born in the fish tank in your living room), that's what defines a conch-shell. "Mother nature" knows that there are other kinds of conch-shells out but to him or that fish...
We are all somewhat like that fish, because we only see the world as it appears to us, a mere snap shot of the duration of our lifetimes. We don't know all the processes that went through to make us what we are. It's easy to believe that our genes or somebody knew what we should be like today and constructed us to be so. But it's nothing more than the criteria that were imposed on our ancestors that brought us to Mother Nature's living room. The only difference is that you tossed back the conch shells into the ocean, being the bade-dilwali that you are, but "Mother" is really a cliche for Nature, and being the really tough taskmaster she is, all the ancestors that didn't make the cut were simply eliminated from the planet!

QUOTE(shivani @ Feb 16 2006, 06:44 AM) *

BTW Bibhas they mentioned that the genetic memory was specifically stored in the jaw area (dont remeber which part of it exactly). Different parts of body contain different kind of genetic information ???? Kind of strange.

I'd like to see their scientific rationale behind that conclusion! Genetic "memory" is nothing but DNA, which is present in every single cell of your body, all over the body.

A science that does not deliver us to the portals of metaphysics is a failed science and a religion that does not embrace physics is not grounded in reality.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bibhas
post Feb 19 2006, 12:55 AM
Post #14


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1721
Joined: 23-November 04
From: USA
Member No.: 1314



QUOTE(Mandrake @ Feb 16 2006, 07:48 AM) *

Since Bibhas is a biologist by profession, I wouldn't dare to discuss things on an unscientific basis with him. Hence I was resisting from putting my thoughts here.


MJ, aap jaise "ashtavadhani" ke munh se aise shabd achche nahin lagte. huh.gif

QUOTE(Mandrake @ Feb 16 2006, 07:48 AM) *

I have tangled with Bibhas earlier on this issue too, where I stated that I do not believe in the evolution theory.
Almost an year later, nothing has changed in my belief on that.

Wow! Has it really been that long? Chaliye, let me hope the 2006 edition will be more successful.

QUOTE
And about the point that our genes 'remember' what we are supposed to be only reinforces my pet theory of genetic time-locks. That our genes have encoded data that will be available to us only when we cross a certain number of biological years.

Would like to hear more about that theory sometime, we did touch upon it last year.

QUOTE
That inspite of the so-called 'evolution' we still use only 10% of our brain should really start us thinking. Why, as per the rules/laws/whatever of evolution, the unused 90% didn't shrink into nothingness?

IMO this is one of those sayings that's not to be taken literally. The following is the way I interpret it based on my knowledge of neuroscience. The 10% use doesn't mean we are only using one part of the brain and not the rest. How do we use our brain? For every little act of the brain, we make connections between nerve cells called "synapses". The more synapses we associate with a particular event or task, the better we remember it or perform it. What we think of as "100%" refers to the potential number of synapses that can be formed in a human brain. We use varying amounts of that potential depending on the needs of our everyday life and the stages of our life. We discard old unused synapses and we continue to make new ones as our needs change. What does it mean to be using 100% of your brain? Simply using up all of the potential I am talking about. Do we really want to do that? Because that comes with its own onus of having to maintain all of the information and ability which needs additional resources. With the amount we use now, the brain already consumes a majority of the nutritional input of our body.
Think of it as your 100GB hard drive which is full with music you've been downloading from HF. And then Unni uploads a Gigabyte of music you're dying to download. What are your choices? What would you do (assuming you don't have the ability to add more gigs)? Wouldn't you rather have all that memory as "potential" space to download the music you love and only use part of your hard disk and fill it with music that you actually listen to, rather than fill it up with music that's melodious but you don't listen to for whatever the reason might be? If you do choose to do this, would you simply eliminate all the unused space on your HD?

QUOTE
Why does the brain have no sensation like other parts of the body?

Au Contraire, Brain has all the sensation and there would be no sense of sensation without the brain! When Bhabhiji holds your hand on valentine's day, how do you know that ? The sensory nerve terminals on your palm are sending electrical impulses to your brain which interprets them, decodes them and then tells you via return impulses through the motor nerve that controls your hand muscles to return the gesture by pressing on her hand gently. If your brain did not exist, then there would be nothing but a few microamperes running through your body! I know I know, that's too much biological mumbo-jumbo, give me some real proof, right? Try this sometime, go into absolute darkness, put on as many blindfolds on your eyes as you'd like and spend a couple of hours like that. Pre-arrange with someone to turn on the lights at some random instant of time during that period. You know that the lights are on the instant it happens! How do you know that? I'll tell you how that happens after you try it and are convinced that you knew when the lights went on with all the blindfolds on your eyes.

QUOTE
No, I don't think we understand ourselves yet.

I couldn't agree more with you on that, my friend!

-Bibhas

A science that does not deliver us to the portals of metaphysics is a failed science and a religion that does not embrace physics is not grounded in reality.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bibhas
post Feb 19 2006, 02:18 AM
Post #15


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1721
Joined: 23-November 04
From: USA
Member No.: 1314



QUOTE(Mandrake @ Feb 16 2006, 08:27 AM) *

1) Biased? For believing in something strongly after thinking over it for years?
I'd rather call those biased who believe in evolution, where not a single shred of evidence has been uncovered about the changeover from ape to man. No fossil records, no oral records, no references in any of our mythologies, no nothing... just pure belief!!

MJ, remember our discussion last year about Australopithecus, Hominins, Neanderthals etc? I am certain you said you beleived in evolution after that. I am surprised you still think there are no fossil records. I am going to try and defend my view point but I really would like to know why you think no fossil records exist. I am not claiming that there are fossil records of every species that transitioned from pre-ape through the various stages that made the modern man but the amount of evidence available more than makes a well-defined trail.

Following text is a collection of edited quoted material from my evolution resources. I've tried to simplify the text and remove technical jaron to the extent possible.

About 98 percent of the genes in people and chimpanzees are identical, making chimps the closest living biological relatives of humans. This does not mean that humans evolved from chimpanzees, but it does indicate that both species evolved from a common ape ancestor. Modern humans have a number of physical characteristics indicative of an ape ancestry. For instance, people have shoulders with a wide range of movement and fingers capable of strong grasping. In apes, these characteristics are highly developed as adaptations for brachiation (swinging from branch to branch in trees). Although humans do not brachiate, the general anatomy of that earlier adaptation still remains. Both people and apes also have larger brains and greater cognitive abilities than do most other mammals. Human social life, too, shares similarities with that of African apes and other primates that live in large and complex social groups. For instance, chimps form long-lasting attachments with each other; participate in social bonding activities, such as grooming, feeding, and hunting; and form strategic coalitions with each other in order to increase their status and power. Early humans also probably had this kind of elaborate social life. However, modern humans fundamentally differ from apes in many significant ways. For example, as intelligent as apes are, people's brains are much larger and more complex, and people have a unique intellectual capacity and elaborate forms of culture and communication. In addition, only people habitually walk upright, can precisely manipulate very small objects, and have a throat structure that makes speech possible.

Hominoids, (the superfamily of primates that contains apes and humans) evolved during the Miocene epoch (24 million to 5 million years ago). Large ape species had originated in Africa by 23 or 22 million years ago. Among the oldest known hominoids is a group of apes known as Proconsul. Species of Proconsul had features that suggest a close link to the common ancestor of apes and humans. The ape species Proconsul heseloni lived in dense forests of eastern Africa about 20 million years ago. It was agile in the trees, with a flexible backbone and narrow chest of a monkey, yet capable of wide movement of the hip and thumb as in apes.

Early in their evolution, the large apes underwent several radiations, periods when species originated and became more diverse. After Proconsul had thrived for several million years, a group of apes from Africa and Arabia known as the afropithecines evolved around 18 million years ago and diversified into several species. By 15 million years ago, apes had migrated to Asia and Europe over a land bridge formed between the Africa-Arabian and Eurasian continents, which had previously been separated. Around this time, two other groups of apes had evolved namely, the kenyapithecines of Africa and western Asia (first known about 15 million years ago) and the dryopithecines of Europe (first known about 12 million years ago). It is not yet clear, however, which of these groups of ape species may have given rise to the common ancestor of African apes and humans.

By at least 4.4 million years ago in Africa, an apelike species had evolved that had two important traits, which distinguished it from other apes: (1) small canine teeth (next to the incisors, or front teeth) and (2) bipedalism--the ability to walk on two legs. Scientists commonly refer to these species as australopithecines, or australopiths for short. The name australopithecine translates literally as "southern ape," in reference to South Africa, where the first known australopith fossils were found. Countries in which scientists have found australopith fossils include Ethiopia, Tanzania, Kenya, South Africa, and Chad. Fossils from several different early australopith species that lived between 4 million and 2 million years ago show a variety of adaptations that mark the transition from ape to human.

Most of the distinctly human physical qualities in australopiths related to their bipedal stance. Before australopiths, no mammal had ever evolved an anatomy for habitual upright walking. African apes move around their environments in a variety of ways. They use their arms to climb and to swing through the trees. They knuckle-walk when on the ground, leaning on the middle parts of their fingers. And sometimes they move on two legs, as when chimpanzees feed on low branches or when gorillas show threat displays. The australopith body was devoted especially to bipedal walking. Australopiths also had small canine teeth, as compared with long canines found in almost all other catarrhine primates.

Other characteristics of australopiths reflected their ape ancestry. Although their canine teeth were not large, their faces stuck out far in front of the braincase. Their brains were about the same size as apes' today, about 390 to 550 cubic cm (24 to 34 cubic in) but were enlarged relative to body size. Their body weight, which can be estimated from their bones, ranged from about 27 to 49 kg (60 to 108 lb.) and they stood about 1.1 to 1.5 m (3.5 to 5 ft) tall. Their weight and height compare closely to those of chimpanzees. Some australopith species had a large degree of sexual dimorphism -- males were much larger than females -- a trait also found in gorillas, orangutans, and some other primates.

Australopiths also had curved powerful fingers and long thumbs with a wide range of movement. Apes, in comparison, have longer, very strong, even more curved fingers which are advantageous for hanging and swinging from branches -- but their very short thumbs limit their ability to manipulate small objects. While the fingers were longer than in modern humans, the australopith finger bones were not so long and curved as to suggest arm swinging. It is not yet clear whether these changes in the hand of early australopiths enabled them to use tools in a better way than earlier apes or even modern chimpanzees today.

Compared with apes, humans have very small canine teeth. Apes, particularly males, have thick, projecting, sharp canines that they use for displays of aggression and as weapons to defend themselves. By 4 million years ago, australopiths had developed the human characteristic of having smaller, flatter canines. Canine reduction might have related to an increase in social cooperation among humans and an accompanying decrease in the need for males to make aggressive displays.

By 2.7 million years ago, the robust australopiths had evolved. The robust australopiths represent an intriguing group of early humans because they survived for a long time and were quite common compared to other early human species. They had adaptations that differed from the larger-brained populations of Homo who lived at the same time. The youngest fossils of robust australopiths are about 1.2 million years old, which suggests that they became extinct by around then. At about that time world climate began to fluctuate in a different pattern, and that may have reduced the food supply on which the robust species depended. Interaction with other early humans, such as Homo erectus, has been suggested as another reason for their extinction, although no compelling evidence exists of direct contact between these species. Competition with several other species of plant-eating monkeys and pigs, which thrived in Africa in the time, may have been an even more important factor. Still, the reasons why the robust australopiths became extinct, after such a successful time, are unknown.

The oldest fossils of the modern human genus, Homo, are at least 2.3 to 2.5 million years old. The evolution of the modern human genus can be divided roughly into three periods: early, middle, and late. Species of early Homo resembled the early australopiths in many ways. Some early Homo species lived until possibly 1.6 million years ago. The period of middle Homo began perhaps between 1.8 million and 2.0 million years ago, overlapping with the end of early Homo. Species of middle Homo evolved an anatomy much more similar to that of modern humans but had comparatively small brains. The transition from middle to late Homo evolved large and complex brains and eventually language. Culture also became an increasingly important part of human life during the most recent period of evolution. The key change usually considered to signal the origin of Homo is an increase in brain size, measured by the volume of the inside of the brain case (cranial capacity). The average cranial capacity of modern humans (Homo sapiens) is 1350 cc, although the range of variation is large, around 1000 to 2000 cc. In the possible ancestors of Homo (Australopithecus afarensis and A. africanus) brain size was about 350 to 500 cc.

Paleoanthropologists generally recognize two species of early Homo. The two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, overlapped in time and appear to have co-existed in the same region with other early human species. The record is unclear because most of the early fossils that scientists have identified as species of Homo occur as isolated fragments. In many places, only teeth, jawbones, and pieces of skull -- without any other skeletal remains -- indicate that new species of smaller-toothed humans had evolved as early as 2.5 million years ago. Scientists cannot always tell whether these fossils belong to late-surviving gracile australopiths or early representatives of Homo. The two groups resemble each other because Homo likely descended directly from an early species of australopith.

A fragmented skeleton of a female Homo habilis from Tanzania shows that she stood only about 1 m (3.3 ft) tall, and her arms were longer relative to her legs than they were in the australopiths. At least in the case of this individual, therefore, H. habilis had very apelike body proportions. However, H. habilis also had more modern-looking feet and hands capable of producing tools. Many of the earliest stone tools in Tanzania have been found with H. habilis fossils, suggesting that this species made them.

By about 1.9 million years ago, the period of middle Homo had begun in Africa. Paleoanthropologists now recognize three species of middle Homo: H. ergaster, H. erectus, and H. heidelbergensis. Homo ergaster had a rounded skull, prominent brow ridge, small teeth, and other features that it shared with the later H. erectus. The most important fossil find of this species is a nearly complete skeleton of a young male, dated 1.6 million years old, from West Turkana, Kenya. The sex of the skeleton is determined from the shape of the pelvis and by its brow ridges, and an age of 9 to 12 years at death is known by the pattern of tooth eruption and bone growth. It is not known how the boy died. The "Turkana boy" had long leg bones adapted for long distance walking. The length of his arms, legs, and trunk were proportioned as in modern humans, in contrast with the apelike short legs (and long arms) of H. habilis and A. afarensis. This skeleton is remarkable for the evidence it offers of an early human fully committed to bipedality, with no signs of significant tree climbing. H. ergaster had an elongated body, indicating that it was adapted to hot, tropical climates, just as modern humans from the tropics also tend to have long, slender bodies.

H. erectus appears to have evolved in Africa from earlier populations of Homo ergaster, and then spread to Asia between 1.8 million and 1.5 million years ago. The youngest known fossils of this species, from the Solo River in Java, have been dated to about 50,000 years old. So this species was very successful, both widespread (Africa and Asia) and long-lived, having survived for more than 1.5 million years. H. erectus had a low and rounded braincase that was elongated from front to back, a prominent brow ridge, and an adult cranial capacity of 800 to 1,250 cc, an average twice that of the australopiths. Its bones, including the cranium, were thicker than those of earlier species. Prominent muscle markings and thick, reinforced areas on the bones of H. erectus indicate that its body could withstand powerful movements and stresses. Its body was well adapted for bipedal walking. Although its teeth were much reduced in size from Australopithecus, its lower jaw was still quite thick and rugged looking.

The origin of our own species, Homo sapiens, is one of the most hotly debated topics in paleoanthropology. One distinctive group of fossil humans, the Neanderthals, and their relationship to modern humans has been at the center of the debate. Traditionally, paleoanthropologists have classified as Homo sapiens any fossil human younger than 500,000 years old with a braincase larger than that of H. erectus. Many scientists who believe that modern humans descend from a single line dating back to H. erectus use the term "archaic Homo sapiens" to cover a wide variety of fossil humans that predate anatomically modern H. sapiens. Therefore, Neanderthals are sometimes classified as a subspecies of archaic H. sapiens -- H. sapiens neanderthalensis. Other scientists think that the variation in archaic H. sapiens actually falls into clearly identifiable sets of traits, and that any type of human fossil exhibiting a unique set of traits should have a new species name. According to this view, the Neanderthals belong to their own species, H. neanderthalensis.

The Neanderthals lived in areas ranging from western Europe through central Asia between about 200,000 and 36,000 years ago, although recently discovered fossil and stone-tool evidence suggests that Neanderthals may have persisted until 28-24,000 years ago. The name Neanderthal comes from fossils in 1856 in the Feldhofer Cave of the Neander Valley in Germany. Scientists realized several years later that prior discoveries -- at Engis, Belgium, in 1829 and at Forbes Quarry, Gibraltar, in 1848 -- also represented Neanderthals. These two earlier discoveries were the first early Homo fossils ever found.

The Neanderthals walked fully upright without a slouch or bent knees. Their cranial capacity was large, around 1500 cc (slightly larger on average than the brains of modern populations, a difference probably related to their large bodies and lean muscle mass). They were also culturally sophisticated compared with earlier humans. They made finer tools and were the first humans known to bury their dead and to have symbolic ritual. The practice of intentional burial is one reason why Neanderthal fossils, including a number of skeletons, are quite common compared to earlier forms of Homo. Nevertheless, Neanderthals differed from modern populations in certain ways. Their skulls showed a low forehead, large nasal area, projecting cheek region, double-arched brow ridge, weak chin, and an obvious space behind the third molar (in front of the upward turn of the mandible, or lower jaw). Their bodies were distinguished by these traits: heavily-built bones, occasional bowing of the limb bones, broad scapula (shoulder blade), hip joint rotated outward, long and thin pubic bone, short lower leg and arm bones relative to the uppers, and large joint surfaces of the toes and long bones. Together, these traits made a powerful, compact body of short stature -- males averaged 1.7 m (5ft 5 in) tall and 84 kg (185 lb.), and females averaged 1.5 m (5 ft) tall and 80 kg (176lb).

At the same time as Neanderthal populations grew in number in Europe and parts of Asia, other populations of nearly modern humans arose in Africa and Asia. These fossils, considered to be from archaic humans, are distinct from but similar to those of Neanderthals. Fossils from the Chinese sites display the long, low cranium and large face typical of archaic humans, yet they also have features similar to those of modern people in the region. And at the cave site of Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, scientists have found fossils with the long skull typical of archaic humans but also the modern traits of a somewhat higher forehead and flatter midface. Fossils of humans from East African sites older than 100,000 years also seem to show a mixture of archaic and modern traits.

The oldest known fossils that possess skeletal features typical of modern humans date from between 130,000 and 90,000 years ago. Several key features distinguish the skulls of modern humans from those of archaic species. These features include a much smaller brow ridge, if any; a globe-shaped braincase; and a flat or only slightly projecting face of reduced size. Among all mammals, only humans have a face positioned directly beneath the frontal lobe (forward-most area) of the brain. As a result, modern humans tend to have a higher forehead than did Neanderthals and other archaic humans. The cranial capacity of modern humans ranges from about 1,000 to 2,000 cc, with the average being about 1,350 cc.

Scientists have found both fragmentary and nearly complete cranial fossils of early anatomically modern Homo sapiens from Sudan, Ethiopia, South Africa and Israel. Based on these fossils, many scientists conclude that modern H. sapiens had evolved in Africa by 130,000 years ago and started spreading to diverse parts of the world beginning on a route through the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago.


I apologise for that incessantly long text but I edited out a ton of stuff to condense it thus. But I hope that I have managed to lay out a trail of the evolution of human origin for you.

QUOTE(Mandrake @ Feb 16 2006, 07:48 AM) *

So the Homo Futuris will certainly happen, but with a major surprise embedded in there: Homo Futuris will surprisingly be Homo 'Pastis' wink2.gif, the man we've all known before - the kind of people that existed as mentioned in the epics - those who could harness mental powers... those who realized that nature had to be protected, as it was a key element....

Now, if I may ask, what is the evidence for that ?

A science that does not deliver us to the portals of metaphysics is a failed science and a religion that does not embrace physics is not grounded in reality.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


 



- Lo-Fi Version | Disclaimer | HF Guidelines | Be An Angel Time is now: 14th December 2019 - 02:33 PM