|
|
|
|
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/5/2009 8:47:06 AM | When Magellan arrived at Cape Horn were there not indigenous tribes who were hunter gatherers who used the seas and forests surounding ghe seas
Were there not Inuits above the Artic Circle in Canada before the Europeans arrived and inhabit land and ice from Greenland to Eastern Russia.
Are there not Yenets and Nenets tribes living in central Siberia which has temperatures as low as -71 C during winter?
Are there not Lapps well above the Artic Circle who speak Sami unrelated to Swedish
Clearly all these people have thrived for thousands of years in extreme conditions so I can not understand your disbelief that a protohominid could have survived and evolved on a warmer than today Antartica coastline with temperatures c +5C in winter
PS I have checked my chart produced by BBC /Sir David Attenborough and OU team.
RING TAILED LEMUR lemur is clearly spelt RING TAILED LEMUR and not GIBBON as you curiously suggest.
I have checked other branches of the primate "tree" and can find no branch with "Homo ballatro" either but I can assure you they exist. | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/5/2009 1:18:11 PM | I don't think I mention enough how much I enjoy FrogO_Oeyes's posts. So here it is, thank you for your well thoguht out and supported opinion on the article.
Now, onto off-topic business...
(I read somewhere this was possible)
No, this is not possible because of something call “Speciation”. It took me less than 60 seconds between a google search & reading to invalidate your claim. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation, http://www.messybeast.com/cabbit3.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabbit )
I think I made my point...
If your point was, you can't take 60 seconds out of your day to vette information, then yes – you made it. If your point was to undermine your own statements with misinformation, then yes.
we will start having the best traits of one another
That depends on how you define “best”. From an evolutionary perspective, “best” is limited to a species survivability in relation to it's environment.
You can talk about alternative ideas about what God means to you on an open forum like this one... but good luck if you attempted that kinda blasphemy in a church... You would be nailed up on a cross and possibly burned alive. (Exaggeration)
Sadly no – this isn't an exaggeration at all. People were literally burned at the steak for heresy not all that long ago. And in some countries, it's still punishable by death. Oh how happy I am to be agnostic in America.
If you where to google search "who wrote the first 7 books of the bible?" the answer comes back simply "Moses!"
Since I like to verify statements, I checked this out, and didn't get that result. For my first four results, I got:
The Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Bible
www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm - Cached – Similar
Which credits Paul. It does, however, also say this: Moses is traditionally credited with writing the first 5 books of the Old Testament, known to Christians as the Pentateuch. But nowhere in the Pentateuch does it claim to have been written by Moses, so we must analyse the text to determine who probably wrote it.
And then goes on to describe why Moses likely wasn't the author of the first five (not seven) books of the bible.
wiki.answers.com/.../Who_wrote_more_books_of_the_Bible_than_any_one_else
Who Wrote The First Five Books Of The Bible? - Blurtit
www.blurtit.com/q196929.html - Cached – Similar
The article doesn't claim to know who wrote it, but does provide evidence for Moses only being partially the author, and evidence for moses not being the author at all.
Amazon.com: Who Wrote the Bible? (9780060630355): Richard Elliott ...
www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard.../dp/0060630353
Same as above – inconclusive, but compeling evidence that Moses wasn't the author, or that the text was redacted.
Authors Who Wrote First Five Books Of The Bible - College Essay ...
www.oppapers.com/essays/...Wrote-First...Books-Bible/51522
Selling a book about the subject, and makes no claim about who authored the first seven books of the bible.
So it my opinion... that the first 7 books of the bible... that was the very foundation of everything religious that followed, was written... by a man that wheeled the name God as his personal broadsword for power.
Since the Pentateuch includes a lot of conflicting (and often two different stories / accounts / sets of laws) information, describes Moses' death (Deuteronomy 34), and the only evidence “for” is circular reasoning (a logical fallacy), I must conclude your opinion sucks. | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/5/2009 1:29:47 PM |
Not even half a million years yet I am suggesting habitation of Antartic c 5 Ma by some forms of protohominids.
Do you have evidence for that? If not, that's pure speculation. I could suggest magic unicorns c 5Ma with as much validity.
Someone may find an exposed cave in which there are Australopithicus/Neanderthal type bones alongside lemurs , mammoths sloths and above them on the cave roof pictures of hunting scenes including hunting of sealife from boats.
While you're at it, have a look around for skeletal horses with horns on their heads. Bring one back for me. I hear they're a great aphrodisiac. | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/5/2009 8:45:35 PM | Okay. I have done a bit more research, (yes, I am very happy that more articles are put forth, over the internet).
Why is A. Ramidus, and A. Kadabba, mutually exclusive? I get Ardi's pelvic girdle supports bipedalism (I would love to study the musculature of that species...), but I do not understand why A. K. is dismissed as an ancestor. Both are in different time periods, and why does the evolution of A. Ramidus, dismiss A. Kadabba? Especially since it has been alluded to, before, (as an ancestor). I cannot seem to find enough research on A. Kadabba, other than the examination of teeth and and bits and pieces. Trying to find this information without the internet...has been nearly impossible.
But I might be reading different articles.
Given the climate of the Miocene period, it is not completely far-fetched that life could have migrated to Antarctica, however, given the evidence it is unlikely that it started there. | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/6/2009 5:14:17 AM | Stargazer would you be prepared to elaborate on your erectile dysfunction and whether it is associated with the flashes of light you see while standing alone in the dark in boreal forests.
It is possible that the flashes are caused by Type 1 diabetes mellitus and low blood sugar which also causes irritibility and halucinations. eg Seeing crop circles on Jupiter!
It is not at all impossible that Rhino and Narwhales inhabited Antartica so it is not impossible to produce some Fairy Dust from those horns to get Percy back to life again. | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/6/2009 6:35:44 AM | Enrique, that was offensive as it was rambling, bordering on nonsensical.
It's far more likely that you'll find a narwhal in the ARCTIC then the antarctic ocean. Species of rhino have roamed North America, Europe and Asia but only after Antarctica was covered in ice.
Again, something you clearly don't understand, just because YOU think something might be possible doesn't mean we all have to follow in line. It's a little thing called EVIDENCE. I'd suggest, before you start putting your foot in your mouth, you might want to look that up. | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/6/2009 9:32:35 AM | "Skeletal horses with horns on their heads.
So you think I am being offensive.
Are you not a man who has confessed to studying astronomy for 30 years.
Let me know which astonomer has actually visited another planet, a star, a galaxy, a nebula, a black hole.
While their ideas are plausible they are not fact backed by actual physcial evidence.
Have you observed a star before it was formed? Have you witnessed the actual process of a supernova from a few meters away?
Isnt astronomy for the most part total conjecture with a few meteorites and a few kilos of moondust thrown in.
Isnt astronomy constantly revising what it previously beleived to be true
If light travels as a wave then how can it be influenced by gravity which acts only on mass.
Stargazer astronomy is little better than astrology . You may beleive it is true but it isnt necessarily the case.
I can see similarities between people like you and the Roman Inquisition who forced Gallilleo to abdure deny and rescind his ideas in order to fit in with theirs.
Now you can take that as a gross insult to you. | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/6/2009 10:16:10 AM |
Stargazer astronomy is little better than astrology .
Well, that tells me a lot about what I'm dealing with here. But what the hay! I'll give it a go!
I can see similarities between people like you and the Roman Inquisition who forced Gallilleo to abdure deny and rescind his ideas in order to fit in with theirs.
Oh really? Because Galileo had something called "observations" a.k.a. "evidence." Remember that word? In other words, he could show that the moon had mountains and craters and weren't perfect spheres. He observed that Jupiter had moons so that all objects did not orbit the Earth as was believed. He also observed Venus with phases, which means it had to be orbiting the sun and not Earth.
Now, the Inquisitors were operating on what they believed. And no matter what evidence was presented to them, they refused to listen. They cajoled and ridiculed. I'm sure they even questioned his sexual prowess. But no matter what, they had absolutely nothing more to their beliefs other than "I think this must be the way it is so it can't be any other way." Now which of us is sounding like one of the Inquisitors?
If light travels as a wave then how can it be influenced by gravity which acts only on mass.
Because it also exists as a particle. Which is actually quite provable. And while it is essentially a "massless" particle, it does have inertia. Which has also been observed. Ever heard of a solar sail? So where's the problem you're having understanding this? Or is it simply a lack of actual research on your part?
Isnt astronomy for the most part total conjecture with a few meteorites and a few kilos of moondust thrown in.
Isnt astronomy constantly revising what it previously beleived to be true
No, astronomy is about observation. It's about people who actually know what they're talking about and have really good equipment for making the observations for coming up with the conclusions that they do. So have you ever looked through a telescope at a planet? At a galaxy? Ever seen a supernova? Do you know anything about Relativity? Conjecture is things like "I think Jupiter has volcanos." Science asks if that can be possible. And the answer...no, and for a great deal of observable reasons.
Of course, if you have a actual, viable alternative to the phenomenon ascribed to visual evidence of gravity's effect on light, please feel free to offer it. Or is it simply going to be "well, I don't know but it sure isn't gravity having an effect on light, that's for sure. And you're wrong and akin to the Inquisition if you don't agree with me." Same thing with Jupiter having volcanos. So let me get this straight. You see a picture of a volcano on Earth pushing a plume through clouds a few thousand feet and you think maybe a dark spot on Jupiter is the result of a volcano pushing a plume through THOUSANDS OF MILES of thick atmosphere (on a planet with thousands of times Earth's gravity) and you think I'm the wonky one? Seriously?
However, yes, science does, from time to time, have to revise itself. But that's not a condemnation of the science. You're free to believe whatever you want. Just realize, there's more to it than "I think that's the way it is, so it is."
Expect someone else to say "prove it." But hey, if the best you got are insults, well, don't be surprised if your credibility drops like a stone (or asteroid) into Jupiter's atmosphere. | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/6/2009 12:49:26 PM |
So you think I am being offensive.
My 5 year old niece and nephew use this tactic, "He hit me first!". Mature adults don't use this excuse, because they've realized it's not a good one.
Let me know which astonomer has actually visited another planet, a star, a galaxy, a nebula, a black hole.
How is this relevant to anything? If you're attempting to imply "we haven't been there, so we can't 'know'", perhaps you don't understand the scientific method, or how indirect observations can still lead to certain conclusions.
1892 Viruses are discovered by Russian scientist Dmitri Ivanovski. Viruses are so small that it takes an electron microscope, invented in the 1930’s, to see them. (source: http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00923/germs.htm). In other words, we can discover things, without directly observing them.
While their ideas are plausible they are not fact backed by actual physcial evidence.
Wrong. In science, theories only exist if there have been repeatable observations proving a hypothesis (and has to undergo peer review). Theories are on the top of the hierarchical chart specifically because the evidence (observations) is overwhelming. The use of the word "theory" in a scientific context is quite different than the colloquial use of the term.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
Have you observed a star before it was formed? Have you witnessed the actual process of a supernova from a few meters away?
Yes / No. Not that the latter matters, because we're still able to observe it from light years away.
Isnt astronomy for the most part total conjecture with a few meteorites and a few kilos of moondust thrown in.
Not at all, quite the opposite.
Isnt astronomy constantly revising what it previously beleived to be true
No. They do, however, occasionally revise a theory or understanding of something based on new evidence. This is the difference between how scientists observe the world, and how outsiders view scientific discoveries. A scientist looks at theories / hypothesis etc and thinks something like, "With our current knowledge of our world, we have evidence to believe our observations mean X is true.". Outsiders shorten this to something like, "X is a fact". Which essentially takes a scientists postulate completely out of context.
Stargazer astronomy is little better than astrology . You may beleive it is true but it isnt necessarily the case.
Astronomy is science. That means, by definition, it's backed by research, observations & peer review. Astrology is exactly the opposite. It does not apply the scientific method (and when the scientific method is applied, it falls apart), and does not apply reasonable tests to it's own postulates.
I can see similarities between people like you and the Roman Inquisition who forced Gallilleo to abdure deny and rescind his ideas in order to fit in with theirs.
Explain.
Now you can take that as a gross insult to you.
May want to consider the forum rules before "opening your mouth" again. Are you here to participate in a healthy exchange of ideas & understandings, or are you here to insult people? | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/7/2009 10:53:40 AM | OK, back on topic.
Has anyone considered the 'aquatic ape' hypothesis? Doesn't it seem likely that an intermediate form that was bipedal but contains no evidence of knuckle walking strengthens the argument for an ancestor that reverted to the oceans, or at any rate spent a large period of time swimming?
The hip and wrist structure can be explained very well by a creature which at some time in its development lived in forests and/or the water. To include ground walking as well introduces complications and requires special explanations which violate Occam's razor.
Conversely, take a creature of this sort (bipedal, able to climb) and put them in a savannah afterwards and they have immediate advantages over an organism transitioning directly from tree dwelling to the ground - and might thus dominate as a result.
Just throwing it out there.... | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/8/2009 7:49:22 PM |
Clearly the Southern Ocean was not interacting with Antartica as it is now otherwise it would be "completely covered" as it is today
Non sequitur.
Clearly the Southern Ocean is capable of influencing the climate of Antartica and it is not impossible for Antartic to have been more temperate than it is today.
The existence of the Southern Ocean is a significant factor. It isolates the continent from warming currents. So long as you don't have or understand the data, you feel justified in inserting any magical scenario even if the rest of us are aware that it contradicts the actual data. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
This suggests the ice record goes back to 400 000 years . Not even half a million years
And here's one going back 750000 years:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6992/full/429611a.html
These include records of interglacial warmings of 20-30000 years, which are fairly trivial given the isolation. The ice core evidence has barely been tapped, but there are other lines of evidence. Icefish, for instance, are uniquely adapted to the extremely cold waters and have only evolved as multiple species because their habitat has existed for a very long time. You're implying that a "gap" in your chosen line of evidence is support for your position, which is an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy.
However Ocean currents may have made it relatively moderate and not quite the refrigerator you describe.
I can not think of an analogy since the Artic Ocean is virtually landlocked and not surrounded in entirity by an ocean which could have been more mild than present effectively keeping the Antartic above freezing.
There is an interesting comparison between the two. The Arctic Ocean nearly freezes over precisely because it IS nearly landlocked. That excludes the influences of the warming Gulf Current, which allows the ocean to cool more and also prevent it from moderating the land climate.
The Southern Ocean is a polar ring ocean, and circulates completely around the continent. That ALSO isolates warming currents, keeping the ocean cold and allowing the land to become even colder. The southern pole is also naturally colder than the northern. In this case, the ocean does little to moderate the terrestrial climate - it actually places a large role in keeping it frozen.
In the Artic there are no mountain ranges which are at right angles to weather systems
Kamchatka and Alaska are not similar as Kamchatka interupts westward winds blowing of Asia and both are two far south to be anolougous to West Antaric Range or Trans Antartic Range. The Aleutian Chain of Volcanoes is obviously parallel to prevailing winds.
Look at it pole-on. There are effectively no "transverse" mountain ranges in Antarctica. The ocean encircles the continent and exposes it to weather systems from ALL directions.
The Arctic does have obstructing mountain ranges. The Rocky [Pelly] and Coast Mountains have significant impacts on weather. Parts of the Yukon can be quite mild in winter because warmer Pacific weather can cross parts of the Coast Mountains, and occasionally the Pelly Mountains as well. However, the Rocky Mountains also act to channel Arctic weather south from the Beaufort Sea, east of the mountains and well into the continental USA.
I think I see what you're getting at, but what you're suggesting is unlikely to work at such high latitudes, at least not given that the land and oceans both parallel weather systems for the most part.
So I remain totally unconvinced about your NPHIA stance. (No ProtoHominids In Antarica)
Still an argumentum ad ignorantiam, and worse because evidence isn't lacking - it OPPOSES your hypothesis.
Clearly any evidence there might be will have been destroyed by any glaciation.
Refuted already.
Suitably aged fossils are known. They include Gondwanan land mammals [marsupials], and NOT Laurasian land mammals [eutherians, such as primates]
Someone may find an exposed cave in which there are Australopithicus/Neanderthal type bones alongside lemurs , mammoths sloths and above them on the cave roof pictures of hunting scenes including hunting of sealife from boats.
In a word, "ridiculous".
Lemurs evolved in Madagascar AFTER Antarctica was isolated.
Elephants evolved in the northern hemisphere LONG after Antarctica was isolated.
Sloths evolved in South America LONG after Antarctica was isolated
Neanderthals arose in Eurasia LONG after Antarctica was isolated, have never been recorded anywhere near Antarctica, and didn't exist until long after Antarctica was frozen. In fact, the genus Homo didn't exist until long after. In addition, Neanderthals were nothing like Australopithecus, so lumping the two as interchangeable for your scenario is simply ignorant.
Australopithecus shows no signs of being technically advanced enough to cross an ocean, and they have never been discovered in warm or mild regions connected by land to Africa, so why would they exist in a harsh climate isolated by a frigid ocean?
Australopithecus also did not exist until AFTER Antarctica was glaciated.
Desertrhino's analogy actually is a pretty fair comparison of your hypothesis, and at this point I have to think you're just trolling. Kinda like when you said your father died of flu?
When Magellan arrived at Cape Horn were there not indigenous tribes who were hunter gatherers who used the seas and forests surounding ghe seas
And...?
Were there not Inuits above the Artic Circle in Canada before the Europeans arrived and inhabit land and ice from Greenland to Eastern Russia.
Are there not Yenets and Nenets tribes living in central Siberia which has temperatures as low as -71 C during winter?
Are there not Lapps well above the Artic Circle
All of whom are modern humans, all of whom could WALK by land or use small boats to follow coastlines to arrive in regions which ARE milder than Antarctica.
who speak Sami unrelated to Swedish
Was this just an interesting aside, or was there some kind of nebulous point here?
Clearly all these people have thrived for thousands of years in extreme conditions so I can not understand your disbelief that a protohominid could have survived and evolved on a warmer than today Antartica coastline with temperatures c +5C in winter
Not as extreme as Antarctica.
Not as isolated as Antarctica, and not isolated by an ocean which is dangerous even to modern ships, much less small and primitive boats.
Antarctica was NOT appreciably warmer than today.
All evidence indicates that hominines evolved in eastern Africa. Your unlikely scenario is superfluous.
PS I have checked my chart produced by BBC /Sir David Attenborough and OU team.
RING TAILED LEMUR lemur is clearly spelt RING TAILED LEMUR and not GIBBON as you curiously suggest
I looked up this chart. The only one I found does in fact match what you describe. Of course, it only includes a grand total of THREE living primate species. I have made the generous assumption that you're smart enough to figure out that three species are hardly representative of the hundreds of living species, much less the thousands of extinct ones. The BBC chart reflects general relationships among major categories of ALL life. It's not useful for understanding primate relationships, since it excludes the vast majority of primates.
I have checked other branches of the primate "tree" and can find no branch with "Homo ballatro" either but I can assure you they exist.
Nomen nudum? I recently compiled a list of potentially valid taxa of Homo, in order to work out their potential relationships. There were 39 species and subspecies, a few of them somewhat obscure or of questionable validity. None carry the name you provide. Your claim in the absence of evidence is meaningless.
but I do not understand why A. K. is dismissed as an ancestor. Both are in different time periods, and why does the evolution of A. Ramidus, dismiss A. Kadabba? Especially since it has been alluded to, before, (as an ancestor). I cannot seem to find enough research on A. Kadabba, other than the examination of teeth and and bits and pieces. Trying to find this information without the internet...has been nearly impossible.
A.kadabba is a poorly known taxon so far, known from fragments. I am not sure of the exact reasons to exclude it from human ancestry. I can provide an analogy which normally applies in similar cases:
Potential ancestor [call it Ak] has trait W
More recent species [Aa] have trait V or trait U
I pick these letters for a reason, because off the top of my head, the evolution of these letters parallels the biological scenario [both U and W are derived from V]
It is possible for W to evolve into V, and V into U, so this creature is a possible ancestor.
A new potential ancestor [Ar] is discovered, slightly older than Ak. It possesses trait V.
We now have three possibilities.
1) V leads on one branch to W, and on a separate branch to U. Ar leads to Ak and Aa.
2) V leads to W, and W leads back to V and then to U. Ar leads to Ak which then leads to an unknown and then to Aa.
3) V leads to V and W, and W leads back to V and then to U. Unknown 1 leads to Ar and Ak, and Ak leads to unknown 2 and then to Aa.
In (1), Ardipithecus ramidus is a direct immediate ancestor of A.kadabba as well as Australopithecus afarensis.
In (2), A.ramidus is a direct immediate ancestor of A.kadabba, which is ancestral to another unknown species, which is then ancestral to A.afarensis. The unknown species could be an Ardipithecus with trait V, or it could be an Australopithecus with trait W.
In (3), an unknown species is a direct immediate ancestor of both Ardipithecus, and A.ramidus is not ancestral to A.kadabba. Thereafter, it's similar to (2).
It takes fewer steps [is more parsimonious] if (1) is correct. This is especially important with fossils, since fossils involve mainly skeletal structures. Skeletal structures don't change readily in species, since such changes can be literally crippling to the individual possessing them. Reversals are thus considered unlikely.
Has anyone considered the 'aquatic ape' hypothesis? Doesn't it seem likely that an intermediate form that was bipedal but contains no evidence of knuckle walking strengthens the argument for an ancestor that reverted to the oceans, or at any rate spent a large period of time swimming?
I'm aware of the hypothesis, but in this case we have a bipedal forest animal with opposable toes and fingers. Thus far, I don't think there's good evidence for ANY species of primate ever being highly aquatic. The two species of orangutan wade through water to get from one place to another, and the Japanese macaque likes to bathe in hot spring pools. Apart from that, the hypothesis requires an essentially aquatic species which has no evidence of an ancestor, no living aquatic descendants or kin, and no living relative which shows conclusive evidence of aquatic ancestry or adaptation. It's not very parsimonious to accept such a species, which would then have to undergo significant reversals to become terrestrial again. I think it's a dead hypothesis until such time as there is clear evidence such a species ever existed.
The hip and wrist structure can be explained very well by a creature which at some time in its development lived in forests and/or the water.
Both work perfectly well for terrestrial bipeds, and all evidence thus far for such features is in terrestrial bipeds [39 taxa of Homo, 3 taxa of Paranthropus, 2+ Australopithecus, 2 Ardipithecus]. They have features suited to terrestrial diets and plantigrade walking, with no features specific to aquatic life, and are found in deposits from savanna or forest. Ardipithecus DID in fact live in forests. That was one of the surprises. I don't see how any of its traits would be aquatic. For instance, the posture of such a species would commonly involve holding the head in a face-skyward position, to see forward while swimming or to keep the nose above water while wading deep. The neck structure or eye and nose positions should reflect that, and they don't. In a swimmer, the feet be more effective if they were larger and oriented more parallel to the leg, rather than at right angles to them, to improve swimming.
To include ground walking as well introduces complications and requires special explanations which violate Occam's razor.
The features are there, and they are also present in the many bipedal species which followed, so parsimony isn't violated. Occam's razor would apply to the aquatic ape hypothesis, since it's an hypothesis lacking conclusive evidence, and all evidence in its favor applies in fact to terrestrial bipeds [the alternate hypothesis with conclusive proof].
Conversely, take a creature of this sort (bipedal, able to climb) and put them in a savannah afterwards and they have immediate advantages over an organism transitioning directly from tree dwelling to the ground - and might thus dominate as a result.
Well...you're pretty much summing up the existing consensus on Ardipithecus. The question being, why did it or its ancestors become bipedal in the first place, if it wasn't an adaptation to savanna? There's no evidence of residency in wetlands, so semi-aquatic is unlikely. It's not the "aquatic ape" hypothesis, but perhaps the forests at the critical time were criss-crossed by small rivers, and bipedal wading was a good way to get from forest to forest? If this is what you were thinking of, you could be on to something [but the "aquatic ape hypothesis" is something else]. | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/8/2009 10:02:17 PM | Isnt it the case that most "hominoids (including hominins) who may have lived in association with predators eg lions, leopards and omnivores eg hyenas would have had all traces of their bones removed from the fossil record.
Is it not more likely that savannas would be highly depleted in the fossil record.
Would it not also be true that hominoids who lived in rain forests with high temperature high humidity forest floors with acid soils would have their bones scavenged and decomposed thus removing Them from the fossil record.
Where is the fossil record for the chimps and bonobos and orang utans?
Clearly they existed and it is not unreasonable to assume they were widely distributed.
In the caves of South Africa it is not thought the fossils were the occupants of the caves but that the bones were brought to the caves by predators. ie from the savannah.
The fossil record and extrapolation by anthropologists does not reveal the true story of hominoid evolution. What it does reveal is the few very rare examples of bones which have managed to survive for a few million years. The interpretation is highly skewed.
I have seen a graph of delta o 18 delta 0 16 ratios which shows that Antartica began to cool c 2 million years ago and not 5 Ma as commonly believed.
This would give protohominoid a further 3 million years to evolve on Antartica.
Clearly the area of ocean floor between the subduction zone in Southern Chile and to the west of South Georgia to the West Antartic Range shows major transform faults .
The existence of a complete land bridge between South America and Antartic is possible. But if it existed the rapid subsidence due to tectonic and isostatic adjustment may have caused the landbridge to have been removed fairly rapidly perhaps c 3 Ma
You can see this on goolge map satellite.
There may have been no connection between Pacific Ocean and Atlantic ocean at all at the time which would change the weather system and South Atlantic Ocean currents completely.
Clearly anthropoligists can find bones in caves and extrapolate they came from the area in front of and around the caves despite no fossils being found on the grasslands around the caves to prove they actually existed.
Should they deduce that the bones were from cave dwelling animals with only the posterior of a cranium or from animals with only a thighbone since they dont have the other bones as proof?
Clearly they extrapolate when it suits them.
Is it really so far fetched to assume protohominids could have evolved on a group of sea islands collectively known as Antartica while it was in still relatively mild climatic conditions.
Is it really so far fetched to suggest the landbridge dissappeared c 2Ma ago causing a rapid change in the climate and ocean currents changing Antartica completely and perhaps triggering the exodus by design or by accident of whatever hominoid form which lived there. | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/9/2009 9:24:52 AM | PLOT OF OSCILLATIONS IN OXEGEN ISOTOPE LEVELS DURING PAST 6 MA SHOWING THAT SINCE 3MYA THE GLOBAL CLIMATE HAS SHOWN A GENERAL COLLING TREND
pp36 , Human Evolution, Bernard Wood Oxford Uni Press
Cave sites
sterkfontein Au africanus
swartkrans P robustus
pp67 Human Evolution, Bernard Wood Oxford Uni Press
The fossil record does not show any evidence that these animals lived outside the caves they were found in.
Palaeoanthropologist use reasonable extrapolation to deduce they came from the bush and savanna outside the cave.
I say it is resonable to deduce that protohomioids lived, thrived, reproduced and evolved and lived side by side with other variations on the islands of Antartica before it became a frozen wastland c 2 Ma
or if you follow only the Vostok ice core evidence then 400,ooo yrs ago
Using the same arguments you have used against me you cannot suggest Antartica was frozen before this time since there is no ice evidence.
There is virtually no fossil evidence for Chimpanzees in Africa yet you accept them as evolving in Africa .
It is curious you exclude a whole continent from human evolution despite it being available to fit in chronolgically with other species. | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/9/2009 9:35:37 AM |
I say it is resonable to deduce that protohomioids lived, thrived, reproduced and evolved and lived side by side with other variations on the islands of Antartica before it became a frozen wastland c 2 Ma
or if you follow only the Vostok ice core evidence then 400,ooo yrs ago
And your evidence is what? You know...evidence. Actual physical signs of existence of hominids in Antarctica prior to its glaciation and some actual evidence for migration to Africa other than "I think that's the way it was, so it is." Otherwise, you're just pulling something out of your a$$ and telling us it's reasonable because you say it. Kinda like those Jupiter volcanoes. | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/9/2009 10:03:33 AM | Thank you.
I now totally accept from the evidence that East Antartica began its glaciation c 750000 yrs ago and not 3 Ma as I previously assumed.
Thus there was no hostile enviroment in East Antartica up to this point.
What were the conditions just East of the West Antartic Range which may have been significantly higher than today due to glacial erosion tectonics and isoctacy.
Clearly the leeward side of the mountains would have significantly less precipitation right up to 750000 ago thus leaving the area cold but not buried in snow.
Why did it only change in 750000? Was it because the South Georgia Landbrige collapsed and allowed the Pacific into the Atlantic etc changing the climate very rapidly?
Did the Atlantic South Equatorial current previously bring warm equatorial water as far south as the Antartic which was actually a series of larger than Madagascar islands and actually flow past them into the Ocean south of Australia or did it rotate and flow back along the African coast back to the equator. A current whch could carry a raft from Antartica to Africa crewed by intelligent hominoids who could have arrived on the coast of Namibia to populate Africa c 1 Ma
Palaeoclimate: A great grand-daddy of ice cores
Jerry F. McManus1
Top of page
Abstract
A record of Earth's climate over the past eight ice ages and their associated interglacial periods has been uncovered from a new ice core in Antarctica, almost doubling the age of previous ice-core records.
Millennium after millennium, the snow falling on Greenland and Antarctica has built up deep ice sheets that are invaluable archives of past conditions on Earth. Antarctica has now yielded the longest ice-core record yet1, one that covers a staggering 740,000 years, with more to come. This accomplishment is the result of an effort by the EPICA consortium (European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica). The group's report, by lead author Eric Wolff and colleagues, appears on page 623, with further comment on page 596.
A decade ago, ice cores from Greenland provided compelling evidence for the persistent climatic instability of the last glacial cycle2, which reached back more than 100,000 years through the last ice age and into the previous interglacial. In the polar desert of Antarctica, however, slower snow accumulation means the ice archives can span longer intervals, and what is arguably the single best climate record in existence comes from Vostok, East Antarctica3. This goes back approximately 400,000 years, taking in four glacial cycles. Yet even this grand-daddy of ice cores falls frustratingly short of reaching several climatic milestones — for instance, the interval when the dominant behaviour of the ice ages shifted; the time of the largest deglacial transition; and the early portion of an interglacial interval that began shortly before 400,000 years ago and may be the best analogy to the current interglacial that began more than 10,000 years ago4.
Wolff and colleagues1 report the first results obtained by drilling a core from 3-km-thick ice at a site known as Dome C in East Antarctica. These results provide a spectacular record that extends back through eight glacial cycles (Fig. 1), confirming aspects of the Vostok record and providing a view of the preceding climatic milestones. | |
|
| Ardi, and the impact on evolution...
Posted: 11/9/2009 10:11:13 AM |
I now totally accept from the evidence that East Antartica began its glaciation c 750000 yrs ago and not 3 Ma as I previously assumed.
Thus there was no hostile enviroment in East Antartica up to this point.
Now, if you actually had EVIDENCE of pre-glacial habitation of Antarctica, you'd be golden. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
