Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

New Discoveries in Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I don't get it. How do they know these were made 800,000 years ago as opposed to 10,000 0r 5,000 years ago?
    That's a valid question. In the case of the Happisburgh early human settlements the dating was done through a combination of paleomagnetic analysis - indications of the Earth's magnetic field variations - and biostratigraphic analysis - the plants that were growing there at the time. Those two factors gave a range of from 0.99 to 0.78 million years ago

    nature09117-f5.2.jpg
    a–e, The age of the artefacts is constrained by the reversed polarity (a), the palaeobotany indicating deposition towards the end of an interglacial cycle, that is, cooling limb of odd-numbered isotope stage (b), combination of biostratigraphically significant mammals (c), and palaeogeographical context when the River Thames entered the North Sea at this site (e). This evidence indicates that the artefacts date from either MIS 21 (866–814 kyr) or 25 (970–936 kyr), which are the most prominent warm stages (that is, those most likely to have supported deciduous forest and other thermophilous plants—see Supplementary Information 1) in the period spanning 0.99–0.78 Myr. With the exception of Happisburgh 3, all European Early Pleistocene sites are located south of 45°N (d). The oxygen isotope record used to provide the climate record is the LR04 stack.
    Data from the paper

    Early Pleistocene human occupation at the edge of the boreal zone in northwest Europe
    Parfitt et al
    Nature 466, 229–233 (08 July 2010)

    Abstract: The dispersal of early humans from Africa by 1.75 Myr ago led to a marked expansion of their range, from the island of Flores in the east to the Iberian peninsula in the west. This range encompassed tropical forest, savannah and Mediterranean habitats, but has hitherto not been demonstrated beyond 45° N. Until recently, early colonization in Europe was thought to be confined to the area south of the Pyrenees and Alps. However, evidence from Pakefield (Suffolk, UK) at ~0.7 Myr indicated that humans occupied northern European latitudes when a Mediterranean-type climate prevailed6. This provided the basis for an ‘ebb and flow’ model, where human populations were thought to survive in southern refugia during cold stages, only expanding northwards during fully temperate climates. Here we present new evidence from Happisburgh (Norfolk, UK) demonstrating that Early Pleistocene hominins were present in northern Europe >0.78 Myr ago when they were able to survive at the southern edge of the boreal zone. This has significant implications for our understanding of early human behaviour, adaptation and survival, as well as the tempo and mode of colonization after their first dispersal out of Africa

    link to whole paper
    The PLoS paper mentioned in the article doesn't seem to be online yet.
    Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 02-07-2014, 12:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    Originally posted by David Hayward View Post
    800,000 year old footprints in Norfolk, Britain.

    "They are direct evidence of the earliest known humans in northern Europe."
    The British Natural History Museum has more detail including a video on their website

    We were here: earliest humans leave prints on Norfolk beach

    Amazing!

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by David Hayward View Post
    800,000 year old footprints in Norfolk, Britain.

    "They are direct evidence of the earliest known humans in northern Europe."
    I don't get it. How do they know these were made 800,000 years ago as opposed to 10,000 0r 5,000 years ago?

    Leave a comment:


  • David Hayward
    replied
    800,000 year old footprints in Norfolk, Britain.

    "They are direct evidence of the earliest known humans in northern Europe."

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by David Hayward View Post
    Adding New Discoveries in Evolution which link says we inherited proneness to some diseases from Neanderthals. For your interest.
    Neat!!

    Leave a comment:


  • David Hayward
    replied
    Adding New Discoveries in Evolution which link says we inherited proneness to some diseases from Neanderthals. For your interest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathandavid
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    Disagree with what, exactly? Biology, and particularly genetics, tell us the mechanisms. Paleontology shows us one example of what those mechanisms produced. Not that a case study is necessarily useless in helping us to see and understand underlying principles.
    And again I would submit that this dichotomy is false. Paleontology gives insight in the process of evolution in ways that biology of modern creatures cannot. For example, the actual extent of island evolution is only shown by paleontology; we have no idea what this general principle entails without observing it in fossils. Another example is the molecular clock, for example from the work by Hedges & Kumar; they needed to calibrate their clock with a specific date, and how do they get that date? Through paleontological data. In their 1998 Nature paper, they calculated the mutation rate by using the date for the divergence of mammal and bird earliest non-common ancestors. This rate tells us something about evolution in a very general sense, paleontology is more than the particular historical tale of how the process has played out. There are many more examples; Gould's book The Structure of Evolutionary Theory is built on the principle that paleontology's view offers fundamental insights into the workings of evolution, particularly in rates of change and hierarchy in selection. These views have been influential in the field.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    phank

    This thread does make the distinction between the theory or the fact of evolution. It is titled simply about the discovers and advancements that support evolution.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Disagree, all the discoveries and research is not in paleontology. Biology, particularly genetics, contribute a great deal of discoveries and research in support of evolution.
    Disagree with what, exactly? Biology, and particularly genetics, tell us the mechanisms. Paleontology shows us one example of what those mechanisms produced. Not that a case study is necessarily useless in helping us to see and understand underlying principles.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    I think I still disagree. Paleontology is using evidence of the one path followed as an illustration of the principles, just as a bridge hand illustrates the game without altering the rules of play. Paleontological discoveries do not support or confirm the theory. They illustrate the theory. However, I'll agree somewhat with Jonathandavid that even with a full-fledged theory, all of the ramifications are not obvious. Punctuated equilibrium and the related notions of the importance of isolated and local speciation events, do emerge from the stochastics of population dynamics, but the actual observations can inform the explanation as much as a good explanation can predict observations.

    I'm concerned that we not blur too much the distinction between the fact of evolution (it happens) and the theory of evolution (the mechanics producing the fact).
    Disagree, all the discoveries and research is not in paleontology. Biology, particularly genetics, contribute a great deal of discoveries and research in support of evolution.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    OK! This does not change anything. These paleontology discovers and associated research add information to confirm the theory of evolutions. Let's not quibble, let's post more results of research and discoveries in paleontology that support and confirm evolution.

    This, of course, will not convince the hardened hearts of stalwart Creationists who reject evolution regardless of the evidence, but it does educate those willing to accept the evidence that over time the apparent gaps in the evidence are being filled.
    I think I still disagree. Paleontology is using evidence of the one path followed as an illustration of the principles, just as a bridge hand illustrates the game without altering the rules of play. Paleontological discoveries do not support or confirm the theory. They illustrate the theory. However, I'll agree somewhat with Jonathandavid that even with a full-fledged theory, all of the ramifications are not obvious. Punctuated equilibrium and the related notions of the importance of isolated and local speciation events, do emerge from the stochastics of population dynamics, but the actual observations can inform the explanation as much as a good explanation can predict observations.

    I'm concerned that we not blur too much the distinction between the fact of evolution (it happens) and the theory of evolution (the mechanics producing the fact).

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    Permit me to quibble here. These are not "new discoveries in evolution" by any means. These are new discoveries in paleontology. The fossil record relates to the theory of evolution the way one particular bridge hand relates to the rules of bridge. What paleontology is showing us is one particular sequence, out of an infinitity of possible sequences. It just happens to be the sequence that was followed, but any one of those infinity of possible sequences would be an equally valid illustration of the application of the theory. Not one of them would change the theory itself. Indeed, the theory of evolution would be exactly what it is today even if fossilization were impossible.
    OK! This does not change anything. These paleontology discovers and associated research add information to confirm the theory of evolutions. Let's not quibble, let's post more results of research and discoveries in paleontology that support and confirm evolution.

    This, of course, will not convince the hardened hearts of stalwart Creationists who reject evolution regardless of the evidence, but it does educate those willing to accept the evidence that over time the apparent gaps in the evidence are being filled.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-27-2014, 02:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathandavid
    replied
    Actually, I feel that paleontologists have something to add to the knowledge about the process of evolution, for example in things like habitat tracking and punctuated equilibrium. If the theory of evolution has the same form regardless of fossils, then evolutionary biologists are depriving themselves of a lot of relevant data. See N. Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin.

    As for the OP, by all means let's post on human evolution, even if that is just one small branch, declining in diversity.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Permit me to quibble here. These are not "new discoveries in evolution" by any means. These are new discoveries in paleontology. The fossil record relates to the theory of evolution the way one particular bridge hand relates to the rules of bridge. What paleontology is showing us is one particular sequence, out of an infinitity of possible sequences. It just happens to be the sequence that was followed, but any one of those infinity of possible sequences would be an equally valid illustration of the application of the theory. Not one of them would change the theory itself. Indeed, the theory of evolution would be exactly what it is today even if fossilization were impossible.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Friends.

    What is happening in the discoveries in the science of evolution? In about 1960 all the fossils of our primate ancestors would fit on your coffee table with room to spare. The evidence for evolution throughout the history of life was impressive at this time, but many gaps and unknowns existed. There was enough to make falsifiable predictions of what should be found to confirm evolution for all the life on the earth. Since that time thousands of primate fossils, and literally hundreds of thousands of fossils of other life forms have been found that confirm these predictions. The gaps are being filled by more and more fossil discoveries every year. The purpose of this thread is keep all posted on these discoveries. First source academic publications will be used when ever possible. The only other publications that will be used are those that reference first source academic publications of these discoveries. I welcome others who wish to post new discoveries on evolution.

    go with the flow the river knows. . .

    Frank
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-24-2014, 08:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
6 responses
47 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X