Jump to content
Banner by ~ Sparklefan1234

Our Understanding of Human Evolution is Wrong?


BronyPony
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

A newly discovered 1.8 million-year-old skull from Eastern Europe has been pitched as disproving a decades-old paradigm in human evolution.

Its discoverers claim the find sinks more than a dozen species into a single evolutionary line leading to living people. But the new study highlights the propensity of some anthropologists to overstep the mark, interpreting the importance of their finds in a way that grabs the headlines.

 

Here’s the list of now apparently defunct species: Homo habilisHomo rudolfensisHomo gautengensisHomo ergasterHomo georgicus,Homo soloensisHomo pekinensis and Homo mauritanicus.

All of them would now be sunk into Homo erectus according to the study findings.

Their work also has major implications for later Homo, implying that a further six species should all be sunk into our kind, Homo sapiens. The species no longer required would be: Homo heidelbergensisHomo rhodesiensisHomo antecessorHomo neanderthalensisHomo helmei and Homo floresiensis.

So, the entire ~2.4 million years of evolution of the genus Homocomprises, this new study proposes, at most two species: Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. These would both belong to a single evolutionary line rather than being separate twigs within a bush of species.

 

h5dssf6x-1381899578.jpg?1382119388

 

http://www.livescience.com/40538-of-heads-and-headlines-can-a-skull-doom-14-human-species.html

 

This would mean that, currently, the evolutionary tree suggests that there was never a diverse population of different species, but only one particular human species.

 

Therefore, then the question comes to be how we came from one common ancestor? How did all life on Earth come about if there was only one particular common ancestor to exist? 

 

I would like to hear what people have to say about this.

 

Oh, and I like the author's note:

 

 

 

I don’t doubt the broader significance of the fossils or their worthiness of Science treatment. But I find the claim of a single evolutionary line, comprising one or two species of Homo, to be wildly premature.

I find this to be like brushing off evidence like a piece of sand. There is greater significance to this and changes our whole understanding of human evolution.

Edited by BronyPony
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I wouldn't say that our understanding of human evolution is wrong but, if we come from one human species then there has to be a reason on why there are more than just one human species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I wouldn't say that our understanding of human evolution is wrong....

If our understanding of a particular part of a hypothesis is proven wrong, then our understanding of such is wrong...this doesn't mean to say that it could be modified to be fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You know, the discovery of one skull really shouldn't dominate everything we know. People are jumping ahead of themselves here, as we humans often do. I would wait until more information is provided until we make such broad and altering assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


(Sorry to bring religion into this response although it isn't relevant.)

The first one really had me thinking...we all came from a common ancestor, but where did our ancestor come from?
You got to think about what came first, the chicken or the egg. The chicken has to come first to make the egg.

I want to believe, or I really feel that in some way science and religion are connected, and have to do with the happenings of the world. May sound crazy, but I always think...like the first humans in a way...we find evidence of skulls of early humans. But what if the first humans didn't look like we did (reffering to adam and eve) didn't look anything like us. Early humans had different skull sizes, forms, etc....but in a way, evolution does exist.

 

^
Sounds crazy, but i've been thinking about this for months that somehow everything is connected. 
Freedom of expression, right?

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


If our understanding of a particular part of a hypothesis is proven wrong, then our understanding of such is wrong...this doesn't mean to say that it could be modified to be fixed.

Okay, your right. If our hypothesis is wrong, our whole understanding of the evolution is wrong unless we have evidence and counter arguments to prove if we're right or not. The 1.8 million skull can't exactly prove if there is a missing link in the evolution, unless we know more about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


(edited)

You know, the discovery of one skull really shouldn't dominate everything we know. People are jumping ahead of themselves here, as we humans often do. I would wait until more information is provided until we make such broad and altering assumptions.

There were a total of five skulls discovered, if you read the article. Maybe I should include that in the topic post sooner rather than later.

(Sorry to bring religion into this response although it isn't relevant.)

The first one really had me thinking...we all came from a common ancestor, but where did our ancestor come from?

You got to think about what came first, the chicken or the egg. The chicken has to come first to make the egg.

 

I want to believe, or I really feel that in some way science and religion are connected, and have to do with the happenings of the world. May sound crazy, but I always think...like the first humans in a way...we find evidence of skulls of early humans. But what if the first humans didn't look like we did (reffering to adam and eve) didn't look anything like us. Early humans had different skull sizes, forms, etc....but in a way, evolution does exist.

 

^

Sounds crazy, but i've been thinking about this for months that somehow everything is connected. 

Freedom of expression, right?

This article actually makes God a more viable explanation. Evolution requires that multiple species were a part of the development of one or more species to come about. IF there weren't multiple species found, then it ruins this hypothesis. 

 

As a joke, I would say: Christians: 1 Atheists: 0

(I'm a scientist and a Catholic, by the way).

 

EDIT: Adding on to my earlier statements, this would mean that the species of human(yes, species of humans) came from one common human species(of course, from the evidence presented). However, there is a lot more to take into account.

Edited by BronyPony
  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


A random mutation can give a human being 4 arms, it'll take more than 5 slightly different skulls to change our understanding of evolution as it stands.

 

Maybe if more are found and the locations of where they are found are significant, maybe then.

Edited by Malinter
Link to comment
Share on other sites


A random mutation can give a human being 4 arms, it'll take more than 5 slightly different skulls to change our understanding of evolution as it stands.

 

Maybe if more are found and the locations of where they are found are significant, maybe then.

It just takes one small portion of evidence to disprove a hypothesis. You will learn that this is true in both science and mathematics.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@@BronyPony

I did not as the link failed but your post implied only one was discovered. For more accurate responses I suggest you are more clear in your original post.

My stance, however, remains the same regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@@BronyPony

I did not as the link failed but your post implied only one was discovered. For more accurate responses I suggest you are more clear in your original post.

My stance, however, remains the same regardless.

I am not going to post all the information on the post because that is considered copyright. But, in fact, I did imply more than one fossil:

 

 

 

I don’t doubt the broader significance of the fossils
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@@BronyPony

The very first quote makes it sound as one, but apologies if you think I attempting to be argumentative, which I am not. :-)

Interesting thread, however, looking forwards to more responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This is truly interesting, I'm not much into reading studies and stuff about it, I'm not that interested, but it's interesting to read the "core parts" or whatever it was that you mentioned here.

I too am religious, so that makes this even more interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...