Post Your Scientific Proof For Human Evolution

[Orogeny]

I am thinking of something like the earliest hominid (if thats the right word) fossil and the intermediaries between it and its closest ‘obviously animal’ ancestor.
I am going to assume that humans evolved from one population of apes in one area of some country. So it may be that all the evidence you’d ever need to find would be very local, find the earliest hominid and theres a good chance of tracking down its animal ancestors.
Is that too simplistic.

Well, we have much of what you are asking for, but I don’t know how you determine what the earliest hominid is. We have fossils of an animal that is a hominid, but it is impossible to say that there were no earlier hominids. I would also suggest that, based on my reading of your post, you seem to be under the impression that the earliest hominids were different from other animals in the same way humans are different from other animals. The earliest hominids were not human.

Peace

Tim

 

[Monkey1976]

Keeping in mind that many of the known homonids represented branches that are no longer extant (e.g., Australopithecus robustus - unless you believe in Bigfoot ), you may want to take a look at this page: Homonid Species. It includes a timeline showing roughly when each species was known to exist, a brief physical description of each, and links to available images of fossils.

Edit: Regarding the animal/homonid difference suggested by Thing, that’s not a simple line to draw. The consensus seems to be that Homo Erectus is where intelligence began to be a survival trait, as shown by manufactured tools, management of fire, and possible ritual behavior (Subterranean Mining and Religion in Ancient Man - G.R. Morton, 1996)

 

[brotherhrolf]

I got my MA in anthropology back in the dark ages around 1978. I’ve tried to keep current in my field but I don’t believe there is any
“concord” or “common understanding” in the field anymore. For my money, I’m still with Milford Wolpoff - multi-regional evolution. Genetic studies would argue otherwise. And I am not at all convinced that Neandertals were an entirely different species - there are far too many people of European ancestry with Neandertal cranial traits.

Bottom line for me is that God created us. How long He took and what methodology He used…well, Creation is marvelous, is it not? He gave us brains and told us to use them. Probably one of the only hymns that came out after V II that I realy liked was Sr. Suzanne Toolan’s “How Brightly Deep” - a paean to Creation. “Leave all things you have and come and follow Me”. What better motto for the scientist than to follow the Lord of Creation?

 

[Thing]

To combine Brotherhrolf’s post and Orogeny’s and Monkey’s posts;
Is there a difference, a scientific difference, between being human and being cro magnon, Neanderthal, early hominid or homo sapiens.
How would I scientifically quantify human.
If I really am pressed I’ll make very primitive tools from a bit of stick, but that does not mean I’m an australopithecus or whatever. And if I am australopithecus you equally cannot tell if I’ve never ambled along singing pre-Vatican II plainchant.
What fossil bones tell you these early creatures were not human.
All I can think of is that the difference between animal and human must be linked directly to the length of the thigh bone and shape of the pelvis. Bipedal locomotion identifies us as children of God, or brothers and sisters of our Lord. Since He walked and spoke with Adam and Eve in the garden.
Before you run off screaming thinking this is wierd I would like to add one more piece of wierdness; the first humans held the possibility for all the genetic make up for every race of people which has ever existed, would’nt that mean that the closer to the original of the species the coarser or more generalised the features of the creature would be, but not necessarily the more basic their humanity. I don’t see how science can say anything about human-ness from fossils. Unless perhaps a local and gradual progression of thigh bones from ape through to early hominids is found, perhaps they have been.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Tool making is out of the equation completely. Primatologists have verified that both chimps and bonobos make tools for specific purposes - so that can’t be used as a definition of man.

Cro-magnons are modern humans. Cro-magnon is just the name of the site in which they were first found. But they do have “art”.

Bipedalism might differentiate hominids from other primates but primatologists are reporting lengthy incidents of bonobos walking upright in the wild.

In short, everything is in flux right now. We have geneticists who say that Neandertals were a different species yet, there are any number of skulls from Europe showing signs of both Neandertal and Sapiens features.

I wish we had someone here on the forums that was in grad school in anthro who could provide us with up-to-date info. Like I said, I try to keep up but I’ll be the first one to admit that my knowledge is lacking.

 

[Thing]

How about a video? Ken Miller explains the fused chimp-human chromosome (genetics) evidence, and where/when that took place:

Ken Miller on Human Evolution (YouTube video)

Ken Miller’s, (I don’t know about him), video is very short.
A chromosome is missing in humans and then it is found, fused to another chromosome.
And that makes us human. -
But why do chromosomes fuse at all, and how do they fuse in the wild - so to speak. Here is some more information about chromosome fusion and the consequences of same;
sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031203075629.htm