Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Researchers: Modern humans triumphed by going beyond the comfort zone

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Bright Idea We are told that modern humans are survivors and most other human “species” died out. From Sarah Sloat at Sapiens:

Roberts and Stewart contend that the fossil record, as it stands now, demonstrates that anatomically modern humans had expanded to higher-elevation niches than their hominin predecessors and contemporaries by 80,000 to 50,000 years ago. At least 45,000 years ago, Homo sapiens were colonizing a range of intensely challenging settings, including deserts, tropical rainforests, and Palearctic regions.

That’s not to say that other members of the genus, like Homo erectus and Homo floresiensis, didn’t migrate far beyond Africa. But these ancient hominins stayed within an environmental comfort zone comprising a mixture of woodland and grassland. So far, says Roberts, we’ve only found fossil evidence of Homo sapiens in other settings, although “in some cases, like deserts, it remains debated how arid they were when humans got there.”More.

Other researchers take exception to the claims that being adaptable explains human success. One points out that we don’t actually know that other “species” of humans did not colonize the same areas. We don’t have fossil evidence – but then new fossil evidence turns up all the time. Indeed, some readers may recall the 2012 bombshell when Neanderthal art was found, obliterating many certified lesser human theories. Also, success based on factors unrelated to adaptability to difficult climates may have led to the population growth that forced some modern human groups to make do with less pleasant environments. They may not have been more adaptable; just more numerous.

Note: It’s not clear to some of us just how many human “species” there even were; the whole concept of speciation is a huge mess at this point.

If you are interested in a range of theories about how human uniqueness occurs:

See also: Researcher asks, if ecology caused the human brain to grow so large, what about the role of language?

Human brain: Human intelligence linked to shift toward round brain

At Scientific American: “Cocktail of Brain Chemicals” may be key to what makes us human Hmmm. If we fed these cocktails to a gorilla’s brain, what would happen?

Claim: Humsn brain evolved to need exercise

The answer at last! Humans evolved a big brain to keep track of friends

Mathematical model says humans’ larger brains evolved via food, not culture

Climate change made us smart

Retroviruses play a role in development of human brain?

Tooth size not linked to brain size in early humans

Large human brain size easily explained?

Repurposed mammal bone gene fuels cognition in humans?

Human origins: The war of trivial explanations

Have neuroscientists been on the wrong track about the brain for centuries?

Comments
"For the last decade, it (habilis) has been largely dismissed as a 'poorly defined' or invalid taxon by most of the paleoanthropology community."
I think you're right the species habilis is poorly defined. Apparently there's a type specimen called OH7, and there is disagreement on whether various other specimens belong to the same species as OH7, or another species like rudolfensis. But all these fossils actually exist; they are actual real fossils we have found that are partway between australopithecines and humans:
Some specimens clearly have a larger cranial capacity than that of Australopithecus, and the capacity increases progressively afterward with H. erectus, archaic H. sapiens, and modern humans.
--- Britannica, Homo habilisQuaesitor
August 9, 2018
August
08
Aug
9
09
2018
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT
as to Homo habilis:
Review of "Contested Bones" (Part 8 - Chapter 8 "Homo habilis") 3-24-2018 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C68QYWePB64&index=8&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm 7:19 minute mark quote: "For the last decade, it (habilis) has been largely dismissed as a "poorly defined" or invalid taxon by most of the paleoanthropology community." The entire video has many excellent quotes from leading experts dismissing habilis as a serious candidate for the supposed 'missing link" between apes and man.
bornagain77
August 9, 2018
August
08
Aug
9
09
2018
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group...
H. habilis' brain capacity of around 640 cm³ was on average 50% larger than australopithecines, but considerably smaller than the 1350 to 1450 cm³ range of modern Homo sapiens.
Quaesitor
August 9, 2018
August
08
Aug
9
09
2018
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
video playlist - "Contested Bones" by Paul Giem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm Contested Bones (by Christopher Rupe and John Sanford) is the result of four years of intense research into the primary scientific literature concerning those bones that are thought to represent transitional forms between ape and man. This book’s title reflects the surprising reality that all the famous “hominin” bones continue to be fiercely contested today—even within the field of paleoanthropology. New Book Critiques Fossil Human Ancestors - January 4, 2018 | David F. Coppedge Excerpt: The new book Contested Bones (by Christopher Rupe and Dr John Sanford}addresses the question; “Did apes evolve into man?” This book provides a comprehensive, insightful, and up-to-date analysis of the bones that have been called “ape-man” or “hominin” fossils. For 150 years there has been continuous media hype over a series of bones and bone fragments that were said to prove ape-to-man evolution. One by one, these bones have been questioned, then challenged, and then have been either abandoned or simply put on the shelf. Tens of thousands of bones and bone fragments have now been catalogued, named, and often re-named. Some of these bones have been very strange indeed. Despite all this, the scientists who study these things now conclude that these bones DO NOT SHOW any clear progression from ape to man.,,, https://crev.info/2018/01/book-fossil-ancestors/ “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.” Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a), Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride's Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His - Casey Luskin - August 31, 2012 Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we've seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,, The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/read_your_refer_1063841.html Making human brain evolution look gradual by ignoring enough data… - February 23, 2018 Excerpt: From U Wisconsin paleoanthropologist John Hawks: Bernard Wood’s research group has a new paper on brain size evolution in hominins, led by Andrew Du in Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B: “Pattern and process in hominin brain size evolution are scale-dependent”. In this paper, I notice that the researchers have done a really weird thing: Their analyses include only hominin fossils before 500,000 years ago.… The specimens reflect every hominin species from Australopithecus afarensis up to “Homo heidelbergensis”. Modern humans and Neanderthals have been left out of the dataset—they don’t fall within the pre-500,000-year time range. On the basis of this dataset, the authors conclude that the entire hominin lineage is compatible with a single pattern of gradual evolutionary increase over time. Charts are offered by way of illustration. There are two species entirely missing from the data examined by Du and colleagues. The fossil records of endocranial volume in Homo naledi and Homo floresiensis both date to the last 300,000 years. When you include them, they both reject the notion of gradual monotonic increase in brain size. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/making-human-brain-evolution-look-gradual-by-ignoring-enough-data/ If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking Skull "Rewrites" Story of Human Evolution -- Again - Casey Luskin - October 22, 2013 Excerpt: "There is a big gap in the fossil record," Zollikofer told NBC News. "I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don't know." - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/skull_rewrites_078221.html "A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense." Dr. Ian Tattersall: - paleoanthropologist - emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History - (Masters of the Planet, 2012) Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: So the researchers constructed an evolutionary tree based on 129 skull and tooth measurements for living hominoids, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans, and did the same with 62 measurements recorded on Old World monkeys, including baboons, mangabeys and macaques. They also drew upon published molecular phylogenies. At the outset, Wood and Collard assumed the molecular evidence was correct. “There were so many different lines of genetic evidence pointing in one direction,” Collard explains. But no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological trees could not be made to match15 (see figure, below). Collard says this casts grave doubt on the reliability of using morphological evidence to determine the fine details of evolutionary trees for higher primates. “It is saying it is positively misleading,” he says. The abstract of the pair’s paper stated provocatively that “existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable”.[10] http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/following_the_evidence_where_i047161.html#comment-9266481 Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffery H. Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”,,,, “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.” http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 "We are unique and alone now in the world. There is no other animal species that truly resembles our own. A physical and mental chasm separates us from all other living creatures. There is no other bipedal mammal. No other mammal controls and uses fire, writes books, travels in space, paints portraits, or prays. This is not a question of degree. It is all or nothing: there is no semi-bipedal animal, none that makes only small fires, writes only short sentences, builds only rudimentary spaceships, draws just a little bit, or prays only occasionally. The extraordinary originality of our species is not common in the living world. Most species belong to groups of similar ones.,," - Juan Arsuaga (paleoanthropologist) - The Neanderthals Necklace - page 3-4
bornagain77
August 9, 2018
August
08
Aug
9
09
2018
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
re 2: Nice list, Q.jdk
August 8, 2018
August
08
Aug
8
08
2018
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils All those would not fit in a foot locker.Quaesitor
August 8, 2018
August
08
Aug
8
08
2018
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
I believe Ann Gauger, who writes that when you look at the actual fossils, what you see are: a) assorted chimps, b) "modern" humans. There ain't anything in between, and there never was. One of the scientists who was there when they laid out the bones for Lucy concluded that it was the skeleton of a small gorilla. But of course marketing the find as a prehistoric HUMAN made better marketing sense, money and prestige wise. Also, the total number of hominid fossils is VERY small. They can all fit in a single foot locker. And any number of "new" hominid finds are based on locating a SINGLE tooth. Human teeth have different hills and valleys than chimps. So the basic classification is objectively true. But then they start guessing about what the ENTIRE person would have looked like and whether the ESTIMATED age is older than the current guess of homo erectus.vmahuna
August 8, 2018
August
08
Aug
8
08
2018
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply