I am curious if anyone has heard of fossils of what appear to be hominids, only problem is they date too early? I recall reading of a skeleton found in solid rock during the gold rush in CA that allegedly dated back millions of years farther than it “should”. And a similar find somewhere in China. I’ve always assumed such stories were hoaxes, but I wonder how many other such cases don’t fit with the time line…
What’s interesting is that the Cro-Magnon people, who were completely modern in their appearance, and executed all that marvelous cave art, get the same treatment. They are depicted in cartoons and in popular culture as crude knuckle draggers. I can’t understand why, unless it’s that the name Cro-Magnon somehow sounds “crude”, especially to English speakers who are unaware of the correct French pronunciation.
No…“human” is a common name of a specific species. “Ape” is a name for a particular group of primates, of which humans are a part. It would make no more sense to classify “apes” as “human” than it would to classify “hymenopterids” as “bee”.
You’re right that the ape clade is indefensible, but I doubt its meaning in everyday language will change, i.e., it will always mean gorilla, chimp, bonobo, orangutan, or gibbon.
Lemur --and may I say what an appropriate name you have for this thread?-- these classifications are largely based on genetic analysis, and the orangutan is farther away genetically from both humans and chimps, than humans and chimps are from each other. The more chimps have been studied, the more humanlike their behavior has turned out to be, and it hasn’t always been pretty. Boundary disputes, wars between neighbors, cannibalism, and gang killings have all been observed in the wild. The more they resemble us, the worse they seem to be…which says much about our inner natures.
To whoever said that taxonomy is not real science, I agree, but it isn’t supposed to be. It’s only an attempt to express what scientists have learned in a systematic fashion.
Which is why systematics is the science behind those taxonomies. A taxonomy is just a classification; systematics is the methodology whereby those classifications are established.
Actually not. Human is a “specific” name for the Genus Homo, with Neandethals* having as much a claim to the name “Human” as we do. Slight nitpick as the common names don’t always correspond directly or consistently with the scientific names. For instance, it would be incorrect to say that Neanderthals were not “human”.
*Homo neanderthalensis
I suggest that we defer all issues regarding the interface between human evolution and Christian scripture to the Primate of Athens.
“Specific extant species”, maybe? Okay, I’m reaching. Point acknowledged, John.
luci: Ookios?
Gekk? Nok myen comprendu. Whadeefuk?
Since it’s a genus, maybe we should say it’s a generic name.
Ernst Haeckel made up the drawings? Sure. And that guy who was born with gills (that were quickly dealt with surgically) that my Godmother introduced me to, who has perfectly normal blood vessels? Oh, I must’ve just dreamt that.
ummm? There are problems with Haeckel’s drawings. (Although, as noted in the linked page, Haeckel was never a Darwinian and his errors/frauds were exposed many years ago, so attacking Haeckel in an attempt to attack neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory is, itself, dishonest.)
Erm, yeah, I think it’s safe to assume they’re hoaxes. 
http://www.bibleufo.com/humanphenom7.htm
Uh huh. :rolleyes:
And what of — Mr. “Man as Old as Coal” Ed Conrad?
Part of the early confusion about Neanderthal Man (and Piltdown Man for that matter) was that initially there was some debate about what characteristics an ancestor of modern man might be expected to have. If the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was presumably an “apelike” creature anatomically, then along the way to becoming human our ancestors acquired:
-upright posture
-enlarged brains
-reduced jaws
-refinement of the hands
-hairlessness (and presumably clothing)
-advanced tool making and using
And until the fossil record became clearer, no one was certain which features preceded or were concurrent, with which. In Darwin’s day it was conceivable that the immediate ancestor of Homo Sapiens might have had an enlarged brain, reasonably sophisticated stone tools, perhaps simple animal skin clothing- but not fully upright posture. Thus the “knuckle dragging” cliche of Neanderthals. Similarly, the controversy over Piltdown Man arose from the fact that the specimen was of an enlarged, fairly modern cranium- with, apparently, a primitive apelike jaw. Until the weight of evidence piled up against it, this was as valid a hypothesis of human development as any other.
We now know that upright posture was probably the first humanly distinguishing feature to evolve, but that wasn’t always apparent.
To be fair, Gould himself is a little responsible for this, because he made his theory out to be a much bigger deal than it was.
Whoops. Look like I’m tragically misinformed, as usual.
But the guy was born with gills. Huh.
Gadfly, were they actually gills, as in part of his respiratory system, or were they just fold around the jaw & neck that locked gill-like?
There’s a lot to be said here. First, since I got a lot of background info. while Barb was taking her bachelors with a concentration in paleoanthropology in the early 90s, my comments will be informed but out of date.
That said, we independently formed the opinion that paleoanthropologists are guilty of erecting a massive superstructure of theory on rather limited field data. This is why you’ll see regular press coverage where one authority is debunking another’s theory. But they do operate within an established tradition of the evolution of modern man from primitive ancestors – the debunkery has nothing to do with the creationist-evolutionist debate, buit rather with whose discoveries are closest to the direct ancestry of Homo sapiens.
But as more and more discoveries of early primates in superfamily Hominoidea – i.e., apes and man – are made, the evidence seems more and more to indicate that hominoids started out as “generalists” – creatures with the versatility to adapt to a wide range of environments and live off them, much as opossums do, and that the apes are adaptations for specialized econiches. In short, “apes” evolved from early “men” rather than the other way around. Don’t mistake this for “from modern man” – Lucy had the cranial capacity and presumably the intelligence of a bright Golden retriever, and her predecessors were even “lower” on the “intelligence” scale. But in terms of environmental functionality the early hominoids were significantly closer to genus Homo than to any of the specialized members of Pan, Gorilla, or Pongo.
With regard to “Hesperopithecus” – Nebraska Man – there are a few points to be made. First, the discoverer claimed nothing more than having found a Western hemisphere primate. One half-baked 19th Century theorist did in fact claim it as a hominid – but he was well-known for producing far-out “theories” (read “hypotheses” – he’s also responsible for the idea that most of modern culture derives from a wave of Sun worshipping adventurers from prehistoric Egypt, diffusing culture as they went). But the claim, was based on two, independently discovered, badly worn molar teeth that appeared to be those of early primates – as Tom~ notes, the family of extinct pigs that was the actual source for those teeth had diet-based dental adaptations that paralleled those of early primates. That it was two teeth does make a difference – false conclusions are easy to draw from a single piece of fossil evidence; the second tooth confirmed the tentative identification, until it was shown that they came from a group of pigs with molars resembling those of primates. Far from being a way of debunking human evolution, the Hesperopithecus episode shows paleontology as a science at its best, making tentative identification and then having that refuted as further evidence comes to light.
FriarTed - from the site linked to, the latter. They are not actual gills.