New discoveries of 'missing links.'

[YoursTrue]

The circle of the earth in the perspective of ancient cultures is not necessarily a sphere. Many ancient drawings depicted the earth as curved circular planet on pillars and not a sphere.

There is poetic language used in the Bible, the earth stands on nothing, but who knows to see magnetism? A person with discernment understands this. Someone would have to have a truly angry, awful, miserable and belligerant attitude toward the Bible to argue against that. And so once again -- as we face the coronavirus, I thank you for your comments, I hope things work out for you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Misdirected lack of knowledge of science and a religious agenda. Again . . . there is no such thing as proof in science. In math they prove theorems, in courts of Law, proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, and in philosophy where proof of an argument are only true for those that accept the assumptions.. Fortunately a jury does not determine the falsification of theories and hypothesis, nor is the Theory of Evolution proven like all science. .

Fortunately the evidence defines the relationships over time in evolution, and a religious agenda.

So maybe one unicell was different slightly from another emerged unicell and plants and animals came from a different line of changed one, ten or a thousand unicells. You think? What's the proposition?

 

[shunyadragon]

So maybe one unicell was different slightly from another emerged unicell and plants and animals came from a different line of changed one, ten or a thousand unicells. You think? What's the proposition?

I detect a IUD minefield in this post. Too simplistic and misleading to describe evolution over millions if not billions of evolution. Yes, slight differences evolve over time of single celled organisms to adapt to different and changing environments with specialization in adaptation some plant like and some animal like, and some of these formed cooperative colonies of single cells first, and these colonies evolve into into multicellular organisms.

The earliest fossils we have are deposits of a number of different single celled organisms, some organic deposits

Some of what I describe above can be observed in the world of microorganisms today, such as intermediate single celled organism between plant and animal organism. Also primitive colonies of single celled organisms exist today.

Considering the history of your posts I am skeptical of your intentions. Are you now endorsing a form of evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

I detect a IUD minefield in this post. Too simplistic and misleading to describe evolution over millions if not billions of evolution. Yes, slight differences evolve over time of single celled organisms to adapt to different and changing environments with specialization in adaptation some plant like and some animal like, and some of these formed cooperative colonies of single cells first, and these colonies evolve into into multicellular organisms.

Simply not true about it being too simplistic. I could not begin to give a description of evolution with 'proof' (meaning any type of evidence) of any sort stemming from single celled organisms leading to plants and animal life. Can you? Instead of using imagination to describe it, why not give micro or macro evidence? I know I'm not going to convince you that things just didn't "happen" without a superior intelligent force behind it. Because the concept is too great for anyone to realize. I see not a shred of proof showing slight difference arising over time from whatever unicells first supposedly came from (?) water? asteroid? ?? and evolving to plant and animal life. Just a look at the beating of a heart in mammals is mind-boggling. The electricity involved, the walls of the arteries, the bones, the nerves. Nope, too much to think (imagine) it all came about by mindless evolution.

The earliest fossils we have are deposits of a number of different single celled organisms, some organic deposits

(I'm not even going to ask you for proof or evidence backing up that statement.)

Some of what I describe above can be observed in the world of microorganisms today, such as intermediate single celled organism between plant and animal organism. Also primitive colonies of single celled organisms exist today.

Considering the history of your posts I am skeptical of your intentions. Are you now endorsing a form of evolution?

As I have said, long term natives, as the expression goes, of various countries develop through genetics, unique characteristics. Simplistic or not, I personally can't go much further than that into how tigers became tigers and lions became lions. God did not tell me except to say that HE created the heavens and the earth, explaining the progression in the first six days of creative time period.
If evolutionists themselves can't figure it all out, and take the idea of evolution including fossil discovery to conjecture about the line of descent as well as how it all started from a unicell somewhere somehow, why should I know any more about evolution or creation than they do? Meaning how God did it. The Bible says He gave the breath of life to Adam. I believe that. That breath was evidently transmitted to their offspring. When a person dies, the breath is not there, keeping the body alive.
If someone shows me a fossil of a dinosaur feather, I'd say, ok, there's a fossil of a dinosaur with feathers. Unique. Interesting. Which brings me back to the fabulous setup of the human body. I'm sure dogs are pretty interesting, too, but so far I'm looking at the lungs, the heart, the kidneys, etc. of a human body in books. To say this all came about by evolution is -- beyond me. And perhaps it always will be. I also don't believe I'll ever understand or need to understand, how God did it. But this does not mean I cannot be fascinated and amazed by examining microbes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Simply not true about it being too simplistic. I could not begin to give a description of evolution with 'proof' (meaning any type of evidence) of any sort stemming from single celled organisms leading to plants and animal life. Can you? Instead of using imagination to describe it, why not give micro or macro evidence? I know I'm not going to convince you that things just didn't "happen" without a superior intelligent force behind it. Because the concept is too great for anyone to realize. I see not a shred of proof showing slight difference arising over time from whatever unicells first supposedly came from (?) water? asteroid? ?? and evolving to plant and animal life. Just a look at the beating of a heart in mammals is mind-boggling. The electricity involved, the walls of the arteries, the bones, the nerves. Nope, too much to think (imagine) it all came about by mindless evolution.



(I'm not even going to ask you for proof or evidence backing up that statement.)



As I have said, long term natives, as the expression goes, of various countries develop through genetics, unique characteristics. Simplistic or not, I personally can't go much further than that into how tigers became tigers and lions became lions. God did not tell me except to say that HE created the heavens and the earth, explaining the progression in the first six days of creative time period.
If evolutionists themselves can't figure it all out, and take the idea of evolution including fossil discovery to conjecture about the line of descent as well as how it all started from a unicell somewhere somehow, why should I know any more about evolution or creation than they do? Meaning how God did it. The Bible says He gave the breath of life to Adam. I believe that. That breath was evidently transmitted to their offspring. When a person dies, the breath is not there, keeping the body alive.
If someone shows me a fossil of a dinosaur feather, I'd say, ok, there's a fossil of a dinosaur with feathers. Unique. Interesting. Which brings me back to the fabulous setup of the human body. I'm sure dogs are pretty interesting, too, but so far I'm looking at the lungs, the heart, the kidneys, etc. of a human body in books. To say this all came about by evolution is -- beyond me. And perhaps it always will be. I also don't believe I'll ever understand or need to understand, how God did it. But this does not mean I cannot be fascinated and amazed by examining microbes.

As I thought the previous post was an IUD minefield, and it just exploded.

 

[Astrophile]

I detect a IUD minefield in this post.

What does IUD mean? My dictionary of abbreviations gives 'intrauterine device' and says that they are used to prevent conception (in both the physical and the intellectual senses?), but I didn't realise that they formed minefields or that they were apt to explode.

 

[YoursTrue]

As I thought the previous post was an IUD minefield, and it just exploded.

lol, evidently you don't dare approach the subject. With all those little microorganisms changing, I suppose (can only guess) you think they'll keep going and in billions maybe of years, they'll become another form, and then keep going to become various plants, trees, fish, lions maybe*? Or maybe not. Maybe they'll morph into something else. Like humans have fish gills or wing perhaps. Or fish with human heads. Thanks for the thoughts. Do you think Haeckel settled that? Yes, now I can see the possibility of being a sci-fi writer.
Have a good day.
*Maybe some of those microcellular organisms will stay micro-organisms. You think?

 

[shunyadragon]

lol, evidently you don't dare approach the subject. With all those little microorganisms changing, I suppose (can only guess) you think they'll keep going and in billions maybe of years, they'll become another form, and then keep going to become various plants, trees, fish, lions maybe*? Or maybe not. Maybe they'll morph into something else. Like humans have fish gills or wing perhaps. Or fish with human heads. Thanks for the thoughts. Do you think Haeckel settled that? Yes, now I can see the possibility of being a sci-fi writer.

Garbage in garbage out.

Have a good day.
*Maybe some of those microcellular organisms will stay micro-organisms. You think?

Many do.

 

[shunyadragon]

What does IUD mean? My dictionary of abbreviations gives 'intrauterine device' and says that they are used to prevent conception (in both the physical and the intellectual senses?), but I didn't realise that they formed minefields or that they were apt to explode.

Typo should be IED.

 

[YoursTrue]

Garbage in garbage out.

The question is, can you say or predict how a microorganism will eventually turn out?

 

[shunyadragon]

The question is, can you say or predict how a microorganism will eventually turn out?

In the history of life scientist have made predictions of what species based on the fossils that will be found in the stratigraphic order, and yes their predictions have been confirmed based on what later ws found throughout the history of life on earth

 

[Heyo]

The question is, can you say or predict how a microorganism will eventually turn out?

Yes. Mutations are random, so they can't be predicted precisely but stochastically. I.e. we don't know when a mutation will appear, we can only give a chance that it will happen in a given time span.
But from there on we can model the spread of the mutation based on evolutionary pressure, mobility, etc.
We have seen E. coli start to process citric acid, we have seen single celled organisms clump together. That was predicted to happen.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. Mutations are random, so they can't be predicted precisely but stochastically. I.e. we don't now when a mutation will appear, we can only give a chance that it will happen in a given time span.
But from there on we can model the spread of the mutation based on evolutionary pressure, mobility, etc.
We have seen E. coli start to process citric acid, we have seen single celled organisms clump together. That was predicted to happen.

Good post! . . . but clarification may be helpful. It is the occurence of the individual mutation event that are random, and not that 'mutations are random.' Mutations have natural causes and follow natural patterns. These patterns follow fractal patterns, and are not random.

Apologize for an error Remove 'not' from: 'It is the occurence of the individual mutation event that are (not) random

 

[shunyadragon]

New fossil discovery of child human ancestor 300,000 years old.

Remains of child from mystery human species that lived 300,000 years ago discovered

REMAINS OF CHILD FROM MYSTERY HUMAN SPECIES THAT LIVED 300,000 YEARS AGO DISCOVERED

The findings belonging to an juvenile individual named DH7 are among the few pre-adult skeletal remains on the fossil record. The majority of those found are from adults, whose bones are tougher, less porous and more likely to survive the hundreds of thousands of years.

DH7's young age offers anthropologists a chance to study the development of young hominids. Bones from this particular individual were among a large collection found in the Dinaledi Chamber of the Rising Star Cave System in South Africa, dating to a period between 335,000 and 226,000 years ago, during the Late Middle Pleistocene.

Though the remains of DH7 are incomplete, they offer clues to how old the individual was when they died. DH7 displays a mix of maturity patterns—specifically, well-developed but unfused bones—indicating the H. Naledi was a late juvenile. However, the exact age is harder to determine because the speed of maturation in the species is unknown.


If H. Naledi matured at the speed of earlier, more ape-like hominids, the maturity patterns suggest it is between 8 and 11 years old. But, the study's authors say, it is possible that it matured at a slower pace, similar to Homo sapiens and Neanderthals—both of which were roaming the planet 300,000 years ago. If that was the case, DH7 may have been as old as 15.

"There are very few pre-adult skeletons in the fossil record," Debra Bolter, Professor of Anthropology at Modesto Junior College in California, and Honorary Researcher, Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa, told Newsweek.

"The ability to associate the remains of an older juvenile H. naledi is a major break-through in paleoanthropology. Immature remains are critical for understanding how an extinct species matured," said Bolter.

 

[shunyadragon]

More discoveries and improved technology analyzing degraded DNA traces human ancestry in the oast 1 million years.

More analysis of older DNA and discoveries shed light on human relatives
Source: Mysterious human ancestor finds its place in our family tree | Science | AAAS


Mysterious human ancestor finds its place in our family tree
By Michael PriceApr. 1, 2020 , 11:00 AM

When it comes to deciphering our ancient family tree, DNA from fossils is the new gold standard. But after about half a million years, even the best-preserved DNA degrades into illegibility, leaving the story of our early evolution shrouded in mystery. A new study of proteins taken from the tooth of an enigmatic human ancestor reveals their rough place in the family tree—and shows how ancient proteins can push beyond the limits of DNA.

The new study is “a landmark paper,” says Mark Collard, an archaeologist at Simon Fraser University who wasn’t involved with the work. “Ancient protein analysis promises to be as exciting as ancient DNA analysis for shedding light on human evolution.”

DNA, made of chains of nucleic acids, can remain embedded inside fossilized bones (and prehistoric “chewing gum”) for up to about 500,000 years, explains Enrico Cappellini, a geneticist at the University of Copenhagen’s Natural History Museum of Denmark. That time frame covers the rise of our species, Homo sapiens, in Africa sometime about 300,000 years ago. But before then, many other kinds of humans roamed Earth, including our close cousins the Neanderthals, and their Siberian kin, the Denisovans. Another early relative is H. antecessor, known chiefly from northern Spain’s Gran Dolina cave.

The physical features of H. antecessor have left anthropologists puzzling over its relationships with other early humans. It has big teeth, as do more primitive members of our genus such as H. erectus, but its face shape is remarkably similar to that of modern humans. Some have argued it could be the last common ancestor of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and H. sapiens. Others argue it is actually a member of H. erectus.

In the new study, Cappellini’s team used mass spectrometry—a technique that can sort out a sample’s chemical composition, including the peptides that make up proteins—to analyze proteins in a sliver of enamel from an 800,000-year-old H. antecessor molar from Gran Dolina. Proteins are much hardier and longer lived than DNA: In just the past 6 months, Cappellini and colleagues have published ancient proteins found in a 1.77-million-year-old rhinoceros and a 1.9-million-year-old primate, Gigantopithecus blacki. But they also contain less genetic information than DNA, and they vary less between species.

Cappellini’s team identified peptide sequences from seven proteins in the ancient tooth enamel—essentially all the proteins found there—including a peptide specific to the Y-chromosome that marks the individual as a male. Next, researchers compared these protein sequences with their equivalents in modern humans, other living apes, Neanderthals, and Denisovans.

The proteins suggest H. antecessor was a close relative of the last common ancestor to humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans, the researchers report today in Nature. “We see that antecessor falls as a sister group—close, very close—to the branch that leads to us,” Cappellini says.

That solidifies what many suspected, but it’s far from conclusive, says Tim Weaver, an anthropologist at the University of California, Davis, who wasn’t involved in the study. Either way, it offers fantastic proof of the power of proteomics to reveal ancient events in human evolution. “It’s really exciting that we’re starting to get proteins from some of these older fossils,” he says.

Posted in: ArchaeologyEvolution
doi:10.1126/science.abc0184

 

[YoursTrue]

Good post! . . . but clarification may be helpful. It is the occurence of the individual mutation event that are random, and not that 'mutations are random.' Mutations have natural causes and follow natural patterns. These patterns follow fractal patterns, and are not random.

Apologize for an error Remove 'not' from: 'It is the occurence of the individual mutation event that are (not) random

And again, my question remains, which is with mutations, stemming from a microorganism to a different form, and moving on, would you say there's a good chance humans would develop from a microorganism and mutations after a few billion years?

 

[Heyo]

Apologize for an error Remove 'not' from: 'It is the occurence of the individual mutation event that are (not) random

I got that (but had to read twice).

 

[shunyadragon]

And again, my question remains, which is with mutations, stemming from a microorganism to a different form, and moving on, would you say there's a good chance humans would develop from a microorganism and mutations after a few billion years?

Chance is not an issue here. That is what happened. All life evolved over billions of years from microorganisms.

 

[shunyadragon]

As far as an example of what would be intermediary between humans an the more ancient ancestors the analysis of brain development of Lucy's relatives reveal an intermediate brain development between more ancient primates including present primates like Chimps. The Australopithecus afarensis are considered to be the most important intermediary between modern humans and the more primitive primates.

‘Lucy’s baby’ suggests famed human ancestor had a primitive brain

‘Lucy’s baby’ suggests famed human ancestor had a primitive brain
By Ann GibbonsApr. 1, 2020 , 2:10 PM

In 1974, the world was stunned by the discovery of “Lucy,” the partial skeleton of a human ancestor that walked upright—and still spent time in the trees—3.2 million years ago. Later discoveries revealed her species, scattered throughout eastern Africa, had brains bigger than chimpanzees. But a new study of an ancient toddler finds that the brains of Lucy’s kind were organized less like those of humans and more like those of chimps. That suggests the brains of our ancestors expanded before they reorganized in the ways that let us engage in more complex mental behaviors such as making tools and developing language. The remains also suggest Lucy’s species had a relatively long childhood—similar to modern humans—and that they would have needed parenting longer than their chimp relatives.

Anthropologists have made much of the fact that adult members of Lucy’s species—Australopithecus afarensis—had skulls 20% larger than a chimpanzee’s. Researchers have long debated what this meant for their brain power. Had the brains of these early hominins, or members of the human family, already reorganized by the time their kind was walking upright in Africa and—perhaps—hafting sharp stone tools 2.9 million to 3.9 million years ago? “There’s been a big debate about when the reorganization of the brain took place in the hominin lineage,” says University of Chicago paleoanthropologist Zeresenay Alemseged.

To test this idea, an international team of paleoanthropologists used a synchrotron in Grenoble, France, to take super–high-resolution images of the deformed skull and teeth of an A. afarensis toddler, known as the Dikika child, which Alemseged discovered in Ethiopia in 2000.

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSLETTER
Get more great content like this delivered right to you!



The team zoomed in on the inside of the skull, where the brain leaves an imprint. They found that a fold in the tissue at the back of the brain, called the lunate sulcus, was in the same position as in a chimp, not a human brain where its position may have had some impact on complex mental function. Other features also showed “the brain imprint of A. afarensis is completely apelike,” says paleoanthropologist Philipp Gunz of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Gunz spent 7 years doing the 3D reconstruction of the skull of Dikika and six other adult and juvenile members of the species.

High-resolution images of a toddler Australopithecus afarensis suggest its brain was organized like that of a chimpanzee.

PHILIPP GUNZ/MPI EVA LEIPZIG
The team also painstakingly counted growth lines on the Dikika child’s teeth and found that it was 2.4 years old at the time of death. Its brain volume was about 275 milliliters, the same as for a chimp of the same age. A second skull was of similar age and size; both suggest A. afarensis’s brain grew at about the same rate as a chimp’s, the team reports today in Science Advances. To reach its adult brain size, A. afarensis therefore must have had a longer period of brain growth—or childhood—which is a hallmark of later humans, including us.

Those longer childhoods demand that mothers or other caretakers invest more energy in raising their offspring. “This suggests that a longer childhood emerged way before [our genus] Homo,” Alemseged says.

The new reconstructions of the Dikika skull are “exceptional,” says paleoanthropologist Steven Leigh of the University of Colorado, Boulder, who was not part of the study. But evolutionary neuroscientist Chet Sherwood of George Washington University cautions that because the study is based on skulls of only two juveniles and five adults, “one needs to be cautious.” And recent studies question how much differences on the surface of the brain actually correspond with rewiring of the brain and real functional change in different species, says neuroscientist and anthropologist Katerina Semendeferi of the University of California, San Diego. Nevertheless, both think the reconstructions are spectacular. And, Sherwood adds, these fossils are so rare that they’re “worth pursuing as much as possible.”

Posted in:

• Plants & Animals

doi:10.1126/science.abc0225

 

[Astrophile]

Typo should be IED.

Thank-you.