Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways

The New York Times (Science Times) ^ | August 19, 2003 | NICHOLAS WADE

[VadeRetro]

To go with your skulls, it is interesting to note that an infant chimp looks much more human than an adult chimp.

Yes. I think this is taken to be what they call an "infantilism" or a "juvenilism"--I forget exactly--in human evolution. We've evolved to retain some baby-ape look throughout our lives.

[forsnax5]

Neoteny.

[VadeRetro]

I'm taking medicaton and it's under control.

[MEGoody]

I never cease to be amused at the speculations of 'scientists'.

[MEGoody]

"Another silly thread where people who should know better argue with creationists. They aren't going to change their limited view of the world why bother educating them?"

So you believe that whales and walruses lost their fur so they could swim faster?

Again, I never cease to be amazed at the speculations of 'scientists.'

[MEGoody]

"That's a far cry from "never will anwser that question".

And do you have faith that man will some day answer that question?

[SoCal Pubbie]

"If they really want to find ancient homo sapiens, they need to look near ancient shorelines, which because of changes in sea levels are now far off shore."

As I have stated a few times here, tooting my own horn shamelessly, I am designing an exhibition on paleontology in the Southern California area. I am a designer, not a scientist, but from what I have learned not all the ancient coastlines are under water now. A lot of fossils have been found in Orange County that are up to 100 million years old, and they are mostly marine creatures. In fact, the coast line was around where Riverside is now! Of course, there were no humans here then so no evidence of early man is found.

[SoCal Pubbie]

"Maria: dogs evolved from wolves and wolves still exist. OKAY?"

I read recently that dogs and wolves are genetically identical. Selective breeding and domestication have changed dogs over the last 50,000 years or however long it's been.

[Pharmboy]

Not exactly identical, but close enough to interbreed; genetic studies take it back to the derivation about 15,000 years ago--in Asia (Asian wolves).

[Devil_Anse]

Brazil wax.

What on earth.... ?

Golly, you know, I'm really out of my depth when I try to go to these Very Important Threads that you intellectuals frequent. I'm more used to those brainless, trivial Laci Peterson murder threads.

[katana]

I know I was over generalizing, and should have known that a freeper would catch me.

I guess tectonic uplift on the West Coast explains what you're seeing, but I wonder where the shorelines were within the past few million years, i.e. in the probable timeframe of human evolution. My favorite class in college (and one I actually paid attention in) was Geology and I've always been skeptical about "accepted" doctrines of how, when, and where the human species developed.

Your project sounds very interesting. Where will it be housed?

[Sentis]

Wake up I don't discourse with you people. The comment was menat to be to Vade in any case I clicked the worng person to respond to.

Believe what silliness you want it doesn't make it true.

[VadeRetro]

Neoteny.

I think the word I really wanted was "paedomorphism."

[forsnax5]

I think the word I really wanted was "paedomorphism."

An excellent word.

How do you feel about "gerontomorphism?"

:)

[VadeRetro]

How do you feel about "gerontomorphism?"

My personal experiences with it so far are not good.

[Virginia-American]

[research into abiogenesis]

And do you have faith that man will some day answer that question?

Seems likely, though I have no way of guessing how soon. Remember, the genetic code was only discovered 50 years ago - give'em a little time.

[Ahban]

You asked if Darwin was right or was he the luckiest charlatan of all time.

I don't think Darwin was a charlatan. He honestly believed what he was saying, and he discovered an important partial truth. His special theory of evolution was mostly right, though recent studies of those same finches might cast doubt on some of the finer points of that.

His general theory was an unsound extrapolation of data, and even evos like yourself now doubt classical darwinian evolution as a total explanation for biotic diversity. That is because the fossil record, while containing some things that could be considered to have a stream of transitionals, contains too many cases of sudden appearence of new forms. That is why Punctuated Equilibrium was advanced as an explanation.

So in conclusion, Darwin was neither totally right, nor that lucky, nor a charlatan. He was a good natrualist who discovered a parital truth and took it too far.

[Ahban]

As far as "creationists" lumping the same fossils in different groups, I will make a deal with you. Don't try to pin me with the baggage from anyone claiming to be a creationist, especially YECs whose interpretations of the evidence I do not share, and I will not pin you with the baggage of all those historical characters who were big on evolution in their personal philosophy.

Since some of those people were the bloodiest tyrants in history, I am sure you can concede that this is a more than fair offer on my part. You are no more responsible for their positions than I am for that of Gish or some other YEC. OK?

I will defend MY positions, or that of a creationist in which I have some measure of trust, like Dr. Hugh Ross and F. Rana. They would say all of those critters were big-brained hominids, but it takes more than that to make a human. They would argue that the archeology and DNA results rule out all of those critters from being human.

Further, all who have read the book "Bones of Contention" know that evolutionists have the exact same problem. There are arguments over classification ("lumpers" and "splitters").

[Conservative4Ever]

I would assume the result was due because wearing fur was not politically correct.

Red

[SunkenCiv]