Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don’t really think there will ever be a “the” missing link. Probably just a more complete picture. But the odds of a specimen from every discernible change, or stage of development; is highly unlikely.Is this the "missing link"?
From the rubric article:
The discovery of the creature, named Graecopithecus freybergi, and nicknameded ‘El Graeco' by scientists, proves our ancestors were already starting to evolve in Europe 200,000 years before the earliest African hominid
I don't particularly care from where on the planet emerged the line of primates that evolved to become modern humans, I think the discovery, though noteworthy, is far from conclusive as goes whether humanity emerged from somewhere in Europe. What would be conclusive on that point is evidence that Graecopithecus is not merely an early hominid, but that Graecopithecus is the early hominid line that led to the formation of and did indeed become Homo sapiens sapiens.
We know that creatures had to begin somewhere, but we also know that those that left that starting place can die out in whatever be place to which they migrated. That could very well be the case with Graecopithecus. If it is the case, Graecopithecus is not the early hominid that gave rise to modern humans. It's one thing to find an older form of hominid; given time, the right circumstances and so on, that has a reasonable chance of happening. It's entirely another to say that older form of hominid one has discovered is also the one that evolved into modern humans.
Science can only approach the Truth, but everything it says meantime is only the latest model and eventually become obsolete and known to have been a flawed model all along much later.
Well, really, in the whole of science, some things are figured out and some are not. Figuring out from where and when humans first appeared and from whence they evolved is one of those things that isn't fully determined. Be that as it is, one must "go with" what is known to the extent it is known, and build on it. As goes the specific matter here under discussion, I'm not sure there will be much to make of make of it other than discovering the "final" details purely for the sake of knowing them and understanding whether there be anything different about the pattern of human evolution as contrasted with what we know and have observed about that of other creatures.But where have human beings lived for most of its existence during the various Ice Ages that lasted fro hundreds of thousands of years at a time? Mostly the mid east, Mediteranean, Ethipoia, Persia and India where the great human tug-of-war has always had its feet planted.
To wit, there's nothing saying that modern humans are necessarily the result of the evolution of a linear progression. It may well be that we are the product not of A evolving into B and so on, but rather that we are the product of the interbreeding between/among A and B, or A, B and C, or B, C and F, or some other permutation. Humanity has willfully created exactly that sort of outcome with a variety of plants and animals -- dogs, cats, horses, cow, and so on. The deliberacy of our doing such a thing doesn't preclude a similar process and outcome from happening naturally, particularly given what we know about the way seeming minor and major mutations can provide advantages that facilitate a creature's flourishing more so than its otherwise unmutated ancestors and peers.
If we constrain to linear models our quest discovery human origins, the so-called missing link will never be found if indeed we are the product of a commingling of early hominid subspecies. If indeed the multivariate model be what happened, it may thus be inaccurate to assert that modern humans evolved from any specific region of the planet.
Thats not homo sapiens sapiens which appeared first in Africa. The tip off is that the skeleton is 7 million years old. Homo Sapiens is at most 200k years old. There were all kinds of hominids running around the planet. That doesnt mean mankind begin in europe.New fossil information is helping mankind get a broader picture of the development of modern man. This new European hominid species, dates older than the oldest known African specimen. But it’s been found in Europe. Very interesting...
Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find
Baby boomers are a blight on American culture, and history. The nation, and world will be better of when they're gone...To wit, there's nothing saying that modern humans are necessarily the result of the evolution of a linear progression. It may well be that we are the product not of A evolving into B and so on, but rather that we are the product of the interbreeding between/among A and B, or A, B and C, or B, C and F, or some other permutation. Humanity has willfully created exactly that sort of outcome with a variety of plants and animals -- dogs, cats, horses, cow, and so on. The deliberacy of our doing such a thing doesn't preclude a similar process and outcome from happening naturally, particularly given what we know about the way seeming minor and major mutations can provide advantages that facilitate a creature's flourishing more so than its otherwise unmutated ancestors and peers.
If we constrain to linear models our quest discovery human origins, the so-called missing link will never be found if indeed we are the product of a commingling of early hominid subspecies. If indeed the multivariate model be what happened, it may thus be inaccurate to assert that modern humans evolved from any specific region of the planet.
I totally agree wit that. We have had small groups of hunter gathering tribes scattered across three continents and they tended to be insular when they could get away with it, but this was unhealthy for them with the inbreeding and deficient local diets. Trading from one region to the next has always benefited mankind and strengthened the species, by a process of heterosis on the local breeds. Thus we have climbed to what we were in the 1980s and have degenerated ever since.
Hey I cant help it if American Baby Boomers were the apex of human evolution.
It's not a contest. It's discovering history. That's all.
I disagree. The link is worded in a way to fool the ignorant into claiming homo sapiens sapiens begin in europe. My link is way more scientific. How can europe be "the birthplace of mankind" if homo sapiens arose first in Africa?It's not a contest. It's discovering history. That's all.
My comment was directed at both of you. It is not a contest as to which 'race' is better. The concept of race is a subjective, social, man made one, not a scientific, objective one. Scientists, hypothetically, are not interested in proving the superiority of one race over another but just in learning the truth. That we have believed and may still believe humans began on the African continent does not equate somehow to a superiority of a race because the concept of race is so specious. Making racial superiority, either of you, the issue is foolish and limiting.I disagree. The link is worded in a way to fool the ignorant into claiming homo sapiens sapiens begin in europe. My link is way more scientific. How can europe be "the birthplace of mankind" if homo sapiens arose first in Africa?It's not a contest. It's discovering history. That's all.
My comment had nothing to do with who was better. It was correcting the intentionally misleading information in the OP. All I did was post the fact that homo sapiens first arose in Africa. How is that making it a contest?My comment was directed at both of you. It is not a contest as to which 'race' is better. The concept of race is a subjective, social, man made one, not a scientific, objective one. Scientists, hypothetically, are not interested in proving the superiority of one race over another but just in learning the truth. That we have believed and may still believe humans began on the African continent does not equate somehow to a superiority of a race because the concept of race is so specious. Making racial superiority, either of you, the issue is foolish and limiting.I disagree. The link is worded in a way to fool the ignorant into claiming homo sapiens sapiens begin in europe. My link is way more scientific. How can europe be "the birthplace of mankind" if homo sapiens arose first in Africa?It's not a contest. It's discovering history. That's all.
From the rubric article:
The discovery of the creature, named Graecopithecus freybergi, and nicknameded ‘El Graeco' by scientists, proves our ancestors were already starting to evolve in Europe 200,000 years before the earliest African hominid
I don't particularly care from where on the planet emerged the line of primates that evolved to become modern humans, I think the discovery, though noteworthy, is far from conclusive as goes whether humanity emerged from somewhere in Europe. What would be conclusive on that point is evidence that Graecopithecus is not merely an early hominid, but that Graecopithecus is the early hominid line that led to the formation of and did indeed become Homo sapiens sapiens.
We know that creatures had to begin somewhere, but we also know that those that left that starting place can die out in whatever be place to which they migrated. That could very well be the case with Graecopithecus. If it is the case, Graecopithecus is not the early hominid that gave rise to modern humans. It's one thing to find an older form of hominid; given time, the right circumstances and so on, that has a reasonable chance of happening. It's entirely another to say that older form of hominid one has discovered is also the one that evolved into modern humans.
The FACT is we know now that there has been climatic change that had the Sahara a green forest covered region for a few thousand years and Europe not mostly covered in ice for a few thousand inter-galacial years.
Human beings have migrated to and from and back and forth between Europe and Africa for hundreds of thousands of year and probably millions of years.
It is the churn that made us what we are, not any one specific region.
But where have human beings lived for most of its existence during the various Ice Ages that lasted fro hundreds of thousands of years at a time? Mostly the mid east, Mediteranean, Ethipoia, Persia and India where the great human tug-of-war has always had its feet planted.
It is the churn that made us what we are, not any one specific region. But where have human beings lived for most of its existence during the various Ice Ages that lasted fro hundreds of thousands of years at a time? Mostly the mid east, Mediteranean, Ethipoia, Persia [collectively and broadly called, EMEA] and India where the great human tug-of-war has always had its feet planted.
