Australopithecus Sediba

"Australopithecus afarensis, has a more advanced heel than Australopithecus sediba. If Berger's skeletons descend evolutionarily from Lucy's species, that would mean that heel anatomy would have evolved from advanced to primitive to advanced again - which is unlikely."
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/ancient-fossils-question-human-family-tree/


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#sediba



There is nothing that shows connection to modern human development. It's all a guess, and not good ones, at that. Sure--I believe that species evolve--WITHIN THEIR OWN SPECIES. There is NO EVIDENCE that one species evolves into another, however, and the new findings just show the vast variety of species.

A. Sediba just shows that there is no evolutionary progression in a direction toward modernity. It is (as the press is describing it) a "mosaic" of "primitive" and more "advanced" structures. Calling them "primitive" and "advanced" presumes a progression that is NOT THERE.

 

Sorry, but speciation has been observed, countless times and I'm not talking about in the fossil record but in modern times.

 

Where two different species in differing Orders of taxonomy produce fertile offspring? I'm not talking about things like dog species mixing--no kidding that a Labrador can mate with a Poodle and make a Labradoodle. I'm also not talking about things like dogs and wolves--they are of the same Family of Canine. Even when different species of the same kind mate and reproduce, the hybrid is nearly universally sterile. Creatures like horses and donkeys can mate and make mules, but then mules are sterile. Same thing for horse/zebra hybrids. Hybrids are not new species--they are HYBRIDS.

Where are the inter-ordinal creatures?

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species


ANY example--from ANY time....

 

Uh, this is a new argument. Species from different orders can't mate together and that has nothing to do with what speciation is.

 

Doesn't the theory of evolution rest on this somehow, somewhere occurring?

Isn't that the argument between designating the A. Sebida as Austrolipithicus or Homo--in that they are two different Genus and therefore unlikely to be able to develop in the time frame for the age of the creatures?

 

WOW. No. You need to stop arguing against evolution and go READ about what evolution is.

No... I think you need to reread the article, specifically this part:

 

On the contrary, because A. Sediba possess both "primitive" and "advanced" structures it serves as a "textbook" example of a "transition species" that links primitive species to those that are more advanced. The descent of man from an ancestor common to both humans and the great apes is relatively well documented within the fossil record. Whether you like it our not there is quite a bit of truth in the notion that we are kin to a bunch of silly African monkeys!!!! Learn it.... Love it... Live it....

 

Can you succinctly explain it, then? I understand evolution is change in creatures over time. But the long view suggests that we all derive from an original organism that came from nothing organic, really.

Of course it re-writes the ideas...because the discovery makes prior claims doubtful. It's inductive reasoning trying to make sense of things in a pre-existing paradigm of thought.

 

Did you miss the part that shows it goes back and forth. Look at the time frames.

 

I can try to. I posted this in another forum:

The point of this article was basically this: at what point do we draw the line between Australopithicus and Homo?

 

Is your explanation claiming that evolution has nothing to do with the branching phylogenetics? I'm sorry--I have to disagree. As I said--there is OBVIOUSLY "evolution" within species in the sense that change takes place over time. Evolutionary thought it one thing--seeing evolution as a means of the development of new creatures is something else. The THEORY of Evolution (as in the Evolutionary history of life stretching from the origin of life to this grand diversity we have)--is, frankly, a load of manure.

That's kind of a big deal, though--they are two distinct genus, and it is relevant to the theory of evolutionary history.

 

And why is that exactly? What stopping point is used to determine what is evolution and what is not? I mean, we have actually witnessed speciation within our lifetime so we know that it occurs.

The drawing lines between taxonomic groups is arbitrary and we are still working out how to define what is what. Doesn't really have anything to do with evolution, we already KNOW evolution occurs.

 

We are not all of the same Genus, Family, or Order...And Evolutionary History relies on TIME for that differentiation to occur.

Evolution through hybridization across Genus or Family is very rare and it absolutely is not a beneficial adaptation for the continuance of the animal line--thus CONTRARY to evolutionary thought which (as you note) "means that over time beneficial genes will accumulate and spread throughout a population." This can't happen in frequently sterile hybrids. Evolution through hybridization across Order is non-existent.

 

No, no, no, that isn't what I'm asking. You said that evolution can't be the explanation for diversity and I'm asking you why you think that is.

I don't think it is rare, I think it is impossible. Genetic differences limit what can and cannot reproduce. I mean, we could probably create a monstrosity in a laboratory, but I believe that only certain species within the same family can produce hybrids.

 

Your example said that we've seen it in speciation, so that's how I approached it. Perhaps we've seen it in species, but to go from one Genus in development to another has NOT been indicated, and A. Sediba seems to be contrary to it in that it has what is considered more "primitive" developments as well as more modern Homo attributes. It is younger than Lucy, so...how much time is required minimally for something to evolve from one Genus to another?

A. Sediba is about 2 million years old...homo Habilis is about 2.4 million years old. Let's say that H.Habilis is actually an Australopithecus and the 1st Homo is Homo Erectus at 1.8 million years old.

How would you approach this using Evolutionary history? Habilis is older than Sediba--Erectus is about the same age...

I'm confused, then, by your stance on the origin of life and the origin of the grand diversity of life. How do you think the varied creatures evident in the world got here? You don't buy into the history of evolution and the phylogenitic tree?

 

Well no, we haven't had a genus splitting event, obviously. We may see one in our history if we don't kill each other off first. But again, we don't really have an "average" timescale of evolution. How long evolution takes has been debated for awhile now.

Considering that evolution is divergent, I don't really see it as a problem. I believe the consensus is that Homo diverged from Australopithicus around 2.3-2.4 million years ago. This doesn't mean that Australopithicus just instantly died out, though.

I don't see how hybridization deals with the diversity. New species aren't created by two random species just reproducing and creating something entirely new.

 

Oh look, moving the goal posts.

 

Not really. My OP is broader than you initially interpreted it.

 

What leads you to think we will find that Genus splitter event?

The "how long" of evolution theory is another sticky wicket, isn't it? Some things change seemingly in the wink of an eye, and some things change nothing in billions and billions of generations.

So again...how would this be falsifiable? The rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian is stupid and irrelevant to inquiry. Of course that would falsify evolution--just as a dead person coming back from the dead and declaring God exists is a foolish call for "proof." Neither is likely or reliable--nor would they be accepted outright. It's just a Dawkinsism that people who don't want to think for themselves toss out to dismiss alternate POVs.

True--I was trying to offer a means of Genus split which hasn't happened and for which there is no evidence of happening.

So...how does a Genus split happen...in theory?

 

Well, if we have seen a speciation event, I don't see any barriers that would stop a splitting of families or genuses. I mean, we have evidence that these things have occurred.

How would the theory of evolution be falsifiable? Well, we could find an out of date fossil, we could find that mutations don't accumulate, we could find a static fossil record, we could find a hybrid that resulted from a rabbit and let's say a crocodile reproducing, we could witness spontaneous generation. And what does it matter how likely a scenario is? If it could happen, that still means that the theory is falsifiable.

Speciation -> speciation -> speciation -> speciation, until a new family is created and then continue on that track until a new genus is created.

 

Is the possibility of God falsifiable, then?

So..we haven't seen it, it hasn't happened that we are aware of, but....supposedly it can and will or did already happen, but we don't know about it? You don't think that's faith? (BTW--Genus comes after Family and before Species)

 

Species are just variations within a kind. One might argue that the human animal has various species that inter-mate (although it's racist to do so). Rather--human kind is human kind and we are varied within our kind--just as other creatures are. BUT--there comes a point where the creature is no longer "one of us" and it isn't of our kind. This is why there is no humanzee.

 

Please go and read.

 

Kind is a religious term. Scientists don't use it in that way.

One may not argue that the different races of human are different species.