the origins of humans

This may help you
Race

A race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in some way from other humans. The most widely observed races are those based on skin color, facial features, ancestry, and genetics. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, are often controversial due to their impact on social identity hence identity politics.

Definitions of RACE

Originally posted by resistance
Star Pilot -- I'd say we've got species of man in existence right now. We've got all kinds and varieties of people. How come we call them "races?" If we're just animals, shouldn't we refer to these races or types as "species?"

Well, let's look at the definition of what a species is. And let's start with something noncontroversial: cats.

I have two darling specimens of felis domesticus. One is a "mongrel" tabby wth a short tail (some Manx, perhaps, or Japanese bobtail somewhere in her background) an the other is a pound-rescued purebred Birman.

They are two different breeds, but they are not different species. Difference in coat color and hair length and skull shape and tail length are not enough to make the two cats different species.

Different skin colors and minor skull differences aren't enough to define a "race" as a species.

So what makes the hominids different species? Well, it's HUGE differences in bone anatomy and some significant differences in DNA (We've sequenced some of the Neanderthal DNA; not sure about other DNA). But skin color differences are as significant as the fur color differences of my two cats.

How come if you're extinct you're a species? If you're alive, you're a race?

Well, YOU are a member of the genus 'homo' and the species 'sapiens' ... and I do believe you're alive. My cats are, as I said, genus 'felis' and species 'domesticus' and they make loud noises when they want food and shed all over the house so I'm reasonably sure they're alive, too.

...and so on and so forth.

ok, let's break it down sesame style

Different species (naturally) are not able to cross breed....so if people of different color were of different species, then they would not be able to breed (have kids).

Just like cats....my sisters poke-dot cat could easily have kittens with her neighbors black cat...same species.

However, "house" cats (Felis catus) cannot breed with a leopard (Felis bengalis (sp)....both are of the same genus (Felis) but not the same species. And then there's families (one above genus)....but im not gonna go there.

Just like hominids from back in the day......different species, same genus.
I believe the most species from genus homo that was around at the same time was three. Now there's only one...although I have my about doubts a few people...MJ



[edit on 14/10/2005 by SportyMB]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by shihulud
Evolution is fine until you start to dig deeper then holes start to appear

Such as what?

Such as evolution says we evolved from Homo Erectus but the genetic differences between the two are so great that a macromution would have had to occured. Also Humans seem to have evolved without pressure, i.e environment etc

evolution cannot explain certain anomalies in human species.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Such as what?

Such as lack of hair (humans seem to be the only hairless mammal discounting underground and underwater mammals). The fact that the human female is on 'heat' constantly but shows no sign of when conception is likely. Lack of penis bone in males. Thinner skin than most mammals to name but a few.

My own take on this is that we were genetically manipulated by an advanced race

Originally posted by Nygdan
There is no evidence for genetic manipulation in humans and rather the genes that make up humans are related to genes in man's ancestors.

There is a possibility that the whole of life on Earth was put here by and advanced race so therefore our ancestral genes would be related as our ancestors also were created by this advanced race. Just as we can now manipulate genes so it happened to us. However I see evolution as part of this as well. Things definately evolve.



G

Homo Erectus is one the closest "relatives" we have in genus homo..
can you explain a little more?

Such as lack of hair (humans seem to be the only hairless mammal discounting underground and underwater mammals).

It's called evolution. Overtime man, homos, whatever you wanna call it..started using fur and other natural means to keep warm. Fire, hydes etc...etc... well after a few million years of this nature decides....hey let's do without all this hair....we got other ways to keep warm. and ofcourse as we started doing all this, fires and all that jazz....our brains got bigger cause they used it more...they used it more cause they had to due to being cold caused by lack of hair....Ofcourse that is jut a small part...there are more questions unanswered than answered.

The fact that the human female is on 'heat' constantly but shows no sign of when conception is likely. Lack of penis bone in males. Thinner skin than most mammals to name but a few.

Just like the hair thing, we don't need thick skin..we have evolved to live without it. Animals go into heat because there are certain times of the year etc..etc.. when it is best to have little ones. Well, since humans have evolved to adapt to all seasons and conditions, it's cool to have little ones anytime of the year...

That's why are the way we are...we have adapted to our enviorments. No need for crushing teeth, we slice...no need for all that hair, we have heaters...no need to mate at certain times, we have hospitals.



[edit on 14/10/2005 by SportyMB]

Originally posted by shihulud
Also Humans seem to have evolved without pressure, i.e environment etc

We avoided alot by being nomadic.

The fact that the human female is on 'heat' constantly but shows no sign of when conception is likely.

Women are only 'on heat' when they are ovulating.. they can get aroused at other times but are less likely to get pregnant. There are many behavioural signs.. flirting, postering etc. and physical signs; higher release of pheremones, breasts enlarge and become firmer and lips and genetalia swell.. there are many more symtoms but.. I think I'd prefer if you google it.

Lack of penis bone in males.

Do chimps have penile bones? I had no idea that humans were the only ones that didn't..
[Edit for points already covered]

[edit on 14-10-2005 by riley]

It's called evolution. Overtime man, homos, whatever you wanna call it..started using fur and other natural means to keep warm. Fire, hydes etc...etc... well after a few million years of this nature decides....hey let's do without all this hair....we got other ways to keep warm. and ofcourse as we started doing all this, fires and all that jazz....our brains got bigger cause they used it more...they used it more cause they had to due to being cold caused by lack of hair

I think you'll find clothing is a recent invention around 100,000 years ago, genetic analysis of human lice shows they appeared around 72,000 to 42,000 years ago and lice can only live on humans with clothing. (wikipedia)
Also the fact that not every human uses clothes for keepin warm i.e African tribespeople.

Just like the hair thing, we don't need thick skin..we have evolved to live without it. Animals go into heatbecause there are certain times of the year etc..etc.. when it is best to have little ones. Well, since humans have evolved to adapt to all seasons and conditions, it cool to have little ones anytime of the year.

Our skin is different from other mammals including chimps in that it is thinner and takes longer to heal when injured.
Ever since humans appeared around 180,000 to 200,000 years ago females have always been on permanent heat i.e able to mate at any time but there is no outward show like other animals.
What about when humans had not adapted to conditions did they only have kids in summer or spring, I think not.

Riley what your saying is that humans have had an easy existence by being nomads, No ice ages to threaten them, no predators. I think you'll find that human evolution has been no picnic. And yes chimps do have penis bones (baculum) albeit around 10mm.

you may be interested in a thread i started some time ago: AAT the Other Theory of Evolution. It's a discussion about the Aquatic Ape Theory, and how modern humans have more in common with aquatic life than with the 'Savanna Apes'. Although it was pretty well shredded by our resident evolutionists, i still think it has merit.

I have heard of the aquatic ape theory and yes it does have merit but it still doesn't explain the relatively easy evolution of humans. You would think that being in water would cause its own set of evolutionary problems. Also the fact other mammals should be able to display this aquatic model as I dont suppose it was only human ancestors that would be water based. Are there any others?????




G

Originally posted by shihulud
I think you'll find clothing is a recent invention around 100,000 years ago,

Probable.

genetic analysis of human lice shows they appeared around 72,000 to 42,000 years ago and lice can only live on humans with clothing. (wikipedia)

Why is it they live and nest on scalps then? That doesn't make any sense.

Also the fact that not every human uses clothes for keepin warm i.e African tribespeople.

I'm not sure what point you are making.. clothing is cultural now and african tribes people don't wear much anyway. Clothing was originally used to adapt to cold areas and probably to hide the erections of tribes leaders -when men are 'in heat' it's kind of really obvious.

Ever since humans appeared around 180,000 to 200,000 years ago females have always been on permanent heat i.e able to mate at any time but there is no outward show like other animals.

Yes there are.. I listed some. Males can 'smell' when a woman is ovulating.. there are enough signals for guys to get the message [unfortuantly some read whats not being written] so there is no need for a woman to display like a baboon.

What about when humans had not adapted to conditions did they only have kids in summer or spring, I think not.

They'd move to another area- besides which if a pregnant woman is starving there is a big chance she'll miscarry anyway.

Riley what your saying is that humans have had an easy existence by being nomads, No ice ages to threaten them, no predators. I think you'll find that human evolution has been no picnic.

I never said that.. you did and I disagreed:

Also Humans seem to have evolved without pressure, i.e environment etc.

It would not have been easy.. but it was easy enough to not have become extinct like our evolutionary cousins.

said that they had And yes chimps do have penis bones (baculum) albeit around 10mm.

Very interesting.
My point was that I do not think fleshy penises are a uniquely human trait.

[edit on 14-10-2005 by riley]

Ive heard of the AAT before. Seems logical, but very little proof to back it up...webbing between fingers is about it. Mammals need hair to keep warm and cool both. Whales shed hair case they're in water...other mammals have thick skin......but humans are the only primates/mammals that have no (lack of) hair in an enviorment in which we should have much hair. Erectus ("ancestors" of homo sapiens) was hair covered and that was about 1.8mya......so this AAT would have had to've happened between then and roughly 200k years ago...2 million years is hardly enough time for such a change in genetics/evolution.

And noone really knows why. Some say humans lost hair to rid themselves of lice, parasites and the blood suckers out there. But that still does not explain why. The downside to that is greater than the upside....that's why I doubt that's the reason

Homo Sapiens are the first (and only) homo species to have clothing. But the other hominid species overtime had less and less hair.......all the way too Homo Erectus that was still hairy but not as much as the other species.

Ironically, Homo Sapiens are (more than likely) came from Homo Erectus. With that, there is an evolutionary trend in losing hair. But that still does not explain the HUGE gap in hair loss from Erectus to Sapiens.....noone really knows why. There's still so much to learn.



[edit on 14/10/2005 by SportyMB]

You say the races of humans are called "breeds" in the animal world. You say species cannot interbreed.

My understanding of the evolutionist charts (which I don't subscribe to BTW) that hominids are monkeys. Anything called homo is not a hominid but has been determined to be human. (Homo is Latin for "man)

If we have supposed extinct homo species, but of the genus homo, but named as different species, how do we know we could not breed with them if that's what differentiates a species from a breed? What is so different about these humans that would preclude them from breeding with modern man?

How would anyone know that anyway? (i.e. since they are all extinct)


Also, Byrd -- Isn't it true that house cats aka domestic cats can be bred with many species of wild cats and in fact are? And is it not a fact that lions and tigers can breed? Zebras and horses? Is it not true that some species can interbreed and others can't, and sometimes the progeny is fertile and sometimes not, and this is not the same in all instances?

And certainly zebras and horses are in the same family, but humans and monkeys or apes are NOT in the same family.

Is this not true?



[edit on 14-10-2005 by resistance]

how do we know we could not breed with them if that's what differentiates a species from a breed?

The "breeding" issue is NOT the only factor, just one that ws brought up. What exactly are you saying? A "breed" is more of a generic term that means mixture...like when people breed they "mix" (no..not sex, but genes) and have kids. Same for animals too.

What is so different about these humans that would preclude them from breeding with modern man?

Different species....

How would anyone know that anyway? (i.e. since they are all extinct)

Not to sound rude, but that's what scientist do......they figure crap out.

[edit on 14/10/2005 by SportyMB]

Originally posted by resistance
You say the races of humans are called "breeds" in the animal world. You say species cannot interbreed.

Not quite true. Many species can interbreed, though not all offspring are fertile or viable.

My understanding of the evolutionist charts (which I don't subscribe to BTW) that hominids are monkeys.

No.

Apes, yes. Monkeys, no. There's as much difference between a monkey and an ape as there is between a housecat and a Siberian tiger.

Anything called homo is not a hominid but has been determined to be human. (Homo is Latin for "man)

No. Genus homo is a member of the family "hominid"

If we have supposed extinct homo species, but of the genus homo, but named as different species, how do we know we could not breed with them if that's what differentiates a species from a breed? What is so different about these humans that would preclude them from breeding with modern man?

Remember that transition was gradual. It's not "suddenly one day some creature magically gives birth to a new species." There is *some* evidence (debatable) of sexual interbreeding of humans and Nenaderthals, but remember that the diffeernt species may not have been of interest to each other. The males and females would look "funny" to each other and they might not have been able to communicate.

Also, Byrd -- Isn't it true that house cats aka domestic cats can be bred with many species of wild cats and in fact are?

Some can. Some can't.

And is it not a fact that lions and tigers can breed?

And the offspring are sterile.

Zebras and horses?

SOME species of zebra. There are, in fact, three different ones with three different numbers of chromosomes. I'm not sure which can interbreed with horses and donkeys.

And certainly zebras and horses are in the same family, but humans and monkeys or apes are NOT in the same family.

Is this not true?

In fact, no. Apes are in the family Hominidae along with us. The subfamily Ponginae includes the orangutangs and several extinct apes. The subfamily Homininae includes gorillas, chimpanzees, an all the immediate human ancestors including Australopithecus, Neanderthalis, and so forth
en.wikipedia.org...

Byrd -- You said:

Apes are in the family Hominidae along with us.

So you're saying that humans can breed with apes possibly? We are in the same family with apes the same way that zebras are in the same family with horses?

So my question is: Do you think that whoever made up this system of classification was smoking something at the time?

[edit on 15-10-2005 by resistance]

quote: genetic analysis of human lice shows they appeared around 72,000 to 42,000 years ago and lice can only live on humans with clothing. (wikipedia)

Originally posted by riley
Why is it they live and nest on scalps then? That doesn't make any sense.

Sorry I was talking about body lice not head lice.

Originally posted by riley
I'm not sure what point you are making.. clothing is cultural now and african tribes people don't wear much anyway.

The point I was making was that humans didn't become hairless because we wore clothing.
Also about human sexuality the point being made was that we have sex for fun at any time not just when the female is receptive to conception. We have extended foreplay, sex and orgasims which are all uniquely human.

quote: Riley what your saying is that humans have had an easy existence by being nomads, No ice ages to threaten them, no predators. I think you'll find that human evolution has been no picnic.

The point here is that we as a species seem to have had an easy evolution to get to the stage we are at just now but it is known that humans did not have an easy time therefore evolution cannot adequately explain the emergence of humans in the space of 5-6 million years



G

Originally posted by shihulud
The point I was making was that humans didn't become hairless because we wore clothing.

I think they did because of warmer climates.

Also about human sexuality the point being made was that we have sex for fun at any time not just when the female is receptive to conception. We have extended foreplay, sex and orgasims which are all uniquely human.

No. Other primates and other species:

outside.away.com...
Q) Do animals have orgasms?
Amy Petersen, Bend, Oregon

A) There's been more research on this topic than you might care to know about, and the answer is yes—at least for primates. According to Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside and author of Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex from Animals, studies of macaques and bonobos reveal that both males and females have orgasms, measured as contractions of muscles and tissues in their nether regions.

..there is some things I'd rather not know though but I suspect that all species have sex for pleasure.. they'd die out otherwise.

The point here is that we as a species seem to have had an easy evolution to get to the stage we are at just now but it is known that humans did not have an easy time therefore evolution cannot adequately explain the emergence of humans in the space of 5-6 million years

So.. evolution doesn't make sense because it.. worked?
Hobbits and neadethals weren't that far behind modern humans and shared comparable habbitats.. were they alien cross breds as well?

[edit on 15-10-2005 by riley]

Just one thing.
How do you know it was evolution as it is only a theory. A theory that fits most of the time. There is no way to prove how we got here.

Heres another anomalie, why do we chew our food and take on average 6 seconds to transfer from mouth to stomach while most other animals swallow their food whole. The relaxed way we eat suggests a long period of peaceful evolution which we didn't have.

G

[edit on 15-10-2005 by shihulud]

Originally posted by shihulud
Just one thing.
How do you know it was evolution as it is only a theory. A theory that fits most of the time. There is no way to prove how we got here.

Actually it is both fact and theory. The way we find out [for certain] how we got here is wait.. present evidence indicates we evolved from lesser primates.. [eg. chimps share 98% dna with us] the arguments you gave were easily explained.

Heres another anomalie, why do we chew our food and take on average 6 seconds to transfer from mouth to stomach while most other animals swallow their food whole.

Wrong again.. with the exception of pythons and crocs [though they break all the bones first to soften it before swallowing].

The relaxed way we eat suggests a long period of peaceful evolution which we didn't have.

No it doesn't.. if it's true it might suggest the thousand of years of agriculture has enabled us to create easier to digest food. You have presented several 'uniquely human traits' as facts when they were not facts at all. I have no reason to consider these to be anymore credible. Where are you getting you information from?

Actually it is both fact and theory. The way we find out [for certain] how we got here is wait.. present evidence indicates we evolved from lesser primates.. [eg. chimps share 98% dna with us] the arguments you gave were easily explained.

We also share a percentage of DNA with everything else the fact that we share 98% with chimps means we share 98% with chimps. We also share 97.5 % dna with mice. Do we look like mice??

Wrong again.. with the exception of pythons and crocs [though they break all the bones first to soften it before swallowing].

I did say "most animals" you dont see a dog or a cat chewing its food do you.

I think they did because of warmer climates.

So why haven't other animals went hairless???

No it doesn't.. if it's true it might suggest the thousand of years of agriculture has enabled us to create easier to digest food.

So your saying that 20,000 years ago man being a hunter gatherer wouldn't quickly eat his food but would chew away leisurely? Agriculture gave us easy to collect food not easily digestible food.
A small detour from human origins, how did "domesticated" plants come about for use in agriculture?

[edit on 15-10-2005 by shihulud]