 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / September 2005chimpanzee fossils
http://www.calacademy.org/geninfo/newsroom/releases/2005/Jablonski%20fossil%20ch imp.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20050831/sc_space/firsteverchimpfossilsfound http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/01/MNGLPEG8JJ1.DTL > http://www.calacademy.org/geninfo/newsroom/releases/2005/Jablonski%20fossil%20ch imp.html > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20050831/sc_space/firsteverchimpfossilsfound > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/01/MNGLPEG8JJ1.DTL Overinterpretation, as is so often the case. What do 500ky old fossils have to do with a speciation event that happened 5my or so years earlier? Or is it the claim that groups that originated allopatrically never find themselves in sympatry? >>http://www.calacademy.org/geninfo/newsroom/releases/2005/Jablonski%20fossil%20ch imp.html >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > earlier? Or is it the claim that groups that originated allopatrically > never find themselves in sympatry? I thought the point was that the chimp lineage was supposed to be forest dwellers, and these guys weren't.  SignatureJohn S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com "Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122 >>>http://www.calacademy.org/geninfo/newsroom/releases/2005/Jablonski%20fossil%20ch imp.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I thought the point was that the chimp lineage was supposed to be forest > dwellers, and these guys weren't. ...and that therefore ecological separation could not have been the cause of the split between human and chimp lineages. Of course chimps aren't a lineage; they're a clade. Both living species are forest dwellers, though at least P. troglodytes is known to venture into grasslands. Other living apes being forest dwellers too, that's assumed to be the condition of the common human/chimp ancestor. Now we get some evidence that not all members of the chimp clade stayed in the forest, at least not all the time. Interesting, but you have to jump through hoops if you want that to shed any light on human evolution, and the press release dutifully jumps. >>>>http://www.calacademy.org/geninfo/newsroom/releases/2005/Jablonski%20fossil%20ch imp.html >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ...and that therefore ecological separation could not have been the > cause of the split between human and chimp lineages. Really? That an allopatrically isolated species cannot later come into sympatry? That's a pretty large claim they're making. I haven't read the release before now, but I don't see where they are saying anything than (the also overblown) claim that hominins and Pan species lived together "in harmony" <?>. That's the CAS release. What *shudder* journalists might do to that is not their fault. > Of course chimps aren't a lineage; they're a clade. Both living species > are forest dwellers, though at least P. troglodytes is known to venture [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > through hoops if you want that to shed any light on human evolution, and > the press release dutifully jumps. Well you know my pattern cladist predilections, so you know I agree with you :-) SignatureJohn S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com "Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122 >>>>>http://www.calacademy.org/geninfo/newsroom/releases/2005/Jablonski%20fossil%20ch imp.html >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > together "in harmony" <?>. That's the CAS release. What *shudder* journalists > might do to that is not their fault. You're right. It's not the CAS release that makes this claim, but the second link does, with major talk about "rethinking human evolution". I also see from a close reading of the press release that the locality was a wet environment like chimps live in today, so the hominid fossils were actually the interlopers there. >>Of course chimps aren't a lineage; they're a clade. Both living species >>are forest dwellers, though at least P. troglodytes is known to venture [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Well you know my pattern cladist predilections, so you know I agree with you :-) >>>http://www.calacademy.org/geninfo/newsroom/releases/2005/Jablonski%20fossil%20ch imp.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I thought the point was that the chimp lineage was supposed to be forest > dwellers, and these guys weren't. The articles I read suggested that the location of the chimp find would have been forested. I didn't say jungle nor I suspect was all the land nearby forested. >> http://www.calacademy.org/geninfo/newsroom/releases/2005/Jablonski%20fossil%20ch imp.html >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have to do with a speciation event that happened 5my or so years > earlier? Nothing. It might be interesting to learn how much like modern chimps this cluster of chimps was. The teeth seem to have been dead normal. > Or is it the claim that groups that originated allopatrically > never find themselves in sympatry? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.