Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Quadroped humansFollow

#1 Mar 10 2006 at 1:38 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4782492.stm

Quote:
Five siblings from Turkey who walk on all fours could provide science with an insight into human evolution, researchers have said.
The four sisters and one brother could yield clues to why our ancestors made the transition from four-legged to two-legged animals, says a UK expert.

But Professor Nicholas Humphrey rejects the idea that there is a "gene" for bipedalism, or upright walking.



uhhhhh


yeah
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#2 Mar 10 2006 at 1:41 PM Rating: Decent
I was going to add that link to a beastiality thread, but decided against it. I think it's compelling, and I'd be interested to see what would happen if they procreated with the wolf boy from Mexico. I'm betting primate babies.

#3 Mar 10 2006 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
freaks


#4 Mar 10 2006 at 1:43 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
I watched some news piece about this the other day that actually referred to the wolf boys from Mexico as part of the coverage of the boys from Turkey. I think they're saying it's just a freak gene, if I remember correctly.
#5 Mar 10 2006 at 1:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
The siblings live with their parents and five other brothers and sisters. They were born with what looks like a form of brain damage.

MRI scans seem to show that they have a form of cerebellar ataxia, which affects balance and coordination.


Chromosome 17 appears to be damaged. I have no idea how the conclusion was drawn that this particular mutation harks back to a previous stage of evolutionary development.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#6 Mar 10 2006 at 1:46 PM Rating: Decent
I think the idea is that they'd be the notorious "missing link", having evolved past walking on their knuckles and ruining their little monkey hands to walking on their palms and getting all callousy. I just don't see a chick with callouses like that furthering the species, I mean, worst handjobber ever.
#7 Mar 10 2006 at 1:46 PM Rating: Good
That Wolf Boy was on some History channel show or something recently. He comes from a family of about 12 and 8 or so are "wolf faced".
#8 Mar 10 2006 at 1:47 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
Baron von Barkingturtle wrote:
I think the idea is that they'd be the notorious "missing link", having evolved past walking on their knuckles and ruining their little monkey hands to walking on their palms and getting all callousy. I just don't see a chick with callouses like that furthering the species, I mean, worst handjobber ever.


Meh ... you're always hittin' it from behind.
#9 Mar 10 2006 at 1:49 PM Rating: Decent
Well I still don't want some sandpaper hand carressing the boys while I hit monkey style.
#10 Mar 10 2006 at 1:49 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
That could maybe attempt to parallel with this:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000E9965-99A6-13FB-99A6803414B7F0000


about this particular "breed" of stillborn chickens that are formed with aligator-like teeth, suggesting that ancestral genes still will lie dormant within the DNA even though it is long become unused.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#11 Mar 10 2006 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I don't really see the argument though...

Professor Humphrey, from the London School of Economics (LSE), says that our own species' transition to walking on two feet must have been a more complex process that involved many changes to the skeleton and to the human genetic make-up.

Humphrey seems to simply be saying that he doesn't believe there's a single genetic lightswitch between bipedal and quadropedal but that it's far more complex. Given the many structural differences we have that facilitate walking and make crawling (especially on feet vs knees) cumbersome, I'm inclined to agree.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Mar 10 2006 at 2:18 PM Rating: Good
This is clearly a hoax in attempt to discredit Intellegent Design.

Dirty blasphemers.
#13 Mar 10 2006 at 2:20 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
clues to why our ancestors made the transition from four-legged to two-legged animals




well, I guess that first clue is that it's bad for your back and your hands get all gnarled up Smiley: grin
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#14 Mar 10 2006 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
****
5,311 posts
Quote:
I just don't see a chick with callouses like that furthering the species, I mean, worst handjobber ever.
Hand jobs don't perpetuate the species either.
#15 Mar 10 2006 at 9:12 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
Quote:
I just don't see a chick with callouses like that furthering the species, I mean, worst handjobber ever.
Hand jobs don't perpetuate the species either.

Early Cro Magnon females had hands growing out of their vaginas. Smiley: schooled

#16 Mar 11 2006 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
Too bad members of the ape family walk on their fists, not on their palms. People will do anything to provide evidence, however unscientific, that evolution is true.
#17 Mar 11 2006 at 3:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Doc Humphrey is way ahead of you...

However, scientists are divided on what caused them to revert to quadrupedalism (walking on all fours).

The method of locomotion used by the Turkish children and by our closest relatives chimpanzees and gorillas, differs in a crucial way, said Professor Humphrey.

While gorillas and chimpanzees walk on their knuckles, the Turkish siblings put their weight on the wrists, lifting their fingers off the ground.

"What's significant about that is that chimpanzees ruin their fingers walking like that," Professor Humphrey, an evolutionary psychologist, told the BBC News website.


People are equally ready to discredit evidence because it, on its own, doesn't answer every question or solve every riddle. Instead of seeing this as a potential clue into how humans evolved into bipedalism, people say "But it's not exactly the same as gorillas move around so it can't possibly prove anything!" If the chromosome is indeed part of what makes us bipedal, than its absence or damage may well cause someone to revert to quadrupedalism without accounting for hand usage, bone and muscle structure, etc and so forth.

Humphrey's idea is that this chromosome may be a component to why we walk on two feet instead of four limbs but that it isn't the only piece. The palm vs knuckle argument just makes his opinion more sound and detracts from the "single chromosome" argument but it doesn't do anything to discredit the idea of mankinf evolving from a common ancestor as modern primates.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Mar 11 2006 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
Just because there are species in the animal kingdom that have a similar genetic make-up to our own does not mean in any way that we someone evolved from them. Where do people draw that conclusion? Out of millions of species of animals, don't you think that it is highly probable that 1 family is VERY similar to humans? Yes it is probable.
#19 Mar 11 2006 at 6:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
PraetorianX wrote:
Just because there are species in the animal kingdom that have a similar genetic make-up to our own does not mean in any way that we someone evolved from them.
Of course not. Clearly, it means that the invisible man up in the sky snapped his fingers and made us, and then snapped his fingers again and made the lowly animals for us to play with.... and eat.... and sometimes have sex with.

Smiley: goat
#20 Mar 11 2006 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
PraetorianX wrote:
Just because there are species in the animal kingdom that have a similar genetic make-up to our own does not mean in any way that we someone evolved from them.
It does, however, help support the idea that we may have a common ancestor to them. Which is, you know, what the theory of evolution suggests as opposed to saying we evolved from any modern animal.

If we were created as unique snowflakes, seperate from the rest of the animal kingdom, then why should we expect to find very similiar genetic makeups to the rest of the primates and, more particuarly, to the higher evolved great apes? Why should we not expect to have a strictly unique genetic code? If we, and the rest of the planet's flora and fauna, were individually created then why should I think it's probable that we'd geneticly come close to a match for the animal primates?

I won't say it's impossible that a creator would have made us all much the same at a genetic level but it certainly doesn't discredit the idea of evolution to see we have about the same genetic code.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Mar 11 2006 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
PraetorianX wrote:
Just because there are species in the animal kingdom that have a similar genetic make-up to our own does not mean in any way that we someone evolved from them. Where do people draw that conclusion? Out of millions of species of animals, don't you think that it is highly probable that 1 family is VERY similar to humans? Yes it is probable.


Mathematically, the chance that we share 98% of our genetic code with great apes but did NOT evolve from a common ancestor with them is vanishingly small.

No one - no one, nobody at all - theorizes that we evolved from monkeys or apes. No one has ever said that except ignorant people seeking to discredit a theory that threatens their cosmology.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 267 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (267)