ZeroZero

Sorry Michel not yet - it has not clicked in my irrational mind

The bit about there being no absolute irrational numbers only relative seems a bit of a clue

I have been making some further enquiries. Evidently sometimes species have been incorrectly defined (at least in sharks). Here is a paper regarding sharks teeth that raises the issues which could applyto hominids - I claim:

it states

" The great diversity of tooth forms they found spurred them into naming many questionable species."

www.paleosoc.org/Fossil_Shark_Teeth.pdf

There does seem to be discussion in the expert literature but its not reaching the popular press. Perhaps someone somewhere is trying to find the 'standard deviation curves' for the data.

I still hold there must be tall and short wolves. When I said that there were sometimes only a few jaw bones I was referring to instances of the more remote fossils such as Ardipithecus.

One point to bear in mind is that the gene pool was much smaller -presumably

If you just consider animals recognised as dogs in the wild (i.e. those not influenced genetically by man) then (IMO) you won't find that much variation,

So they will be no dogs with heavy bone structure or light? No short, no tall? All uniform?

I am currently studying Turing machines and I have set myself the following problem

Using Pythagorian theory

1

Adjacent side = 12 inches

Opposite = 12 inches

Therefore hypononuse =19.7 (approx)

2

Adjacent = 1 foot

Opposite = 1 foot

therefore hypotonuse = square root of 2 which is a non computable 'irrational number'

Same triangle - same dimensions

First example - computable, second non computable - but the are the same.

Go easy on me - my maths is not great... simple explanation appreciated.

Zero

so your concern is that small and possibly non-random sampling of physiological artifacts, as well as post-genetic influences, can all effect morphology. This is a problem when your goal is studying the evolution of genetically-derived forms.

 

This is a valid concern, but I don't think evolutionary anthropologists are unaware of these issues.

I have a number of concerns. If anthropologists are aware (I presume they are) then why dont they discuss these issues in the popular science? After all the public are often educated people.

The more I examine the 'evidence' the more I find issues with the presentation of the data and the claims that are made - even by the most respected sources.

NB: In case you are wondering, I am no creationist, i go by facts and valid data.

"I'd have to say that it probably doesn't fall outside the realm of normal variance in the species"

Apols accepted Greg the first poster did not understand either, maybe its me.

I can see how, on the evidence of a very small sample - even as little as a jaw bone - they can extrapolate to make claims about the features of a species. If the jaw bone is an outlier it will not represent the norm. In other statistical sciences a representative sample is required ot make valid conclusions and I am feeling that in the conclusions reached by archeologists this is often not considered, or if it is tenously. Also the environmental factors on the expression of the genome. Presently, because this matter is not discussed in the text books I have read, I am doubting the veracity of the evidence. I can see there is a difference between robustus and gracile forms and of course there are dental differences, but beyond this, I am currently hesitent to accept the conclusions of what I am reading. There seems to be a lot of 'wish fulfilment' in the conclusions reached and dare I say it some 'anthropomorphising' - if I dare use this term of our ancestors. I mean inferring 'modern human' qualities from scant evidence.

Perhaps an expert on the examination of bones could correct me on this (i dont know the term dfor such an expert0

That doesn't mean it isn't the correct answer. The lack of enforced outside factors (i.e. enforced breeding programs) and the lack of an extinction event in human history have played enormous roles in the overall lack of genetic diversity you assert.

 

You are also implying that physical changes created by environment or activity (your piano playing wrist bones) are somehow transferred to your genetic code. Just because I lose a leg doesn't mean my children will be only be born with one.

 

 

 

? Of course I dont think this, i should have thought that was obvious. Where the evidence for a particular original species is one or two skeletons (or even in some cases partial skeletons), the conclusions reached are based on the dimensions of a particular exemplar and no dna.

Artificial pressures put on dogs by man let to the wide diversity of forms under such a sort period of time, they didn't naturally appear in such a wide range, that's the main difference.

 

Other times where one species produces a wide variety of forms is due to extinction opening several niches for them to evolve into, something that's not happened in human ancestry.

Sorry but I find this answer too simplistic

I am currently studying human evolution. There are questions currently puzzling me about the conclusions reached by archeologists from the evidence found by studying ancient skeletons

First a few musings..

Dogs have been bred for a couple of thousand years or so, a trivial period in evolutionary terms, yet they show a huge variation in shape, size, behaviours etc. I am aware that there are two forms of selection at work, natural selection and human selection, but it seems to me that hominids dont exhibit the same drastic variation in their organism even over vastly greater peridos of time. Over the period of time since Sahelanthropus tchadensis (say 7 million years) I would expect to find huge variations in the skeletal design according to climatic and living conditions - in the human ancestral pathway. From my knowledge of the current evidence, we see some variation but no pekinise bulldog or great dane like extremes - according to the narrative (with the only possible exception being homo floriensis). Rather the lineage is described as a very gradual change in brain size, bipediality (consequentiual effects on the skeleton), molars etc. Lifestyle and nutrition also has a significant effect on the skeletal composition. In the West we currently have an obesity epedemic and this has a signficant effect on the skeleton and this is in one or two generations. I would guess that the normative skeletal range has significantly shifted. When archeologists discover a skeleton from the remote past, for example Lucy, I find that many authors in the field tend to make many conclusions about the height and physique of the species from what could be an unrepresentative sample. I am sixty, my parents generation was significatly shorter than their sibilings this effect is over a single generation. Then there is the whole question of epigenetic switches. Lastly, i play piano and have done since a child. i am willing to bet that this has had a significant impact on the development of my wrist bones, their size and shape. Are there not similar considerations ideosynchratic to each specimin? This last point does not refer to pathological changes, rather to natural and perfectly healthy development.

I am aware that the population was far smaller, perhaps this is the reason that conclusions regarding conformity can be made, but i am wondering if archeological assumptions are way too simplistic?

How do archeologists take account of the above considerations when they often have only a few bones coming from one or two specimins? Its not really discussed in the popular science literature I have read.

Obviously science has encountered the above considerations, I would love to know more..

Zero