Comments on: A Human Ancestor for the Apes? http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/ Beyond bones & stones Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:33:20 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: The monkey king’s feet and a plea for help « Neuroanthropology http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-14592 The monkey king’s feet and a plea for help « Neuroanthropology Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:39:05 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-14592 [...] Thorpe of Birmingham (see Thorpe et al. 2007) and Aaron Filler of Harvard (see, for example, his post on Anthropology.net, A Human Ancestor for the Apes?, or his book, The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species [...] [...] Thorpe of Birmingham (see Thorpe et al. 2007) and Aaron Filler of Harvard (see, for example, his post on Anthropology.net, A Human Ancestor for the Apes?, or his book, The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species [...]

]]> By: El PaleoFreak http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-14194 El PaleoFreak Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:17:00 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-14194 "But I do agree that Human in the title is misleading. How about Humanoid?" Perfect! In fact, all the apes are already humanoids. Hominoidea (the clade containing apes and humans) means "humanoid". “But I do agree that Human in the title is misleading. How about Humanoid?”

Perfect!
In fact, all the apes are already humanoids. Hominoidea (the clade containing apes and humans) means “humanoid”.

]]> By: Anoiapithecus brevirostris And The Origins Of Great Apes & Humans « Anthropology.net http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-14179 Anoiapithecus brevirostris And The Origins Of Great Apes & Humans « Anthropology.net Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:04:31 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-14179 [...] in doing so… But given that one of Anthropology.net’s most popular posts discussed an origin of humans for apes and that I’ve researched a bit about Eurasia hominoids last year, I think you should be [...] [...] in doing so… But given that one of Anthropology.net’s most popular posts discussed an origin of humans for apes and that I’ve researched a bit about Eurasia hominoids last year, I think you should be [...]

]]> By: Quietman http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-12696 Quietman Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:15:48 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-12696 Read the book and the papers posted on the site. It is definately a positive step in understanding our ancestry. Dr. Filler, excellent work. Now if eveyone can overcome their Pithecophobia they will recognize that it is the most likely sequence of events possible. But I do agree that Human in the title is misleading. How about Humanoid? Read the book and the papers posted on the site. It is definately a positive step in understanding our ancestry. Dr. Filler, excellent work. Now if eveyone can overcome their Pithecophobia they will recognize that it is the most likely sequence of events possible. But I do agree that Human in the title is misleading. How about Humanoid?

]]> By: napi poipoi http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-11990 napi poipoi Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:50:52 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-11990 where does human intelligent comes from. why is it so miraculous. How did a bunch of cells (brain) capable to understand evolution (million years of learning process at molecular level) in a shorter time?. Or is it not to 'understanding', is it more to 'memorising'? where does human intelligent comes from. why is it so miraculous.

How did a bunch of cells (brain) capable to understand evolution (million years of learning process at molecular level) in a shorter time?.

Or is it not to ‘understanding’, is it more to ‘memorising’?

]]> By: Frank Roberts http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-11792 Frank Roberts Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:32:56 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-11792 What I really enjoy about Filler’s recent work is not that I’m necessarily won over by his arguments but rather the challenging nature of the ideas. Morotopithecus may or may not have been our ancestor (though I’m certainly swayed to notion that it was a habitual biped) but what I find puzzling is the resistance to the notion that we may have evolved from a line of apes which had been upright for 20 million years. As the post-cranial fossil evidence from beyond 4 million years is sketchy at best there is no reason yet to fight off Filler’s scenarios. So what if they were upright all along? Are we trying to discover our true ancestry or just attempting to make sure what we find adheres to long standing ideas about our ancestors? When, and if, the definitive fossils from the divergence of chimps and apes are found they’ll speak for themselves. No need to get up in arms and take sides over an issue which simply is not clear at this point. What I really enjoy about Filler’s recent work is not that I’m necessarily won over by his arguments but rather the challenging nature of the ideas. Morotopithecus may or may not have been our ancestor (though I’m certainly swayed to notion that it was a habitual biped) but what I find puzzling is the resistance to the notion that we may have evolved from a line of apes which had been upright for 20 million years.

As the post-cranial fossil evidence from beyond 4 million years is sketchy at best there is no reason yet to fight off Filler’s scenarios. So what if they were upright all along? Are we trying to discover our true ancestry or just attempting to make sure what we find adheres to long standing ideas about our ancestors?

When, and if, the definitive fossils from the divergence of chimps and apes are found they’ll speak for themselves. No need to get up in arms and take sides over an issue which simply is not clear at this point.

]]> By: eseese http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-11101 eseese Thu, 29 May 2008 16:58:06 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-11101 I've read the artcle and most of the comments and it's very interesting. Filler has demonstrated that the term 'human' applied to our bipedal ancestors is not necessarily wrong. I still find it, however, at least confusing, and that cannot help the science divulgation. I dont agree with Colugo's 'orthoape' cause I speak spanish, and the spanish translation 'ortosimio' doesn't sounds well at all. But more important, I think Filler wouldn't agree in taking that name cause it refers to the 'apes' and if I understood something, that's just what we don't want, cause apes descended from those 'AKA modern (apes), eu- and metabipeds, advanced hominoids'. I think it's better to refer to humans, just dont use 'human'. It could be, for example just 'homids' (spanish: 'hómido', same rooth, different descinence) I’ve read the artcle and most of the comments and it’s very interesting.
Filler has demonstrated that the term ‘human’ applied to our bipedal ancestors is not necessarily wrong. I still find it, however, at least confusing, and that cannot help the science divulgation.
I dont agree with Colugo’s ‘orthoape’ cause I speak spanish, and the spanish translation ‘ortosimio’ doesn’t sounds well at all. But more important, I think Filler wouldn’t agree in taking that name cause it refers to the ‘apes’ and if I understood something, that’s just what we don’t want, cause apes descended from those ‘AKA modern (apes), eu- and metabipeds, advanced hominoids’. I think it’s better to refer to humans, just dont use ‘human’. It could be, for example just ‘homids’ (spanish: ‘hómido’, same rooth, different descinence)

]]> By: Adam http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-10403 Adam Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:02:29 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-10403 Would like to hear more from Jos Verhulst on the animals center of gravity and how our human C of G has become directly in a vertical line. Which was first - vertical or horizontal? Etc. Would like to hear more from Jos Verhulst on the animals center of gravity and how our human C of G has become directly in a vertical line. Which was first – vertical or horizontal? Etc.

]]> By: Bhagat http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-9921 Bhagat Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:24:08 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-9921 "This suggestion definitely has the quality of blasphemy against religious doctrine.", you said. But evolution does not completely go against one religion and that is Sikhism, world's 5th largest religion. “This suggestion definitely has the quality of blasphemy against religious doctrine.”, you said. But evolution does not completely go against one religion and that is Sikhism, world’s 5th largest religion.

]]> By: open mind http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-9822 open mind Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:40:49 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/12/15/a-human-ancestor-for-the-apes/#comment-9822 I have believed now for some time (10 years or so) that indeed apes are the descendants of man. I'm not a p.h.d or anything like that but i am a student of the mysteries. Your theory is certainly interesting to me. I read Madam Blavatsky's anthropogenesis and cosmogenesis about 10 years ago and have since researched many of her ideas (I am not a theosophist but I am a student of ancient religion and philosophy). In fact I must say the concept she put forth , which is the topic under discussion here, is actually an acceptable if not necessary conclusion in light of many ancient mystery traditions including that of the judeo-christian religions. In my research I have come the the conclusion that the bible in specific refers to a race of man that lived on the earth and founded technologically superior civilizations millions if not billions of years ago. This early race of man was responsible for administering the evolutionary process of all life on earth throughout the ages. Of course they most likely were not in the form that mankind appears now in their earliest state of terrestrial being, but gradually perfected there form until at last reaching the state that mankind appears in even to this day. I know these ideas are considered pseudo-science by the common standard of our present era but i think if you were to take the actual scientific data available to us now and correlate it with the various mythological histories of the different cultures around the world you world begin to notice a certain agreement between the two fields of study. Personally I think your on the right track... I hope the fact that I am a mystic and am in agreement with your observations doesn't lend to the devaluing of your good reputation, but I'm happy to see someone looking a little deeper than the surface to find truth regardless of the popular opinion. I have believed now for some time (10 years or so) that indeed apes are the descendants of man. I’m not a p.h.d or anything like that but i am a student of the mysteries. Your theory is certainly interesting to me. I read Madam Blavatsky’s anthropogenesis and cosmogenesis about 10 years ago and have since researched many of her ideas (I am not a theosophist but I am a student of ancient religion and philosophy). In fact I must say the concept she put forth , which is the topic under discussion here, is actually an acceptable if not necessary conclusion in light of many ancient mystery traditions including that of the judeo-christian religions. In my research I have come the the conclusion that the bible in specific refers to a race of man that lived on the earth and founded technologically superior civilizations millions if not billions of years ago. This early race of man was responsible for administering the evolutionary process of all life on earth throughout the ages. Of course they most likely were not in the form that mankind appears now in their earliest state of terrestrial being, but gradually perfected there form until at last reaching the state that mankind appears in even to this day. I know these ideas are considered pseudo-science by the common standard of our present era but i think if you were to take the actual scientific data available to us now and correlate it with the various mythological histories of the different cultures around the world you world begin to notice a certain agreement between the two fields of study. Personally I think your on the right track… I hope the fact that I am a mystic and am in agreement with your observations doesn’t lend to the devaluing of your good reputation, but I’m happy to see someone looking a little deeper than the surface to find truth regardless of the popular opinion.

]]>