@KBK

Another nutty conspiracy rant.

Why do anthropologist continue to think in straight lines? Surely it is apparent that there were hundreds of varieties of 'Homo' most of whom just flourished for a short time then disappeared. Modern humans are a composite from a small collection of anthropoids that managed to survive for a time before being replaced by an improved 'strain'. In short it is an exercise in futility to even try to create a family tree for the evolution of modern humans because so many past contributors to our lineage have gone without a trace.
Given that the time line for the first anatomical human is continually being pushed back in time, why is the question never asked i.e. If humans have been around for a million years, why did it take so long for civilised development to begin. Both Neanderthal and Cro-magnon had larger brains than modern humans, nature does not go in reverse, so is modern man the runt of evolutionary development inferior to other varieties of humans?

Interesting. But FWIW the Homo species at 2.3 million year is contested AFAIK. 1-2 arguable finds with arguable dating.

@KBK: I assume it can be confusing to read the latest, cutting edge, in any topic. What is the current size of transistors in integrated circuits. What is the best jet engine today. Et cetera.

But the basics, perhaps dated 1-2 decades but then also firm, is well hashed out and presented in digestible form. E.g. Wikipedia is usually a good start.

Your remaining comment of trolling science ("anomalies", "cover story") is based on personal incredulity and conspiracy theory (which is a neat trick to combine!) and as such useless fallacy respectively crackpotism. "A nutty rant" is a suitable description.

@Drou: The sociology of anthropology is complex, let us not go into that. It is very hard to map fossils, of which there will be scant data, to genomes and so populations. The trees are known to be bushy, but Homo is exceptionally so, and it is a late discovery. (Yet not "hundreds" of variants as you suggest, we have no evidence for that.)

We are lucky though, we have even scarcer data on chimp evolution.

As the article shows, "civilized" development started before Homo as regards the tool and food use that continues yet today. In fact, since the one distinguishing hominid character is a small canine, our history is nothing but self-socialization. We are the meek monkey (except when compared with bonobos).

Nature go in reverse all the time, parasites are simplified and ~ 40 % of animal species. The shrunken brain of modern man suggests that large societies are much simpler lifestyles than small group hunter-gathering. We are dumber, because we can be.

@KBK

Another nutty conspiracy rant.

Haven't you noticed, this Physorg is full of conspiracy people including those who make the articles; I once saw a meteorite shower renamed the tears of Saint Jerome!

Biological and social feedback mechanisms are complexly entwined in the context of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations.

Ecological variation in nutrient availability and the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man attest to the likelihood that all aspects of evolutionary theory will soon be abandoned.

They will be replaced with accurate representations of cell type differentiation by amino acid substitutions, which are manifested in the morphological and behavioral phenotypes of all animal species.

Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems
http://figshare.c...s/994281

"I assume it can be confusing to read the latest, cutting edge, in any topic"
"Another nutty conspiracy rant. "

What's with all the A-holes bullying people over there opinion? Seams like it's the same jerks all the time. KBK made a valid point. There is stuff that's out of the norm being tossed out and never looked at again. It's the way it works! If you want to put something down on paper just to prove your doing your job that's the way it has to work. Otherwise you'll be stumped for years and never publish anything. This is the same reason why it CHANGES all the time, they didn't get it correct the first time. Please stop the 12 year olds from bullying peoples opinion! Prove your smart by listening and not by trying to make others look stupid.

@Rustybolts

KBK did not make a single valid point! He accuses entire branches of science of hiding, destroying and/or ignoring evidence without even offering a single bit of proof. He has to do better if he expects any credibility on this site.

I dont like a long list of declaritive statements presented as an argument.
eg "The moon is made of green cheese." "No it is not", "Yes it is."

What I wonder is where does the Ape/Pig cross happen?
I anticipate volley of empty, declaritive statements in response.

@no fate: It's judged by having had a college science education (or a middle school one, which is enough to contradict a lot of the bullshit you hear here) and being able to recognize good evidence.

What I wonder is where does the Ape/Pig cross happen?
I anticipate volley of empty, declaritive statements in response.

It didn't. John Hewitt's fine on chemistry stories, but can't recognize when a statement about genetics is bull.

Is not ManBearPig evidence enough?

Molecular mechanisms for the inheritance of acquired characteristics—exosomes, microRNA shuttling, fear and stress: Lamarck resurrected?
http://journal.fr...133/full

Also see my comments on the article:

In my model, there is no need for theoretical predictions, since nutrient-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance lead to amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types and the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones controls biodiversity via conserved molecular mechanisms, which link ecological variation to ecological adaptations.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

A single nutrient-dependent base pair change and amino acid substitution is all that's required to differentiate the cell types of chimps, gorillas, and humans. That fact has been known for 40-50 years (Dobzhansky 1964; 1973).

http://www.ncbi.n...24939910

Excerpt: "There are genes that do not fit into the conventional coding/non-coding narrative in the non-coding set. Several genes are annotated as potentially non-functional but may actually be functional under certain conditions."

My comment: If nutrient-stress and social stress did not cause non-functional genes to become functional, ecological variation could not result in ecological adaptations via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions that are the epigenetically effected determinants of cell type differentiation in all individuals of all species.

Others might then need to continue considering the pseudoscientific nonsense of neo-Darwinism, which is what many people seem to prefer to do. They've been taught to believe in it, and can't stop believing in nonsense -- even after realizing how ridiculous their beliefs are.

Antòn-Potts-Aiello suppose that "the success & expansion of the genus [Homo] rested on dietary flexibility in unpredictable environments", but several recent publications ( anatomical, embryological, physiological, nutritional, paleontological & paleo-environmental data) suggest Homo's early Pleistocene intercontinental expansion be explained by a dispersal along African & Eurasian coasts + venturing inland from the coasts along the rivers: at coasts, rivers & wetlands, they collected (through bipedal wading & beach-combing & diving) shallow aquatic & waterside plant & animal foods, which contained the necessary brain-specific nutrients for brain expansion (e.g. long-chain poly-unsaturated fatty acid DHA). Only coastal dispersal can account for brain expansion, long & straight legs, broad bodies & pelvises, large & linear bodies, stone tools, diet of animal foods, pachyostosis etc., see
www. researchgate. net/ profile/ Marc_Verhaegen
independent. academia. edu/ marcverhaegen

Credibility on this site...good one. How is that judged again? The most "5's" means the opinion is credible?

@nofate
aren't you glad that is not how it is judged?
Credibility is in the PROOF offered. See Surly's post to you.

Or are you the last Vietvet standing that still has faith in the establishment to act in it's citizens best interest?

logical fallacy and appeal to conspiracy
I distrust the gov't more than anyone, but I am educated enough to learn science and judge what is real science vs pseudoscience

Example, how many politicians have degrees?

another logical fallacy, attempt at misdirection and irrelevant, no matter how true
IMHO-politicians are crooks
BUT
they are also NOT scientists... so cannot offer evidence here (and that means the idiot Gore too)

In my model, there is no need for theoretical predictions, since nutrient-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance lead to amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types and the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones controls biodiversity via conserved molecular mechanisms, which link ecological variation to ecological adaptations

@jk
but in your keyboard diarrhea and prolific posting history, you also make claims that mutations cannot cause diversity or evolution, which is proven wrong by your own model because your own model causes mutations and you keep telling everyone that it supports diversity

So, logically, when you support a model that CAUSES mutations, but then try to denigrate Evolution, which is supported by YOUR OWN MODEL then it makes one wonder what you are REALLY trying to do

so... perhaps you would like to clarify that here?
if your model causes mutations, why are you always speaking out against mutations?

The conserved molecular mechanisms of sensing and signaling link ecological variation to ecological adaptations in all species. For example, nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation links species diversity in C. elegans and P. Pacificus, a nematode with morphological differences (teeth) and behavioral differences.

Dissecting the Signaling Mechanisms Underlying Recognition and Preference of Food Odors
http://www.jneuro...tml?etoc