Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(1)
Message 197 of 1075 (620917)
06-21-2011 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Mazzy
06-21-2011 2:06 PM


Intermediates, Humans, and Evolution
Evolution relies heavily on the disappearance of intermediate anything really.
No, it does not. Evolution does rely on the interconnectedness of life, though, and implicit in that is the fact that life is full of intermediates. Otherwise, you wouldn't be related to your parents, and you to your children or future children.
If other apes were sufficiently equipt to survive, as did the human line, then there is no reason that a representation of the rise to mankind shouldn't be around.
Nothing in the ToE says anything about "all or some species need to survive." In fact, extinctions are the rule and not the exception. Climates change, disasters happen, and species outcompete one another. It happens that we are the last of the hominid line; we outcompeted/absorbed into our line all our Homo competetor's. Those we didn't outcompete/absorb, died out.
Not so hidden in your statement is the answer to your own statement. Ie. "If other apes were sufficiently equipt to survive..." Then they would have survived. (I am assuming you are referring to the Hominids directly ancestral to human's)
By the way, Apes still exist.
Neanderthal used to be used as a represntation of mid species. They were represented as such and were good evidence for the transition from ape to man. However, as we all know, this is no longer the case with Neanderthal being classified by some scientists as homo sapiens neanderthalis, a human subspecies.
That Neanderthals were used as a representation of mid-species, I would have to dispute. They might have been used by some as evidence of the progression toward man in a "chain-of-being", but in no way were they classified as "mid" anything. Of course the idea that they were intermediatary from an earlier Homo to Us, might have been an idea from a long time ago but fortunately for us, SCIENCE ADVANCES.
The representations have changed from ape like to fully human looking in appearance. This revamp was not due to additional fossil finding. It was in response to the Neanderthal genome project. Therefore one cannot rely on representations as they reflect a bias towards what scientists think any organism would or should have looked like for evolution to be factual.
BS. Neandethal's were classified in the Homo lineage long before the "Neanderthal genome project." They have had plenty of Neanderthal bones to piece together what Neanderthal's looked like. Don't discount comparative anatomy's ability to determine relatedness. As far as the 'NGP' is concerned, it just strengthened our understanding of where Neanderthal's fit in the evolution of Homo Sapien Sapien.
It would have been better for evolutionists if all the evidence for evolution did not keep on disappearing and some ape man was still about.
What evidence is disappearing? It would be much easier for scientists if they could go back in time and collect DNA samples from all the species that have ever existed, but unfortunately (or fortunately) we live in the real world and we do what we can to understand it. It hasn't stopped us from coming to an understanding of how evoution works. There will always be kinks in the road, questions to answer, but how dull would it be if we knew everything.
Another interesting twist to the topic is that no other organism has evolved high reasoning and perceptual capability. With all the homology around it is a shame we can't have a conversation with something like an evolved mouse or turtle.
What is your definition of "high reasoning?" What do 'you' mean by "perceptual capability?" Mice and turtles have survived a long time without bigger brains, so why would they need them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Mazzy, posted 06-21-2011 2:06 PM Mazzy has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(1)
Message 231 of 1075 (621098)
06-23-2011 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Mazzy
06-23-2011 2:31 PM


Intermediates and Stasis
I think evo theory relies on disappearances more than you suggest. For example there is no Lucy, no Ardi, no homo erectus or anything else in between here today, just us humans and the apes. They look fairly distinct to me.
Species go extinct. There is nothing unusual or controversial about that. Nothing in evolutionary theory says that a species must go extinct or must survive in order for there to be another species. Evolution does deal with reproductive success, and if a species can continue to survive and reproduce then it will do so. Obviously, the other Hominins were unable to do so.
As far as the distinctness of the other Hominins is concerned, that is why they are labeled as different species. We look at their bone morphology and compare their anatomy to try to determine where they fit in our evolutionary heritage. That's why you hear people talk about shared and derived traits. The more traits we share with our ancestors the closer they are to us evoltutionarily. You seem to have a subset of the common misconception of "Why are monkey's still around if we descended from them?" What I hope you might realise is that, over time, species beget other species...populations evolve but that doesn't mean the "begetting" species necessarily disappears.
Let me be clearer with an example of what we call "allopatric speciation." Species #1 might consist of various groups spread out over a geographical area, say group 1A, group 1B, and 1C. If something should happen to make Group 1C unable to reproduce with group 1A or 1B, then group 1C will start diverging and over time change enough to become its own species. Taken long enough, those changes might become more dramatic, and possibly, form groups that themselves might speciate, creating an even greater divergence from the original Species #1. There are other ways that species are created, but I hope you get the picture.
What your research tells you is that humans are not related to any species of ape alive today. Hence the evolutionary need for all the intermediates to have gone extinct. This is all a branching thing, Right? Yet no other group is half human. Even isolated tribes are fully human, including pygmies.
You are mistaken in your belief that research tells us that humans are not related to apes. (In fact we share relationships with ALL animals, living and extinct...it is just the distance of the evolutionary relationship that is different) We share a significant and close evolutionary relationship with the Great Apes. In fact our DNA shows significant and remarkable similarities with those of the Chimpanzees, upwards of 90%+. Looking at the genetic changes (the mutational changes that occur on a relatively steady basis) between us and chimpanzees has also pointed to our divergence roughly 6-9 million years ago. Lo and behold, we happen to have fossils that share traits between us and chimpanzees that appear around about that time range and that also provide us with details on the morphological changes that took place as different Hominins evolved, and eventually our species' appearance in the fossil record.
Once again, we are ALL intermediates. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. You are different than your parents and you from your children, and so on and so on. Think about this: Have you ever constructed a family tree? Within this family tree there would be members who passed away and members who remain alive. Just because they have children doesn't mean they ceased to exist. Similar to this, is the tree of evolution, but in a much larger scale. And like your family tree there are some species who died out, and some species that still exist. There is no need for your parents to cease to exist in order for you to exist and the same goes for species in evolution.
quote:
I'm going to skip over the whale evolution bit and focus on your problems with human evolution. I am sure there are others who are more intimately informed in that subject or have the patience to pursue that line of thought. Moving on...
  —DB
So you say all life is intermediate. Do you think Gould was a flip? He maintains that species go through long periods of stasis and then change and invented PE to explain the fossil record.
As I understand it, Gould felt that our current fossil record was incomplete because species, minus some evolutionary pressure, will retain their forms. IIRC he doesn't say they don't evolve. He says that they're anatomy remains in a period of statis until something causes them to change, and that change is usually rapid, in the evolutionary sense. But, again, just because species stay the way they are anatomically, doesn't mean they are not evolving. Evolution doesn't require species to have profound changes in their anatomy. If it works for the species then chances are they will keep that form. That isn't to say that they don't evolve. Changes in allele frequencies continue to happen. Mutations continue to happen.
The genomic bottlenecks that are required to explain the lack of human genetic diversity have been sunk with the finding of the same species represented alive and well after many catastrophes including Toba and KT. I can find and post the research if you are unaware of it, although the next link speaks to a weak correlation with climatic change and extinction anyway..
I am not sure what you are saying here. That bottlenecks happen is undisputed. Whether humans went through a bottleneck caused by Toba is just a theory, and not everyone agrees. What does seem clear is that humans experienced a period of low population at sometime and possibly even in various times in our evolution and this may be an explanation for our relatively low degree of genetic diversity. Supporting the Toba theory is the genetic evidence from other African species who also experienced some type of catastrophic event at around the time of the Toba eruption. The jury is still out though and we might never have the full picture. In any case, I am sure that I along with many others would appreciate you sharing any link to research supporting your understanding.
"The overall picture is that the main response to major environmental changes is individualistic movement and changes in abundance, rather than extinction or speciation. In other words, the connection between environmental change and evolutionary change is weak, which is not what might have been expected from Darwin's hypothesis."
Page not found | New Scientist
It's my personal opinion that the quote above would best be answered in a separate topic. While it does speak to issues regarding evolution, it appears to me after reading it that it doesn't address the issue of your central premise, being: "Why do we not see human ancestors today?"
Maybe in one of the topics concerning the Molecular Clock? or one of the more general evolutionary topics?
For me the obvious and most parsinomous reason why there are no ape men around today is because mankind did not evolve from apes.
Then I would posit that you don't understand how we determine evolutionary relatedness and how parsimony is involved.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Mazzy, posted 06-23-2011 2:31 PM Mazzy has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 233 of 1075 (621103)
06-23-2011 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Nuggin
06-23-2011 6:07 PM


Reptiles and Mammals
Just as an aside, Reptile's and mammal's bone growth is also different and differences can be seen in the fossils. Ie. During periods of cold, when reptiles grow slower, their bones form denser layers. Much like tree rings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Nuggin, posted 06-23-2011 6:07 PM Nuggin has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 238 of 1075 (621112)
06-23-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Portillo
06-23-2011 7:34 PM


Re: More evolved?
So every living and perhaps non living thing are all 100% equally evolved?
What do you mean "equally evolved"? (We'll ignore the non-living as they don't evolve) You seem to be equating evolution with either some great "chain of being" or the concept of evolution as a ladder, with humans at the top or perhaps a combination of the two.
Pondscum, or algea, has evolved to take advantage of the pond niche. It is a photoautotroph and survives in aquatic environments. It is a successful organism. Humans are also successful organisms in our niche. That isn't saying that one or the other is better than the other on some grand scale. Both of us are able to reproduce successfully. Whether our offspring survive is all that matters. Should some catastrophy happen that wipes out humans, algea may well survive. Having brains doesn't gaurantee our species will 'outlive' algea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Portillo, posted 06-23-2011 7:34 PM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 06-23-2011 8:16 PM DBlevins has replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 240 of 1075 (621115)
06-23-2011 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by jar
06-23-2011 8:16 PM


Re: More evolved?
What are you measuring success by? I think you are falling into the same trap that Portillo is caught in except he seems to be measuring success by our cultural achievements or our "brain power."
Do you measure success by number of individuals? While the ability to populate a large geographic area might help a species be successful, it doesn't guarantee future success.
The point being; We are just as successful as all other living species until we're not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 06-23-2011 8:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by jar, posted 06-23-2011 8:34 PM DBlevins has replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 243 of 1075 (621119)
06-23-2011 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by jar
06-23-2011 8:34 PM


Re: success
Your measure is still arbitrary. Others might consider high taxonomic diversity to be a sign of success in evolution.
By your measure, the Coelacanth is a more successful creature than humans. Or horseshoe crabs, or nautiloids, or crocodiles. the fact is that we are JUST as successful as any species living today. Until we are not.
By the way, I never said you said "more evolved" but you're still wrong in saying "more successful."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by jar, posted 06-23-2011 8:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by jar, posted 06-23-2011 8:57 PM DBlevins has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 256 of 1075 (621220)
06-24-2011 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Percy
06-24-2011 7:16 AM


If Extinct then not transitional?
Hey Percy,
I think you might be confusing Mazzy when you say:
"...all species are transitional (except species that go extinct, of course)."
It sounds like you're saying that an extinct species would not be considered transitional, which would rule out all extinct transitional forms (which, I think is basically what Mazzy is suggesting when she implies that the ToE is falsified because Homo Erectus is not currently around).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 06-24-2011 7:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2011 2:40 PM DBlevins has replied
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 06-24-2011 2:46 PM DBlevins has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 262 of 1075 (621230)
06-24-2011 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by New Cat's Eye
06-24-2011 2:40 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
Apologizing in advance for inability to use "quote" boxes as i'm currently on my mobile and it curiously doesn't have the bracket symbols.
I was pointing out that it sounded to me like Percy was ruling out ALL extinct species from consideration for being a transitional form. I didn't want Mazzy to get the wrong impression.
There are species who do not leave divergent descendants that are considered still to be representative of transitional forms because they have retained some shared traits between the 'newer' form and the ancestral. Case in point would be Archaeopteryx, which we really can't say is ancestral to any current bird species (that I know of) yet is considered as an example of a 'transitional' form from reptiles to birds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2011 2:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2011 3:55 PM DBlevins has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 265 of 1075 (621233)
06-24-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by ZenMonkey
06-24-2011 2:42 PM


Bipedal obligates
Iirc they attempted to clarify this with the newer 'Hominin' subclass for bipedal obligates and 'hominids' which include all great apes.
Edited by DBlevins, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-24-2011 2:42 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 272 of 1075 (621247)
06-24-2011 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:20 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
I'm glad that you recognize both the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution and that the fact of evolution stands even if we find a replacement for the ToE.
I'm sorry, though, that you still remain confused about extinctions and how the ToE doesn't say a species can not be considered a transitional form if it goes extinct. To reiterate what I explained to CS: A transitional fossil is one that retains some shared trait(s) with an ancestral species, which is ancestral to the newer species. There are many examples of species who are the 'last' of their line. Horseshoe crabs are one example. Homo Sapiens happens to be the last surviving species in the Hominin line. We are still related to the ape lineage though, and we have plenty of examples of the divergence of the hominin line from
the pongoid line.
Edited by DBlevins, : Accidentally pressed done on mobile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:20 PM Mazzy has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 282 of 1075 (621269)
06-24-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by New Cat's Eye
06-24-2011 5:00 PM


Re: more evolved / less evolved
Short question? I hope you won't take this the wrong way as I am genuinely unsure.
What does more 'more derived' mean to you?
If it is a replacement phrase for 'more evolved' then I'm not sure you understand it's role in cladistics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2011 5:00 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 5:36 PM DBlevins has replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 310 of 1075 (621311)
06-24-2011 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Nuggin
06-24-2011 5:36 PM


Re: more evolved / less evolved
I was curious what CS thought it meant in his own words. I was hoping he might provide a definition so I could determine if he really understood what was meant when we say "derived." I was worried that future conversations may have the phrase "more derived" used in an incorrect context.
I understand the role of "shard and derived" in cladistics. I wanted to be sure CS didn't replace the term "more evolved" with "more derived" but keeping the same definition of: "something better than what came before."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 5:36 PM Nuggin has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 311 of 1075 (621312)
06-24-2011 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Taq
06-24-2011 5:35 PM


Re: more evolved / less evolved
Actually the term "Great Apes" is used quite a bit eve in scientific papers. The term primates is used when talking about the order primate. On a side note, many people confuse "apes" with "monkeys" and they are not the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 5:35 PM Taq has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(1)
Message 320 of 1075 (621330)
06-25-2011 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:02 PM


Human lineage
I gather we are talking about mid ape/human species.
If I am not mistaken we are discussing why we do not see ancestral Hominins alive today (ex. Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderathalensis, Australiopiths, etc.) and the relationship between Apes and humans.
This is an aside to the fact that indeed primates have been ideologicaly separated as we refer to us as human and mankind and the animal kingdom primates as apes.
Humans ARE primates. It also happens that we are the last of the hominin line; all other hominins have gone extinct.
Today, one can easily distinguish the human ape difference between live specimens.
Which is explained by our divergence some 6-9 million years ago. We are one product of a differing evoutionary path.
God only knows what Homo erectus is. It appears to be a fossil dump of varying humans and apes. Many of your representations are based on fossil fragments and a few bones.
Homo Erectus and Homo Ergaster are species in the Hominin line and are classified in the same Genus that we are: (Homo). They share with humans many dental features, a less prognathic face and a higher skull. Both, though, retained characteristics of earlier Hominins: receding forhead, no chin, supraorbital torus.
Homo Erectus or colloquially "Java Man" first apeared in the fossil record about 1.6 - 1.8 mya and lived mainly in East Asia until about 30kya. They showed little increase in cranial capacity or technological sophistication over that time period. Their skull is thicker, they have more pronounced brow ridges and occipitol torus, plus a sagittal keel. Their technological industry stayed with the Mode 1 (Oldawan) tool industry. Of course it is possible that their tool making industry used bamboo, which decays much more easily than bone and unlike stone. Erectus was a bipedal obligate (like us), as indicated by his pelvis, position of the foramen magnum, and human-like bicondylar angle of the femur, etc.
Homo Ergaster appeared about 1.8 mya in Africa. They also expanded into Eurasia about 1.7 mya. Unlike H. Erectus, their cranial capacity was larger and their tool kit expanded to include the the Mode 2 (Achulean) tools around 1.6 - 1.4 mya. H. Ergaster went extinct about 1 mya. Concerning KNM-WT 1500, a 12 year old H. Ergaster, his body would have had the same proportions as modern humans (not at ALL ape-like) and nothing like the earlier ancestral bipeds. He stood about 5' 4" tall and would have likely reached 6' when fully grown.
Iirc H. Ergaster was ancestral to H. Erectus. ie. A group of Ergaster migrated out of Africa and from this group came Erectus. So to say that H. Erectus is more ape-like than Ergaster is patently false.
Turkana Boy is human, the others, especially the one on display at the museum in Michagan, are apes. I am remiss in my ability to understand how such intelligent scientists cannot see the difference.
You might also take a better look at KNM-WT 1500's (Turkana Boy's) skull. No human I know of has an occipital torus, supraorbital torus, no-chin, receding forhead, and a cranial capacity of almost, but not quite 900cc, as well as the post cranial differences.
As you would be aware the rounded human skull that is usually portrayed for comparisons to ape is the most different your scientists could find. In actual fact the is variety amongst the skulls of any species and huge variety in human skulls. The Australian Aborigine has eye brow ridging as do some other races, this is just variety, as these races are just as human.
Having a more pronounced eye ridge is completely different than having a supraorbital torus. NO human has an occipital torus, and NO human has a narrowing behind the eyes with a receding forehead. You should really get the chance to compare a human skull side-by-side with H. Ergaster. The difference is obvious.
There are flat faced primates and don't forget Lluc the flat faced ape around 12 million years ago
Convergence in evolution happens. Finding an ancient Hominid with such a feature doesn't negate evolution. It broadens our understanding of the emergence of the hominid line. The geographic implications are interesting...
Again the point being the onus is on evolutionists to explain why no ape intermediate is around today that did not quite get the conditions that drove the species all the way to mankind. No sister species of all the itermediates in the evolutionary bush survived.
Homo Sapiens appears in the fossil record almost 200 kya. H. Erectus until 30 kya. It is quite clear that Modern humans lived around the same time that H. Erectus was still hanging on, never-mind H. Florensis or Neanderthals. It is only fairly recently in the archaeological record that we have been left alone. So, we were not always the only Hominin around.
To reiterate: Extinctions happen. Not having aother surviving species in the Homininae line does not negate evolution.
...2010 researchers found there was no need for the until now required genetic bottleneck to explain the lack of human variation.
Perhaps I missed that link showing no need for a genetic bottleneck. Think you could post it?
So there is no reason why some of the ape midpsecies and sister species to not have survived till today looking fairly apey and not real smart.
The reason there are no mid human ape species is because mankind did not evolve from apes. Biblical Creationists have the most parsinomous explanation and evolutionists have yet to explain with flavours of the year.
Some of those Hominins DID survive until fairly recently ~ 30 kya.
The reason there are no extant ancestral or related Hominins is because they all went extinct. Just because one's Great great grandmother is no longer living doesn't mean you're not related to her. The most parsimonious explanation for the fossil evidence that exists is that species evolved from other species, and didn't just "poof" into existence. I think you mistake what we mean when we say Parsimonious. Parsimony: a scientific rule that states that if there exists two answers to a problem or a question, and if, for one answer to be true, well-established laws of logic and science must be re-written, ignored, or suspended in order to allow it to be true, and for the other answer to be true no such accommodation need be made, then the simpler of the two answers is much more likely to be correct
In other words: If you have to twist yourself in logical knots and rewrite the science to try to explain how the fossil record came into being, then you're NOT being parsimonious.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:02 PM Mazzy has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 321 of 1075 (621332)
06-25-2011 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 6:26 PM


Hairy humans
If anything, I can post research that speaks to the orang being more morphologically similar to man than chimps.
Feel fre to post a link. Let's see it.
You need intermediates that have disappeared. What happened to them all that they did not microadapt as observed in nature and the lab and survive in a less primitive hairy form of ape man somewhere in the wild?
No. Evolution is not falsified by extinctions. As I stated before, it is also not true that other Hominins did not exist the same time we did up until about 30 kya.
I know the refute re human hair folicles. However, quite clearly there is a big difference.
What would be the most parsimonious reason that we retain the same number or more of hair follicles as the other ape species? Why do you suspect our hairs grow shorter and thinnner?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:26 PM Mazzy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024