This depicts a truth often ignored in considering evolution: Humans didn’t emerge from fish (or mice, or apes); species evolve from common ancestry.
Inverting the usual view is fruitful: moving our attention from human to ape, mouse, or fish involves a transition from the generalized to the specific — from the freer (to slurp or sip, gulp, gnaw, or chew) to the more environmentally and physiologically determined. What appears last in time may embody less exaggerated, freer, wholer, archetypal (and perhaps original) aspects of what appears earlier. (In which direction do other creations — like cartoons — develop?)
This idea was vivified in the field of hominid evolution with the discovery and excavation of Ardipithecus ramidus at the end of the twentieth century. Combining its age (about 4-5 million years) with its similarities to hominids suggests that humans are far more primitive in an evolutionary sense than modern great apes. Quoting one of the primary researchers, Owen Lovejoy:
“In a way we’re saying that the old idea that we evolved from a chimpanzee is totally incorrect,” he says. “It’s more proper to say that chimpanzees evolved from us.”
(Joseph Hall, “Did apes descend from us?,” Toronto Star, Oct 01 2009. On line at www.thestar.com/news/world/2009/10/01/did_apes_descend_from_us.html .)
* * * * * *
Some other references:
Craig Holdrege, “Evolution Evolving” and other articles at http://natureinstitute.org/evol .
Jos Verhulst, Developmental Dynamics in Humans and Other Primates: Discovering Evolutionary Principles Through Comparative Morphology. Reviewed by Stephen Talbott at http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/evol.htm .
The special issue of Science magazine devoted to Ardipithecusis (2 October 2009, v326 no. 5949) is on line at www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/misc/webfeat/ardipithecus. The most relevant articles are:
C. Owen Lovejoy, “Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus,” p. 74. www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949/74.full.pdf
“Referential models based on extant African apes have dominated reconstructions of early human evolution since Darwin’s time. These models visualize fundamental human behaviors as intensifications of behaviors observed in living chimpanzees and/or gorillas (for instance, upright feeding, male dominance displays, tool use, culture, hunting, and warfare). Ardipithecus essentially falsifies such models, because extant apes are highly derived relative to our last common ancestors.”
Tim D. White et al., “Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids.” p 64, 75-86. www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949/64.full.pdf
A fascinatingly far-out discussion of Ardipithecusis (adequately, if not elegantly, translated from Slovakian or Czech): Emil Páleš, “Monkeys evolved from humans – not the other way around”http://serpentcircle.blogspot.com/2012/02/i-came-across-this-translation-from.html
“There are the two antipodal movements in evolution. One is continually rejuvenating, as if returning to the primeval state and to versatility, through which the spirit constantly moves forward. The second one is inductive of maturity, aging, specialization, and pronouncement. The first could be called caelomorphic (moving up to the heaven) and the second terramorphic (dragging down to the Earth). Darwin discovered the second movement: macroevolution, enabling survival through specialization to a given environment. For a short-term it always means success, for the long-term extinction.
These are the laws of evolution, which have a universal validity for nature as well as for culture. Also among nations, one steps forward by developing more of one ability and thus it becomes the bearer of a whole cultural epoch. It builds a successful civilization and for this reason it loses the ability to be a carrier of the next, newer spiritual impulse of the following epoch. Younger, more open nations will be chosen instead as the carriers of the future. In this way, the [change] of cultural epochs comes about."
This depicts a truth often ignored in considering evolution: Humans didn’t emerge from fish (or mice, or apes); species evolve from common ancestry.
Inverting the usual view is fruitful: moving our attention from human to ape, mouse, or fish involves a transition from the generalized to the specific — from the freer (to slurp or sip, gulp, gnaw, or chew) to the more environmentally and physiologically determined. What appears last in time may embody less exaggerated, freer, wholer, archetypal (and perhaps original) aspects of what appears earlier. (In which direction do other creations — like cartoons — develop?)
This idea was vivified in the field of hominid evolution with the discovery and excavation of Ardipithecus ramidus at the end of the twentieth century. Combining its age (about 4-5 million years) with its similarities to hominids suggests that humans are far more primitive in an evolutionary sense than modern great apes. Quoting one of the primary researchers, Owen Lovejoy:
“In a way we’re saying that the old idea that we evolved from a chimpanzee is totally incorrect,” he says. “It’s more proper to say that chimpanzees evolved from us.”
(Joseph Hall, “Did apes descend from us?,” Toronto Star, Oct 01 2009. On line at www.thestar.com/news/world/2009/10/01/did_apes_descend_from_us.html .)
* * * * * *Some other references:
Craig Holdrege, “Evolution Evolving” and other articles at http://natureinstitute.org/evol .
Jos Verhulst, Developmental Dynamics in Humans and Other Primates: Discovering Evolutionary Principles Through Comparative Morphology. Reviewed by Stephen Talbott at http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/evol.htm .
The special issue of Science magazine devoted to Ardipithecusis (2 October 2009, v326 no. 5949) is on line at www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/misc/webfeat/ardipithecus. The most relevant articles are:
C. Owen Lovejoy, “Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus,” p. 74. www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949/74.full.pdf
“Referential models based on extant African apes have dominated reconstructions of early human evolution since Darwin’s time. These models visualize fundamental human behaviors as intensifications of behaviors observed in living chimpanzees and/or gorillas (for instance, upright feeding, male dominance displays, tool use, culture, hunting, and warfare). Ardipithecus essentially falsifies such models, because extant apes are highly derived relative to our last common ancestors.”
Tim D. White et al., “Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids.” p 64, 75-86. www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949/64.full.pdf
A fascinatingly far-out discussion of Ardipithecusis (adequately, if not elegantly, translated from Slovakian or Czech): Emil Páleš, “Monkeys evolved from humans – not the other way around”http://serpentcircle.blogspot.com/2012/02/i-came-across-this-translation-from.html
“There are the two antipodal movements in evolution. One is continually rejuvenating, as if returning to the primeval state and to versatility, through which the spirit constantly moves forward. The second one is inductive of maturity, aging, specialization, and pronouncement. The first could be called caelomorphic (moving up to the heaven) and the second terramorphic (dragging down to the Earth). Darwin discovered the second movement: macroevolution, enabling survival through specialization to a given environment. For a short-term it always means success, for the long-term extinction.
These are the laws of evolution, which have a universal validity for nature as well as for culture. Also among nations, one steps forward by developing more of one ability and thus it becomes the bearer of a whole cultural epoch. It builds a successful civilization and for this reason it loses the ability to be a carrier of the next, newer spiritual impulse of the following epoch. Younger, more open nations will be chosen instead as the carriers of the future. In this way, the [change] of cultural epochs comes about."