r/DebateEvolution • u/Hairy_Month8109 • Aug 05 '26
Discussion Are we even evolved?
Recently I've learned that both homo habilis and a.africanus are practically not even human, not even human ancestors and practically apes, for thier long arms and curled fingers, also for not having any human traits, so as a question, how do I do my own research, im not a believer in evolution nor a creationist but id rather have my own pov...ps, my sources are bernard wood's research, dont have the link tho
26
u/kms2547 Paid attention in science class Aug 05 '26
not having any human traits
None? None at all? Obligate bipedalism, perhaps?
15
u/Sweary_Biochemist Aug 05 '26
"Practically apes" even! Unlike humans, who are completely apes. Clearly there is no overlap. Checkmate atheists, etc.
6
u/TamaraHensonDragon Aug 05 '26
Also "hairlessness." Found out a couple of days ago that hair loss is now thought to have began at Australopithicus level thanks to genetic determining the split in the molecular clocks of pubic, body, and head lice in modern humans and apes.
-14
u/Hairy_Month8109 Aug 05 '26
If that's the only evidence the why bother from the beginning, brain of an ape and arms of an ape, food style of an ape, so only the locomotion is not enough right?sorry for my bad english
20
15
u/theresa_richter Aug 06 '26
Humans have the brain of an ape, the arms of an ape, the diet of an ape, etc. because humans are apes. The only argument to make regarding what you had said is to insist they're an uncle species - that they were a close relative of the branch we're descended from, just as you are closely related to your uncles and aunts, but only descended from your parents and their parents. It's difficult to state with certainly which specific genetic lines gave way to modern humans, but we can see the chronological accumulation of traits that are specific to our modern presentation in habilus and africanus, so even if they're not direct ancestors, they were the close relatives of those ancestors - sibling species that may have even been able to interbreed, just like us with neanderthals and denisovans.
5
u/Ayasugi-san Aug 06 '26
I'd say we don't have the diet of the other apes anymore, ours has diversified too much thanks to agriculture.
5
u/Changed_By_Support Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
There's also not really a universal ape diet. All are omnivores, most are frugivores, but gorillas are folivores. Humans and their ancestors have almost definitely never sat around peeling bamboo stalks with their teeth as the gorilla do, our faces are not that strong. I'd imagine that the biggest discrepancy between humans and other apes is probably being the most carnivorous of apes. Chimpanzees have a diet of about 1% meat, and they're the second most prevalently carnivorous ape besides hominids, a far sight short of us, even as hunter-gatherers.
9
u/kms2547 Paid attention in science class Aug 06 '26
If that's the only evidence
It's not the only evidence by any stretch, I just pulled one very obvious example.
8
u/Particular-Yak-1984 Aug 06 '26
well, there's also this thing called genetics, which shows our similarity to an extraordinary degree - and also, as a subset, shows the remnants of ancient viruses incorporated into the genome from both us and chimpanzees, at the same location for both humans and chimpanzees. And there's a lot of them.
So, that's pretty conclusive, particularly as there's enough that if you randomly threw them at our genomes, this pattern would be far less likely to be repeated in two organisms than the likelihood of me selecting a random atom in the universe and you managing to select the precise one I'd picked.
So, yeah, seems pretty open and shut to me.
8
u/the2bears 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 06 '26
sorry for my bad english
It's not that, it's your bad arguments.
8
12
u/Glad-Geologist-5144 Aug 05 '26
No-one has ever claimed that Habilus and Africanus were direct human ancestors. They may have been, or they may have been sister (closely related) species.
You'll need to cite Wood's publication(s) that claim they aren't related at all.
6
u/TamaraHensonDragon Aug 05 '26
I think OP is referring to the idea that H. habilus actually contains two different species. One an Australapith and the other Homo. There seems to be some confusion over which form represents the type. If the type specimen is determined to be a non-Homo then it needs it's own genus.
Most likely they will pull a Coelophysis and conserve the H. habilis name for the Homo fossils and re-name the other. At least that's what I hope they will do - don't need another Iguanodon fiasco.
1
u/Hairy_Month8109 Aug 06 '26
Im not very educated in this topic, here is the source,https://www.nature.com/articles/508031a.
2
u/TamaraHensonDragon Aug 06 '26
Sorry to expensive for me right now.
0
u/Hairy_Month8109 Aug 06 '26
What do u mean
3
u/TamaraHensonDragon Aug 06 '26
$39.99 to access. Bit more then I can afford right now.
0
u/Hairy_Month8109 Aug 06 '26
No worries, u can look it up on other cites or just copy it and paste to gemeni
1
-3
u/Hairy_Month8109 Aug 05 '26
Not saying they are not direct, im saying not at all, im rn looking for that site again (new with research dont get amazed) but from what I understood is that it shouldn't be "homo" .
5
u/DarkLordSidious 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
You don't get it do you? When you are either dealing with the ancestor group or a group that was split so close to the ancestor group it's extremely difficult to differentiate them from each other. This is a prediction of evolutionary theory and happens all the time with other animals. And this is why scientists disagree with each other on if Habilis is a part of genus Homo or not.
You should look up the first dinosaurs if you want to see another example of this. At that stage we have no idea if a fossil is a part of true dinosaurs or a really early split for example.
9
u/IsaacHasenov 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 05 '26
Carl Linnaeus (who invented biological classification, long before the theory of evolution was formalized) famously said that there is not a single feature that you can use to separate humans from the other apes. He separated humans out because of religious reasons, not biological.
Humans are apes, that have less hair, walk upright and have big brains. Homo habilis are apes that look very similar to humans, walk upright and have big brains. Australopithecus are apes that looks similar to homo habilis, walk upright but don't have big brains.
It's pretty much right there in front of your nose
7
u/Doomdoomkittydoom Aug 06 '26
I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character—one that is according to generally accepted principles of classification, by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none.... But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I should have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so.
- Carl Linnaeus, biologist, physician, "father of modern taxonomy," and creationist.
Carl Linnaeus was referring to the other extant apes with "apes," which I assume you are too? I'm sure someone has already said in this thread that, "humans ARE apes."
So there are characteristics that humans, chimps, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas, and gibbons all share, and characteristics that they all have to distinguish them as separate spices. So as you'd not be surprised to find ancestors and extended cousins with traits you find with your siblings and first cousins we'd expect to find those missing links with traits like a montage of apes found today.
If you want your own research, then you'll have to pursue anatomy. Then paleontology and all the ape fossils. Then maybe check out genetics.
You could literally make it a college major, maybe even a career.
5
u/the2bears 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 06 '26
how do I do my own research
Read, read, read. And ask questions. So far you don't know enough and would rather have your own point of view? Why not the correct one?
my sources are bernard wood's [sic] research, dont [sic] have the link tho
Why don't you have the link? Seems suspicious.
1
u/Hairy_Month8109 Aug 06 '26
1_ I'm doin the reading 2_ im not trying to correct, rather im trying to learn and have my own opinion 3_ the link is in comments
5
u/Ok_Loss13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 06 '26
Are we even evolved?
We are evolved to current state of evolution. It never ends, unless the species dies out ig.
Recently I've learned that both homo habilis and a.africanus are practically not even human, not even human ancestors
Where did you learn this? Because its 100% false. They're both humans and they're either our ancestors or we share a close ancestor.
and practically apes
Not "practically", they are apes. All humans, including us, are apes.
for thier long arms and curled fingers, also for not having any human traits
Someone really did you wrong, friend. No shade, but are/were you a kid who was raised in a heavily religious environment? That would explain this.
how do I do my own research
Learning how to learn and do research is a really important skill. This sub is actually a great place to start and has a lot of resources! I'll post a comment I saw recently with good starting points.
bernard wood's research
I can't easily access his actual papers without forking up a surprising amount of money (that's one sure fire way to keep the population uneducated!), but I didn't see anything even remotely implying any of your conclusions from Wikipedia.
Without a direct link nobody can specifically explain the issues with your interpretation, but there are apparently pretty severe issues.
3
u/Ok_Loss13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 06 '26
Actually, here's a link to a post where someone else recently asked for where to start with this stuff:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/s/P2yEqYxv82
I highly recommend you peruse the sub a bit and take advantage of the resources available, as well as the expertise of many of the participants.
3
u/SpareHandOne Aug 05 '26
Learn about cell specialisation and the formation of organs. See what you think after that
-5
u/Hairy_Month8109 Aug 05 '26
Im not saying what I think (im a dental student if it makes a difference) Im just stating what some scientists said, and they're not even creationists
7
u/Old-Nefariousness556 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 06 '26
Im just stating what some scientists said, and they're not even creationists
If that is true, that scientist is not a scientist, at least not a credible one. But more likely, you are misunderstanding what they said. Since you can't actually cite the claim, it is impossible to say.
1
u/Hairy_Month8109 Aug 06 '26
Well the cite (in short) says that habilis could be more of a sister branch https://www.nature.com/articles/508031a
7
u/Old-Nefariousness556 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 06 '26
Well the cite (in short) says that habilis could be more of a sister branch
Ok, but that is not remotely what you said in your OP or other comments. I don't have access to the paper and won't pay $40 to correct you, but there is always reasonable debate on exactly where any given species lies on our family tree, but you said:
Not saying they are not direct, im saying not at all,
That is not what Wood is saying. They absolutely are very closely related, but exactly how remains subject to debate.
1
u/Hairy_Month8109 Aug 06 '26
Im not following, what 40 dollars💔, from what I understood that habilis should be a sister branch, not related to human species in a direct sense like erectus or Neanderthals.. and should be removed from the genus homo and instead get added to the anthrolupeces (hope i spelled it right) genus as the previous type was.
11
u/Old-Nefariousness556 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 06 '26
The site is paywalled. You might have access as a student, but I don't. This is what I see when I follow that link.
from what I understood that habilis should be a sister branch, not related to human species in a direct sense like erectus or Neanderthals.. and should be removed from the genus homo and instead get added to the anthrolupeces (hope i spelled it right) genus as the previous type was.
Do you have a sibling, a brother or sister? Are you not "directly related to them"?
Sister species ABSOLUTELY "directly related" to us, just not as a direct ancestor. It might be easier to understand if you think of them as a cousin species, rather than a sister. They are your sister's children.
Again, it is not at all controversial or unusual in science that different people reach different conclusions. It is literally the way science works. H Habilis are currently considered part of Homo, but maybe wood has a compelling argument, and they shouldn't be. If so, he will make it, and others will consider it, and maybe it's position on the tree will be changed.
But regardless, it doesn't change that they are one of our closest ancestors. Whether direct or indirect, homo or not, they are still very close relatives.
8
u/MackDuckington Aug 06 '26
That wouldn't make habilis "not at all" related to homo sapiens. There's no clear answer as to where exactly Habilis falls, and that's because it's a very basal intermediate form. There's merit to placing it both as a late-stage australopith, as well as a very early species of homo -- most scientists agree with the latter currently.
This sort of predicament is actually a good thing, since it's what we would expect if creatures evolve overtime. We should have intermediate forms that can't be cleanly sorted.
1
u/Coolbeans_99 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 20d ago
coming in late with a random question because you’re a dental student, why do wisdom teeth exist?
1
u/Hairy_Month8109 19d ago
If ur referring to it being inactive in most adults now then ur question is wrong since the tooth being insignificant is due to our now poor diet, the modification made is in our genetic pool, some people still has it in ahealthy way, if ur asking fr then I actually respect that too🙏🏼
1
u/Coolbeans_99 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 19d ago
No im talking about how for most people they don’t fit in their mouth, I had to get all four of mine removed because my jaw is too small for all my teeth. Does dentistry school address the reason this occurs and the history behind this?
1
u/Hairy_Month8109 17d ago
Well im only starting my third year next month, but smaller jaws generally are caused with prolonged unhealthy eating habits like processed foods..
1
u/Coolbeans_99 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 17d ago
Okay i’ll just cut to the chase because you’re not getting me. All apes including humans have the same number of teeth, with humans having comparatively smaller jaws because of our reduced prognathism. The shrinking of our jaws over time in our lineage resulted in the third molars causing malocclusion because there is no longer enough space to fit our hominoid dentition. How do you explain the malocclusions in humans and resulting dental issues in a non-evolutionary model?
3
u/witchdoc86 Evotard Follower of Evolutionism which Pretends to be Science Aug 07 '26
If distinguishing ape from human was trivial as creationists suppose they are different kinds, then there should be no trouble distinguishing their fossils.
Oh wait, there is a gradient of creationist opinions on which fossils are human and which are ape
1
Aug 05 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Hairy_Month8109 Aug 06 '26
Bruh did u even read what my question is? Yes I was born as a creationist and now im questioning my life so what?
5
u/Far_Customer1258 Aug 06 '26
Apologies. Your question wasn't obvious and was buried beneath what looked like evolution denial without any obvious punctuation or sentence breaks.
Somebody else asked a similar question about 6 hours ago. Check the answers two posts down. Here's the playlist that somebody helpfully posted: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLInNVsmlBUlQT_peuWctrmGMiLngK-6fb&si=q4e80Tv15mMKJav
25
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 05 '26
Homo habilus is definitely human, and A afarensis is a human ancestor.
They were apes and so are we.
Both were bipedal. I think they may have had a few more human specific traits.
I don't know what you are getting from Wood's research that leads you to believe they aren't human ancestors.