What was believed to be the Jinniushan woman skull from 260.000 ybp when it was excavated in 1984 ? Was it believed to be Homo erectus pekingensis ? Is it nowadays believed to be a Denisovan ? Or was ever believed there were a population of "Asian heidelbergensis" (which in a way is true because ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans diverged from each other when they were still both heidelbergensis, but when they came to Northeast China Denisovans were likely already Denisovans) ?

P.S. Is the Dali man of the same species of Jinniushan ?

Weird hypothetical. If we gave the top evolution experts 300 billion dollars (An Apollo program for evolution), what puzzles could we crack? Would we be likely to observe abiogenesis? evolution of a new genus? evolving multicellular life from single cells? Discover an incredible fossil record?

According to most people the first hominid to leave Africa was Homo erectus 2 million years ago. This is why the first theory on Homo floresiensis saw it as a dwarf kind of Homo erectus itself. However its morphology is quite primitive...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj9hcGLq6iHAxUJg_0HHey9DroQFnoECBIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fscience%2F2017%2Fapr%2F21%2Fhobbit-species-did-not-evolve-from-ancestor-of-modern-humans-research-finds&usg=AOvVaw1MdMMa7iJFwHxrc0aem0BY&opi=89978449

-We use a dataset comprising 50 cranial, 26 mandibular, 24 dental, and 33 postcranial characters to infer the relationships of H. floresiensis and test two competing hypotheses: H. floresiensis is a late survivor of an early hominin lineage or is a descendant of H. erectus. We hypothesize that H. floresiensis either shared a common ancestor with H. habilis or represents a sister group to a clade consisting of at least H. habilis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, and H. sapiens.-

Can we find a way to know what kind of hominid is it ? Did it diverge from our lineage at Homo habilis or at Homo erectus ?

The mutation had to be in the gonadal cells first and then it appeared somatically and because the mutation was useful it was transmiited?

Pls help me understand this

Edit: if anyone can direct me to some technical paper or article about this i would be grateful.

I want a YouTube playlist that teaches biology from zero like very very basic, so i can study evolution while knowing some background?

What impact does inbreeding have on an organism in relation to evolution? (animals and plants)

I read an article today by Washington Post Opinions and I wanted to know more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/22/dogs-humans-history-evolution/?utm_source=instagram&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_opinions&crl8_id=a7cd0f8a-cda6-4705-bb51-26c22d8e13a0

I’d love to learn how dogs gave humans an evolutionary advantage and how we domesticated and changed their species from wolf to dog. Do you know any books on the topic?

I thought that swim bladder evolved into lungs but someone today told me nope that's not true he said lungs evolved first. Which one is true? And how did we figured it out?

Was it random mutations or something different?

Do animals see human weapons on their own as dangerous? Can predators notice a human with a weapon is dangerous and a human without one is easy prey?

I'm writing a research paper for Grade 12 Biology and i'm very interested in how bacteria uses HGT to exchange genetic material and become resistant to anti-bodies. Specifically, i was trying to look into E.coli, however, i'm having difficulty finding studies that showcase/prove how E.coli is using/has used HGT to become resistant to anti-bodies. I was wondering if anyone knew of any studies/sources that i can use or perhaps if there was another bacteria with more evidence/studies that supports how it has used hgt.

Okay, so for this term's research assessment we need choose a claim from one of the assigned claims on our assessment given to us by our teacher, research the claim and decide whether we agree with it or not, develop a specific research question based on the claim, and then research it. The claim i've chosen is:

Evolution does not build new genes from scratch.

I've been trying to prove this claim by showing evidence for evolution through divergent evolution in animal species. The original research question i developed was:

“Polar bears evolved from brown bears due to changes in their environment.”

However, upon further investigation I found that this was false with little evidence and I have since decided to give it up and try to make a new research question based on a claim. I wanted to research an interesting animal that evolved from their ancestor and developed traits in order to better adapt to their environment but at this point i'm desperate for anything since the draft is due next week.

The claims are general statements give to us by our teacher. We are able to either agree with a claim and prove how it’s true, or disagree and prove how it’s false through research. Kind of like prompts. We are currently learning about genetics and evolution and have to research based on this prompt as it relates back to our syllabus. The claims are only meant to be a starting point to help us find a research topic.

Does anyone know any possible research questions i could do for this claim or any of the following? Anything interesting will do since i get bored easily and want something i can look into and that will impress my teacher since i'm in grade 12 and this is my last report for this subject.

The other possible claims are: "Genes Determine an organisms entire phenotype", and "Human evolution due to natural selection has stopped."

If anyone has an idea for either of these please do share. I apologies if this post is confusing as i'm not entirely sure how to word it so if you have any questions feel free to ask.

The timetable:

-4.5 billion years ago Earth was formed,

-4 billion years ago the Earth had cooled down,

• 3.7 billion years ago the first life was present on the Earth, that is prokaryotes,

-1.5 billion years ago the eukaryotes developed.

Why is the time gap between the evolution of prokaryotes and eukaryotes this big? First life evolved in 300 million years, but it took 2.2 billion years to form a nucleus. Why?

Title basically.

Sorry if this is the wrong sub, or a stupid question.

My thought process is basically: if some people have to eat 25-50% more than others to maintain their current body weight and functions, why didn’t those people all die off during times of food scarcity? Does fast metabolism help with something besides losing weight in humans?

On NPR, a host was saying a person had bipolar disorder which is heritable because her parents were in a death camp and "epigenetics" caused that trauma to be passed to her. How is that different than Lamarkianism?

I mean like the very first life forms. Do they materialise out of random chance and evolve into life or did that just happen a few billion years ago and go from there

Denisovans, compared to Neanderthals, have about 2% extra introgression from a 2 million years divergent hominid, most likely what we know as Asian Homo erectus. They acquired it 350,000 years ago.

What kind of Denisovans here are meant to be ? Are the erectus admixed Denisovans the Altai Denisovans, the Southeast Asian and Pacific islander Denisovans, or the exclusively Papuan Denisovans ?

In China, from the time Maoist propaganda adopted the multiregional model of human evolution, and the Peking man became the physical symbol of Chinese identity, the OOA theory never established itself as the main model of human origins.

According to the heavily disproven multiregional theory, East Asians are descendants of Homo erectus pekingensis, and Australo melanesians are descendants of Homo erectus erectus (Java man).

However even believers of this disproven theory can not ignore the discovery of Homo floresiensis.

We do not even know if it was a habiline hominid or an erectine hominid with insular dwarfism, and we do not know how long it survived and if it lived beyond Flores.

What does modern Chinese paleoanthropology believe about Homo floresiensis ? Do they see it as an extremely early hominid, or as a pygmy Homo erectus ? And if they see it as a pygmy descendant of Homo erectus, do they think it is on the pekingensis or on the javanese line ?

I was growing some cilantro as a newbie to herbs, and didn't know that once a plant "bolts" (goes to flower) they will no longer send up any shoots. However, if they are harvested before the flowers appear (or certainly before those go to seed), then the plant will regrow that harvested but.

From what I understand, this is because the plant "wants" (teleological fallacy) to ensure it creates an offspring. But what governs this? And why do plants "give up" (teleological fallacy again) once they've bolted? Is any remaining energy invested in the root system, or does the plant go into hibernation? Do some species bolt over and over again, continuously? I imagine this might be applicable in tropical rainforests, but not in temperate zones where huge nutrient waste could be caused by weather patterns varying month it month and year to year (early/late frosts, droughts, fires etc).

I'm also wondering if this behaviour is observed in some animals. I have heard that human depression is akin to hibernation, and it seems that perhaps we suffer from "bolting" when romantic relationships don't work out.

Hi everyone, I am trying to understand a bit about how typology works when talking about human species.

This was triggered by a question/thought experiment I had.

If we had a time machine and could collect individuals from different periods; could a sample population of Homo Erectus that lived 150 thousand years ago successfully breed a population of fully fertile offspring with a sample population of Homo Erectus that existed 1.5 million years ago?

One would suspect the answer to be yes, because they both belong to the same species.

But then I thought how Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, even though being interfertile, according to some hypotheses seem to have issues with the fertility of their offspring, with asymmetric fertility based on parental sex, and they had a common ancestor something like half a million years ago.

So how can an Erectus from 1.5 million years ago be the same species as one from 150,000 years ago?

The answer seems to be that these categories (and to an extent inter-fertility) are based on morphology. When we say there exist Homo Erectus 150,000 years ago we are saying that populations with conservative morphology existed then. But genetically wouldn't they be as distant from the 1.5 million year old Erectus group as a sample of Homo Sapiens of that time would be?

If that is the case how can we consider these time-separated Erectus populations to be of the same species?

In fact, how are these time-spans for human species determined?

I understand that typology is in a sense arbitrary, but it seems counter-intuitive to have a human species that spans a time-span of over a million years while we also split offshoots of this same species, which exist semi-contemporaneously with it, into different species.

What am I missing from my understanding here?

Its beneficial to virus to slow its reproduction and keeping bacteria alive it infect. Even virus might order the cell to divide as itself reproduces. Leaving offspring a living enviroment it can keep evolve and gain full controll. Virus might reproduve its shell but just not leave. Cell's genetic material merges or get discarded in time.

So, I'm but a wee bab in the world of science with a rudimentary understanding of how these things work. The understanding I have of this system doesn't super lend itself to the series of events that allowed us to consume dairy longer into adulthood. Lactose intolerance cannot kill someone, so it's not removing people from the gene pool that way, and I doubt being able to drink milk would increase ones chance of finding a mate much. So, why did we have the evolutionary draw towards increasing our tolerance of lactose? Is it just that milk helps strengthen bones and they increases survivability? Or maybe during a famine, people who could drink milk had one more option for nutrients? Or is the issue with my understanding of evolution being that heavily gene pool based just too over simplified to have an answer to this yet?

When OOA theory started to be taught in schools in most developed countries ? I found out it became common knowledge and was accepted by most only by 1990, is it true ?

Or is this process so extremely unlikely that it did not happen after the first one