Another point - The author of that article presumes to speak for God when he stated that "If creation occurred, it did so just once and there will be no "second acts." If he believes that God created life on Earth, surely then that same God can create life again if He so choses. If, however, the author is certain that the Creation will not happen again, then, he must be saying that God cannot re-create, which certainly indicates that his God isn't so powerful after all.
" Anything involving God, or His works, they believe, is to be censored because humankind must only study ideas it comes up with apart from any other influence. Such thinking led to the Holocaust, communism and a host of other evils conjured up by the deceitful and wicked mind of uncontrolled Man." This displays further that author's lack of logic, or his lack of understanding political theory.
I have no obection to anyone stating that his faith does not allow him to believe in evolution. Faith is, well, it's faith. Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines the word thusly:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Faith requires no logic, nor does it require any action by the object of that faith. Faith, like beauty, is in the eye and mind of the beholder.
09-08-05 04:42 PM jusork Science based on faith wouldn't be science.
You don't need to observed first hand for a process to be observed and/or used as evidence or supporting evidence. A scientist could document the abundance of a species of local bird and, decades after his death, another scientist could've documented the abundance of a different-looking bird in the same location, compared the two, and figured that perhaps there was a mutation and the mutation was able to overcome the original. This is scientific observation that can be compared and examined from then on. And there's actually a documentation of birds in London before and after the city's industrialization. Originally they were white, yet over a long time, black birds prospered since they could blend in with the the darker sky. You can also compare and observe fossils and date them in order while noticing how they probably changed over time.
Mutation, genetic drift, etc. are scientifically provable. We know it exists, and we know there are similarities between organisms, both living and dead. We know the life of creatures are competitive, and we know the ones best fit for their surroundings are the ones to prosper. Evolution is well supported and completely sensible. Creation is the one that can't be scientifically supported in any way. Nice try.
09-08-05, 04:01 PM jusork Correction. It was moths, not birds.
09-08-05, 08:08 PM GarColga Cal Thomas is an idiot preaching to a scientifically illiterate choir!
And for the gazillionth time, creationism is not a theory.
09-09-05, 09:58 AM newnickname There aren't "only two models". There's the generally accepted scientific model, and then there's an infinite number of religious and/or mythical accounts. There may also be some far-out scientific alternatives, but none that have enough evidence, or a good enough alternative explanation of things... yet.
The writer deliberately sets up a false choice between only the 'Intelligent Design' or 'Scientific Creationism' (or whatever they're calling it now) view and the maninstream scientific. Otherwise, his attempt to appeal to fairness - "why not present the evidence and allow students to decide which view makes more sense" - would be exposed as the sham it is. If you're going to allow the Christian fundamentalists' view into the classroom, why not the accounts of countless other religions, or the wacky 'the spaghetti monster did it' theories? Why should a teacher waste valuable time presenting something we already know isn't scientific? Maybe if there's a spare afternoon - but how many of those are there in the typical term?
Scientific facts absolutely do not have to be directly observed. Many scientific observations are of the effects of the actual phenomena we're looking for. No one has directly observed sub-atomic particles, for example. Saying that evolution happens too slowly to be observed is like saying that the curvature of the earth is too big to see; it's wrong in both fact and principle. (Observed Instances of Speciation)
The writer throws in the usual grab-bag of out-of-context or outdated quotes. This convinces no one but the choir Garcolga mentions. Scientific discussion is not carried out by lobbing more or less authoritative quotes at each other. Nobody cares who said it - the question is if it makes sense.
The writer also sets up another false dichotomy, and straw-man argument: 'Who would argue that these and many other scientists were ignorant about science because they believed in God? Contemporary evolutionists who do so are practicing intellectual slander' There need be no conflict between religion and science. Most Christians, for example, seem to accept the conventional scientific theory of evolution (I mean around the world, not just in the US). Most scientists around the world are religious.
The conflict is between evangelist liars who are trying to sneak their religion into school classrooms under false pretences and the principles of good education and science
09-10-05, 12:26 PM And what is the evidence for "intelligent design"? In fact, how can "intelligent design" be ojectively identified?
Michael Behe published a book some time ago, proposing the test of 'irreducible complexity', and giving some examples. The examples have been shown to fail his own test, however - all can be adequately explained by evolutionary mechanisms. Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe
We have scientific definitions of what 'evolution' is, and the evidence is in the fossil record, morphology and distribution of organisms, DNA studies and embryology.
When the writer asks for evidence for intelligent design to be presented, what lesson does he propose? "Everything's really, really complex, so some people question how it just happened." I guess that wouldn't take up too much time.
09-11-05, 12:02 PM newnickname 'In the 1970s and the early 1980s, the purveyors of "creation-science" achieved numerous political victories. They succeeded in stifling the teaching of science in many local schools; they induced many school districts to stick biblical creation myths into science classes; they persuaded crooked schoolbook-publishers to print "science" books larded with creationistic double-talk; and in Arkansas and Louisiana they secured the enactment of state laws which fostered the teaching of "creation-science" in public schools.
Eventually, however, their fortunes deteriorated. Scientific organizations, individual scientists, and competent educators exposed "creation-science" for the trash that it was, civil-liberties organizations undertook lawsuits to reverse some of the creationists' most conspicuous political successes, and the "creation-science" hoax started to fall apart. The Arkansas "creation-science" law and the Louisiana "creation-science" law were declared unconstitutional by federal judges who found that the concept of creation was supernaturalistic and religious, not scientific [note 32] -- and by 1987, when the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the voiding of the Louisiana statute, shrewd creationists were busily overhauling and sanitizing their enterprise and their vocabulary. They stopped their overt promotion of biblical miracle-stories as explanations of nature, they dumped the term creation-science, and they even dumped the word creation. Instead of saying that organisms had been fashioned by Yahweh, they now claimed that organisms were products of "intelligent design," conceived by a nameless "intelligent agent" -- and instead of saying that organisms had been divinely created, they said that organisms had "appeared abruptly" or had "suddenly appeared."
The first major exhibition of the creationists' new lexicon of double-talk was Of Pandas and People. That book had been developed by a fundamentalist organization called the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), but it was printed and sold by Haughton Publishing Company, an outfit whose principal business seemed to be the printing of agricultural labels and catalogues. In 1989, Haughton began promoting Pandas as "a supplemental high school text."
Pandas was rather narrow in scope. The FTE writers [note 33] dwelt on biology, the science that creationists hate most intensely, and they purported to examine "two different concepts of the origins of living things." One of these concepts, they said, was held by "evolutionists," the other by "proponents of intelligent design."
Pandas was meant to convince dupes that the "evolutionists" were wrong and that the "proponents of intelligent design" had the right explanation for the existence and diversity of living things.
Though the writers referred to Yahweh by such code-names as "intelligent agent" and "intelligent cause" and "primeval intellect," the material in Pandas was readily recognizable. It was a collection of old "creation-science" stuff, replete with the usual devices -- false claims, false analogies, false dichotomies, and ringing refutations of scientific constructs that were unknown to science. (I especially liked the passage, on page 144, in which the writers cited eight organisms -- a plant, a pig, a duck, a turtle, a bullfrog, a carp, a moth and a yeast -- and announced that "None of [these] species is ancestral to any other." Right, but no scientist had ever claimed otherwise. No biologist had ever claimed that a duck was the ancestor of a pig, or that a pig was the ancestor of a yeast, or that a yeast was the ancestor of a duck.)'The Textbook League
"I'm a scientist. In science, all knowledge is tentative. Everything is a theory until a better idea comes along. Then we use the better idea. So by definition we're skeptics and we agree with the Creationists when they say the theory of evolution will be history when someone comes up with something better. But I have a question for those who believe in Creation. If something better came along, would you agree that Creationism is wrong? In other words, are you willing, at least in theory, to change your beliefs?" The ICR Exposed
09-11-05, 02:23 PM methos Addressing the quotes specifically - they say nothing of evolution vs. intelligent design, but only that the scientists believe in a god of one sort or another. I see not contradiction and, in fact, agree with them. I also share an office with one of the most religious people I know - and even he can't understand why anyoneone would believe "intelligent design."
The argument of teaching the controversy, or whatever they're calling it now, fails on two counts. First, intelligent design not only isn't scientifically accepted, it hasn't even been tested. Rather than doing something that would require their "theories" to hold up to any kind of informed scrutiny like publication in a peer-reviewed journal, advocates of intelligent design set up presses to print their books and argue with school board officials. Second, everything in science is a theory, not just evolution. To investigate the complexities of any one theory would take more than one college-level course and cannot be done as some small part of a high school level course. Evolution has held up amazingly well since Darwin. Far from the suggestions of this article, scientists are not purveyors of orthodoxy. We are constantly poking at the old to find flaws and looking for the new. Despite this, evolution remains far and away the theory that best explains the cureent diversity of life as well as the changes we can see in organisms on shorter scales.
The religious right favors separation of church and state??
09-11-05, 10:06 PM Professor The quote originally posted by Paul to start this thread was by Cal Thomas from August 2002, in response to the controversy in Cobb County, GA, over stickers disclaiming the evolutionary content of biology textbooks.
First, consider the source: Cal Thomas is an arch-conservative columnist and pundit who regularly appears on TV and in print as an apologist for various right-wing extremist positions, along with a few others of his ilk such as William A. Rusher. Having read his columns and seen him on TV, I find nothing wrong with CarColga's pithy assessment above: "Cal Thomas is an idiot preaching to a scientifically illiterate choir!"
But lest I be accused of arguing ad hominem, let's focus on the core of Mr. Thomas's argument excerpted by Paul in his original post: "If evolution occurs, it does so too slowly to be observed."
DG addressed this right away by mentioning bacterial antibiotic resistance, an example of evolution in action par excellence. This is what creationists choose to dismiss as "micro-evolution," grudgingly acknowledged as real (because it doesn't contradict the Bible) in contrast to "macro-evolution" (remember, this is their terminology) occurring on longer time scales, which they dispute.
The famed case of the peppered moths alluded to by Jusork would be another example of so-called micro-evolution, as would -- I suppose -- the elegant and painstaking research of Peter and Rosemary Grant over a period of 20 years in the Galapagos Islands, as documented in the Pulitzer-Prize winning The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time.
None of the foregoing means anything to creationists, who dismiss (or grudgingly acknowledge) all this direct evidence as a sideshow, and instead concentrate on willfully denying all of the indirect evidence for the theory of Darwinian evolution which has been pouring in for some 200 years.
Newnickname has already mentioned the fossil record, one of the great pillars of physical evidence on which the theory of evolution rests. Even by the time of the 1925 Scopes trial, the evidence supporting Darwinism was already staggering and indisputable. Of course, you have to have enough imagination to grasp "deep time" -- spanning many hundreds of millions of years -- and the correlation of the fossil record with geologic science.
Creationists, boxed in as they are by the 6000-year lifetime of the universe as revealed in Genesis, lack this imagination and refuse to open their eyes to the mountains of evidence (literally!) that our world is nearly a million times older than they would have you believe. Hand in hand with the creationist view of the origin of species goes so-called "flood geology," a laughable accounting of geologic strata and fossil placements based on the single catastrophic event of Noah's flood described in the Bible. Cal Thomas buys into this one, too, without a shred of doubt.
It would be nearly three more decades after Scopes before the structure of DNA was described by Watson & Crick in 1953, opening the floodgates of molecular biology and finally revealing the mechanism for the observed individual variation within a species that drives evolution. This established another great pillar of physical evidence on which evolution now rests -- modern genetics -- whereby we can observe mutation rates (genetic drift, as mentioned by Jusork) and other broad-based DNA evidence of evolution. How about the fact that all living things on earth, from humans to worms to bacteria, share exactly the same genetic code and even identical genes for basic biochemical enzymes?
A great deal of science is based on indirect evidence. As pointed out by newnickname, many accepted facts of science cannot be directly observed, such as the existence of atoms. Even in antiquity the roundness of the earth could be inferred from, say, the curved shadow falling across the moon during a lunar eclipse, even though the ancient Greeks never had spacecraft from which to directly observe the shape of the earth. Lack of direct observation has always been a challenge to sciences based on so-called historical observations, such as geology, cosmology, and evolution. But the scientific method -- arguably the most powerful and successful intellectual tradition ever invented by man -- uses physical observation combined with logical inference to build a beautiful and comprehensive view of reality.
Organizations such as the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Research are easy to poke fun at as mere collections of ignorant and misguided crackpots, with shills like Cal Thomas as their dupes and spokesmen. But theirs is a dark and sinister agenda, threatening to bury hard-won scientific truths in order to further political and religious goals. They would have us retreat 300 years or more into the past on the basis of their religious fanaticism.
The first (and worst) casualties are the minds of our children, according to the mantra of "teach the controversy" of creationism in the science classroom -- even though it's a phony and concocted controversy that doesn't really exist. This is an especially perverse form of child abuse -- dare I call it "brainwashing?"
Christian fundamentalists can believe what they want, but by hijacking the education of children they ultimately threaten civilization itself, as surely (if more subtly) as Islamic fundamentalists threaten civilization with acts of terrorism.
09-11-05, 10:57 PM juanruiz Professor,
I have spent a good deal of time over the past few years reading and contributing posts to various discussion boards. In that time, I have noted many excellent contributions. Let me say that yours above is one of the finest it has been my pleasure to read,
09-11-05, 11:39 PM Professor jr: Very nice of you to say so. Of course I am never satisfied with my own writing. (I am now chagrined to notice, for instance, that I used the phrase grudgingly acknowledge twice in the same post -- I must fire my editor Smile ). Or as Mark Twain said, "If I had more time I'd have written less."
I said somewhere in another thread on AP that I'm in fast company here with many smart and articulate people (you are one of them!) so I appreciate your vote of confidence. Others might find my remarks tedious and long-winded, or -- even worse -- f.o.s. Wink I happen to be passionate about this particular topic.
09-12-05, 10:19 AM juanruiz Although in my neck of the woods there has been no push to install Creationism in the curriculum, I'm still glad my kids have graduated from high school and are no longer subject to the vagaries of the public school system.
09-14-05, 08:52 PM Professor newnickname: I forgot to thank you for providing that great link to The Textbook League website in one of your posts above. It's full of interesting stuff and a valuable addition to my collection of links to skeptical articles.
11-08-05, 01:43 AM bunkboy There are some things about both that we can observe, the residual affects.
For example, if creation were true, then God would have left his fingerprints everywhere. Someone once said, "an artist only ever depicts himself." So, if God was the artist, he would have left himself everywhere.
On the other hand, if we evolved from countless lesser species, those other species would still be around, or at least some of them would be. For example, there would still be hominids identifiable as cromagnon, neanderthal, homo erectus, australopithicines, gigantopithicus, etc.
But there aren't any, are there? How convenient. The only explanation in my mind is that there are homo sapiens all over the planet, but these others were only anomolies.
As a matter of fact, we're not really looking for a single missing link between us and something lower on the food chain. We're looking for literally thousands of missing links, all of which have vanished (or never were).
Evolutionists are faced with the monumental problem of explaining the huge leaps in development that are still blank in between each stage they say we evolved through. Every single one of them, without exception, is extinct.
What are the odds of that?
11-08-05, 09:46 AM newnickname
quote:
On the other hand, if we evolved from countless lesser species, those other species would still be around, or at least some of them would be.
Why would they still be around? Why would they be 'lesser' species?
Evolution is a change in the DNA of a species (or part of a species) over time. Those rare random variations in DNA that give an organism an advantage in reproduction and survival, over others in its species, tend to spread throughout that species - because organisms with the variation can survive and reproduce better. The species gradually changes. There is no reason for the earlier form to 'still be around'.
Because sometimes an isolated group from a species changes, while the original group doesn't (or changes in a different direction), we can see different 'versions' of the same species existing at the same time; sometimes it's difficult to decide if what we see are actually different 'species' (Did you know that there might be three species of elephant in Africa?). This hasn't happened with humans, however, and there's no particular reason it should have. The odds of all our ancestor species being extinct are absolutely high - we evolved from them. The odds of all similar, 'branch', species being extinct are also pretty high - humans competed with them for the same ecological niche and were better at it.
Evolution does not mean that every form that a modern species has been through should still be around (99% of species that have existed are extinct), and it does not mean that species go from 'lesser' to greater - it's all about fitting the prevailing environment, just being better suited by chance.
Those are very basic errors in your understanding of evolution.
Moreover, there isn't really a problem in explaining 'huge leaps of development'; there is overwhelming fossil evidence of transitional forms. In particular, there is a reasonably good indication of how humans evolved from apes in the fossil record, without any huge leaps.
Oh, and welcome to Answerpool!
11-08-05, 03:22 PM bunkboy "Why would they still be around?"
Law of averages.
You can't possibly believe that out of all the thousands of stages that we supposedly evolved through that only a single one survived?
Out of the millions of species on the planet that did survive, only one hominid?
Makes you wonder how we survived ourselves, doesn't it?
Not only should there be many different species of hominid still around competing with us for control of land, technology, resources, and development, but there should also be millions of their own evolutionary paths still surviving.
For example, why is there not a single hominid species surviving with 30 teeth? 32 teeth? 34 teeth?
Why are there no surviving hominids with craniums larger than gorillas but smaller than ours? Why are there no hominids with craniums larger than 1200 cc (all of neanderthal's descendants)?
Why are there no hominids surviving with non-fully extended knees, Lucy's descendants? Spinal collumns not centered under the skull? Rigid sagital crests? Heavy mandibles?
Did every single one of them just stop reproducing?
Or is it that when one member of a species gains an advantage in Europe, every other member of the same species on every other continent is automatically out of the competition?
Why are there not significantly different hominid evolutionary paths on each continent? Why did every continent produce members of the homo-sapiens-sapiens species? Same number of teeth, same cranial size, same spines, same opposable thumbs, etc.
What are the odds of that happening?
11-08-05, 03:29 PM DorianGreyed I assume that you mean that we have survived so far. Homo sapiens hasn't been on the planet that long, far shorter, in fact, than dinosaurs were on the planet. It appears that you also assume that we have stopped evolving. What evidence can you provide for that?
11-08-05, 03:34 PM bunkboy All of your assumptions are incorrect.
What I believe is that homo-sapiens-sapiens is the only species of human that has ever existed, and all variations that we've found are anomalies of the one species, probably due to inbreeding within very small groups, which explains why they didn't survive and we did.
11-08-05, 03:36 PM newnickname Out of the several species of hominid that we know have existed, only one has survived. It's not so amazing. We can see many examples, all over the world, of how one better-adapted (or more aggressive or more fertile) variety can dominate an ecological niche, eventually killing off 'the competition'.
And of course ancestors in our direct line of evolutionary descent have disappeared. If we evolved through many stages, why would those stages still be around? 'Evolution' is 'change'; the species changes. Examples of earlier versions can be found in fossils, but of course they're not still walking around. That wouldn't be evolution.
It is a matter of chance that we survive today. Probably, in the long run, we won't. 99% of all species that have existed are extinct. There is a huge amount of fossil evidence of this.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
What's amazing to me is what people are willing to swallow.
You actually think that we could have fully evolved from apes through only "several species of hominid"? I'm sorry, but the process would require thousands of stages, and they're all missing.
You are also mistaken your view of our fossil record. Yes, we have discovered countless thousands of bones, but over a period of hundreds of millions of years, they represent an infinitessimal percentage of the total, hardly worth mentioning.
You also avoided my challenges completely. They must be uncomforable for a true believer in evolution to think about.
++++++++++++++++++++++++ 11-08-05, 04:03 PM bik74 Well read these topics/posts before, but didnt say anything as it clearly was out of my league... still is. I did post an article before stating that why are we the only 'intellgent life' present on earth today. There shold have been more. I know some of us are far from intelligence but still. I think the main point in evolution that goes against relegions is the possibility that we came from monkeys. I seriously doubt that this point has been proven (or is possible to prove). All the other points of evolution.... I do not see how they contradict relegions.
Plus i do not see any reason to post any sites contradicting evolution.
11-08-05, 07:59 PM newnickname
quote: You can't possibly believe that out of all the thousands of stages that we supposedly evolved through that only a single one survived?
Yes, we can and do. If we evolved through the stages, then of course they didn't survive. 'Evolution' means 'change'. Saying that all ancestor species of ours should have survived is similar to saying that yourself as a five-year-old should still be around. If previous stages of our development were still walking about, that wouldn't be evolution, but some kind of time-travel sci-fi movie.
Of course, there may have been hominids not in our direct line of descent - 'branch' species. It's possible that they could have survived, given a different roll of the dice, but not a fatal flaw in evolution theory that they haven't; we can see many instances around us of how a better-adapted (or more aggressive or more fertile) organism drives others competing in its ecological niche to extinction.
quote: Or is it that when one member of a species gains an advantage in Europe, every other member of the same species on every other continent is automatically out of the competition?
It's not black-and-white like that. That's a typical rhetorical trick (I don't know if you meant it that way, but it is). Sometimes one species can gain an advantage, while the others continue in reduced circumstances. Sometimes one species can push others 'out of the competition'. Humans have killed of many unrelated species (even primitive humans - the first Americans seem to have wiped out many of the large mammals there; Maoris did the same in New Zealand) why couldn't thay have killed off closely related species, too? Isn't that more likely, in fact?
quote: You also avoided my challenges completely.
I think you must have edited your post after I answered. In any case, that the various possible forms of hominid you mention are extinct does not mean that the theory of evolution is flawed, for exactly the reasons mentioned above. In this particular evolutionary competition, one species won out completely; sometimes it happens. Which challenge has been avoided?
quote: Yes, we have discovered countless thousands of bones, but over a period of hundreds of millions of years, they represent an infinitessimal percentage of the total, hardly worth mentioning.
Now, that is avoiding the challenge. We have discovered countless millions of fossils, and they all show evolutionary change over time. Not one of them has been found out of the place in time or geography predicted by theory of evolution - no modern forms of a species bizzarely appearing before the primitive forms. Not once out of order - that should make you think, shouldn't it?
Dismissing this mountain of evidence as 'not worth mentioning' is ducking the challenge.
The stages of our evolution, the thousands of gradual accumulative changes are mostly missing, it's true. We do however, have enough evidence to support the idea that we evolved from apes. Simply dismissing this evidence as 'an infinitessimal percentage' is not convincing. Sometimes an infinitessimal percentage of a mind-bogglingly huge amount is enough.
(I didn't say that we evolved through 'only "several species of hominid"'. I said 'Out of the several species of hominid that we know have existed, only one has survived'. Of course there must have been countless "stages" - countless small changes adding up eventually to new species in an ongoing process.)
quote: ...all variations that we've found are anomalies of the one species, probably due to inbreeding within very small groups...
You can't have looked at the evidence properly. There is way too much variation to represent merely 'anomolies caused by inbreeding'. Moreover, the fossils do not show the asymmetries or obviously ill-functioning 'adaptions' typical of disease or inbreeding.
Bik74 - the idea that we evolved from monkeys needn't contradict evolution. Many people accept the idea that a Divinity invisibly guided evolution, and, at the appropriate moment, gave the emergent humanity a soul.
11-08-05, 08:49 PM bunkboy
quote: If we evolved through the stages, then of course they didn't survive. 'Evolution' means 'change'. Saying that all ancestor species of ours should have survived is similar to saying that yourself as a five-year-old should still be around.
(Can anyone else see the brainwashing here?)
Have you thought this through? How about we build a model:
2 parents
(censored: reproduction cycle)
10 kids..............who find 10 mates
(censored: many reproduction cycles)
100 kids
TOTAL POPULATION:
112 members of the same species 100 seperate branches of evolutionary direction, potential of 100 totally different species in the coming generations.
That's how evolution works.
Each generation, the potential for new variations within a single species multiplies geometrically.
Then the members migrate, and some become isolated. This is where natural selection comes in.
With isolation comes independant evolution restricted from mixed gene pools of the total population. (Isolation can be as simple as distance--too far to go to find a mate.)
Why don't you try that answer again, and explain to me how all the other competing members of our species simply whiffed into non-existence. There have been literally billions of potential branches in the last 15 million years (if you want to go all the way back to a true ape.)
11-08-05, 09:14 PM newnickname You seemed to be asking 'why didn't other hominids survive?'. Now, you've moved on to 'why haven't other hominids evolved?'.
Anyway - the theory of evolution can answer both.
Your model is misleadingly described. You don't have '100 totally different species' in 100 offspring from the same grandparents; you might have the potential for that, but only in broad and poetic terms. The kids will be of the same species as the grandparents. Of course, they will have minor variations which will (probably) have a tiny (or no) effect on their ability to survive and reproduce - height, weight, eye-colour, smartness and so on. But they will all be of the same species, and crucially, will mate with members of the same species. The smart kid will not inevitably produce a line of increasingly smart kids. She could be attracted to some dumb brute as a mate. (It happens Smile).
There might be a gradual change in the population over time, if, for example, extra hieght, fat or a darker skin tone offer a small advantage in eventual reproduction. Actually that's what we see - isolated groups have evolved in different directions - but not so much that we have a new species. All humans can still mate with all other humans. No group was isolated enough for long enough. Humans have only been around a short while, in evolutionary terms.
What you describe in your model is not how evolution works. It's an exaggerated hyper-evolution, where new species can spring up with every variation and in every generation. It's nonsense. You do seem to confuse the terms 'species', 'stage' and 'variation'.
15 million years need not lead to a plethora of new species. Evolution happens by chance, and sometimes the chance useful variations just don't happen. Most variations have a neutral or (especially in complex organisms) negative effect on survival and reproduction. If an organism is well-suited to its environment, and that environment doesn't change too drastically (e.g. by the introduction of a competitor) it can continue unchanged for a long, long time. Hence - 'living fossils'. There's no necessity in the theory of evolution for isolated groups to become new species. They do tend to drift apart ('genetic drift') from other groups, and that's what we see in humans. We just didn't drift much. It's not a fatal flaw to the theory.
The other competing members of our species that may have evolved since we became dominant have not 'simply whiffed into non-existence'. They have never existed. There hasn't been enough time for these other species to evolve from humans - what we see are many variations in isolated groups that may have become different species, given time - but the inventions of the airplane and the vacation romance, among other things, have put a stop to that Cool.
The competing hominids that had evolved before we became dominant - our cousins - have gone the way of the dodo, and probably by much the same means, except we wouldn't even have had to kill them directly - just hunt and, er... procreate more effectively than them.
11-08-05, 10:20 PM DorianGreyed There is some evidence that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals coexisted. While the anti-evolutionists seem to take this as proof of their belief, it is, in fact, evidence of the opposite. Nowhere does it state that evolution happens to all members of a species at the same time. In fact, it would be extremely unlikely (to the point of impossibility) that it could happen that way. If evolution in part of what later would be called Germany was slower than it was in the Middle East, and some Homo sapiens from the Middle East migrated (for whatever reason) to the northwest, coexistence would happen. It may have been possible that the two species intermingled enough to produce offspring. (Now I am getting into an area of which I know very little, so I will stop here.)
Now back to your regularly scheduled disagreement. But first, these words from our sponsor. SUPPORT ANSWERPOOL Using the PayPal Link at the Top of Most Pages.
11-08-05, 11:18 PM newnickname 'The Neanderthals remain something of a mystery in the story of human descent. Scientists still debate whether they are a closely related sub-species of modern humans or represent a collateral line of late Homo erectus, related to but not ancestral to modern humans.' www.wsu.edu:8001
We don't know if they were part of our line of descent, or a branch line. In any case, they died out. They were a lot stronger than us - but all that brawn would have taken some feeding. Maybe relatively weedy modern humans were better adapted to survive and raise kids on scraps in hard times.
More from that site:
'Their arm and leg bones were, in fact, approximately twice as thick as ours, suggesting their immense strength and the rugged conditions of their existence. Otherwise, their bodies are strikingly modern. They had prominent noses, long faces with sloping foreheads and big skulls. Their average brain capacity (1400-1500 cc) actually exceeds that of modern humans-- although the configuration of parts of the brain is different. The speech areas of the Neanderthal brain are not as developed as ours and the forebrain is smaller...
...Remains of over a hundred Neanderthal individuals have been recovered, and they exibit a great variety of individual characteristics. The skull at left, dated 35,000 to 53,000 years ago, shows a distinctive pattern of wear on the teeth, suggesting that this individual wore down his teeth in an continuous, strenuous activity such as processing hides by chewing in order to make them pliable enough for clothing. If so, this would be the earliest indirect evidence for clothing.
The tools at top right are characteristic of Neanderthal culture (Mousterian); they had an effective but fairly simple tool kit which changed very little over the life-time of the species. This constrasts sharply with the rapid advances made in technology by early modern humans.'
Bunkboy would have us believe that fossil evidence like that tells us only of 'anomalies due to inbreeding'. Roll Eyes
11-09-05, 02:43 AM bunkboy Newnickname is having trouble understanding long periods of time and lots and lots of reproduction cycles. I would have expanded out the model to cover 1000 or more generations, but there's a constraint of space here.
You have to use your imagination. It is absolutely impossible for each member of a species to evolve exactly the same way, even with intermarriage.
Some of them moved to the Americas, some to Australia. Maybe it would be easier if you told me how Australian Aborigines evolved exactly the same physical characteristics as humans in every other corner of the world?
By that I mean they walk perfectly erect, they are similar in height, have the same number of teeth, same cranial capacity, same sagital crack (no crest), same occipital lobe, same jaw line, similar bone mass, same body hair, same capacity to talk, and in fact actually developed spoken and written languages, same opposable thumbs, etc.
How long have they been isolated from the rest of the gene pool, and yet miraculously experienced exactly the same birth defects (mutations) that changed their genetic structure the same way the rest of the world changed theirs?
(I have a very simple explanation, though I'm sure you won't like it. In fact, I predict Newnickname will spend all his time explaining why I just have to be wrong and avoid the question altogether.)
You guys really need to step in and save yourselves. This single concept knocks the wind out of evolution. Surely someone here can save it!
(Or is it possible that evolution is just a psuedoscience with a large religious following? Are we just supposed to take it all on faith?)
11-09-05, 09:51 AM newnickname
quote:
Maybe it would be easier if you told me how Australian Aborigines evolved exactly the same physical characteristics as humans in every other corner of the world?
They did not evolve separately. As you know, modern humans all over the world evolved from a common ancestor. Hence the similarities.
There are several models of human evolution - one in which modern humans spread from Africa, and evolved the small variations that we see today. It is supported by DNA evidence, by which we can find the earliest common human ancestor (mitochondrial Eve) in Africa 200,000 years ago. We all show a connection to this woman. There seems to have been an evolutionary 'bottleneck', when there were relatively few humans around, and it's only the ancestors of this one group that have survived.
The multiregional evolution model also explains why Aboriginal Australians are like us, however. 'The hominid fossils from Australasia are argued to show a continuous anatomic sequence, with the earliest Australians displaying features seen in Indonesia 100,000 years ago. Similar evidence is seen in northern Asia. One million years old Chinese fossils differ from Javan fossils in ways that parallel the differences between north Asians and Australians today. Morphological continuity is also evidenced by prominently shoveled maxdlary incisors occurring in high frequency in living east Asians and in all the earlier Asian fossils.' The features you mention had already evolved before people spread South from Asia into Australia. There has been enough time since then for some chance variations to occur and be retained, obviously, bu not for new species. The multiregional model has humans leaving Africa about 1.8 million years ago.
Your questions are based on a misunderstanding - that evolution happens quickly. Humans had an erect posture, were similar in height, had the same number of teeth, same cranial capacity, same sagital crack (no crest), same occipital lobe, same jaw line, similar bone mass, same body hair, the same capacity to talk or develop spoken and written languages, the same opposable thumbs, etc. when they left Africa. It's no surprise that they kept those traits.
There were hominids with significant variations along the lines you mention before humans took over - like a virulent weed taking over a garden and not allowing similar plants to survive - but we drove them to extinction, or they simply died out (as has the vast majority of species that there have been). That's no big surprise either. We've driven many species to extinction, and the competitors in our ecological niche would be likely to go first.
We are absolutely not supposed to take evoltuion on faith. It's an explanation based on evidence. It's the best explanation, so far, of the evidence we have, so far. It could be overturned at any time by a better idea or by new evidence (but hasn't even been challenged by anything you've said, so far).
11-09-05, 04:49 PM bunkboy
quote: They did not evolve separately. As you know, modern humans all over the world evolved from a common ancestor.
Do you think Aborigines swam to Asia to find mates? Yes, they did evolve seperately. They basically had to.
Now about Mitochondrial Eve, from whom you say all humans descend. Would you please explain how she was only capable of producing a single linear descent and a single species of human in modern times?
Compare with Mitochondrial Shark, who had no such limitation and was somehow able to produce a huge variety of sharks, from the hammerhead to the great white, to the little gold-fish looking ones, most of whom cannot (and/or will not) mate with another species. That is what evolution should look like: each generation producing a geometrically larger number of possible evolutionary paths.
Somehow, I think you're not capable of an expanded view of the problem. Come on, now, this is not rocket science. Evolution never develops along a single linear path.
The only way it could is if an asexual life form produced only a single offspring per life time, thus yielding a single evolutionary path.
You haven't even come close to answering the puzzle. That's okay, take your time. I know it must be hard for you to abandon your deeply held religious views all at one time.
11-09-05, 04:53 PM bunkboy
quote: Your questions are based on a misunderstanding - that evolution happens quickly.
I have never said so.
The best explanation for only a single human species in the world is that evolution doesn't happen at all, and that any severe mutation yields offspring who can't reproduce.
Gradual evolution, over the several million years since Lucy, would have produced countless different variations, all evolving seperately, like birds and insects, like old-world monkeys and new-world monkeys.
Everything else on the planet comes in great variety, why only one lone species of human?
11-09-05, 04:57 PM bunkboy Where are all the evolutionists?
Are they hiding?
Is it up to newnickname to bravely defend his theology all by himself? (And what a brave fight he is rendering. It reminds me of a stout-hearted hobit fighting Boromir!)
11-09-05, 05:47 PM Sherasi First of all, I don't generally participate in discussions about religion, etc because rarely is there discussion that doesn't turn into a mud-slinging match and that is not what I call an amusing or entertaining time.
Secondly, there HAVE been other evolutionary branches of Humans or human-like creatures. They have died out because of some feature that did not translate into long term survival for that variant whether it be adaptation to environment or whatever.
Not ALL birds and plants that have ever lived still live today. That is the whole premises if Evolution. Life evolves.
This current crop of humans will one day die off and another dominant species will take over. That species may not even be Hominid.
Who knows when or how, but it will happen.
This site details the evolution of the Hominid Species.
11-09-05, 05:51 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by bunkboy: Is it up to newnickname to bravely defend his theology all by himself? (And what a brave fight he is rendering. It reminds me of a stout-hearted hobit fighting Boromir!)
Newnick doesn't need any help at the moment. He's saying it all. I'm sure he'll tag one of us in as he starts getting dizzy. Big Grin
And it seems you accidentally called science a theology. Woops!
11-09-05, 07:07 PM Sarai Bik: I'm no expert either, but to clarify, I don't think any scientists claim that humans evolved from a monkey. Instead, it seems that humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor. So we're not sons-of-monkeys, we're just monkeys'-distant-cousins. Smile
I don't see why this idea must be contrary to a religious view of life.
I wanted to post the image from the site Georgia posted to clarify, but it is too large. If you like, I recommend you check it out. It's pretty clear.
11-09-05, 07:26 PM Sarai Bunkboy, relative to the history of the world, human beings haven't been around for long. As others have pointed out, there have been other human species.
As Newnickname said, the basics of what makes us human already existed when humans left Africa. You say that we must have evolved separately. We did. That's why we have racial differences- those are smaller evolutionary changes. Not big enough to form a new species - possible because we didn't stay isolated from each other for long enough (and not likely to, since we're not remaining isolated from one another), but enough to form some noticeable differences, like different eye shapes, hair textures and skin colors.
(Here is an interesting and fairly simple scientific explanation for the differences in skin color for anyone who's curious.)
11-09-05, 07:51 PM newnickname
quote:
The best explanation for only a single human species in the world is that evolution doesn't happen at all, and that any severe mutation yields offspring who can't reproduce.
That isn't the best explanation. "Evolution doesn't happen" isn't an explanation - it's a statement of faith. Fair enough, if it's what you want to believe, but it doesn't explain anything. It also ignores the fossil, DNA and morphological evidence for evolution. In fact, we've seen evolution happen. We see it happen every day - you've heard of superbugs in hospitals, resistant to modern antibiotics? Where do you think they came from? What about the AIDS virus? Where was that hiding for the last two million years? It couldn't have evolved recently, could it?
As I've already said, most mutations/variations have a harmful or negative effect on the ability to reproduce, especially in complex organisms. On that we can agree. Of course a 'severe mutation' would be likely to have a negative effect (in dog-eat-dog primitive societies, anyway). But every so often a small variation gives a small but significant advantage in survival and reproduction - this variation will multiply and spread because it gives that advantage. It can then be built upon by other small variations. The species will slowly change - but not by great leaps. Evolution is slow and cumulative.
The theory of evolution does not propose change through 'severe' mutation. Again, you're attacking a distortion or misunderstanding of the theory, not the theory itself.
quote:
Gradual evolution, over the several million years since Lucy, would have produced countless different variations, all evolving seperately, like birds and insects, like old-world monkeys and new-world monkeys.
Everything else on the planet comes in great variety, why only one lone species of human?
I've already pointed out that (a) modern humans have not been widespread enough for long enough to produce new species. We left Africa at the earliest a couple of million years ago and (b) it is entirely possible that modern humans out-competed any similar species. We have driven many other species to extinction - even as primitive pre-agricultural tribes - so of course we could have driven our evolutionary competition to extinction, too.
Not everything else comes in great variety. There are examples of where an invading species has driven out its competitors. This is in process in Europe at the moment; those squirrels again - 'North American gray squirrels are driving native red squirrels to extinction in Great Britain and Italy by foraging for nuts more efficiently than the native species. Such competition for resources is not easy to observe, but the end result is the loss of a native species.'www.actionbioscience.org
Usually this happens in a limited area, so the less well-adapted species doesn't become extinct, except in that one locale, but humans' habitat is the whole planet - there was nowhere for other hominid species to escape to and flourish unmolested.
Now that is an explanation (although an abbreviated one), backed up by example and evidence, not just an unsupported statement of faith, like 'The best explanation for only a single human species in the world is that evolution doesn't happen at all...'
A pretty dense article on how many species of hominid there may have been - www.findarticles.com.
11-09-05, 08:01 PM DorianGreyed That was an interesting link, Sarai. Thanks.
11-09-05, 08:11 PM bunkboy So far, no serious attempts to answer a very specific, very simple question:
Why is there only one human species today?
Lets take a look at the attempts:
11-09-05, 08:13 PM bunkboy Sherasi states that all other branches have died and then sends us to a site that lists an assortment of examples.
Strike one.
The odds are enormous against this explanation against ALL other branches of hominid species dying for any number of reasons you want to list.
Not even a single other one survived? After all those millions of years?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 239 | Location: Great lakes area | Registered: 11-07-05
quote: So far, no serious attempts to answer a very specific, very simple question:
Why is there only one human species today?
Lets take a look at the attempts:
Some believe that humans displaced other human species (perhaps we killed them or dominated resources and left them to starve- something like that), while others believe that we mated with them and basically assimilated various species into one.
The fact that we don't know yet for certain doesn't mitigate the other facts presented in favor of evolution.
11-09-05, 08:25 PM bunkboy
quote: As Newnickname said, the basics of what makes us human already existed when humans left Africa. You say that we must have evolved separately. We did. That's why we have racial differences- those are smaller evolutionary changes. Not big enough to form a new species - possible because we didn't stay isolated from each other for long enough (and not likely to, since we're not remaining isolated from one another), but enough to form some noticeable differences, like different eye shapes, hair textures and skin colors.
Sarai writes a very clearly articulated post and makes several serious errors:
She states that hominids left Africa; untrue, they did not. Some migrated out, others stayed, and at that point they did develop seperately, and that is exactly why Africans should have craniums of about 300-500 cc and walk in a slump. They don't. Miraculously, they developed exactly the same birth defects as their relatives in Europe and Asia, and they did it without ever mating with them.
Then she states that we actually do have differences, such as skin color. That is absolutely correct. These differences are too superficial to matter. So why are we all so much the same and ALL other hominids are so different? We're not talking about skin color and blood type. We're talking about major differences as noted above, not a single one of which is represented anywhere in the world.
Sorry, Sarai, strike two.
There is no justifiable reason for all other variations to have just disappeared. All life forms fight to survive and adapt.
11-09-05, 08:31 PM bunkboy
quote: The theory of evolution does not propose change through 'severe' mutation. Again, you're attacking a distortion or misunderstanding of the theory, not the theory itself.
Newnickname is in la la land. I have never stated what the current theory of evolution is or tried to explain it away. I understand fully that there are as many ways of explaining the theory as there are people who take the time, and each has its merits.
This is what I said: "Evolution is Bunk."
I then gave my explanation of how mankind developed.
Where does he get it? Are there gasses floating around in that head building up pressure? What's the deal?
11-09-05, 08:38 PM bunkboy
quote: I've already pointed out that (a) modern humans have not been widespread enough for long enough to produce new species. We left Africa at the earliest a couple of million years ago and (b) it is entirely possible that modern humans out-competed any similar species. We have driven many other species to extinction - even as primitive pre-agricultural tribes - so of course we could have driven our evolutionary competition to extinction, too.
This is actually not true at all. One word for you:
Gigantopithicus, China, 7 million BC.
And as much as I'd like to believe you about the ample fossil record, newnickname, it just isn't there. We have bits of skulls and teeth, we're lucky to get half a complete skeleton, and we extrapolate and rebuild from there.
On the other hand, there are billions of bones that have completely disintegrated on every continent, and there thus there is absolutely no support at all that Africa and Olduvai Gorge is where it all began.
Doesn't matter.
ALL of those different hominid and humanoid species in Africa all got together and decided unanimously to just stop reproducing and die off.
That's a pretty darn big pill to swallow! All the other dumber species found ways to proliferate many varieties.
Strike three.
Let's go another inning.
11-09-05, 08:38 PM Sarai
quote: Originally posted by bunkboy:
Sarai writes a very clearly articulated post :
Thanks! Smile
quote: She states that hominids left Africa; untrue, they did not. Some migrated out, others stayed, and at that point they did develop seperately, and that is exactly why Africans should have craniums of about 300-500 cc and walk in a slump. They don't. Miraculously, they developed exactly the same birth defects as their relatives in Europe and Asia, and they did it without ever mating with them.
There are two theories about when humans left Africa and how we evolved. Neither has been proven yet. That does not, however, negate the evidence that we did, indeed, evolve. From the site I gave in my above post:
quote: [QUOTE] The two primary theories in the human origins debate are the "Out of Africa" theory and the multi-regionalism theory. Each has its own variations, and there are intermediate models, such as one favoring assimilation among the different groups. Credible evidence exists to support each theory.
The multi-regionalism theory, which relies on fossil evidence, holds that after members of Homo erectus first left Africa roughly 1.7 million years ago, they settled in different regions of the world and evolved separately but concurrently into Homo sapiens. Despite the vast distances, there was enough gene exchange between groups that an entirely new species did not evolve.
The "Out of Africa" theory relies considerably on DNA evidence. This scenario also holds that Homo erectus first left Africa around 1.7 million years ago. Evolution continued, and anatomically modern humans appeared in Africa between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago.
Beginning about 100,000 years ago, these modern humans expanded outside the continent, making their way across Asia and Europe, where they completely replaced the older species, Homo erectus.
Unlike Templeton's assertions, the "Out of Africa" theory does not support the idea of interbreeding between archaic and modern humans.
quote: So why are we all so much the same and ALL other hominids are so different? We're not talking about skin color and blood type. We're talking about major differences as noted above, not a single one of which is represented anywhere in the world.
Mating. When we found other hominids, we liked them. Wink Plus we were the fittest.
Also, I should add, we've only been alone as hominids for about 25,000. In relation to the history of the earth, that's a blink of an eye.
11-09-05, 08:41 PM bunkboy
quote: There are two theories about when humans left Africa and how we evolved. Neither has been proven yet. That does not, however, negate the evidence that we did, indeed, evolve. From the site I gave in my above post:
"When" doesn't matter in the least.
The guys with the smaller craniums existed. It doesn't matter where they went or when their ancestors left them.
What matters is why they stopped having babies after the others left.
11-09-05, 08:43 PM bunkboy
quote: assimilation among the different groups
In order for there to be only a single (one) breed remaining, all of the groups world wide would have had to assimilate.
And they would have had to do it on foot, humping it all the way accross continents.
Wait a minute! Maybe THAT's what killed them all! They never arrived!
11-09-05, 08:45 PM Sarai
quote: Originally posted by bunkboy:
quote: There are two theories about when humans left Africa and how we evolved. Neither has been proven yet. That does not, however, negate the evidence that we did, indeed, evolve. From the site I gave in my above post:
"When" doesn't matter in the least.
The guys with the smaller craniums existed. It doesn't matter where they went or when their ancestors left them.
What matters is why they stopped having babies after the others left.
My husband has dark skin and dark hair. I have very light skin and light hair. When we have children, our children cannot possibly have my hair and skin color. The fact that my children will not look exactly like me is the result of genetics, not a result of not having babies. In fact, it is the opposite: it is the result of having babies with someone who has something that, genetically, defeats your own genes.
The bigger craniums, genetically speaking, beat the smaller ones. When the big heads mated with the little heads, their kids had big heads. That's why we humans are so arrogant. Big Grin
11-09-05, 08:51 PM bunkboy
quote: My husband has dark skin and dark hair. I have very light skin and light hair. When we have children, our children cannot possibly have my hair and skin color. The fact that my children will not look exactly like me is the result of genetics, not a result of not having babies. In fact, it is the opposite: it is the result of having babies with someone who has something that, genetically, defeats your own genes.
But all of us, regardless of appearance, are all:
HOMO-SAPIENS-SAPIENS.
Only one species.
11-09-05, 08:58 PM bunkboy There are about 80 species of whales.
Why only 1 species of man?
Did Mother Nature discriminate against us? Are we too weak and inept to survive?
11-09-05, 09:00 PM bunkboy There are grizzly bears, polar bears, black bears, Kodiak bears, and panda bears.
But only 1 breed of man.
11-09-05, 09:04 PM bunkboy There are about 150 different breeds of dogs.
Dingos in Australia are not much like chihuahua's or newfoundlands, are they?
Yet only 1 breed of men.
11-09-05, 09:05 PM bunkboy What have whales, bears and dogs been doing for the last 5 million years that men have failed to do?
11-09-05, 09:08 PM Sarai Bunkboy, I think I didn't make my point clear. The point I was making was that homo sapiens sapiens mated with other species (such as neanderthals and cro-magnons) and the different characteristics eventually became assimilated enough that we became one species. They didn't "up and die" any more than the fact that my children won't be blonde will mean that my line "died out." Do you see what I'm trying to say?
As for your other questions, I don't know the answer. They're good questions. I'll see what I can find, and maybe some others can jump in here, too.
11-09-05, 09:13 PM newnickname
quote: Now about Mitochondrial Eve, from whom you say all humans descend. Would you please explain how she was only capable of producing a single linear descent and a single species of human in modern times?
This is explained in the Wikipedia article I linked to. 'Although Mitochondrial Eve was named after Eve of the Genesis creation myth, this has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living female of her time — she was not (indeed, had she been, humanity would have probably become extinct). Rather, at all times during humanity's existence there has been a large population of humans. Many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve have descendants alive today. However, only Mitochondrial Eve produced an unbroken line of daughters that persists today — each of the other matrilineal lineages was broken when a woman had only sons, or no children at all.'
quote: Compare with Mitochondrial Shark, who had no such limitation and was somehow able to produce a huge variety of sharks, from the hammerhead to the great white, to the little gold-fish looking ones, most of whom cannot (and/or will not) mate with another species. That is what evolution should look like: each generation producing a geometrically larger number of possible evolutionary paths.
There is no such thing as 'mitochondrial shark'. We have worked out when the earliest common ancestor of some particular species of shark existed - www.elasmo-research.org - so we know of a 'mytochondrial Eve' for hammerhead sharks, for instance. You don't seem to understand the concept (it is kinda difficult to get your head around).
quote: Do you think Aborigines swam to Asia to find mates? Yes, they did evolve seperately.
As I've explained several times now; current scientific knowledge suggests to us that humans evolved in Africa. They spread from there, at the earliest, two million years ago. Variations among isolated groups of humans obviously evolved, but not so much variation that we had new species. Humans already had the important traits you mentioned before they left Africa.
Other species, competing for the same ecological niche, were out-competed (or assimilated as Sherasi says). We've seen this happen - it's not unlikely.
Now, maybe this didn't happen. Maybe there's another explanation. Science is not about absolute certainty - it's about explaining the evidence available as best we can. However, nothing you have said shows that this was impossible, or that the theory of evolution can't hold.
On second thought, I may have been unfair when I said that your statement 'The best explanation for only a single human species in the world is that evolution doesn't happen at all..' was one of faith. There's nothing wrong in challenging a long-extablished theory. Einstein did it. He said Newton hadn't nailed it.
But Einstein had a convincing new theory, which was soon backed up by observation, to offer. He didn't just call Newton a blockhead and leave it at that.
Perhaps you also have a convincing alternative explanation, and some evidence to back up your statement?
quote: Some migrated out, others stayed, and at that point they did develop seperately, and that is exactly why Africans should have craniums of about 300-500 cc and walk in a slump.
You seem to be stuck on this idea that there should have lightening-fast evolution of humans producing 'major differences' since the migration from Africa. There wasn't, and there's nothing in the theory of evolution that says there should have been. There wasn't enough time (and even if there are aeons, if the environment doesn't change significantly, and no advantageous variations happen to occur, there's no prediction that a species will evolve much - hence 'living fossils'.)
quote: The odds are enormous against this explanation against ALL other branches of hominid species dying for any number of reasons you want to list.
Why? Why couldn't aggressive, hardy and fertile humans have pushed competing species to extinction, or interbred with them so that they effectively disappeared? We know that exactly that can happen in other evolutionary competitions. We know that we've driven unrelated species to extinction. Why are you so sure it couldn't have happened?
Nobody has said that other hominids 'just up and died'. You've been offered reasonable explanations - it would be polite, at least, to treat them reasonably.
11-09-05, 09:38 PM bunkboy
quote: Bunkboy, I think I didn't make my point clear. The point I was making was that homo sapiens sapiens mated with other species (such as neanderthals and cro-magnons) and the different characteristics eventually became assimilated enough that we became one species. They didn't "up and die" any more than the fact that my children won't be blonde will mean that my line "died out." Do you see what I'm trying to say?
Homo-sapiens-sapiens marrying neanderthal or homo erectus doesn't end in only one species. All parents are represented in the gene pool, and eventually, another homo-erectus baby will be born.
In our world, the gene pool is producing only homo-sapiens-sapiens. Not a single other hominid is represented, and somehow, ALL the other hominids disappeared, as well.
Yes, they actually did just up and die. They stopped reproducing, and they stopped living.
11-09-05, 09:45 PM bunkboy
quote: However, only Mitochondrial Eve produced an unbroken line of daughters that persists today — each of the other matrilineal lineages was broken when a woman had only sons, or no children at all.'
This says that she produced one unbroken line.
I asked "how". Why only 1, especially with all the help she apparently had?
11-09-05, 09:48 PM bunkboy
quote: There is no such thing as 'mitochondrial shark'.
You dork, I was making fun of you. I don't know how you could have the obvious right in front of you and you still don't see it.
Sharks have bred dozens of species that survived (more that didn't), and yet THERE IS STILL ONLY 1 BREED OF MAN.
What are we doing wrong?
11-09-05, 09:54 PM newnickname
quote: Why only 1, especially with all the help she apparently had?
It explains it in the sentence you've quoted. Because mitochondrial DNA is passed down in the female line, other lines 'broke' when a woman had only sons or no children. No doubt there are other extremely long, unbroken lines - however this one is the longest. Only Mitochondrial Eve produced an unbroken line of daughters that persists today.
A good site on Aborigine rock art--40,000 years old.
In that time, isolated from the rest of the world, they miraculously developed into homo-sapiens-sapiens, the exact same species as in Europe, who went through two other species in the same amount of time, AND BOTH CONTINENTS ARRIVED AT EXACTLY THE SAME SPECIES BY TWO DIFFERENT PATHS!
This evolution stuff is amazing.
Now is someone going to tell me that Aborigines mated with Cromagnon and Neanderthal, and then swam back over the Indian Ocean?
Be careful how you answer this one. There are physical characteristics that make the other two species different, hence the different classification. Yet today, European hominids are HSS, and Australian natives are HSS.
How in the world did that happen? +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 11-09-05, 09:56 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by bunkboy: There is no justifiable reason for all other variations to have just disappeared. All life forms fight to survive and adapt.
All life forms attempt to survive. Given a variety of possible influences and time, it is possible for multiple members of one species to not be able to make it.
11-09-05, 09:59 PM bunkboy You really need to think about that explanation, Jusork. You're making hominids look inept and dumb--dumber in fact than all the different species of rats, hampsters, mice and gerbels that did survive.
Can you tell me how such calamities hit every single continent in the world, targeting only hominids, but allowing a single hominid to survive?
I mean, after all we do have their faulty genes, don't we?
11-09-05, 10:04 PM newnickname
quote: Sharks have bred dozens of species that survived (more that didn't), and yet THERE IS STILL ONLY 1 BREED OF MAN.
What are we doing wrong?
Why should there be more than one species of 'homo'? We're not doing anything wrong; in fact it looks like we did things better than competing species.
There's only one species of Ginkgo biloba. In fact there's only one class, order, family and genus. It doesn't disprove evolution. It's just that's there's one of it left.
Possibly you'll object that there are many other trees; well, there are other vertebrates, mammals and primates, too. We're not all alone. We share most of our DNA with chimpanzees.
quote: A good site on Aborigine rock art--40,000 years old.
In that time, isolated from the rest of the world, they miraculously developed into homo-sapiens-sapiens, the exact same species as in Europe, who went through two other species in the same amount of time, AND BOTH CONTINENTS ARRIVED AT EXACTLY THE SAME SPECIES BY TWO DIFFERENT PATHS!
Is this poking fun, or is it just a mistake? Homo sapiens evolved in Africa, and migrated to Europe, Asia and Australia. Autralian aborigines did not evolve into homo sapiens in Australia; they were homo sapiens when they got there. Hominids in Europe did not go through two species (if you mean what I think you do). There were sub-species that died out or were assimilated - but homo sapiens got there from Africa, sharing common descent with homo sapiens in Australia.
quote: You're making hominids look inept and dumb..
This goes back to one of your very first errors; that it's about 'lesser' and 'greater' species. Species survive because they're well-adapted - that's all. Gerbil species survive because they are adapted to the environment, and don't have enough competitors or predators to drive them out. For them, it's not a question of being smart.
11-09-05, 10:05 PM bunkboy
quote: Why? Why couldn't aggressive, hardy and fertile humans have pushed competing species to extinction, or interbred with them so that they effectively disappeared?
Because they have to invade every corner of every continent to do it. That's the only way for your conspiracy theory to work.
If they can't, a few would get away somewhere and continue feeding and breeding.
11-09-05, 10:07 PM newnickname Humans have invaded every corner of every continent that human-like forms could thrive in. In fact, we spent most of our time fighting each other over the available turf. Humans were the specific calamity that wiped out other hominids specifically - like a virulent weed pushing other, similar leafy plants out of a garden.
11-09-05, 10:12 PM bunkboy
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: Why only 1, especially with all the help she apparently had?
It explains it in the sentence you've quoted. Because mitochondrial DNA is passed down in the female line, other lines 'broke' when a woman had only sons or no children. No doubt there are other extremely long, unbroken lines - however this one is the longest. Only Mitochondrial Eve produced an unbroken line of daughters that persists today.
Surely you can do better than that. All you've said is that only one survived.
I think we've already established that.
You're balking at the real challenge. Explain why hominids are so stupid that they just keep dying off.
11-09-05, 10:15 PM bunkboy
quote: Why should there be more than one species of 'homo'? We're not doing anything wrong; in fact it looks like we did things better than competing species.
You mean except for forgetting to breed. We really screwed the pooch in that department. (No, that's not why they died out.)
Yes, there has to be other species. That's how evolution works. Not in a straight line, but branching out every generation.
11-09-05, 10:16 PM newnickname
quote: Surely you can do better than that.
I'm not sure how it can be put more simply. I doubt you've had time to read and understand that website. Mitochondrial Eve must have existed at a time when there were rlatively few humans. Of that smallish number only she has an unbroken line of daughters that is still around today. Other lines broke somehwere along the way.
Hominids did not 'die of' from stupidity, as has been pointed out before. Homo sapiens was evidently better adapted somehow, and either assimilated them or drove them to extinction by competing for resources. It happens. You haven't explained why it couldn't happen.
quote: Yes, there has to be other species. That's how evolution works. Not in a straight line, but branching out every generation.
No there doesn't have to be other species. Most species that have existed are extinct. That's how evolution works.
11-09-05, 10:19 PM bunkboy
quote: We're not all alone. We share most of our DNA with chimpanzees.
You are not a geneticist, so I'll let this one pass. You actually have no ability to speak authoritatively that the DNA we share with chimps is even meaningful.
This is what's meaningful:
No chimp anywhere in the world can ever produce a human.
No human anywhere in the world can make a chimp.
Looks to me like it's not a match.
11-09-05, 10:20 PM bunkboy
quote: I'm not sure how it can be put more simply. I doubt you've had time to read and understand that website.
It's a one-page biology lesson.
It doesn't answer the question.
11-09-05, 10:24 PM bunkboy
quote: No there doesn't have to be other species. Most species that have existed are extinct. That's how evolution works.
I'm beginning to believe you actually believe what you right.
Look, all you're really doing is clogging up this topic with nonsense. If you don't plan on answering the question directly, do us all a favor and stop posting all those long tangeants.
Arguing "no it's not, no it's not" is hardly an intellectual approach.
Here's an idea:
1) We agree that there have been dozens of hominids at some point.
2) We agree that there is only one species surviving.
Where did the rest go?
11-09-05, 10:27 PM bunkboy
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Humans have invaded every corner of every continent that human-like forms could thrive in. In fact, we spent most of our time fighting each other over the available turf. Humans were the specific calamity that wiped out other hominids specifically - like a virulent weed pushing other, similar leafy plants out of a garden.
Think about what you're saying:
A homo-sapiens-sapiens super race invaded from Canada to Argentina, Norway to Greece, Morocco to Egypt to South Africa, all the way across Asia, captured all the islands, and headed for Australia.
They all agreed unanimously to exterminate every single other member of every other hominid species. Not a single one survived.
Do you think these things through?
11-09-05, 10:27 PM newnickname
quote: You are not a geneticist, so I'll let this one pass. You actually have no ability to speak authoritatively that the DNA we share with chimps is even meaningful.
But these guys have; 'It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.
The new value came to light when Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology became suspicious about the 98.5 per cent figure...
..."We're not any more different than we were," says Britten. "But we see a bit more divergence than before because insertions and deletions are taken into account. It almost triples the difference."
The result is only based on about one million DNA bases out of the three billion which make up the human and chimp genomes, says Britten. "It's just a glance," he says.
But the differences were equally split between "junk" regions that do not have any genes, and gene-rich parts of the genome, suggesting they may be evenly distributed.
Britten thinks it will be some time before we know what it is about our genes that makes us so different from chimps. He thinks the real secrets could lie in "regulatory" regions of DNA that control whole networks of genes. "It'll be a while before we understand them," he says.' www.newscientist.com
11-09-05, 10:32 PM newnickname
quote: Here's an idea:
1) We agree that there have been dozens of hominids at some point.
2) We agree that there is only one species surviving.
Where did the rest go?
As has been explained several times, they were out-competed and/or assimilated, and thus driven to extinction. We know this kind of evolutionary event happens, and you haven't said anything to show how this couldn't have happened for hominids.
quote: A homo-sapiens-sapiens super race invaded from Canada to Argentina, Norway to Greece, Morocco to Egypt to South Africa, all the way across Asia, captured all the islands, and headed for Australia.
They all agreed unanimously to exterminate every single other member of every other hominid species. Not a single one survived.
Stripped of the sarcasm, yes. Humans spread throughout the world. Are you saying they didn't?
There needn't have been any 'agreement' to kill off others; that's silly - this is evolution, not a conscious battle. Species compete unconsciously with other species all the time. Birds and bees do it - flowers do it.
Humans spread throughout the world, and drove any extant similar species to extinction. Why couldn't it have happened?
1-09-05, 10:47 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by bunkboy:
Where did the rest go?
We don't know exactly why they died out yet. Our knowledge of our ancestors from millions of years ago is limited a lot to fossil evidence and other artifacts. What we do know is that there were multiple species of hominids, most of them eventually died out, and that there are a number of ways for this to happen, ability to effectively get enough food or interbreeding, for example. The concept that many species of homo did die off, although not complete with definite facts, is scientifically possible.
And I'm pretty sure Homo never went to what is now the Americas. Right?
11-09-05, 10:51 PM newnickname Yes, I guess it's also possible that other species simply didn't make it in the evolutionary course of events. Actually, humans needn't have had anything to do with their extinction - it would still agree with the theory of evolution.
11-10-05, 01:40 AM bunkboy
quote: Are you saying they didn't?
Yes, I'm also saying they didn't commit genocide. The reason there are no others is because there never were.
Inbreeding is a much better explanation than early humans spreading all over the world smoking out their competitors. They would naturally travel on foot only as far as their food supply and stop, and they would build families with whatever was close at hand. Villages that are only 50 miles apart are so isolated that their language dialects will begin diverging and within a few generations they won't even be able to communicate.
You give far too much credit to the power of evolution to explain your beliefs. The fact is that evolution happens only incidentally to the larger events in nature, and variety is a much larger event. It's actually inevitable.
Look, we've exhausted your ability to respond meaningfully to these questions. You have no idea what you're talking about, and now you're just arguing.
The only thing you're capable of is claiming that we don't need to explain why there's only one species, and that's your escape from the real challenge. With all your resources, you haven't come up with a single "expert" who can explain it, either.
But your energy is commendable.
11-10-05, 01:46 AM bunkboy
quote: Species compete unconsciously with other species all the time.
Only when in close proximity. The world is too big for the competition to be world-wide, universally difficult for a single species, and especially tragic for ALL of our ancestors.
The truth is that all of our supposed ancestors were far more capable of surviving than you give them credit for. For goodness sake, they should have squeezed out any smaller monkey
