Evolution question

Polaris · Jun 20, 2008

camanintx said:
No, the graph I linked to clearly shows several instances where human sub-species have coexisted. But eventually one either became extinct like A. garhi or was absorbed with another like A. rudolfenis and A. habilis.

OK, and I can understand how that explains many of the human sub-species, but to suggest that ALL human sub-species fall into those two categories seems like a stretch.

Evidence suggests that Humans have been capable of traveling all over the Earth for thousands of years so wouldn't it be harder to believe that any group could stay isolated long enough to stay distinct?

Being capable of travelling all over the earth and actually doing it to the extent that we dominated the competition across every stretch of habitable terrain is quite a difference.

Autodidact · Jun 20, 2008

Polaris said:
If man evolved in a progressive manner from some lesser species, then why are none of those intermediate forms of life found anywhere?

It sounds as if you are not very familiar with the theory of evolution in general or human evolution in particular. There are no greater or lesser species or some species that are intermediate in contrast to other species. All species are intermediate on a spectrum.

For example...

If we evolved from some primate-like creature

We are a primate like creature. In fact, we are primates.

and this evolution was slow and progressive then there must have been thousands of in-between stages where each of those stages thrived for many thousands of years until the next notable advantagous mutation occurred. How do evolutionists explain the fact that none of these pre-human stages continue to exist anywhere on earth?

Because, like 99% of all species, they are extinct. What we have is fossils.

camanintx · Jun 20, 2008

Polaris said:
OK, and I can understand how that explains many of the human sub-species, but to suggest that ALL human sub-species fall into those two categories seems like a stretch.

I tend to think absorption is more likely than extinction. Humans were isolated on the Australian continent for 50,000 years and yet they could be absorbed in a just a few centuries. It could also explain much of the differences we see between Europeans, Asians and other ethnic groups.

Polaris · Jun 20, 2008

Autodidact said:
It sounds as if you are not very familiar with the theory of evolution in general or human evolution in particular. There are no greater or lesser species or some species that are intermediate in contrast to other species. All species are intermediate on a spectrum.

By intermediate I'm referring to the thousands of progressively more human-like sub-species that must have existed between the australopithecus and the modern human.

Because, like 99% of all species, they are extinct. What we have is fossils.

Sure we have fossils of some of them, but that doesn't address the question of why none of the thousands of intermediate human-like sub-species have managed to avoid extinction.

Valjean · Jun 20, 2008

I don't understand the debate about H. sapiens sapiens migration. Isn't it a pretty well established paleontologically that we did, in fact, quickly spread to just about every habitable corner of the planet?

Granted, if our odd, bipedal design hadn't proved so mobile we'd probably exist in more variations today, but when two races exist in the same place, with the same lifestyles and needs, competing for the same resources, they tend either to hybridize or one out-competes the other.
Things are still in flux, however. The Great Apes may still come out on top.

Interesting sideline: There may have been a distinct species of human existing as recently as 3,000 years ago, on an isolated island. Google H. floresiensis.

Why are you restricting your exploration of evolution to a single, very recent species during the last couple of seconds of the planet's long history? If you expand it to include the whole picture you'll find plenty of "transitional species."

Autodidact · Jun 20, 2008

Polaris said:
Right, so I my question is this. Why do we not find living species that are more closely related to humans? Our closest living "relatives" are still thousands of evolutionary stages away. It seems to me that evolution would result in much finer genetic resolution between complex species.

Actually we are incredibly closely related to our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos. Recent genetic research has revealed just how close.

Think about what you are saying here. Thousands of very smart scientists who have devoted their professional lives to understanding these matters are wrong and you, who have barely thought about it, are here to set them straight.

Autodidact · Jun 20, 2008

Polaris said:
[/color]So thousands of progressively human-like subspecies, who all managed to thrive for thousands of years at some point, have all just gone extinct? Seems odd to me, I would expect at least a few of them to still exist somewhere.

Why? Because of your utter ignorance? Scientists tell us that about 99% of all species have gone extinct.

God's will, possibly through evolutionary processes. I'm not flat out denying evolution, I'm open to the possibilty. It has its share of compelling evidence, but it also has its share of unanswered questions.

All of science has unanswered questions, and always will. That doesn't mean it doesn't have answered ones as well. Maybe you should start by learning what the theory of evolution says.

Autodidact · Jun 20, 2008

Polaris said:
I realize that there have been many species that have gone extinct, but the fact that ALL of the progressive human-like sub-species (except us) have completely gone extinct is difficult to reconcile.

So have all progressive wolf-like species, horse-like species, giraffe-like species, whale-like species, and so forth. If you think of species as a tree, what we have now are the leaves. For the most part the trunks, limbs, branches and twigs are extinct.

Autodidact · Jun 20, 2008

Polaris said:
So are you suggesting that the progressive human-like subspecies have never been separated long enough to become distinct co-existant groups?

OK, but that assumes then that somehow no divergent groups were ever kept isolated and therefore avoided extinction. That's what I have a hard time accepting. The planet is very large and it seems like it would be quite feasible for certain groups to have sufficiently isolated themselves and avoid competition induced extinction.

No, species go extinct for many reasons; this is just one. Basically, if they don't adapt to changes in the environment fast enough, they go extinct.

Autodidact · Jun 20, 2008

Polaris said:
I just have a hard time believing the idea that none of the Homo erectus (or the thousands of other undiscovered Homo species) ever found a place where the Homo sapiens didn't come by later and kill them off.

Well, homo sapiens are found everywhere on earth, so that it isn't hard to believe.

Autodidact · Jun 20, 2008

Polaris said:
That's my point, evolution calls for a very gradual process so I would expect to see finer genetic resolution between existant complex sub-species.

Are you familiar with how fine the resolution is? Don't you think you should find that out before deciding whether it's fine enough to satisfy you?

Autodidact · Jun 20, 2008

Polaris said:
There are a lot of places where we don't directly compete for the available vital natural resources. The earth is actually very sparcely populated. Many other species have thrived just fine, why couldn't any of the thousands of our more immediate anscestors?

You seem to think that most species survive. They don't. The overwhelming majority eventually go extinct.

Autodidact · Jun 20, 2008

camanintx said:
I tend to think absorption is more likely than extinction. Humans were isolated on the Australian continent for 50,000 years and yet they could be absorbed in a just a few centuries. It could also explain much of the differences we see between Europeans, Asians and other ethnic groups.

I think some anthropologists have questioned whether homo sapiens ever interbred with neanderthals, but that the current thinking is apparently not.

Autodidact · Jun 20, 2008

Polaris said:
By intermediate I'm referring to the thousands of progressively more human-like sub-species that must have existed between the australopithecus and the modern human.

Sure we have fossils of some of them, but that doesn't address the question of why none of the thousands of intermediate human-like sub-species have managed to avoid extinction.

I don't think it's thousands of species, I think it's more like dozens. And the answers vary for each one, nor may we ever know exactly. Usually the answer turns out to be lack of resistance to a new disease that evolved, so that is most likely the explanation for most of them--and may eventually prove to be the answer when humans become extinct.

Valjean · Jun 20, 2008

What, exactly, is a progressive human-like species, anyway, and what does progress have to do with evolution?

What you're proposing, aparently in all seriousness, is that magic is a more reasonable and plausible explanation for the diversity of life than any actual mechanism could be.

sweetsstuff2007 · Jul 7, 2008

Polaris said:
If man evolved in a progressive manner from some lesser species, then why are none of those intermediate forms of life found anywhere?

For example...

If we evolved from some primate-like creature and this evolution was slow and progressive then there must have been thousands of in-between stages where each of those stages thrived for many thousands of years until the next notable advantagous mutation occurred. How do evolutionists explain the fact that none of these pre-human stages continue to exist anywhere on earth?

Our species, like all species is constantly evolving. We are getting taller and our immune systems are getting stronger, we are getting smarter. Compare today's human to humans a hundred years ago and you will notice that there are huge differnces. We evolve and adapt to our environment. The "pre-humans" don't exist anymore simply because the environment can't sustain them. Just like there are no more mammoths (pre-elephant) or sabre-tooth tigers (pre-tiger) or any of the other pre-species. No other living thing has any pre-species in existance. If you can think of something that has an "intermediate form" in existance then, great. You have to look at all life forms, not just humans.

logician · Jul 7, 2008

sweetsstuff2007 said:
Our species, like all species is constantly evolving. We are getting taller and our immune systems are getting stronger, we are getting smarter. Compare today's human to humans a hundred years ago and you will notice that there are huge differnces. We evolve and adapt to our environment. The "pre-humans" don't exist anymore simply because the environment can't sustain them. Just like there are no more mammoths (pre-elephant) or sabre-tooth tigers (pre-tiger) or any of the other pre-species. No other living thing has any pre-species in existance. If you can think of something that has an "intermediate form" in existance then, great. You have to look at all life forms, not just humans.

You make a good point, however species generally arise from reproductive isolation from a MAIN group or the parent species, so for a while the 2 groups(both parent and child species) will exist simultaneously. Whichever one wins out is the one best suited to the environment at that time.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jul 7, 2008

Halcyon said:
He has a valid question though. It is unusual for a lineage to only have a single surviving representative, which we are of our particular groups of hominids.

It's not that unusual. Horses are another famous example. Elephants are close to this: there are only two species of them. The cheetah is the only surviving species in its entire genus.

Also, there may be some human-centric thinking at play here. We tend to think of the differences between us and other apes as quite large, but then lump other varied groups of species together. In genetic and evolutionary terms, there's probably more difference between cheetahs and other large African cats than between humans and other great apes, but IMO, people tend to think of humans as special and separate in a way that they don't do for other species. In many spheres of thought, it's quite reasonable to do this, but not when thinking about evolution.

Polaris said:
OK, but that assumes then that somehow no divergent groups were ever kept isolated and therefore avoided extinction. That's what I have a hard time accepting. The planet is very large and it seems like it would be quite feasible for certain groups to have sufficiently isolated themselves and avoid competition induced extinction.

Would you be so kind as to tell us the location of one of these places where evolutionary pressures cease to exist? I think I'd like to visit.

painted wolf · Jul 7, 2008

99% of all species have gone extinct. So celebrate the fact we haven't. (we've come very close to it.)

While I can't give an exact number, a very significant percentage of species are the only living members of their genus. (I'm tempted to say most.)

Most genera are four or less species at least among mammals.

Isolation doesn't mean as a species you will survive. It is more than competition that drives things extinct.

wa:do

Bishadi · Jul 8, 2008

Polaris said:
If man evolved in a progressive manner from some lesser species, then why are none of those intermediate forms of life found anywhere?

For example...

If we evolved from some primate-like creature and this evolution was slow and progressive then there must have been thousands of in-between stages where each of those stages thrived for many thousands of years until the next notable advantagous mutation occurred. How do evolutionists explain the fact that none of these pre-human stages continue to exist anywhere on earth?

Look around you; there is.

Watch a movie on the growth of a human from the egg stage; watch the tail bones develop in the early stage, count them, then count how many there are when born.

the miracle development from 2 single celled life's (sprem/egg) and become a person; is sharing evolution right in front of you. Who cares what people say about 'it ain't so' ......... see it for yourself. Did a human come from a single cell and develop into a 100lb + life form ....

we take for granted what is right in front of us; believe existence (God) not the isolating doctrine of people.

So watch nature, inquire with nature and your studies or simply allow your experience and knowledge combine to open up reality. Use what you have absolute control over, your own integrity. and if you have questions, ask them or use the internet and research them.

time to forget what other believe

Evolution question

Active Member

Intentionally Blank

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Intentionally Blank

Intentionally Blank

Intentionally Blank

Intentionally Blank

Intentionally Blank

Intentionally Blank

Intentionally Blank

Intentionally Blank

Intentionally Blank

Veteran Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Grey Muzzle

Active Member