• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution question

Polaris

Active Member
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?
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I am not sure what you mean by progressive or what you mean by pre-human. These are correct terms if properly understood. But if you understand the terms they you would understand that if these “pre-human” stages were around today they would not be considered “pre-human”, they would be considered close relations to humans.

Imagine for example that some austropithecines had of survived until today. They would have been evolving right along with us. We then would not say that we evolved from those austropithecines that are alive today, we would say that humans share a common ancestor with the austropithecines that are alive today. That is to say that the common ancestor would have been an austropithecine, but not the austropithecines we see today.

Today we have fossils of our pre-human relatives and we have living species that are closely related to us. The fact that austropithecines and other species went extinct does not pose any problem for the theory of evolution that I can see. In fact I know of no other theory that can account for the huge number of species that have gone extinct and the wide diversity of species that still exist.
 

Polaris

Active Member
fantome profane said:
I am not sure what you mean by progressive or what you mean by pre-human. These are correct terms if properly understood. But if you understand the terms they you would understand that if these "pre-human" stages were around today they would not be considered "pre-human", they would be considered close relations to humans.

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.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
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.
Because they went extinct. What is it you don’t understand about that? Why do you think this poses a problem for evolution? How would you explain the diversity of life on this planet given the huge numbers of species that have gone extinct?
 

Polaris

Active Member
fantôme profane;1192564 said:
Because they went extinct. What is it you don’t understand about that? Why do you think this poses a problem for evolution?


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.

How would you explain the diversity of life on this planet given the huge numbers of species that 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.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
[/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.
It may seem odd to you but the evidence indicates that species go extinct all the time. Why should our relatives be any different.
 

camanintx

Well-Known Member
If man evolved in a progressive manner from some lesser species, then why are none of those intermediate forms of life found anywhere?

Evolution happens to populations of organisms, not the individual members. Speciation only happens when two groups of an organism are separated long enough that they become distinct.

There are several cases where the human family tree diverges, but when the two groups came in contact again one of them was apparently unable to compete and subsequently went extinct.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
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.
It's a good question, my educated guess would be that they were out-competed by their better adapted relations.
As happened with the neanderthals, and those hobbit guys they recently found in indonesia, we inhabit pretty much the same ecological niche and in those cases the better adapted usually win out i.e. us.
 

Polaris

Active Member
fantôme profane;1192581 said:
It may seem odd to you but the evidence indicates that species go extinct all the time. Why should our relatives be any different.

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.
 

Polaris

Active Member
Evolution happens to populations of organisms, not the individual members. Speciation only happens when two groups of an organism are separated long enough that they become distinct.

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

There are several cases where the human family tree diverges, but when the two groups came in contact again one of them was apparently unable to compete and subsequently went extinct.

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.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
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.
Homo erectus, our precursor, travelled out of africa up into europe and across asia. But no matter where he went, he could not escape Homo sapiens sapiens who followed him out of africa out-competing him in every environment on Earth.
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
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?

we are all the so called 'intermediates'. We are just here as a result of our direct ancestors being able to reproduce successfully. Species, as such is just a human catagoristation to make things easier to manage. These changes that seperate us occur even within the human species, with racial differences being the obvious example. I mean, the only organisms here today, are the only ones that are succesfull at surviving. We are constantly changing at a slow rate, and all of these are the intermediates, but one cant see it from our retrospective angle, or especially from a single point in time. You have to see it as an overall gradual change, not abrupt changes in phenotype.
The graph of evolution is much less step like than u may think.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
we are all the so called 'intermediates'. We are just here as a result of our direct ancestors being able to reproduce successfully. Species, as such is just a human catagoristation to make things easier to manage. These changes that seperate us occur even within the human species, with racial differences being the obvious example. I mean, the only organisms here today, are the only ones that are succesfull at surviving. We are constantly changing at a slow rate, and all of these are the intermediates, but one cant see it from our retrospective angle, or especially from a single point in time. You have to see it as an overall gradual change, not abrupt changes in phenotype.
The graph of evolution is much less step like than u may think.
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.
 

Polaris

Active Member
Homo erectus, our precursor, travelled out of africa up into europe and across asia. But no matter where he went, he could not escape Homo sapiens sapiens who followed him out of africa out-competing him in every environment on Earth.

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.
 

Polaris

Active Member
I mean, the only organisms here today, are the only ones that are succesfull at surviving. We are constantly changing at a slow rate, and all of these are the intermediates, but one cant see it from our retrospective angle, or especially from a single point in time. You have to see it as an overall gradual change, not abrupt changes in phenotype.
The graph of evolution is much less step like than u may think.

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.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
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.
Never heard of bigfoot?

Seriously though, can you think of a place on Earth that we haven't been?
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
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.
im not sure that its that unusual, and even if it is it doesnt mean that it cant have happened. i feel that this perspective can be take for multiple different species here today. We diverged from a common ancestor with the chimps like 5million years ago, we obviously had other more recent variations, but they obviously were not successful. (Chimps were though). Its all an unpredictable game.

What i find more enthralling and mysterious is why our cognative attributes accelerated in development so much as they have. What drove that is very interesting area indeed. (for me at least)

I have to go out, but would really like to continue, will add my proper responses tomorro :)
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
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.


True i do see your point, but its gradual change, untill a point is reached where interbreeding fails, and then segragated evolution continues, leaving a very speciated population on the planet. I dont deny human evolution is a little bit mysterious and facinating, will post some more of my ideas and stuff tomorro,

look forward to seeing what you come up with tonight

regards
 

Polaris

Active Member
Seriously though, can you think of a place on Earth that we haven't been?

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?
 

camanintx

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

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.

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.

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?
 
Top