Question for Evolutionist

[Thanda]

I have a question for evolutionists.

From what I understand humans are supposed to have evolved from some common ancestor with apes. Now if I understand correctly evolution is not a smooth process but rather a random one where random variations occur and, with the help of natural selection, the most beneficial variations survive and continue. Now I also assume the common ancestors of human beings we found in different parts of the world.

So my question is this: Why don't we have today a remnant of some of the earlier human types (after our divergence from other apes)? That is, why are there no neanderthals or homo erectuses scattered in different parts of the world for us to see today? Why are they all dead (assuming they are all dead)?

Why is it that the only evidence we have of humans ancestors are dead bones when evolution is a rather random process? Surely there should be some parts of the world where the evolution never really took place.

By the way, although this thread is in the evolution vs creationism forum, this isn't really me trying to prove evolution to be false. I just want to know what the answers are that evolutionists have for these questions

 

[Midnight Rain]

Chimpanzee's are our closest relatives. We are incredibly genetically similar. Gorilla before that. Also we are apes. Apes aren't some other distant beings. We belong to that family. Specifically we are with the great apes. Hominidae or apes include humans. Neanderthal was our closest living relative that was also the most recent to die out. We were so closely related apparently there was consistent interbreeding. Denisovians which were also highly close to humans only died out around 30,000 years ago. There is some controversy as to why they died out. It may have been Homo-sapiens that did the deed. We are a naturally aggressive species with an obvious and impressive talent for violence. We have ended more species than any other. Hell we fight to genocide our own species....I doubt we were any kinder to our brethren.

 

[Thanda]

Chimpanzee's are our closest relatives. We are incredibly genetically similar. Gorilla before that. Also we are apes. Apes aren't some other distant beings. We belong to that family. Specifically we are with the great apes. Hominidae or apes include humans. Neanderthal was our closest living relative that was also the most recent to die out. We were so closely related apparently there was consistent interbreeding. Denisovians which were also highly close to humans only died out around 30,000 years ago. There is some controversy as to why they died out. It may have been Homo-sapiens that did the deed. We are a naturally aggressive species with an obvious and impressive talent for violence. We have ended more species than any other. Hell we fight to genocide our own species....I doubt we were any kinder to our brethren.

I hear you. But humans and chimpanzees diverged 2.8million years ago. What happened to all those other homo species that evolved during that time. Why did they all die off everywhere in the world? Why didn't some of them survive in some part of the world? Even though humans are aggressive we didn't kill off gorillas or chimps - we simply left them alone. So why did we kill of all our ancestors of the genus homo?

 

[Corthos]

I hear you. But humans and chimpanzees diverged 2.8million years ago. What happened to all those other homo species that evolved during that time. Why did they all die off everywhere in the world? Why didn't some of them survive in some part of the world? Even though humans are aggressive we didn't kill off gorillas or chimps - we simply left them alone. So why did we kill of all our ancestors of the genus homo?

Maybe because they were close enough to be in direct competition with us? History shows what happens when ANYTHING stands in our way as a species, or has an exploitable aspect that we can abuse.

 

[Thanda]

Maybe because they were close enough to be in direct competition with us? History shows what happens when ANYTHING stands in our way as a species, or has an exploitable aspect that we can abuse.

Okay maybe I'm not making myself clear. 2.8 million years ago the first representative of the genus homo evolved. We can assume this homo was in direct competition with whatever the existing ancestor of the chimp was at that time. Why didn't we kill that ancestor of the chimp but we killed EVERY one of our homo ancestors?

 

[Quintessence]

If you really want good answers to these questions, you'd be better served going to your local public library and checking out a book by an authority on the subject. Though, as far as I'm aware, the short answer is probably: (1) extinctions happen, and (2) we don't really know why the extinctions happened and can only speculate as to the causes based on the limited evidence.

Confession: the term "evolutionist" makes me cringe. Hard. I happen to be a biological scientist by training, yes, but I refuse to call myself an "evolutionist." *twitch*

 

[fantome profane]

I have a question for evolutionists.

From what I understand humans are supposed to have evolved from some common ancestor with apes. Now if I understand correctly evolution is not a smooth process but rather a random one where random variations occur and, with the help of natural selection, the most beneficial variations survive and continue. Now I also assume the common ancestors of human beings we found in different parts of the world.

So my question is this: Why don't we have today a remnant of some of the earlier human types (after our divergence from other apes)? That is, why are there no neanderthals or homo erectuses scattered in different parts of the world for us to see today? Why are they all dead (assuming they are all dead)?

Why is it that the only evidence we have of humans ancestors are dead bones when evolution is a rather random process? Surely there should be some parts of the world where the evolution never really took place.

By the way, although this thread is in the evolution vs creationism forum, this isn't really me trying to prove evolution to be false. I just want to know what the answers are that evolutionists have for these questions

What kind of "reason" are you looking for? Why does there need to be a reason? You know that species go extinct. Is that not explanation enough?

There are different species of Great Apes sharing the planet with us at the moment. Neanderthal is not among them. Species go extinct. So what?


But can you imagine how we, homo sapiens, would treat homo homo neanderthalensis, or homo erectus if they did have the misfortune to share the planet with us. We see how we treat fellow humans who with minor cosmetic differences. We abuse them, we enslave them, we go to war with them. And we see how we treat the other species of primate, we put them in zoos, we torture them,we experiment on them, we destroy their habitats are drive them to the edge of extinction.

If Neandertals or homo erectus were not extinct, homo sapiens would likely make them extinct. And perhaps we did (although that is not the current thinking in anthropology)

 

[Thanda]

If you really want good answers to these questions, you'd be better served going to your local public library and checking out a book by an authority on the subject. Though, as far as I'm aware, the short answer is probably: (1) extinctions happen, and (2) we don't really know why the extinctions happened and can only speculate as to the causes based on the limited evidence.

Well I thought rather than reading a number of books I would rather get an answer from the many experts that seem to be resident here on RF. I'm not overly interested in evolution, but it was just a question I had.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that we managed to kill off EVERY single hominin that ever existed, without exception.

 

[Quintessence]

Well I thought rather than reading a number of books I would rather get an answer from the many experts that seem to be resident here on RF. I'm not overly interested in evolution, but it was just a question I had.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that we managed to kill off EVERY single hominin that ever existed, without exception.

Setting aside that we may not have "killed off" anything... not even a little. Something like 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. And it is especially unsurprising when you understand a few things about ecology on top of it. Large organisms are high-maintenence. The professor I learned evolution from jokingly said to us in class "remember kids, when extinction events happen, the big stuff goes first."

 

[Thanda]

What kind of "reason" are you looking for? Why does there need to be a reason? You know that species go extinct. Is that not explanation enough?

There are different species of Great Apes sharing the planet with us at the moment. Neanderthal is not among them. Species go extinct. So what?


But can you imagine how we, homo sapiens, would treat homo homo neanderthalensis, or homo erectus if they did have the misfortune to share the planet with us. We see how we treat fellow humans who with minor cosmetic differences. We abuse them, we enslave them, we go to war with them. And we see how we treat the other species of primate, we put them in zoos, we torture them,we experiment on them, we destroy their habitats are drive them to the edge of extinction.

If Neandertals or homo erectus were not extinct, homo sapiens would likely make them extinct. And perhaps we did (although that is not the current thinking in anthropology)

True. But still the question lingers - gorillas, chimps, orangutans are still alive. And yet not one member of the genus homo (save homo sapiens) - from 2.8 million years ago till the present- has managed to survive to this day.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I hear you. But humans and chimpanzees diverged 2.8million years ago. What happened to all those other homo species that evolved during that time. Why did they all die off everywhere in the world? Why didn't some of them survive in some part of the world? Even though humans are aggressive we didn't kill off gorillas or chimps - we simply left them alone. So why did we kill of all our ancestors of the genus homo?

Yes. I just mentioned the two most recent survivors. However our presence may only be part of the equation. Most species die off. Humans nearly perished when our species bottle necked to less than 10k about 70k years ago. The fact we survived was mostly good fortune. It is sad that more of our cousin species didn't survive.

Though I would like a quick clarification please. When you phrased the question were you just genuinely curious or was it leading to another kind of point? Most threads starting with "Hey evolutionists" are usually trying to debunk evolution in my personal experience. Depending on which you are I can give you different answers. We have some knowledge as to why the specific other species died out and then there are also arguments as to why this is a moot point in general with human evolution in terms of having to defend evolution.

 

[Midnight Rain]

True. But still the question lingers - gorillas, chimps, orangutans are still alive. And yet not one member of the genus homo (save homo sapiens) - from 2.8 million years ago till the present- has managed to survive to this day.

Except us.

 

[Thanda]

Setting aside that we may not have "killed off" anything... not even a little. Something like 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. And it is especially unsurprising when you understand a few things about ecology on top of it. Large organisms are high-maintenence. The professor I learned evolution from jokingly said to us in class "remember kids, when extinction events happen, the big stuff goes first."

Sure, but chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and homo sapiens all survived. That means the conditions on this planet for the last few million years have been kind to the hominudae. And if it has been kind to them then it begs the question why all the other hominidin did not make it.

 

[Thanda]

Except us.

Hence the "save homo sapiens" in parenthesis.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Hence the "save homo sapiens" in parenthesis.

Ah. I missed that. Apologies. However its not so strange. Also we aren't a purely homo sapiens species as we carry the DNA of at least three other distinct species in our genes. To that extent they have lived on.

 

[Thanda]

Yes. I just mentioned the two most recent survivors. However our presence may only be part of the equation. Most species die off. Humans nearly perished when our species bottle necked to less than 10k about 70k years ago. The fact we survived was mostly good fortune. It is sad that more of our cousin species didn't survive.

It is both sad and curious.

Though I would like a quick clarification please. When you phrased the question were you just genuinely curious or was it leading to another kind of point? Most threads starting with "Hey evolutionists" are usually trying to debunk evolution in my personal experience. Depending on which you are I can give you different answers. We have some knowledge as to why the specific other species died out and then there are also arguments as to why this is a moot point in general with human evolution in terms of having to defend evolution.

I do not pretend to have evidence against evolution but I also don't take it too seriously (for some it is the basis of their belief that there is not God). I do not study it basically either to prove or disprove it. This was simply a question that popped into my mind just as a person might have a question pop into their mind about Islam without really being interested in proving or disproving the whole religion.

 

[Thanda]

Ah. I missed that. Apologies. However its not so strange. Also we aren't a purely homo sapiens species as we carry the DNA of at least three other distinct species in our genes. To that extent they have lived on.

What do you mean "we aren't purely homo sapiens". What would a pure homo sapien look like?

 

[freethinker44]

I hear you. But humans and chimpanzees diverged 2.8million years ago. What happened to all those other homo species that evolved during that time. Why did they all die off everywhere in the world? Why didn't some of them survive in some part of the world? Even though humans are aggressive we didn't kill off gorillas or chimps - we simply left them alone. So why did we kill of all our ancestors of the genus homo?

Evolution isn't just random change in DNA. It's a selection of genes that are fit for survival. If some event pushes a species to evolve, then it's entirely reasonable to believe the previous species died off.
Humans and all the other modern primates evolved because something in our genetic material made us more fit for survival than the species we branched out from.

 

[Thanda]

Evolution isn't just random change in DNA. It's a selection of genes that are fit for survival. If some event pushes a species to evolve, then it's entirely reasonable to believe the previous species died off.
Humans and all the other modern primates evolved because something in our genetic material made us more fit for survival than the species we branched out from.

I know this - I have specified it in the OP. That some species are more fit to survive is not really saying anything. Who is more fit to survive, a gorilla or a chimpanzee? Both have survived - so far. Therefore that we are more fit to survive than say the neanderthal is not really saying anything. If you can eat and reproduce you will survive, regardless of whether you're superior to some other animal. The world is a big place and has enough space for all kinds of "inferior" species.

 

[Ouroboros]

Okay maybe I'm not making myself clear. 2.8 million years ago the first representative of the genus homo evolved. We can assume this homo was in direct competition with whatever the existing ancestor of the chimp was at that time. Why didn't we kill that ancestor of the chimp but we killed EVERY one of our homo ancestors?

You mean, why didn't these ancestors live for millions of years? As far as we know, there's no animal or plant that can live that long. So I assume that's not what you meant.

We are the descendants and so are the apes. We are all the different species that evolved from the common ancestor. Until just 50,000 years ago, there was at least one, perhaps two, other Homo species around besides sapiens. So the question, why isn't there any other species that are related to the same ancestor, is answered by simply looking at all the living ape kinds that exist today. We're all related with that ancestor.