Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 9:25 PM
133 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge (3 members, 130 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,446 Year: 3,483/19,786 Month: 478/1,087 Week: 68/212 Day: 29/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Java Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man???
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 52 (7918)
03-27-2002 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Peter
03-25-2002 11:16 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B] Evolution and extinction ARE intrinsically linked.
If you have 'survival of the fittest' that implies 'extinction of
the less fit'. They are the same thing.
The only reason that there is an incremental change from early
hominids to modern man is that the changes acquired along
the way made the 'newer' kids on the block more able to survive,
and having survived, breed.

The current existence of earlier forms would do more to challenge
evolution than the absence of them.

---I understand all of the points you raise but that (and the prior posts) is not a sufficient explanation to justify the non-existence of any of the less advanced hominids (under a theory of evolution there must have been hundreds of these incremental, "advancing" specimens which eventually lead to the modern homo sapien sapien). Yet despite the fact that modern apes, chimps, etc found a way to survive to the current day, none, not a one, of the prior sapiens was able to find a way to survive within their environment? It just seems implausible to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Peter, posted 03-25-2002 11:16 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-27-2002 4:12 PM leekim has not yet responded
 Message 48 by nator, posted 03-27-2002 9:21 PM leekim has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Peter, posted 05-15-2002 11:04 AM leekim has not yet responded
 Message 52 by MarkAustin, posted 08-20-2003 4:20 AM leekim has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5650 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 47 of 52 (7919)
03-27-2002 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by leekim
03-27-2002 3:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by leekim:
... (under a theory of evolution there must have been hundreds of these incremental, "advancing" specimens which eventually lead to the modern homo sapien sapien). Yet despite the fact that modern apes, chimps, etc found a way to survive to the current day, none, not a one, of the prior sapiens was able to find a way to survive within their environment? It just seems implausible to me.

Well I guess if survival of the fittest seems implausible there is little anyone can do to make it acceptable to you.
There are two things you overlooked: the transitional species in a sense did find a way to survive - by evolving into modern humans; more importantly, for those species which did overlap with hom sap, the single most important factor in "their environment" would have been competition with modern humans.

I notice you still haven't presented reasons for why such species should survive: rather your answer seems to be "I can't see why they would not." Perhaps if you would present some ideas on how early hominids could have survived in competition with modern humans - what adaptations would have enabled them to compete, then we could see if we can explain why it would not be so.

Also - you still haven't addressed the issue of why you think there should be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of hominids in the fossil record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by leekim, posted 03-27-2002 3:33 PM leekim has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 48 of 52 (7925)
03-27-2002 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by leekim
03-27-2002 3:33 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Evolution and extinction ARE intrinsically linked.
If you have 'survival of the fittest' that implies 'extinction of
the less fit'. They are the same thing.
The only reason that there is an incremental change from early
hominids to modern man is that the changes acquired along
the way made the 'newer' kids on the block more able to survive,
and having survived, breed.

The current existence of earlier forms would do more to challenge
evolution than the absence of them.

---I understand all of the points you raise but that (and the prior posts) is not a sufficient explanation to justify the non-existence of any of the less advanced hominids (under a theory of evolution there must have been hundreds of these incremental, "advancing" specimens which eventually lead to the modern homo sapien sapien). Yet despite the fact that modern apes, chimps, etc found a way to survive to the current day, none, not a one, of the prior sapiens was able to find a way to survive within their environment? It just seems implausible to me.


The "Argument from Personal Incredulity" is a weak argument, leekim.

What you are saying is, basically, "Because I, leekim, cannot conceive of X, X must not be true."

You have not provided any evidence or compelling reasons for your non-acceptance of evidence.

I repeat my other example: there are no less-advanced relatives of modern horses which survived to the present time. Equus Callabus is the last of many, some of which coexisted for millions of years. Do you find it odd or inconceivable that there is only Equus Callabus today and not any of the others? Why or why not?

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by leekim, posted 03-27-2002 3:33 PM leekim has not yet responded

    
Hieyeck
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 52 (8125)
04-02-2002 10:09 PM


leekim, your credibility is failing in the eyes of newcomers... you can't even get the quoting right and its becoming an eyesore. REMEMBER: PRESENTATION COUNTS OR DO THEY NOT TEACH THAT IN SCHOOL. would you go to a court room in a hippie shirt and swimtrunks? (i'm not gonna recieve much credibility either with my poor grammar and spelling and being a high school student)

anyways back to the subject: if you do some reaserch, you'll find that you need a marsh-type environment for fossils to form. rarely was Africa abundant with marshes. It was mostly a rain forest (unbelievable, but true. saw it on a documentary from my provincial station [we live in provinces, not states up here in Canada]). Many of the species of humanoids died out. the modern hom sap sap (herby refered to as HSS) is only a branch compared to the grand tree of the evolution. remember that evolution takes many paths, as Darwin proved on the Galpagos Islands with 4 very (very very very...) similar finches. >3 million years of qukaes, volcanic eruptions, etc. moves the ground alot, therefore fracturing and disentergrating many fossils. 'Lucy' was found with one side of her hip distorted because of some animal trampling on her remains and crushing the bone before fossilization (or something of the like).

something wierd i've noticed... creationists use this form of quoting:
"~~~~~~~~~"
-~~~~~~
evolutionists use the UBB form of quoting..

werd.


  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3106 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 50 of 52 (8450)
04-11-2002 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by leekim
03-21-2002 4:03 PM


Now that I think about this, we, mankind, may not need the "crutch" of transitional forms to project the inbetweeness of biologic change.

I think this is what D'Arcy Thompson may have meant by the principle of negligability on the implementation would need to be proven on morphometrics funded grounds first that the geometric mathematician would be found to have a sufficent amount of "spirit" to address the concerns for or need of "intermediates". I would however, not, be found supporting explicity Gould's particular paleoecological scenario.

I would need to work out my difference with Russel on Cantor to show this idea more explicitly without entering debate in morphometrics by an instance in the deabte between development of limb regernation and limb development within the idea that thinking of ICHYTHEOSTEIGA has brougt to mind not to the digits able to regrow.

Fox's 80's show can not capture this but I certainly do not control the universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by leekim, posted 03-21-2002 4:03 PM leekim has not yet responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1996 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 51 of 52 (9676)
05-15-2002 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by leekim
03-27-2002 3:33 PM


[b] [QUOTE]
originally posted by leekim

---I understand all of the points you raise but that (and the prior posts) is not a sufficient explanation to justify the non-existence of any of the less advanced hominids (under a theory of evolution there must have been hundreds of these incremental, "advancing" specimens which eventually lead to the modern homo sapien sapien). Yet despite the fact that modern apes, chimps, etc found a way to survive to the current day, none, not a one, of the prior sapiens was able to find a way to survive within their environment? It just seems implausible to me.
[/b][/QUOTE]

You seem to be suggesting that modern apes have NOT evolved.

Evolutionary theory puts forward that modern apes are just as
far up (if you want to put it that way) the evolutionary
ladder as we are ... they too evolved from early hominids.

The reason, in a nutshell, that no early hominids exist today is
that they evolved ... their offspring at each generation
were subtly different, and selective pressure worked to keep
the 'variants' that could survive best.

On the African continent what would become Gorillas were able
to survive in the high forests because large, mainly plant-eating
creatures could survive better there (simplification).
Those hominid offspring that were better adapted to that lifestyle survived and bred, and differences accumulated over tens of thousands of years.

Evolution is gradual and ongoing, and cannot be detected by the
generations involved. Only by looking back several thousand
years can the accumulated differences be noticed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by leekim, posted 03-27-2002 3:33 PM leekim has not yet responded

    
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 1888 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 52 of 52 (51317)
08-20-2003 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by leekim
03-27-2002 3:33 PM


Evolution and environment change
quote:
---I understand all of the points you raise but that (and the prior posts) is not a sufficient explanation to justify the non-existence of any of the less advanced hominids (under a theory of evolution there must have been hundreds of these incremental, "advancing" specimens which eventually lead to the modern homo sapien sapien). Yet despite the fact that modern apes, chimps, etc found a way to survive to the current day, none, not a one, of the prior sapiens was able to find a way to survive within their environment? It just seems implausible to me.

The answer is environment change. c4 million years ago the African climate change in such a way that forests shrank. Some branches of the primate family retreated into the (unchanged) residual forests, and evolved into the chimps, gorillas etc (thus explaining why they survived: their environment remained unchanged). Others moved out into the growing savanna, and evolved into Australopithecus. c1 million years ago the climate changed again, becoming much drier and reducing the food supply. There were two evolutionary responses - the Homo line became hunters - a strategy that worked - and the robust Australopithecus evolved to eat the harder seeds etc that characterised the drier savanna - a strategy that did not work, hence extinction.

For the later replacements, as has been said Homo Sapiens Sapiens simply outcompeted Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis. One example will suffice. On one site, occupied successively by Neandethalis and then Sapiens to exploit migrating animals, Neanderthalis arrived with the animals, while Sapiens, more forethoughful, arrived before.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by leekim, posted 03-27-2002 3:33 PM leekim has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019