Java Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man???

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I would not expect many at all humans to be present in the geologic column, it is even a thought to consider why there are any, at least in the flood scenario. I totally agree that we should be finding many many of these fossilized specimens of proto-humans.

---

I'm curious as to the distinction you make - why would you expect to find few modern humans but many hominids?Perhaps this should read "I would not expect many modern humans to be present in the geologic column in the flood scenario. We should be finding many many fossilized proto humans in an evolutionary scenario."However if this is the case it still doesn't make a lot of sense, at least in this terse form.Why would you not expect many humans fossilized in the flood scenario? What differentiates them from other drowned species?Why would you expect to find many many fossilized "proto humans"?

quote:

---

As for Gene, you assertion that 'without evolution none of the above should exist' seems to be implying that Evolution is the only mechenism explaining these findings. Quite a bold statment, I have found no problem with their existance.

---

As it stands this sentence says as much about your reasoning as about the evidence: it is fair of you to let us draw our own conclusions.Also fair is your precise wording: "Evolution is the only mechenism [sic] explaining these findings. (My italics).Evolution is indeed the only mechanism explaining them at present. No doubt there are other possible theories which could explain them, but there are none except evolution which explain them at the moment with an acceptable level of internal consistency, logic, and consistency with known natural processes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by leekim:
---Wow, four thousand (or slightly more)...considering there should be hundreds of thousands of these "ancestors". The matter is quite perplexing?

---

Why on earth do you think there should be hundreds of thousands of fossilized ancestors?Having worked on the excavation of burial sites ranging from < 1000 years old to > 5000 years old, I can assure you that even given protected conditions the survival of human and animal remains is very much a hit and miss affair.In fact, I was for a while slightly suspicious of the sheer volume of hominid remains recovered in Africa and I had doubts as to whether there was wishful taxonomic thinking involved or some circumstances resulting in selective preservation. In fact, neither seems likely. The remarkable quality of the human fossil record is a result of the most painstaking fieldwork imaginable, a rigourous attention to detail in taxonomy and dating techiques, and the most aggressive and sedulous peer reviewing in most any field of science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"So all fossil hominids are diseased humans?"
--No, they aren't all. Some of them are though, they each have a different explination, usually the supposed closer relatives are the humans and the older ones are the apes.

---

Firstly - are you suggesting that palaeontologists mistake diseased humans for transitionals? If so, have you any examples or evidence that this happens. The pathology of serious bone conditions is well understood and extensively employed in archaeology and palaeoanthropology because it gives excellent information on the conditions of living. Have you read any detailed excavation and analysis reports on fossil hominids - or even archaeological reports detailing bone pathologies?As for your second point "usually the supposed closer relatives are the humans and the older ones are the apes" - it seems you really don't get the whole common ancestor thing at all, even in theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by leekim:
How convenient, so each hominid that made small progressive "advances", shall we say, either decided to kill off ALL of the prior, less advanced, hominids (ie survival of the fittest as implied above) throughout their several million years of development OR a rare disease, sudden enviornmental change, etc. would spoadically and mysteriously wipe out all of the less advanced hominids but kept the more advanced segments intact.

---

Where do you get any implication that more advanced hominids would "kill off" less advanced? What has this got to do with survival of the fittest?To take just one instance, the evidence to date suggests that the neanderthal, our best evidenced example, were outcompeted by modern humans who probably hunted, gathered and planned more effecively. The neanderthal were reducded to living in environments where they had the advantage (cold mountainous, relatively barren areas) or where abundant food enabled them to eke out a living in competition (the sea coast.) But these populations were just too small to survive, especially as the modern human population and grew and encroached ever more on these environments.Early and prehistoric peoples lived a largely migratory lifestyle, so being restricted to a small territory was a huge disadvantage. It is extremely unlikely that any species could have survived long in near-direct competition with modern humans. Even retreating into remote regions wouldn't help in the long run as there is virtually nowhere where the hand of man has never set foot.The extinctions may have been sudden in many cases if rapid environmental change were a factor. But where competition with other hominds was involved the extinction could have been lengthy, for all it was inevitable.

quote:

---

Ahh now it all makes sense...thanks for clearing that up (insert sarcasm).

---

And thank you for not bothering to clear up any of your unsupported claims about the hominid record. (Insert exasperation with yet another creationist who is ready enough to snipe at the work of scientists but simply avoids discussing the basis of their criticism, even when asked straightforward questions.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by leekim:
But why do NONE of the "lesser advanced" (ie the more primitive "humans" that were minutely different from and say more akin to primates) pre-homo sapiens sapiens exist today?

---

I think what you are saying is something like this: at some point, the human ancestral line and modern primate ancestral lines branched off from a common ancestoral line - why is there only one surviving species on the human ancestral line, namely hom sap?The answer to this is simply in the nature of the branch - the hominid branch appears to have been adapted for life on the savannah. The fittest of the many homind species survived best - indeed was so much the best that no other species could compete.That hom sap was the fittest to survive is not really an issue. Why was hom sap fitter by so far is a more interesting matter and one of great discussion. There is probably no one answer but the acquisition of complex language allowing plans to be made, co-operation over distance, and technologies to be transferred and improved upon indirectly looks most likely to be a major reason.Why did the other species not just evolve to be fitter for other environments in which hom sap was disadvantaged? Why did they not "go back to the trees?" Partly because they would then have been in competition with other primates who were already well adapted and partly because there just was not time for that evolution to take place. Modern man overran the habitats of the neanderthals in the blink of an evolutionary eye.[b] [QUOTE]Not a single one?[/b][/QUOTE]So you don't believe in bigfoot or the yeti? We'll make a skeptic of you yet.

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.