Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 1 of 52 (7515)
03-21-2002 4:03 PM


If evolution truly has formed the human race (homo sapien sapien) where are all of the proverbial "missing links" or, for lack of a better word, "pre-human" forms? Archaeologists should have found and should presently be finding hundreds, if not thousands, of these skeletal forms yet they do not. Why is that so?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 03-21-2002 4:53 PM leekim has replied
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 5:00 PM leekim has not replied
 Message 25 by Xombie, posted 03-22-2002 12:27 PM leekim has not replied
 Message 50 by Brad McFall, posted 04-11-2002 12:56 PM leekim has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 52 (7523)
03-21-2002 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by gene90
03-21-2002 4:53 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]Ardipithecus ramidis , Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus anamensis, Kenyanthropus platyops ,
Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus,
Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis aren't missing links? Oh sure they're probably not all grandparents, there are going to be some cousins in that list too, but without evolution none of the above should exist.
---An impressive list of Latin grammar...yet how many indisputable skeletons / fossil data exists to support these alleged "grandfathers"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 03-21-2002 4:53 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by gene90, posted 03-21-2002 5:17 PM leekim has replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 52 (7526)
03-21-2002 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by gene90
03-21-2002 5:17 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[b] [QUOTE][b]An impressive list of Latin grammar...yet how many indisputable skeletons / fossil data exists to support these alleged "grandfathers"?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
A lot considering most are coming from savannas around the Great Rift Valley, a lousy area for fossils to be preserved, and especially considering most are not cosmopolitan with large population bases.
Did you realize that the British Museum's Catalogue of Fossil Hominids consists of three volumes with around four thousand entries? It was published in 1975 making it out of date. The number of known fossils continues to increase.
---Wow, four thousand (or slightly more)...considering there should be hundreds of thousands of these "ancestors". The matter is quite perplexing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by gene90, posted 03-21-2002 5:17 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 03-21-2002 6:29 PM leekim has not replied
 Message 10 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-21-2002 6:49 PM leekim has not replied
 Message 11 by Brachinus, posted 03-21-2002 7:18 PM leekim has not replied
 Message 24 by gene90, posted 03-22-2002 11:55 AM leekim has replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 52 (7648)
03-22-2002 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by gene90
03-22-2002 11:55 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]Yes Lee is moving the goalposts. He started with "thousands" and he will have to stick with thousands. I actually thought about prodding you by asking him by asking if he would up to "millions" since I demonstrated that there were "thousands" but thought he would be above that anyway. Apparently not. Typical dishonest tactics at work here.
"Thousands" is a good figure for the reasons I have already given, and that people have only been looking for a few decades now. No, I don't expect there to be hundreds of thousands because of the random nature of fossilization, the remote areas, the short time people have been looking, the probable small sizes of the populations of transitionals, the limited geographical distribution, and the tiny blink of geological time it all happened over. But his challenge was met, next Creationist argument please.
---My challenge was cetainly not met as the alleged "ancestral fossil evidence" you cite is very sparse and subject to broad interpreatation (as you should very well know). But let's delve into another sub-issue...Assuming the "Ardipithecus ramidis , Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus anamensis, Kenyanthropus platyops , Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus,
Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" all existed at one time, why havn't any of these ancestral forefathers survived to the current day. Surely evolution doesn't equate with extinction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by gene90, posted 03-22-2002 11:55 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by joz, posted 03-22-2002 2:53 PM leekim has not replied
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 03-22-2002 2:54 PM leekim has replied
 Message 36 by gene90, posted 03-22-2002 5:15 PM leekim has replied
 Message 45 by Peter, posted 03-25-2002 11:16 AM leekim has replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 52 (7652)
03-22-2002 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mark24
03-22-2002 2:54 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:
[B] Small populations equate with extinction, though. Any rapid environmental change affects a small population vastly more than a large one. This includes competition with other hominids.
---And this absolutely insufficient rationale is why NONE of the aforementioned "forefathers" exist today?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 03-22-2002 2:54 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 3:11 PM leekim has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 52 (7656)
03-22-2002 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by leekim
03-22-2002 2:59 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:
[B] Small populations equate with extinction, though. Any rapid environmental change affects a small population vastly more than a large one. This includes competition with other hominids.
---And this absolutely insufficient rationale is why NONE of the aforementioned "forefathers" exist today? 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. Ahh now it all makes sense...thanks for clearing that up (insert sarcasm).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 2:59 PM leekim has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-22-2002 3:43 PM leekim has replied
 Message 32 by joz, posted 03-22-2002 3:46 PM leekim has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 52 (7662)
03-22-2002 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Mister Pamboli
03-22-2002 3:43 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[b]
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.)
---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? Surely they, like the primates which exist today, could have found a way to adapt for purposes of survival. It doesn't seem in the least bit odd to you that ALL of these alleged "ancestors" between the modern apes, chimps, etc. and todays homo sapien sapien failed to survive to the present day? Not a single one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-22-2002 3:43 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by joz, posted 03-22-2002 4:16 PM leekim has replied
 Message 37 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-22-2002 5:28 PM leekim has not replied
 Message 44 by nator, posted 03-24-2002 8:27 AM leekim has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 52 (7665)
03-22-2002 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by joz
03-22-2002 4:16 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[B] No.....
For the reasons above...
---Well IMHO those reasons are entirely insufficient, but we will agree to disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by joz, posted 03-22-2002 4:16 PM joz has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 52 (7669)
03-22-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by gene90
03-22-2002 5:15 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[b] [QUOTE][b]---My challenge was cetainly not met as the alleged "ancestral fossil evidence" you cite is very sparse and subject to broad interpreatation[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Both of your challenges were met. First you claimed there were no transitionals, I gave several. Secondly, you claimed that there should be "thousands" of transitional fossils, I told you where to find four thousand. How exactly are these transitionals subject to "broad interpretation"? Why don't you provide us with one other credible interpretation of these fossils?
---What I find most amusing is that several of the alleged pre-homo sapien sapien species are predicated upon one, or simply a partial, skeletal finding.
"Kenyanthropus platyops
This species was named in 2001 from a partial skull found in Kenya with an unusual mixture of features (Leakey et al. 2001). It is aged about 3.5 million years old. The size of the skull is similar to A. afarensis and A. africanus, and has a large, flat face and small teeth."
Australopithecus garhi
This species was named in April 1999 (Asfaw et al. 1999). It is known from a partial skull. The skull differs from previous australopithecine species in the combination of its features, notably the extremely large size of its teeth, especially the rear ones, and a primitive skull morphology. Some nearby skeletal remains may belong to the same species.
Australopithecus aethiopicus
A. aethiopicus existed between 2.6 and 2.3 million years ago. This species is known from one major specimen, the Black Skull discovered by Alan Walker, and a few other minor specimens which may belong to the same species. It may be an ancestor of robustus and boisei, but it has a baffling mixture of primitive and advanced traits.
_____________________________________________________________________
[QUOTE][b]But let's delve into another sub-issue...Assuming the .... all existed at one time[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Strawman. I never said they all existed at one time, nor should they. They are a progression of simian creatures towards man, they exist in a series, not all at the same time. Yes there should be some overlap, but not all of them coexisting.
---I never implied nor stated that all of the alleged homo sapien sapien "ancestors" existed at the same time. Based upon the evolutionary THEORY, of course they did not exist within the same time frame (except for short times as they allegedly "advanced"). By "one time" a mean in the generic sense all of the aforementioned species existed at one time or another; certainly not within the same time frame.
____________________________________________________________________
[QUOTE][b]why havn't any of these ancestral forefathers survived to the current day.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Small populations, fierce predation, harsh competition with other hominids, and a few ice ages didn't help them.
---Ok and why did the apes and other more removed "ancestors" survive through these hypothetical events while our other "ancestors" failed to do so?
____________________________________________________________________
[QUOTE][b]Surely evolution doesn't equate with extinction[/QUOTE]
[/b]
It often does when you have a small population, live in unforgiving conditions, and have to compete with newer hominid species living in those unforgiving conditions with you to survive. The only thing I need to point out that the cause of extinction is not your evolution, it is the evolution of some other species.
---See above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by gene90, posted 03-22-2002 5:15 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by gene90, posted 03-22-2002 5:40 PM leekim has replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 52 (7673)
03-22-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by gene90
03-22-2002 5:40 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[b] [QUOTE][b]What I find most amusing is that several of the alleged pre-homo sapien sapien species are predicated upon one, or simply a partial, skeletal finding.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I'm aware of that. Perhaps you would like to bring your massive knowledge of evolutionary biology and anthropology to assign the find to an existing species? Otherwise I don't see the relevance. Remember what we explained to you about (1) small populations (2) rarity of fossilization and (3) limited manpower in fossil searches?
[QUOTE][b]---I never implied nor stated that all of the alleged homo sapien sapien "ancestors" existed at the same time.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Please proofread for clarity.
[QUOTE][b]Ok and why did the apes and other more removed "ancestors" survive through these hypothetical events while our other "ancestors" failed to do so?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
The modern simians that are extant today live in jungles and forests. The homeland of most of the transitionals are the dry savannas of the Great Rift Valley where food is not plentiful and there were other species to contend with as well as predation, an unstable climate, and volcanism. When you come down from the trees, you have to take special care to not be dinner. The rules of the savanna are different from the rules of the cloud forest. It is a simple concept and I'm confused about why you seem to have difficulty grappling with it.
By the way, while you were busy plagiarizing somebody on those species being represented by a single find, did you forget to concede that your first two challenges were met?
---Certainly not but we will re-visit this on Monday (or at least I will). I have to go home and spend a wonderful weekend with my wife and family. Until then, fare thee well...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by gene90, posted 03-22-2002 5:40 PM gene90 has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 52 (7674)
03-22-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by gene90
03-22-2002 5:40 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[b] [QUOTE][b]What I find most amusing is that several of the alleged pre-homo sapien sapien species are predicated upon one, or simply a partial, skeletal finding.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I'm aware of that. Perhaps you would like to bring your massive knowledge of evolutionary biology and anthropology to assign the find to an existing species? Otherwise I don't see the relevance. Remember what we explained to you about (1) small populations (2) rarity of fossilization and (3) limited manpower in fossil searches?
[QUOTE][b]---I never implied nor stated that all of the alleged homo sapien sapien "ancestors" existed at the same time.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Please proofread for clarity.
[QUOTE][b]Ok and why did the apes and other more removed "ancestors" survive through these hypothetical events while our other "ancestors" failed to do so?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
The modern simians that are extant today live in jungles and forests. The homeland of most of the transitionals are the dry savannas of the Great Rift Valley where food is not plentiful and there were other species to contend with as well as predation, an unstable climate, and volcanism. When you come down from the trees, you have to take special care to not be dinner. The rules of the savanna are different from the rules of the cloud forest. It is a simple concept and I'm confused about why you seem to have difficulty grappling with it.
By the way, while you were busy plagiarizing somebody on those species being represented by a single find, did you forget to concede that your first two challenges were met?
---Certainly not but we will re-visit this on Monday (or at least I will). I have to go home and spend a wonderful weekend with my wife and family. Until then, fare thee well...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by gene90, posted 03-22-2002 5:40 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by gene90, posted 03-23-2002 8:45 AM leekim has not replied

  
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 replied

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024