|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Java Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man??? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Decided didn`t necesarily come into it bud, think of it this way you and your family cohabit an area with some primitive hominids, due to limited resources for your family to eat the "primitives" must go hungry and vice versa.... Would you let your family starve to death so that the "primatives" would survive? I suspect not and if so you haven`t decided to go out and kill them in person but by using the available resources to keep your family alive you got them just as dead.... And on a large enough scale just as extinct.... (Of course if they were fitter they would take the food and your lot would go extinct.....)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
leekim Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[b] quote: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: No..... For the reasons above....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
leekim Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[B] No..... For the reasons above... ---Well IMHO those reasons are entirely insufficient, but we will agree to disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[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?
[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.
[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.
[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.
[QUOTE][b]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?[/QUOTE] [/b] Just because some primates still live in the forest some primates should still live on the savannas? Why? There is no large population of modern chimps or apes living on the savannas of the Great Rift Valley, so why should some ancient population of chimps, apes, or transitionals still live there? [This message has been edited by gene90, 03-22-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
leekim Inactive Member |
[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 platyopsThis 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 garhiThis 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 aethiopicusA. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[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? [This message has been edited by gene90, 03-22-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
leekim Inactive Member |
[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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
leekim Inactive Member |
[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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
Do you find it necessary to include an entire post when you are going to write a three-sentence reply?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Why wouldn't there be millions of fossil modern humans, if all the wicked people of the Earth were killed and buried in the Flood, and if the fossils were all laid down after the Flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, not "surely" at all.
[QUOTE]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?[/B][/QUOTE] No, it doesn't seem odd to me at all, especially considering how dominant and effective our species became over our environment. None of the precursor species to horses have survived to coexist with modern horses, either. Same with many, many, many other species. Do you see this as implausible as well? 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, 03-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
---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. [/B][/QUOTE] Evolution and extinction ARE intrinsically linked. If you have 'survival of the fittest' that implies 'extinction ofthe less fit'. They are the same thing. The only reason that there is an incremental change from earlyhominids 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 challengeevolution than the absence of them.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024