Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 4:53 AM
127 online now:
Dredge, Tangle (2 members, 125 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,478 Year: 3,515/19,786 Month: 510/1,087 Week: 100/212 Day: 16/14 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Java Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man???
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5651 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 31 of 52 (7659)
03-22-2002 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by leekim
03-22-2002 3:11 PM


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.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 3:11 PM leekim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 4:04 PM Mister Pamboli has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 52 (7660)
03-22-2002 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by leekim
03-22-2002 3:11 PM


quote:
...either decided to kill off ALL of the prior, less advanced, hominids (ie survival of the fittest as implied above)...

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.....)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 3:11 PM leekim has not yet responded

  
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 responded

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

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 52 (7663)
03-22-2002 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by leekim
03-22-2002 4:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by leekim:
...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?

No.....

For the reasons above....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 4:04 PM leekim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 4:44 PM joz has not yet responded

  
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 yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1897 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 36 of 52 (7666)
03-22-2002 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by leekim
03-22-2002 2:45 PM


[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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 2:45 PM leekim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 5:29 PM gene90 has responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5651 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 37 of 52 (7668)
03-22-2002 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by leekim
03-22-2002 4:04 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 4:04 PM leekim has not yet responded

  
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 responded

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

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1897 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 39 of 52 (7671)
03-22-2002 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by leekim
03-22-2002 5:29 PM


[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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 5:29 PM leekim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 6:05 PM gene90 has not yet responded
 Message 41 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 6:05 PM gene90 has responded

  
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 yet responded

  
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 responded

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

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1897 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 42 of 52 (7686)
03-23-2002 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by leekim
03-22-2002 6:05 PM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 6:05 PM leekim has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 244 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 43 of 52 (7703)
03-24-2002 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 5:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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?"
--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. Though mabye thats because were an isolated population, punctuated equillibria right?

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.


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 5:00 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 244 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 44 of 52 (7704)
03-24-2002 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by leekim
03-22-2002 4:04 PM


quote:

---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.

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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 4:04 PM leekim has not yet responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1997 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 45 of 52 (7803)
03-25-2002 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by leekim
03-22-2002 2:45 PM


[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 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 2:45 PM leekim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by leekim, posted 03-27-2002 3:33 PM Peter has responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019