|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,873 Year: 4,130/9,624 Month: 1,001/974 Week: 328/286 Day: 49/40 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Neanderthals | |||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Dead. You can find them in the fossil record. I don't know why this is such a hard anser to grasp. Most species that ever lived are dead. The same goes for our ancestry.
quote: You just described the great apes.
quote: Dead.
quote: Why? Most species have gone extinct, and more go extinct every day. It happens. The fact is that we were never a very successful branch. Our particular line is the only one that survived.
quote: Lol... even if it is true? Think about it. Assume our line diverged from the rest of the hominids 1 million years ago. That means we have had 1 million years to change. Well, it also means that all those other hominids have had one million years to change. Insisting that we evolved from something that is alive today is opposite to common sense.
quote: Because they have had as much time to change as we have, and as much time to go extinct. We managed to survive, but just barely. Evidence suggests that our ancestors once numbered only a few thousand. There is no rule demanding that once a species appears, it stays around forever. Most species don't stay around long at all. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You want specific reasons why our line survived and others didn't? To start with not all extinct species 'died off.' Species is something of an arbitrary concept. For example, start with a gallon can of white paint. Every day put a drop of red in the can and mix it up. Take a photo every day as well. From day to day, you won't be able to tell that the color is changing, but when comparing photos taken weeks apart, the change will be obvious. Now, you can choose to call some photos 'white paint' and some photos 'pink' or 'red.' But it doesn't mean that each represents a different can of paint. Evolution is like that. Consider the can of paint to be a population of animals. Each molecule of pigment in the can is an individual. The red drops represent a mutation that confers some benifit to its carriers. As that trait increases the 'color' of the population changes until it reaches a point were we decide to call the group a different species. In this case, nothing has died out. Individuals have died, but the population is continuous. All living organisms represent the tail end of such a continuous population-- different population for different animals. In our case, the australopithicenes changed like the paint into genus homo and one of the early species of that genus changed into us. They didn't exactly die out, they just changed to the point that we renamed them. Some lines, of course, do die out. We don't know exactly why in most cases. Gigantopithicus probably succumbed to enviromental changes. It was very specialized and specialized critters are vulnerable to changing environments. Neanderthals were extremely good in cold weather, but it warmed up. In particular, neandarthals had a nasal structure that would have been a life-saver in the cold but in a warm environment it would have acted as an incubator for whatever bacteria the poor saps encountered. Death by head cold.
quote: Why does your great-great-great grandmother not survive along side of you? That is really the question you are asking.
quote: The 'basic' apes? There is no such thing. All of the apes are adapted to a certain range of conditions.
quote: What doesn't make sense? A hundred people start the marathon, not all finish it. This is true even among people who train for the races.
quote: Nope. Our current form is only about 150,000 years old.
quote: Sorry. That is the way it is.
quote: Very little has happened in the last few thousands of years. Things that you value are recent, but that hardly counts as 'almost everything.'
quote: Do you also have a hard time believing that there are STILL cultures just like this? There is no rule demanding that people build sky-scrapers. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You realize that the difference between first and fourth place in the some sports is a matter of 1% or so? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Oh? I have a really hard time with that! ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Broken is broken. What difference does it make? The point is that we don't know exactly how it 'came to be in its broken state', but we still know that it is in pieces on the floor.
quote: The phrase doesn't imply human involvement. You are splitting hairs. "The teapot was broken by one of the children." "The teapot was broken during a small earthquake." See?
quote: Most of 'em didn't exist in huge numbers. Our ancestors had a pretty precarious existence.
quote: There are no homo sapiens sapiens fossils prior to 130,000 years ago. We might find fossils to push this date back a bit further, but what reason is there to believe that such creatures existed millions of years earlier than the oldest fossil we have?
quote: Isn't it a bit silly to assume that ALL of the fossils except homo sapiens fossils are deformed? Why would deformed skeletons be preserved at rates thousands of times that of 'normal' skeletal remains? And why would only the SAME deformities from a particular time period fossilized for us to find? Why would, for that matter, you have the SAME deformities at all? And why would they form a relatively smooth pattern of change through time?
quote: Yes. Its a shark. It had shark protein and looks just like a partially decomposed shark. Yeah, it looks dinosaur-ish. Looks can be deceiving.
quote: Even if it were a Plesiosaur, it wouldn't call into question the age of the Earth. It would call into question our conclusion that the thing went extinct.
quote: Wanna explain this? It is real but not fact??????
quote: Maybe you should spend a couple of years studying the matter in a good school anthropology/archeaology. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 09-03-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I must have missed something. I know you did not just say that language is only a couple of thousand years old. Perhaps you meant written language? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The multiregional hypothesis does not put our species at several million years old. With multiregionalism, one line changes from an ancestral species to modern H. sapiens. With replacement, one branch outcompetes another. Either way, H. sapiens shows up at about the same time. That part doesn't change. What changes is how we evolved, not when.
quote: Neanderthals were not H. erectus, but an H. sapiens species falling between archaic H. sapiens (500-200 kya) and ourselves ( beginning about 120 kya). They were a subspecies-- Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (230-30 kya).
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.msu.edu/~robin400/neanderthalensis.html ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Written language is at least 5500 years old. We have examples of it from around this time. Spoken language had to have been around for many years before that, so we are looking at tens of thousands of years not just thousands. Our ancestors had speech possibly as early as erectus-- 1.8-.1 mya. Certainly we've had language since the advent of our own species. At any rate, H. erectus sites indicate controlled use of fire, food sharing and some sort of concern about death-- ie. grave goods. This seems to indicate abstract thought and human-like social structure.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
You replied to crash, but you quoted me.
quote: You realize that 'erectus' and 'sapiens' are species names within the genus Homo, while Pan and Homo are genus names? Lumping erectus and sapiens into the same species is unwarranted. Skull morphology is much too different. Chimps do belong in genus Homo, though.
quote: The earliest erectus sites are nearly two million years old. You seem to be under the illusion that because we can track a slow change, every creature along the way belongs to the same species.
quote: And this is more than enough reason to split erectus and sapiens into distinct species. Why, then, do you lump them? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024