Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,873 Year: 4,130/9,624 Month: 1,001/974 Week: 328/286 Day: 49/40 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Neanderthals
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 159 (53241)
09-01-2003 2:25 PM


quote:
Can someone please tell me where all the species between monkey and man, are today.
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:
How is it that monkey's are around, and men are around, yet there aren't species of hunched over nuckle dragging guys around.
You just described the great apes.
quote:
Where are like the previous 2 or 3 versions of man?
Dead.
quote:
I find it hard to believe that they would somehow go extinct completely.
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:
Don't give me this "we didn't come from extant", or whatever.
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:
If you have a real answer, tell me why none of them are here today.
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 4:46 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 159 (53360)
09-01-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by rabair
09-01-2003 4:46 PM


Re: But why did they die?
quote:
You aren't explaining what caused us to survive, and them to die?
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:
So being that there were only slight differences, why did they not survive along side of us.
Why does your great-great-great grandmother not survive along side of you? That is really the question you are asking.
quote:
And I don't understand why if the basic apes could survive extinction, why is it they (the apes) and us are the only ones to survive?
The 'basic' apes? There is no such thing. All of the apes are adapted to a certain range of conditions.
quote:
That just doesn't make any sense.
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:
Also, I am under the impression evolutionist belief is that we took our current form or whatever like a million years ago.
Nope. Our current form is only about 150,000 years old.
quote:
And it took until the past couple thousand for advancements like building shelters, then towns, and governing towns, and boats, and traveling and starting new countries and technology.
Sorry. That is the way it is.
quote:
Why is it if the world is so old, that almost everything has happen just in the recent thousands of years?
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:
But it seems hard to believe that for hundreds of thousands of years, there wasn't much going on other than just layin around in the jungle not doing much of anything to advance life/technology/whatever.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 4:46 PM rabair has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 159 (53362)
09-01-2003 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by rabair
09-01-2003 10:10 PM


Re: dodging
quote:
with just slight differences
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 10:10 PM rabair has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 159 (53564)
09-02-2003 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
09-02-2003 7:28 PM


Re: dodging
quote:
As a friend of mine once said, "It's not too difficult to come up with wrong ideas."
Oh? I have a really hard time with that!
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2003 7:28 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 159 (53682)
09-03-2003 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by rabair
09-03-2003 2:07 AM


Re: interesting take...
quote:
I was basically saying that instead of looking at the teabot has "having gotten broken", you could look at it that way or "getting broken by something unavoidable."
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:
So you can't look at it as "it was broken."
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:
I see very little evidence that they existed in mass.
Most of 'em didn't exist in huge numbers. Our ancestors had a pretty precarious existence.
quote:
But when you have very few skeletal remains of all these different eras, it's hard to believe that that was the way all "man" used to look.
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:
I mean, we have deformed people today too.
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:
Have you heard of that very seemingly Plesiosaur carcass that japanese fishermen caught off of New Zealand?
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:
It's just another thing that calls into question the age of the planet because what get's called scientific fact isn't always the case.
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:
It's not to saying Global Warming isn't real, but it's certainly not fact,
Wanna explain this? It is real but not fact??????
quote:
I don't know what to tell you, I just don't feel that there's enough evidence that we evolved from apes, I just don't see it.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by rabair, posted 09-03-2003 2:07 AM rabair has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 159 (59454)
10-05-2003 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
10-04-2003 5:52 AM


quote:
the reason we only see great progress in the past couple thousand is because that's how old language is.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2003 5:52 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2003 2:03 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 159 (59458)
10-05-2003 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Speel-yi
10-04-2003 3:17 PM


quote:
Our species may be older than a million years. This is the crux of the multiregional hypothesis.
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:
Then you also have to consider that Neanderthals are only really different from other erectus in that Neaderthals have greater cranial capacity.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Speel-yi, posted 10-04-2003 3:17 PM Speel-yi has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 159 (59559)
10-05-2003 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
10-05-2003 2:03 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2003 2:03 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 159 (59566)
10-05-2003 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Speel-yi
10-05-2003 4:38 AM


You replied to crash, but you quoted me.
quote:
I tend to lump erectus with sapiens and the genus Homo with Pan.
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:
We really have not changed that much physically in a million years.
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:
A Neanderthal skull is the same with ergaster/erectus skulls in that all have the same morphology at the base. The occipital plate of the skull is flattened where the spinal cord enters and small mastoid processes occupying the same horizontal plane as the occipital condyles. In sapiens, the base of the skull has a rounded shape and the masoid processes are elongated to maintain the position with the condyles and preserve the mechanical leverage of the neck muscles on the base of the skull. It is this structural change that matters for sapienization, not cranial capacity.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Speel-yi, posted 10-05-2003 4:38 AM Speel-yi 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