Neanderthals

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

Ah, ok. Now I understand. See, your question hasn't really been clear till now.The reason they went extinct and we didn't is because they lived in the wrong place. When what we call humans arose, they did so through a process of geographical isolation - what happened was, a population of just-almost-humans (whatever you want to call them) diverged from the main population and moved to another place. Isolated from their original population they experienced genetic drift and mutation until they were a separate species altogether.But then a radical climate change occured and food sources were lost. The original population starved to death and went extinct. The other population nearly went extinct - they were down to some 10,000 individuals - but survived by being in the right place at the right time.Does that answer your question?

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

quote:

---

I think we are the only evo-creo who enjoy each others posts.

---

I don't know how much you may enjoy my posts to you, Mike, but I think you come across as a good person.Remember what I said about how you are special?

Hi Mike,I do enjoy your posts...you are one of the few people here, both sides, who can handle others' bad manners with a laugh. I've never seen you get mad and start dishing it back at people. I might not agree with your opinions but you seem to be one of the few who's opinion matches their actions, and I honestly respect that. You have never "preached" or thrown out Pascal's wager at anyone that I remember.As for my posting more...I am in way over my head on most of the technical subjects. I mainly come here to learn. I follow just about every link that people put out there and do my debating with myself. _____________No more turning away
from the weak and the weary
no more turning away
from the coldness inside
just a world that we all must share
it's not enough just to stand and stare
is it only a dream that there'll be
no more turning away?------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Your explanation seems fine as a possible scenario to make clear how speciation and extinction of other Homo species *might* happen, but I don't believe anything as definite as you suggest has been generally concluded by paleoanthropologists.--Percy

You must be a democrat
Was that necessary? Labels are just pointless and it indicative of your apparent level of frustration. Look, it seems that you would do well to research a little bit more, regarding evolution. You might want to avoid reading books/tracts/sites written by people that attempt to explain it away (that's like you asking me to read the bible and me reading a book(s) written by people that only explain what the verses mean from an unbelievers point of view); just read, ask questions and learn. John's analogy in post 46 was (in my opinion) and excellent way to explain extinction. My suggestion, as someone that loves to learn about our natural world, would be to ask more direct questions if you do not understand.
From your tone, do you really think that science is just a sham to keep people away from the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ? I was actually told this once, that the "evidence" we have is fruadulent, and that they "teach" people in universities to propagate these lies in order to decieve more.
A Satanic conspiracy led by the Illumunati, no doubt.

Okay, first of all pogo... Lighten up... That democrat comment was clearly just a little joke to everyone but you.... Second of all, you are probably the BIGGEST out of all the hypocrites on this site. I don't like to call names like the few angry people from your side generally do, but how can you be so dumb as to to tell me that I am labeling people. When about 60% of your post is talking about me reading the bible or "books/tracts/sites written by people that attempt ot explain it way"..... And you go on to talk about Jesus, blah blah blah..... I usually don't get angry on here, but I am a bit now....... But please tell me one time I've ever talked about my religion or given points of view from any bible or religious source... I mean I can't put into words how ridiculously obvious it is how angry you are with Christianity and religion (for what reason I don't know), that for some reason you decide to imply that anything I've said has anything to do with it. Maybe if you actually read my posts... I've done exactly what you're trying to TELL me I should do. I've just asked questions, and I've barely given any contradictory opinions, I've just wanted straight answers if anyone wants to give them. It's funny to me how in many debates such as this, it is the non-believers, that tend to bring religion in and blame others for using it as a crutch, when infact it was previously not mentioned. Priceless Pogo. Not to mention Pogo, my main point that has been evident from my first post, isn't anything that I've heard argued, or seen anwhere else. It was just something I thought of over the past year, and no one has ever given me a real answer without "maybes" or "it could have been thats".... Whatever, maybe when you actually react to things I've said you should post again Pogo, instead of asserting that I'm a Jesus Freak with NOT ONE drop of evidence to show that in anything I've written.

I would step in and point out here that "maybe" and "it could have been that" are inherent in any human endeavor to understand the past - especially times in the past where no human was.Can you name a single field that looks into the unobservable past and does so without any uncertainty whatsoever? I mean, surely you don't demand total certainty from the history books you read, so why the double standard with evolution?

The difference is, recorded history as we know it, may not be 100% correct... But it's far from a guess, as is what you imply you are doing when you say "maybe" or "it could have been that"..... Recorded history may be only 99% correct, or even 50% (but probably more like in the 90s), but still, it is more fact than it is theory, because while we may not have observed it, it was observed and recorded. But to base stuff on "maybe"s is sketchy at best. Let me just point out one thing. Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds thought the world was flat? And it was the radicals who believed otherwise and turned out right? I'm sure most of you know that this has happened with many things throughout "recorded history"... The people thought to be the smartest and everything, turn out to be completely proven wrong by the "radicals." Just something to chew on.

Lighten up... That democrat comment was clearly just a little joke to everyone but you
Ok, I apologize. Given your posts, it appeared to me that you were a tad angry.you are probably the BIGGEST out of all the hypocrites on this site.
What? If I weren't laughing, I'd probably be a little upset. I do not like hypocrites; please let me know how I am one.I don't like to call names like the few angry people from your side generally do, but how can you be so dumb as to to tell me that I am labeling people.
Because you just demonstrated my point; you called me dumb.When about 60% of your post is talking about me reading the bible or "books/tracts/sites written by people that attempt ot explain it way"..... And you go on to talk about Jesus, blah blah blah.....
Actually, I just reread my post and there is only one sentence pertaining to your reply. I was just offering a suggestion; that you honestly seek out the answers and think for yourself (that's gonna make you mad). I am sorry if I offended you.But please tell me one time I've ever talked about my religion or given points of view from any bible or religious source...
I just reread all of your posts and you are correct; I was assuming that you were a bible-believing Christian. I am sorry to have offended you.I mean I can't put into words how ridiculously obvious it is how angry you are with Christianity and religion (for what reason I don't know), that for some reason you decide to imply that anything I've said has anything to do with it.
I am actually a happy person, not angry at all with Jesus, Christianity or religion. Please forgive my implication that you have anything to do with Christianity. Maybe you have the anger problem toward Christianity? If so, I'm sure there are people that will pray for you.I've done exactly what you're trying to TELL me I should do.
Relax, take a deep breath...or several. Again, I was only offering help and it is obvious that it was not wanted.It's funny to me how in many debates such as this, it is the non-believers, that tend to bring religion in and blame others for using it as a crutch, when infact it was previously not mentioned.
Since this is call the Evolution Vs. Creationism Forum, and you are opposing various aspects of evolution, I, in error, assumed that you were a person of religious affiliation. I will not make that mistake again, nor will I apologize for thinking you to be anymore.Priceless Pogo. Not to mention Pogo, my main point that has been evident from my first post, isn't anything that I've heard argued, or seen anwhere else.
It may be just me but it seems that your question(s) has been answered
by several people here.It was just something I thought of over the past year, and no one has ever given me a real answer without "maybes" or "it could have been thats"....
Absolutes do not exist anywhere except in mathmatics and the minds of Christians...of which you are not, so that does not apply to you.Whatever, maybe when you actually react to things I've said you should post again Pogo, instead of asserting that I'm a Jesus Freak with NOT ONE drop of evidence to show that in anything I've written.
I have reacted, rather immaturely, I might add, but hey...given your acidic attitude I feel warranted. I never asserted that you are a Jesus Freak.[This message has been edited by Pogo, 09-02-2003]

Yeah, you know how they did that? (This was the Greeks, by the way.) Through a process of acquisition of evidence and testing hypotheses. It was known that ships sailing over the horizon disappeared from the bottom up. It didn't take Greek thinkers too long to figure out why that might be.They certainly didn't look it up in a 3000-year-old book and proclaim it as the truth. They opened their eyes to the evidence before them and used their minds. Yeah, yeah. They laughed at Einstein. But you know what? They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.Being laughed-at doesn't mean you're right. In fact, 99% of the time it means you're totally wrong. But nobody bothers to keep track of the idiots. As a friend of mine once said, "It's not too difficult to come up with wrong ideas."But anyway, I wasn't talking about recorded history. I was talking about unrecorded history. When it's human events, do you have a problem with guesswork? If not, then why the beef when scientists make a guess about events that we know happened, but have left no evidence as to how they happened?

quote:

---

Let me just point out one thing. Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds thought the world was flat? And it was the radicals who believed otherwise and turned out right?

---

This is true! The Earth is not flat. The radicals who inferred that it was not of a flat shape were radicals because they were deducting the true nature of the Earth through natural observation and not listening to the dogma of the time which told them otherwise. Unfortunately whenever someone asked them "why is the world round?" the only answers people could give is more of your despised "maybe this" or "maybe that."

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

Again you people with the bible references. Again, I point out how non-believers like to bring religion into the debate, and blame others for using it for there history book. (I'm referring to where you say "They certainly didn't look it up in a 3000-year-old book...."Let me just side track to Pogo for a minute. I never said I'm not a Christian and that I don't believe The Bible. My point was your post paints me as using that for my basis of what I've said and it clearly has not for even one word in any of my posts. I'm not angry at religion or christianity, I still submit that you have issue with it because you pulled it out of thin air to start arguing against. I think it's clear that you have an issue with something when you argue against it when it isn't even there.Anyway, crash you aren't as bad about bringing religion in and trying to put it on me, I just wanted to adress Pogo there.... but you did mention the bible in this post (whether you say it's name or not, you know that's what you referred to)But aside from that, you go on to say that basically it doesn't matter if you guess at how something happened if you know it happened (extinction of neanderthals and such.)... Well, I have to take issue with that, because I don't believe you can really know that something happened for a fact, without knowing how it happened. Let me give a simple example. If you tell a 5 year old, who doesn't know any math, that 13 X 5 = 65. He can be like "okay", but he doesn't actually "know" that to be true. He was just told. He can't actually "know" that it's true unless he can see how/why it's true. He would need to understand multiplication, and maybe lay out in simple form for proof 13+13+13+13+13. Then you can say, oh, that is 13, 5 times.... So that makes 65. That's why 13 X 5 = 65. You see, you need to show how/why things happened to show definitively that they happened. Anyway, that's my opinion on why I feel that the "why"s and "how"s are extremely relevant.Now back to Pogo
Number one, you feel warranted in your immaturity because of my "acidic attitude." I didn't start out with any attitude until you came along. I was having a discussion and seeking certain responses from people here, and it has been a journey trying to get straight answers. But you come along as I said, you side tends to do, and bring religion into a place it wasn't, and doesn't neccessarily belong, and try to put it on someone else. And I know, you acknowledged you shouldn't have done that, but then you lie and say your post only had one sentence to do with religion or whatever. Number one there are actually 2 sentences... One you mention "bible" the other "jesus christ. And the one which mentions the bible is like most of your first paragraph, and runs on and ties everything from the first paragraph together. It is your subject sentence.Now, you want to know how you're a hypocrite? I think I made it pretty clear... But here it is again... And this ties into the above. You originally responded to my post in which I made that "democrat joke", that again I point out, everyone else just ignored cuz it was clearly just a little joke... But in that post, you repremand me by saying "labels are just pointless.... blah blah blah"..... When you then go on to basically call me a bible toter. And that brings me to another thing, I know you didn't use the phrase "Jesus Freak", but when you base your arguments against me by basically saying it's all religously based, it's clear that's basically what you're getting at. Anyway, back to you hypocracy.. You want to condemn my labeling (which again wasn't really labeling, I just made a joke).... Yet you want to label me with religion, and with absolutely no evidence of that. 1-2-3-Hypocrite. Pretty simple. Let me just point out... It isn't all christians, or even just religious people in general that oppose the idea of Evolution. You notice this site isn't called "religion versus evolution". Just something to think about...... But then again, speaking of opposing, you say that is what I've been doing here. Again, you are in a sense labeling me by saying that, because if you actually read, I really haven't opposed evolution, I have just pressed for answers from the evolution side. I have done very little on "opposing" evolution. I think that's very evident if you aren't blinded and close-minded coming on here. You can't really be taken seriously after your first post because you came in making total assumptions.Now, Pogo, as I review your last post, I see that you may not buy my 13 X 5 analogy above... because it's math, and that is one of the few things that you say is an absolute. Well how about this. If there are 3 people. 2 are a man and woman who live in one cabin in the woods. One (another woman) lives in another cabin next door, and they're the only ones around. Now, if the woman of the couple is pregnant, and she tells the woman who lives alone one day, but she doesn't tell the man she lives with. So now, the woman who lives next door knows, and the man who lives with the pregnant woman doesn't. But that day the man is talking to the neighbor woman, and she tells him that the woman he lives with is pregnant. Now, when he tells the woman he lives with that he knows she's pregnant, the pregnant woman KNOWS (doesn't think "maybe"), but KNOWS that he talked to the neighbor. Again, she can only be certain because the they are the only 3 around so he must have heard it from the neighbor. If you want, pretend they are locked in one big cage on an island, so you can't think maybe someone snuck in and overheard a conversation and blah blah blah, implying uncertainty. The point is, absolutes do exist. Tempurate is an absolute. The fact that I see that my kitchen light is on is an absolute. I don't think I need to explain "WHY" or "HOW" I know that, but I do. How about this, I'm looking at my parakeet right now. He has wings. Are you telling me that isn't an absolute because it isn't math? I think I've made my point......