236 replies to this topic

[Imaginarynumber1]

the L, on 25 September 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

So... We became another spicies. In the end we are lizards once. Even bacteria.

So Polar bear could become sort of whale in given time.

A polar bear could hypothetically become an aquatic mammal given enough time, the right enviroment and pressures, yes. But it would never be a whale like those that you can go out and see in the oceans.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 25 September 2012 - 10:58 PM.

[Arbitran]

the L, on 25 September 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

So... We became another spicies. In the end we are lizards once. Even bacteria.

So Polar bear could become sort of whale in given time.

Yes, we all share common ancestry with ancient bacteria-like organisms, and all mammals are descended from reptilian ancestors. And yes, as I've already said, a population of polar bears, given time, could conceivably yield a population of cetacean-like animals. We've been over all this already.

[the L]

So we have fossil bones from H.h. ,which is diffrent spicies then we, and fossil bones of h.s.s. We  dont have transition fossil bones, you know bones between those two?
If so how do we concluded that H.h is our ancestor? We could say that for snail or platypus.

Edited by the L, 26 September 2012 - 04:31 AM.

[the L]

Imaginarynumber1, on 25 September 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Do we have evidence in fossil bones for all these numbers or just 1 and 15?

Imaginarynumber1, on 25 September 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

A polar bear could hypothetically become an aquatic mammal given enough time, the right enviroment and pressures, yes. But it would never be a whale like those that you can go out and see in the oceans.

But it would become diffrent spicies.

[RedSquirrel]

I know that I am hopping in late and that I most likely have very little to add to this.

But I will say that this video helped me understand and eventually accept evolution as a working model of reality.


I apologize if I have overstepped or restated something.

[Arbitran]

the L, on 26 September 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

So we have fossil bones from H.h. ,which is diffrent spicies then we, and fossil bones of h.s.s. We  dont have transition fossil bones, you know bones between those two?
If so how do we concluded that H.h is our ancestor? We could say that for snail or platypus.

We do have bones from in between. That's just when it gets to the point where you're not comprehending the concept of a continuum of organisms. We invented "species", for the purpose of simplifying the otherwise dizzying task of biological organization. Organisms come as individuals, and those individuals come in groups; breeding groups which stand alone, and are capable of breeding with each other, but not with other species, those we term "species". But as I've mentioned before, the definition is a bit plastic. For instance, separate species which are still sufficiently-closely-related can still interbreed, although with lesser success rates, and often infertile or sterile offspring (e.g., horse + donkey = mule; lion + tiger = liger/tigon; polar bear + brown bear = polar bear-brown bear hybrid). We have many of the intermediate fossils between H. heidelbergensis and Homo sapiens sapiens, but the distinction between the two becomes blurred after a point, and we often term these "archaic Homo sapiens". And no, a snail or a platypus cannot be said to be the ancestor of humans.

[Imaginarynumber1]

the L, on 26 September 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

Do we have evidence in fossil bones for all these numbers or just 1 and 15?

The numbers were just an example. An analogy. The numbers themselves have no meaning, I just made them up as a representation.
But they can apply to all speices. Imagine we find one bone. Say we give it  position X. We find more bones that are like us but more like X. We call it Y. We then find more bones that are less like Y but more like X, so we call it W. Looking at them all together we can see a progression from W to X to Y, etc.

Quote

But it would become diffrent spicies.

Looking at the number analogy, 1 is different from 10, yes. But the point is that we call 1-9 H. h while 10 and up we call H sapiens.
Again, just be clear, the numbers are just a made up example. I know you said that you were from Italy, I think, so I want to be very clear and try to avoid any language barrier.

Every animal is always changing from one child to the next. when enough changes have occurred, WE decide to call it another species. It's hard to say whom could have bred with whom without enough genetic evidence, but we can infer the changes from the bones that we have found. Obviously, it is not likely that those furthest removed could have bred, but it is very possible that there were later H. h. that could bred with the earliest examples of H. sapiens.

[Imaginarynumber1]

the L, on 26 September 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

So we have fossil bones from H.h. ,which is diffrent spicies then we, and fossil bones of h.s.s. We  dont have transition fossil bones, you know bones between those two?
If so how do we concluded that H.h is our ancestor? We could say that for snail or platypus.

All speices are transitional. H.h. is the most like us and we can see how certain traits have progressed from the Australopithecenes to the Homo's and on. You can see the change in cranial size, in the way the foot and ankle bones have changed, the widening pelvis, the shrinking of the mandible and the overall smaller bones, as examples. There are more.

You can see the change over time.

Again with the number analogy, WE decide to call 1 through 9 H.h. After that, We decide to call it something else. So 1 and 2 are alike, 3 is more like 2 than 1, 4 is more like 3 than 2 or 1, 5 is more like 4 than 3 or 2 or 1, etc,  


Now, my numbering system was completely arbitrary. I made it up. But the principle is the same. One population slowly changes, the next population slowly changes more, the next population slowly changes more, until you get to a point where you have a population that is no longer like the one that you started with.

[Imaginarynumber1]

L, you need to make sure that you are thinking of entire POPULATIONS changing over a period of time, not an individual suddenly giving birth to something else.

[ShadowSot]

The L, looking at your posts I'm seeing what appears to be a very basic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Not an insult,just a recognition.
If you are really interested, I'd recommend this program on Coursera which will start in a couple of weeks.
Introduction to Genetics and Evolution

The book recommended, Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne, is a very good introduction to evolution as well.

[ShadowSot]

Ron Jeremy, on 25 September 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:

God bless America! (sarcasm)

The L is not an American citizen.

[Imaginarynumber1]

RedSquirrel, on 26 September 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

I know that I am hopping in late and that I most likely have very little to add to this.

But I will say that this video helped me understand and eventually accept evolution as a working model of reality.


I apologize if I have overstepped or restated something.

GREAT video.

the L, on 26 September 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

L, please watch this video. It explains much better what I was attempting to. Plus it's only 10 minutes.

[the L]

Imaginarynumber1, on 26 September 2012 - 05:12 AM, said:

L, please watch this video. It explains much better what I was attempting to. Plus it's only 10 minutes.

Sure. I will.

ShadowSot, on 26 September 2012 - 05:10 AM, said:

The L is not an American citizen.

I wish Im.

[the L]

Imaginarynumber1, on 26 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

I know you said that you were from Italy

Im not. I said that US proffesors knew better then Italian since I mentioned Itlian proffesor which claim that we dont know who made first tool and that we dont have evidence of evolution for anatomicly modern human.

[the L]

ShadowSot, on 26 September 2012 - 05:09 AM, said:

The L, looking at your posts I'm seeing what appears to be a very basic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Not an insult,just a recognition.
.

I didnt take it as insult. Im not expert in biology.