236 replies to this topic

[Imaginarynumber1]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

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.

Sorry. My mistake.

[the L]

Arbitran, on 26 September 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

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.

Didnt we agreed that Archaic homo sapiens or simply h.s. is H.heidelbergensis?

http://en.wikipedia....ic_Homo_sapiens

[the L]

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

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.

Yes but as I understand we have only bones of Goliath and bones of human. Nothing in between.

[Arbitran]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Didnt we agreed that Archaic homo sapiens or simply h.s. is H.heidelbergensis?

http://en.wikipedia....ic_Homo_sapiens

Not quite. Again, that's where the line becomes blurred.

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

Yes but as I understand we have only bones of Goliath and bones of human. Nothing in between.

Where the hell did talking about Goliath come from? I thought we were talking about Homo heidelbergensis!

[the L]

Arbitran, on 27 September 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Where the hell did talking about Goliath come from? I thought we were talking about Homo heidelbergensis!

I thought that Goliath is nick name for H.h.

[the L]

http://www.theage.co...1086008084.html


HOMO HEIDELBERGENSIS ~ NICKNAME: Goliath LIVED: 700,000 to 300,000 years ago HABITAT: Temperate and tropical, Africa and Europe DIET: Omnivorous - meat, vegetables, tubers, nuts

[Arbitran]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

I thought that Goliath is nick name for H.h.

It might be. I haven't personally heard that nickname used. But then, I'm not an anthropology specialist, nor has it taken my particular interest. I know "Lucy", "Ida", and "Ardi" for hominin nicknames... I gather there are more, but I've never really picked them up. Either way...

[Arbitran]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

http://www.theage.co...1086008084.html


HOMO HEIDELBERGENSIS ~ NICKNAME: Goliath LIVED: 700,000 to 300,000 years ago HABITAT: Temperate and tropical, Africa and Europe DIET: Omnivorous - meat, vegetables, tubers, nuts

Oh, so that's where you got it from... interesting... You might have based your statements off of something a bit more accurate...

[the L]

Okay then.

Yes but as I understand we have only bones of Homo heidelbergensis and bones of Homo sapiens sapiens. Nothing in between.

[Arbitran]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Okay then.

Yes but as I understand we have only bones of Homo heidelbergensis and bones of Homo sapiens sapiens. Nothing in between.

Incorrect. Again, that is the point at which the distinction of "species" breaks down. The demarcation becomes blurred, and H. heidelbergensis and Homo sapiens were indistinguishable, at that point in time.

[the L]

Arbitran, on 27 September 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

Incorrect. Again, that is the point at which the distinction of "species" breaks down. The demarcation becomes blurred, and H. heidelbergensis and Homo sapiens were indistinguishable, at that point in time.

Can you show fossils in between those two. As Imaginary used number from 1 to 15, I understand that we have number 1 and 15 not 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14.
But I dont ask for fossils from 2 to 14. Only one from that numbers. Lets say between 5-10.

[Imaginarynumber1]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

Can you show fossils in between those two. As Imaginary used number from 1 to 15, I understand that we have number 1 and 15 not 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14.
But I dont ask for fossils from 2 to 14. Only one from that numbers. Lets say between 5-10.

You misunderstand. I meant to show the progression of H.h into H.s. We have all those bones and more. But at some point we decided to call bones that are more like X than Y a different species.

[Doug1o29]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

Can you show fossils in between those two. As Imaginary used number from 1 to 15, I understand that we have number 1 and 15 not 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14.
But I dont ask for fossils from 2 to 14. Only one from that numbers. Lets say between 5-10.

I don't know about these two human species, not being an evolutionary anthropologist, but:

I have recently become involved in a project to redescribe the bottom 50 feet of the Mississippian, between the Ordovician Unconformity and the Pierre shale at its type locality at Roaring River State Park in southwest Missouri.  It's a beautiful area with lots of semi-mountainous scenes and panoramas.  The site is a road cut a quarter-mile south of the hotel - close enough I can walk over to its high-class restaurant for lunch.  Tough job.

Anyway, the column encompasses about 20 million years of geologic time.  This was a time when the inland sea passage was drying out.  Salt concentrations were about 10% and calcium carbonate was precipitating out of solution, producing some very hard limestone, interbedded with shale.  There are 26 species of conodonts, a species of eel, that occur within the section.  Some occur very early and some occur much later.  You can look through the microscope and see the gradual changes in form and species numbers that occur from bottom to top.  That's evolution happening before your eyes.  Every intermediate form is represented.  We have the evidence of one species evolving into another into another into another.

That's hard evidence for evolution.
Doug

[Mr. Miyagi]

I've been reading along with this thread and the one before hand. I try not to get involved in these threads anymore but I just wanted to suggest this image for L as it's been used in the past. L, view this spectrum the same way you'd view evolution... At what point does red become orange? This is what you're asking for in regards to evolution. There are millions of minute transitions between species to species or from color to color. Fosilization is a rare occurance. Refering back to the color spectrum, It's much easier to find yellow and green or blues in between the gradual change between red and violet than it is to find observable differences between the change from red to orange. It's not that these changes did not occur. They did. They must have unless a mechanism can be displayed that limits the amount of these tiny genetic changes. One has not. How many of these tiny changes can a "species" undergo before it becomes a noticibly different "species"? The change is inevitable but to ask for an example of a transitional species that "seals the deal" is akin to asking for an exact point in which red changes to orange.

I dunno if my example helps or not. i hope it did. Good luck.

[the L]

Imaginarynumber1, on 27 September 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

You misunderstand. I meant to show the progression of H.h into H.s. We have all those bones and more. But at some point we decided to call bones that are more like X than Y a different species.

We have them? I never read in any article or book about them. Even wiki used term may be because if we had them that would be evidence black on white.
Can you give the link for that claim.