236 replies to this topic

[FurthurBB]

Imaginarynumber1, on 24 September 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Well, a species doesn't evolve into a completely new species. It evolves into a better form than what it was before.

Well, better for the environment in which it lives.

[the L]

So according to you there are no spicies? We all on earth are one spicies? Thats bizzare wouldnt you agree?

[Imaginarynumber1]

FurthurBB, on 25 September 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

Well, better for the environment in which it lives.

Yeah. I had to post and run.

the L, on 25 September 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

So according to you there are no spicies? We all on earth are one spicies? Thats bizzare wouldnt you agree?

No one is saying that. Remember, WE define what is and isn't a species for our convenience. Generally, if one organism can reproduce with another, similar organism, and exchange genes, they are a species.

Also, evolution occurs within POPULATIONS, not so much individuals. Individual offspring are ALWAYS different from their parent groups. The populations evolve together.

[the L]

Arbitran, on 24 September 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Very good, yes. H. heidelbergensis is the most probably ancestor of H. neandethalensis and H. sapiens; H. rhodesiensis is a side-branch of the genus.

H. heidelbergensis is the most probably ancestor of H. heidelbergensis?

[the L]

Imaginarynumber1, on 25 September 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

No one is saying that. Remember, WE define what is and isn't a species for our convenience. Generally, if one organism can reproduce with another, similar organism, and exchange genes, they are a species.

Also, evolution occurs within POPULATIONS, not so much individuals. Individual offspring are ALWAYS different from their parent groups. The populations evolve together.

So , according to you, H. heidelbergensis and Homo sapiens sapiens is same spicies?

[Imaginarynumber1]

the L, on 25 September 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

So , according to you, H. heidelbergensis and Homo sapiens sapiens is same spicies?

Not precisely, H.h. is different than H.s. and different still from H.s.s. I do not have a yes or no answer for you. Over time, H.h. became more and more like H.sapiens until there were no more H.h. left.

[the L]

Imaginarynumber1, on 25 September 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

Not precisely, H.h. is different than H.s. and different still from H.s.s. I do not have a yes or no answer for you. Over time, H.h. became more and more like H.sapiens until there were no more H.h. left.

So you again use h.s. Okay, H.h id different from H.s.s. You see where I have problem. You neither claim that they are one spicies or different but claim that one evolve from another into another that they are not same but they are.

Did H.h. evolved into us?
Id H.h another spicies then me and you? It is outstanding to me because I never heard that Im H.h.

[the L]

FurthurBB, on 25 September 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

Well, better for the environment in which it lives.

How come that neanderthal evolve different then we? We lived in same area.

[Arbitran]

the L, on 25 September 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

H. heidelbergensis is the most probably ancestor of H. heidelbergensis?

H. heidelbergensis is the most probable ancestor of H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens. You must have misread my prior post... it was quite unambiguous...

[the L]

On h.sapiens you think on homo sapiens sapiens or archaic homo sapiens?

[Arbitran]

the L, on 25 September 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

On h.sapiens you think on homo sapiens sapiens or archaic homo sapiens?

Both. In pertinence to H. heidelbergensis' being the direct ancestor, yes, both pre-H. sapiens sapiens as well as H. sapiens sapiens are descended directly from H. heidelbergensis; as was H. neanderthalensis (a.k.a., H. sapiens neanderthalensis).

[the L]

So Arbitran since you claim that H.h. evolved into us.

Is H.h another spicies then me and you?

[Arbitran]

the L, on 25 September 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

So Arbitran since you claim that H.h. evolved into us.

Is H.h another spicies then me and you?

In the taxonomic sense, likely so. In that it is perhaps probable that modern Homo sapiens sapiens would be incapable of reproducing and yielding viable offspring with an H. heidelbergensis. Although this is hard to determine.

[the L]

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.

Edited by the L, 25 September 2012 - 10:17 PM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

the L, on 25 September 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

So you again use h.s. Okay, H.h id different from H.s.s. You see where I have problem. You neither claim that they are one spicies or different but claim that one evolve from another into another that they are not same but they are.

Did H.h. evolved into us?
Id H.h another spicies then me and you? It is outstanding to me because I never heard that Im H.h.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you L. I had a meeting with my advisor to come up with a thesis for my next research paper. After all this, I'm thinking about doing something with the evolution of H.h, so thanks for that!

Evolution can be both simple and complex. Like I've said, what defines a species for one type of animal may not work to define another.
I'll try an analogy that I once heard,

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

Imagine that each number is a population and represents multiple generations. Let us also, for the sake of argument, assume that H.h. was the last transitional form before H. sapiens.
Group 1 is H.h and group 10 is H. sapiens. Populations and multiple generations, mind you, not individuals.

So say we find bones from group 1. These bones are very human like, but show some definite differences, mainly in the jaw, cranium size and bone density. So these human like animals were taller, had around our size brains and were probably more muscular than us.

Now we fined bones from group 5. These are still like the bones from group 1, however, we have begun too see some changes. The overall bodies are less robust and the craniums are on average slightly larger and the mandibles are even more like ours.

Now we find some bones from group 9. These are almost just like us, but still retain similarity with groups 1-8.
(The same holds true for all the numbers of groups, I just didn't want to typr it all out. 2 is a bit different from 1, 3 from 2, 4 from 3, etc)

Now we have group 10 and up which while like the lower groups, the have more features in common with what we see with people today than what we saw with group 1.

At some point we decide that we are going to call everything we find that matched groups 1-9 H.h. and everything we find that matches groups 10 and up we are going to call H. sapiens.

Groups 10 and up show ancestral traits that have been modified over time for one reason or another such as a larger cranial case (more intelligence), less robustness in the bones (smaller, faster, smarter. Don't need to be large when you are smarter than everyone else.) and so on.

Again, remember, these numbers represent populations and multiple generations, not individuals.

the L, on 25 September 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

How come that neanderthal evolve different then we? We lived in same area.

Now imagine along with the regular line of numbers we have another line.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  \\\\\\\ \  
5a 6a 7a 8a x

This second line shows groups that begin to become shorter, more robust (thicker and stockier, for want of a better definition) and we start finding them in a different environment from the previous groups. The same reasoning applies here. Group 5a is like the proceeding 4 groups, but with said differences. As we find more bones with these traits (and many others) they become less and less like the first 4 groups, but also different from the rest of the groups. WE decided to call this animal H. neanderthalensis.  

These populations are always changing. Not all H.h. were the same just as not all H. sapiens sapiens are the same. So there comes a point were WE draw a line and say 1-9 we will call H.h., 5a-8a we will call H. neanderthalensis, and 10-whatever we will call H.sapiens.


Edit: Typos

Does that help at all or just continue to make things more muddled?

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 25 September 2012 - 10:41 PM.