Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Big Bad Voodoo

Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory

237 posts in this topic

Thats because its a man-made classification. Categorised species, with their nice clean borders and boundaries don't really exist in nature.

Absolutely! It is kind of like looking at the bones of an entire family where everyone died as an adult and trying to group them into generations. Not to mention, this is just another 'god of gaps' argument. I really hate those kind of arguments because it forces us to prove that god doesn't exist there as we close the gaps in knowledge and helps to pit science against religion when that is never the intention.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm.. that's less clear. Again, because of the naming issue. I agree that H.h (I got tired of typing it out) is different from modern humans and is different from H erectus and H. neanderthalensis. Though it is possible that it is only the precursor to H. neanderthalensis and not FMH.

I c

So you basicly said that we evolve from other spicies? Under spicies Im thinking on term as we usualy use today. Lets forget pardox about naming spicies for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you basicly said that we evolve from other spicies? Under spicies Im thinking on term as we usualy use today. Lets forget pardox about naming spicies for a while.

As I recall, the term used in the creation story, at least in KJV, is "kind." The Bible is even more vague than is biology.

But that being the case, the issue of whether H. neanderthalensis is a separate species is moot: we don't know whether it was a different "kind" or not. As Europenas carry about 4% Neanderthal genes, by the strict definition of "species," it was not a separate species. Thus, we modern humans can be descended from the Neanderthals without producing a biblical inconsistency.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall, the term used in the creation story, at least in KJV, is "kind." The Bible is even more vague than is biology.

But that being the case, the issue of whether H. neanderthalensis is a separate species is moot: we don't know whether it was a different "kind" or not. As Europenas carry about 4% Neanderthal genes, by the strict definition of "species," it was not a separate species. Thus, we modern humans can be descended from the Neanderthals without producing a biblical inconsistency.

Doug

You are the first one that bring bible and creationism in thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus, we modern humans can be descended from the Neanderthals.

You said Neanderthal, Imaginary Homo heidelbergensis, others say Homo rhodesiensis....So seems to me that science dont have clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the first one that bring bible and creationism in thread.

My appologies. Perhaps I misunderstood the subject.

You said Neanderthal, Imaginary Homo heidelbergensis, others say Homo rhodesiensis....So seems to me that science dont have clue.

I wasn't talking about heidelbergensis or rhodesiensis. And you're right; I am a dendrochronologist, not a taxonomist. In this subject, I am as much an amateur as anybody else on here. The fact that few of us knows what we're talking about, doesn't keep us from talking, though.

But as I understand the situation, heidelbergensis may be an ancestor of the Neanderthals, thus an ancestor of ours. Rhodesiensis, however, was on a different branch of the family tree and so is not our ancestor, sort of like a cousin.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My appologies. Perhaps I misunderstood the subject.

I wasn't talking about heidelbergensis or rhodesiensis. And you're right; I am a dendrochronologist, not a taxonomist. In this subject, I am as much an amateur as anybody else on here. The fact that few of us knows what we're talking about, doesn't keep us from talking, though.

Doug

No need to apologize, realy. And please continue with your speculation here. You are welcome. Thats what we do too as you pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said Neanderthal, Imaginary Homo heidelbergensis, others say Homo rhodesiensis....So seems to me that science dont have clue.

He's not speaking for science. Modern humans are not descended from Neanderthals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My appologies. Perhaps I misunderstood the subject.

I wasn't talking about heidelbergensis or rhodesiensis. And you're right; I am a dendrochronologist, not a taxonomist. In this subject, I am as much an amateur as anybody else on here. The fact that few of us knows what we're talking about, doesn't keep us from talking, though.

But as I understand the situation, heidelbergensis may be an ancestor of the Neanderthals, thus an ancestor of ours. Rhodesiensis, however, was on a different branch of the family tree and so is not our ancestor, sort of like a cousin.

Doug

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you basicly said that we evolve from other spicies? Under spicies Im thinking on term as we usualy use today. Lets forget pardox about naming spicies for a while.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God bless America! (sarcasm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said Neanderthal, Imaginary Homo heidelbergensis, others say Homo rhodesiensis....So seems to me that science dont have clue.

Relationships don't fossilize. Also, Homo rhodesiensis, I believe, is synonymous with Homo heidelbergensis.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The problem here is that the "species" category was created to distinguish between existing species. Hypothetically, if two populations cannot cross to produce fertile offspring, they are two separate species. But there are exceptions, especially in the plant world.

When we try to decide if one species was ancestral to another, the line gets blurred. In order for one species to evolve into another one, it must be able to reproduce clear along the line with each generation capable of reproducing with those on either side of it, but with the end result not able to cross with the original ancestor.

In North America we have an interesting situation with the leopard frog. Its range forms a giant horseshoe with the ends extending south along the Rockies and Appalachians and the center up in Canada. Frogs in any two adjacent puddles can cross with each other, but those from the southern Appalachians cannot cross with those from the Rockies. This situation begs the definition of "species."

So, yes. A species evolves into a new form of itself, but if that form is unable to cross with its ancestor, then it is a new species, by the definition.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relationships don't fossilize. Also, Homo rhodesiensis, I believe, is synonymous with Homo heidelbergensis.

There are two theories. One that rhodesiensis and heidelbergensis are on two different lines, descended from a common ancestor, but otherwise not related. The other is that rhodesiensis was the descendent of heidelbergensis, a side branch of the family tree that went extinct.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A species evolves into a new form of itself, but if that form is unable to cross with its ancestor, then it is a new species, by the definition.

That sounds logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, better for the environment in which it lives.

Yeah. I had to post and run.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, better for the environment in which it lives.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.