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

236 posts in this topic

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

Is H.h another spicies then me and you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :tu:

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.

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=related

I apologize if I have overstepped or restated something.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God bless America! (sarcasm)

The L is not an American citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=related

I apologize if I have overstepped or restated something.

GREAT video.

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Sure. I will.

The L is not an American citizen.

I wish Im.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/wiki/Archaic_Homo_sapiens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.