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

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

evolution_1903_wideweb__430x328,1.jpg

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay then.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spectrum3.jpg

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the evidence of one species evolving into another into another into another.

But we dont have for todays anatomicly human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we dont have for todays anatomicly human.

Look at my last post L.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we dont have for todays anatomicly human.

I'm not sure of that. We (you and I, if we're of European or Oriental descent) carry genes inherited from Neanderthals. The complement is roughly equivalent to what you got from your great-grandfather - in other words, it's small. But these look like something we picked up along the way.

"Anatomically modern humans" evolved from "archaic humans." Both were Homo sapiens. This is not about one species evolving into another one, but about relatively minor changes within a single species. So at this point, I'm going to have to ask you to re-state your proposal. Just how many more fossils do you want before you are ready to say the gap has been filled?

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont get me wrong guys. Im not saying anything except that I dont get it how some scientists claim that we dont have direct ancestor of humans.

I search and didnt found transition bones between h.h. and h.s.s.

If one knows better...the stage is all yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont get me wrong guys. Im not saying anything except that I dont get it how some scientists claim that we dont have direct ancestor of humans.

I search and didnt found transition bones between h.h. and h.s.s.

If one knows better...the stage is all yours.

Again, read my post. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, read my post. lol

I did Miyagi. But I didnt notice bones there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did Miyagi. But I didnt notice bones there.

And I explained why we may never have that discovery or at least recognize it as such. The same reason why you cannot tell exactly when red changes to orange on the spectrum?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I explained why we may never have that discovery or at least recognize it as such. The same reason why you cannot tell exactly when red changes to orange on the spectrum?

:hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:hmm:

Reply to my post and tell me what exactly you do not understand and we can work through this. When you reply in such a manner as you've done here, how can you expect a discussion to occur?

Edited by Mr. Miyagi
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not some magical fossil that's going to have the head of a human and the body of it's ancestor. If you took a static image of each generation of creature (if you could) and then played those real fast on a TV, they'd 'morph' slowly shifting into homo sapien, and if you kept doing that today and then into the future, who knows?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:hmm:

L, Please go to my about me page and check out the first 2 links under "commonly addressed creationist claims". The one on tranisitional organisms/fossils and JBL on species concepts. You also might find the link "An ode to clowns" helpful as well.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't help but feel that if you deny evolution then surely you have to deny dog breeds? How about plant cultivars? Granted these are on a scale far smaller and faster compared to natural evolution but the principle is the same. An outside force shapes the "breed" through generations of breeding.

The point is, and I believe this to be the main pint of confusion, is that animals do not change fit a specific environment (like it's some premeditated exercise) they are changed by the environment. For every rabbit that is physically and genetically faster, more agile and more adept at smelling out the predator, many more will be taken. Or how about how people living in colder climates (eg Eskimo, Sami etc) tend to be quite squat and of stocky build, while African people, and those living in hotter, dryer climes temd to be slightly taller, lithe and thin? Coincidence? Try swapping one person from each area and see how they'd get on.

Case point of natural selection: the peppered moth

http://www.mothscoun..._selection.html

It's so straightforward and obvious. Is it not? If it's not, you haven't read it, or you're choosing to blanket it out because it doesn't "fit".

Every animal is currently at a potential "transitional" stage, as our environment shapes us. We should leave the crack-pot ideas of what evolution is in the Pokemon games.

Edited by Urisk
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we dont have for todays anatomicly human.

That is simply because we don't have anywhere near a complete fossil record of every species. For a animal bones to become fossilized, a very specific set of circumstances have to be in place. We only have a fraction or more like a fraction of a fraction of the fossil record of all the species that have walked the earth.

Most creatures that die in the wild are eaten by all the other wild animals around them, think about it. otherwise the plains of Africa would be knee deep in old bones.

It is absolutely no surprise at all that there is no 'missing link' found in the fossil records of man...no mystery what so ever.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey OP, I saw your avatar and immediately I thought of this guy (Ogre from Tekken)

OgreTTT2.jpg

anyone else with me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey OP, I saw your avatar and immediately I thought of this guy (Ogre from Tekken)

OgreTTT2.jpg

anyone else with me?

Its Etruscan.

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.