FurthurBB Posted September 24, 2012 #76 Share Posted September 24, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 24, 2012 Author #77 Share Posted September 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 24, 2012 #78 Share Posted September 24, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 24, 2012 Author #79 Share Posted September 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 24, 2012 Author #80 Share Posted September 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 24, 2012 #81 Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) 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 September 24, 2012 by Doug1029 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 24, 2012 Author #82 Share Posted September 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted September 24, 2012 #83 Share Posted September 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted September 24, 2012 #84 Share Posted September 24, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted September 24, 2012 #85 Share Posted September 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambelamba Posted September 25, 2012 #86 Share Posted September 25, 2012 God bless America! (sarcasm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 25, 2012 #87 Share Posted September 25, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 25, 2012 #88 Share Posted September 25, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 25, 2012 Author #89 Share Posted September 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FurthurBB Posted September 25, 2012 #90 Share Posted September 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 25, 2012 Author #91 Share Posted September 25, 2012 So according to you there are no spicies? We all on earth are one spicies? Thats bizzare wouldnt you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted September 25, 2012 #92 Share Posted September 25, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 25, 2012 Author #93 Share Posted September 25, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 25, 2012 Author #94 Share Posted September 25, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted September 25, 2012 #95 Share Posted September 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 25, 2012 Author #96 Share Posted September 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 25, 2012 Author #97 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Well, better for the environment in which it lives. How come that neanderthal evolve different then we? We lived in same area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted September 25, 2012 #98 Share Posted September 25, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 25, 2012 Author #99 Share Posted September 25, 2012 On h.sapiens you think on homo sapiens sapiens or archaic homo sapiens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted September 25, 2012 #100 Share Posted September 25, 2012 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now