Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory

[Imaginarynumber1]

There is. Every link that we don't see is missing. We are a link. You could never find a transitionary species because all species are transitionary.

I believe that he is implying that it is a misnomer. In that respect he is correct. You are also correct about us all being transitory species.

[Rlyeh]

Can polar bear become whale in given time?

I gather you don't know what evolution is? An organism *never* turns into a different organism, the evolutionary theory has never made such an ignorant claim.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I gather you don't know what evolution is? An organism *never* turns into a different organism, the evolutionary theory has never made such an ignorant claim.

Rlyeh your question indicates to me that you never saw a video plus that you didnt read previous posts.

i like asking questions. thats why i enjoy L's threads.

Thanks.

[Rlyeh]

Rlyeh your question indicates to me that you never saw a video plus that you didnt read previous posts.

The video doesn't make your question anymore logical.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

The video doesn't make your question anymore logical.

Thing is that question isnt mine. Second if your read posts you would understand.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I always find pictures to be useful teaching aids.

I saw picture but I didnt get answer on my question.

Do you found incorrect this: " homo heidelbergensis become homo sapiens sapiens in given time" ?

[Rlyeh]

Thing is that question isnt mine. Second if your read posts you would understand.

Ofcourse not, someone else who goes by 'the L' asked it.

The only thing I understand why someone would ask it is if they didn't know what evolution is.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Ofcourse not, someone else who goes by 'the L' asked it.

.

Rlyeh, that questioned was raised from documentary. You didnt watched it but you wrote in this thread.

Please Rlyeh, no offence, we talked nicely before you shown up.

Read post 6 instead.

[Rlyeh]

Rlyeh, that questioned was raised from documentary. You didnt watched it but you wrote in this thread.

Please Rlyeh, no offence, we talked nicely before you shown up.

Read post 6 instead.

Sorry, I didn't watch it for more than a few minutes. However if it presents that kind of uneducated and ignorant reasoning, I have no desire to watch anymore of it.

Regurgitating the question doesn't say a lot for your understanding of evolution either.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Rlyeh

[notoverrated]

There's nothing wrong with asking questions. That's the point of science.

One has to realize, however, that some questions have very definite answers, even if they aren't the answers that one expects or wants.

well the reason i ask questions is to get a definite answer i didnt watch to much of the video got kinda bored (the guy was talking rly boring couldnt take it.) just saying i like the threads he make.

[Imaginarynumber1]

I saw picture but I didnt get answer on my question.

Do you found incorrect this: " homo heidelbergensis become homo sapiens sapiens in given time" ?

It is likely, that H. heidelbergensis evolved into archaic H. sapiens. But remember H. hedelbergensis was just H. erectus that had adapted more to his environment.

I haven't watched the video yet, so if there is specific criticism in there, I'll not be able to address it until I watch said video.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

It is likely, that H.heidelbergens is evolved into archaic H. sapiens.

Can you explain what do you mean under archaic h. sapiens?

Wiki: This category typically includes Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, and may also include Homo antecessor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Homo_sapiens

[Imaginarynumber1]

Can you explain what do you mean under archaic h. sapiens?

Wiki: This category typically includes Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, and may also include Homo antecessor.

http://en.wikipedia....ic_Homo_sapiens

That's a great example of what I was talking about with us defining what species are. H. heidelbergensis can be considered an archaic Homo sapien, as can the first example of H. sapiens that we have. Archaic H. sapiens are usually differentiated from FMH's. Fully Modern Humans, also sometimes called Homo sapiens sapiens.

Nomenclature can be quite confusing and not everybody agrees what should be called what. Again, though, these are only names and terms that WE have developed to better classify and study the animals that evolved into us.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Okay, so I started watching the video and I see a few immediate problems.

Richard Milton, the author in the video, is an engineer. He has never studied biology, nor evolutionary theory in any practical scientific manner, yet he writes about evolution and biology.

He then uses meteorite dust levels and helium levels to say that Earth is younger than 4.5 billion years old. Well, when Hans Petterson made his first measurements of meteorite dust he did so on a mountain top with a device for measuring smog. His main assumption was that all the nickle he collected was only from meteorite dust. His final calculations gave a figure of 15 million tons a year, which he believed to be an over estimate and suggested that it was closer to 5 million tons a year. The problem is that nickel in the atmosphere doesn't only come from meteorites. Much more accurate satellite data gives an estimate of 18-25,000 tons a year. This number is more in line with what we see in sediment samples from across the world. In other words, it has evidence to back it up. The claim of 15 million tons of dust a year is just wrong based on an inaccurate assumption.

You can read more about that and see the actual numbers from several studies here: http://www.talkorigi.../moon-dust.html

The helium argument is that helium-4 cannot escape from the Earth, therefor the levels we see are consistent with a young earth, otherwise there would be much much more helium in the atmosphere. Well, helium-4 can and does escape from earth's atmosphere. This has been measured and it is close to it's production rates, so the level in the atmosphere stays relatively constant. If the creationist theory were correct, we would be seeing helium-4 levels rise. We don't.

Then he brings up the bear turning into a whale. This has been covered already, but I feel that it is important to remind everyone that bears (nor any other animal) will not ever "turn into" another animal. Given enough time, in the right environment, yes, bears could evolve into a more aquatic animal and over millions of years, if the environmental pressures were such that the more aquatic bears were selected for, it is a hypothetical possibility that they might resemble whales in some biological respects. We call this convergent evolution.. But a bear will never turn into a whale.

This is NOT the "core of Darwin's theory", as he puts it and it is NOT what biologists believe or what is taught in schools.

He goes on about Darwinists promising a missing link. No such claim has ever been made. We are the last representatives of the Homo genus on earth. There used to more. Human evolution was not a linear process. It was more of a web with this group breeding what that group and z group breeding with x group who breeds with y group who goes back and breeds with z group, etc.

He misses the point that WE classify things into species. H. heidlbergensis is classified as a separate species because while it is not the same as us, it is also not the same as H. erectus, though it shares traits with both of us.

Basically, this guy just rehashes a bunch of creationist arguments that are know for a fact to be wrong and to use false information. He was trying to hock his book to the creationism crowd back in 2000.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[Big Bad Voodoo]

That's a great example of what I was talking about with us defining what species are. H. heidelbergensis can be considered an archaic Homo sapien, as can the first example of H. sapiens that we have. Archaic H. sapiens are usually differentiated from FMH's. Fully Modern Humans, also sometimes called Homo sapiens sapiens.

Nomenclature can be quite confusing and not everybody agrees what should be called what. Again, though, these are only names and terms that WE have developed to better classify and study the animals that evolved into us.

But you basicly by saying: "It is likely, that H.heidelbergens is evolved into archaic H. sapiens. " said that H.heidelbergens evolve into H.heidelbergens.

[Imaginarynumber1]

But you basicly by saying: "It is likely, that H.heidelbergens is evolved into archaic H. sapiens. " said that H.heidelbergens evolve into H.heidelbergens.

Some classify H. heidelbergensis as archaic and some do not. That's where the name game gets tricky. I was referring to not fully modern versions of H. sapiens. Sorry for the confusion.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Some classify H. heidelbergensis as archaic and some do not. That's where the name game gets tricky. I was referring to not fully modern versions of H. sapiens. Sorry for the confusion.

So I will repeat my question. And since h. heidelbergensis is basicly h.sapiens avoid it... word arhaic homo sapiens or h.sapiens just confuse me and you.

I was talking about homo sapiens sapiens. Todays anatomicly human. Did h. heidelbergensis become us? Did h. heidelbergensis evolve into us? Is that our direct ancestor?

[Imaginarynumber1]

So I will repeat my question. And since h. heidelbergensis is basicly h.sapiens avoid it... word arhaic homo sapiens or h.sapiens just confuse me and you.

I was talking about homo sapiens sapiens. Todays anatomicly human. Did h. heidelbergensis become us? Did h. heidelbergensis evolve into us? Is that our direct ancestor?

It is a possibility. It could also be the last common ancestor to us and H. neanderthalensis. Or it could be both, considering that there were, in the past, multiple Homos walking around. ( Gotta love that anthropological humor...)

[Big Bad Voodoo]

It is a possibility. It could also be the last common ancestor to us and H. neanderthalensis. Or it could be both, considering that there were, in the past, multiple Homos walking around. ( Gotta love that anthropological humor...)

But do you agree that h. heidelbergensis and homo sapiens sapiens (us) are different spicies?

[Imaginarynumber1]

But do you agree that h. heidelbergensis and homo sapiens sapiens (us) are different spicies?

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

[Imaginarynumber1]

Edit: Can't get the formatting correct for what I was trying to do so I give up

It's hard to say which of these is correct and in fact, it is probably a combination of all the existing homo lines at the time that lead to FMH.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[Imaginarynumber1]

It is also important to realize that one species do not change from x to y to z. The linear view of evolution is incorrect and does not allow for the complexity and diversity of multiple populations across time breeding with other populations. The change is also a gradual one.

This is NOT correct:

This IS correct: Remember that each skull is representative of an entire population. If we had every fossilized hominid skull ever, you could lay them all out just like this tree and see a gradual progression from one to the next

Edited September 24, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[Jinxdom]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the term species a little fuzzy. It's one thing to label the dead as a different species even though the differences are quite small genetically then doing it to things that are alive currently like us. I wouldn't want to be the one found to be different enough to be considered a new species while alive.

Seems like how we classify life is all good up until we start doing stuff about humans and how we came along then it just gets offensive lol.

[Imaginarynumber1]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the term species a little fuzzy. It's one thing to label the dead as a different species even though the differences are quite small genetically then doing it to things that are alive currently like us. I wouldn't want to be the one found to be different enough to be considered a new species while alive.

Seems like how we classify life is all good up until we start doing stuff about humans and how we came along then it just gets offensive lol.

It can be confusing and not everyone in academia agrees on who was what exactly. It's really quite muddled when it comes to hominids. Life is complex and despite our desire and best efforts to catalog and name everything, nature still has a habit of saying "Screw you".

[Emma_Acid]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the term species a little fuzzy.

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

*snip*

Edited September 24, 2012 by Saru
Removed flamebait