03-05-06, 02:51 PM #41Originally Posted by Lemming3k
Neanderthals are considered homo sapiens' cousin, not predecessor. Homo sapiens is man that occupies its own genus and species classification.
03-05-06, 03:04 PM #42
Actually there is no evolution of man as such,
there is evolution of life out of which one temporary product happens to be what we call homo sapiens.
03-05-06, 03:05 PM #43
Discussing reality with one who has not shown to have a tenuous grip is most certainly a waste of time.
Why would you be interested in facts of evolution where, in another thread, you applaud the future opening of a creationist museum?
I would have to ask then, which of the two of these threads was created to push buttons?
03-05-06, 03:05 PM #44Neanderthals are considered homo sapien's cousin, not predecessor.
Homo sapiens is man that occupies its own genus and species classification.
It should be quite easy to search for a tree of human evolution which shows how we can roughly trace back our ancestry almost 6 million years, the tree would show many branches off leading to dead ends.
03-05-06, 03:08 PM #45
03-05-06, 04:53 PM #46Originally Posted by Avatar
Last edited by Woody; 03-05-06 at 04:59 PM.
03-05-06, 04:58 PM #47
There is no necessity that the human race should survive.
03-05-06, 05:00 PM #48
03-05-06, 05:05 PM #49
hehe, survive what? the end of the universe (if it comes)? this planet? solar system? survive the collision between Milky way galaxy and Andromeda galaxy?
there are a lot of things to survive and some things we have survived
it's all in our hands, laws of nature and chance (or luck)
03-05-06, 05:33 PM #50One survivor and 16 missfits in 5 million years -- not very good adaptation.
03-05-06, 05:34 PM #51
Originally Posted by Woody
I don't know where you got that 5,000 population figure. A bit of googling shows that the lowest estimate of the total world population in 10,000BCE, the dawn of the Neolithic Era, was one million and it could have been as high as ten million.
Humans were not direct competitors with the other apes. It's an arguable hypothesis that the earliest hominids came down out of the trees precisely to get away from the growing competition for the poor nutrition provided by the herbivorous/insectivorous simian diet. None of them could possibly have been thinking of outcompeting the giant grazing mammals of the savannah for the even poorer nutrition provided by raw, unrefined, unhybridized grasses and leaves. No, they almost certainly saw the other mammals as sources of a high-protein meat diet, rather than as competition.
It's been persuasively suggested that the hominids didn't stop when they reached the ground, but walked over to the nearest lake. The "Aquatic Ape Theory" has been discussed on SciForums at great length. It is much easier to compete with lower-energy cold-blooded aquatic animals, especially gill-breathers who take in far less oxygen to metabolize. Mammals and birds invariably rule when they migrate into an aquatic environment, from otters and ducks to polar bears and seagulls to seals and puffins to cetaceans and penguins. Warm-blooded air breathers are the kings of the water.
After developing a digestive system better suited to a high-protein diet, and developing hunting skills, perhaps then the hominids climbed back out to declare themselves kings of thte savannah.
Woody, you need to do some of your own research before you start posting. Many of the errors you've made here could have been corrected in half an hour of serious googling, without having to take any classes or even go to a library. Some of the information that has eluded you is even right here on SciForums.
This is SciForums. We are all scientists here. That means we do our own research, even if it's secondary or tertiary research.
03-05-06, 06:36 PM #52
Fraggle Rocker said:
I don't know where you got that 5,000 population figure.
We produce food rather than hunting and gathering only the food that already exists in nature.
Many of the errors you've made here could have been corrected
Many of the errors you've made here could have been corrected in half an hour of serious googling
Heidelberg man is the closest and it was discovered over 80 years ago. Nothing new since then?
Last edited by Woody; 03-05-06 at 06:54 PM.
03-05-06, 06:44 PM #53
03-05-06, 07:15 PM #54
With such a big world and such small populations -- what would we be competing for?
There are around 8 billion homo sapiens on the earth right now and we manage to survive.
If the extinct homos were more intelligent than apes then why couldn't they outcompete apes? Were they inferior even to apes?
03-05-06, 07:31 PM #55
Alpha Wolf said
our ancestors were savannah uh... dwellers..., other apes are forest dwellers. two different environments, different food sources, etc.
Homo Sapiens have no problem living in the woods again, and would probably prefer it, being they are such slow runners.
03-05-06, 08:49 PM #561) I have answered that with "singularity" -- man could have evolved.
2 a) genetics -- DNA evidence shows Neanderthal is not a predecessor -- can you provide DNA evidence that correlates a predecessor.
2 b) comparitive anatomy -- yeah there are features in man that could imply "external" genetic material -- like goose bumps. the appendics, and others.
Also Negros have more wisdom teeth, and more leg muscles than the rest of humanity.
2c) paleontology -- There are other hominids that made tools, built fires, etc. Perhaps they were apes that were copying man's example. Apes are quite intelligent creatures.
03-06-06, 04:03 AM #57
03-06-06, 04:12 AM #58Originally Posted by Avatar
Strong religious beliefs and illusion that GOD will save us all will definately hasten our extinction.
Look at war videos, they all die in millions praying GOD for help.
Its just a matter of time when we will die in billions.
03-06-06, 04:17 AM #59Originally Posted by Lemming3k
Sorry, thats my theory.
03-06-06, 04:23 AM #60
If the brain gets too big, communications between different parts of it become slower and brain starts to lose on its' processing capacity thus a decrease in intelligence.
According to a research done by french neurologists our brain can not get much bigger than it is now.