Denial of evolution III

[Jack_]

Early humans are extinct because they failed to survive. As to why they didn't survive - there are probably a lot of interesting hypothesis out there. The answer may never be known. Do you have any good ideas as to why early humans didn't survive?


Just to make sure, we all agree:
- There once were early humans in existence?
- These creatures do not exist today.
- They were our ancestors.
- They are extinct.

We're just wondering why they went extinct right? I'm not sure if we can ever truly know that answer. Maybe their environment changed and they couldn't cope well with this change, as in have enough offspring, and eventually died off. Or maybe there was a slightly better human that took their resources and murdered them off - maybe even eating them. We're killing off all sorts of species today for food, for environment, ect... I don't see why the same wouldn't be true in the past.

This is insufficient.

A theory is used to predict events.

For example, if trees become dark and a certain moth has a light color and a dark color and they like these trees, then birds can see the light moths but not the dark.

So, we need to use the theory to predict why early humans did not survive.
If TOE cannot do this, then TOE is worthless.

[spidergoat]

OK, I guess you are on my team.

TOE is an incomplete theory.

I guess low information voters are also low on other kinds of information. The Theory of Evolution by natural selection is one of the best proven theories in all of science. That is not to say that there isn't more to learn about it, but that is to be expected in all areas of science. That is also no reason to dismiss it entirely unless you have a rival theory that can explain things better.

Some genes from early humans obviously did survive, because we are their decendents. The ToE does not have to explain why any particular species went extinct, there are multiple reasons why that could be so.

[Jack_]

Fraggle Rocker
They did survive. They just changed slowly. If you take a snapshot of the "average" human at, say, twenty-thousand year intervals, you will see a series of barely discernable differences. It's hard to tell one from the next, but over the millennia the changes are significant.

Nobody died out. Their descendants were just ever so slightly different.

The average human twenty thousand years ago was substantially shorter than the average human today. But not so short that he would necessarily stand out in a crowd. Keep going back and you find more hair, changes in skull shape, etc. Eventually after you've gone back a quarter of a million years you say, "Hey, these people are definitely not our species." But it's hard to pick a date when that speciation occurred. We're guided by the fossils we have available. There is not a flip-book, with a fossil recovered for every thousand years. We work with what we've got.

This argument does not work for Neanderthal which by the fossil record coexisted with humans.

This is the classic refutation of y9our argument that branches proceeded in different directions some faster than others.

The crocodile is further evidence that a "superior" species can be retained over time.

By your argument, you are attempting to localize all human evolution.

[spidergoat]

The crocodile is not a species, it is a family of reptiles that include many species.

[Jack_]

I guess low information voters are also low on other kinds of information. The Theory of Evolution by natural selection is one of the best proven theories in all of science. That is not to say that there isn't more to learn about it, but that is to be expected in all areas of science. That is also no reason to dismiss it entirely unless you have a rival theory that can explain things better.

Some genes from early humans obviously did survive, because we are their decendents. The ToE does not have to explain why any particular species went extinct, there are multiple reasons why that could be so.

Yea, if you put small rocks in a fast moving stream, those rocks will not survive there but the larger rocks will.

But, this is not all there is.

Encoded in the logic and thinking of TOE, there exists the natural human logic of progress.

Humans expect progress will occur when it comes to life.

So, humans impose this thinking on TOE to help make it complete.

Scientifically, nothing has to be anyway when it comes to life.

Once you can see this, you will smell the fingerprints of the humans on this theory.

It is almost religious.

[Jack_]

The crocodile is not a species, it is a family of reptiles that include many species.

A crocodile is any species belonging to the family Crocodylidae (sometimes classified instead as the subfamily Crocodylinae).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile

[spidergoat]

You have misunderstood the theory. There is no concept of progress towards a goal. Humans do impose this concept on the theory, and it's incorrect.

[spidergoat]

A crocodile is any species belonging to the family Crocodylidae (sometimes classified instead as the subfamily Crocodylinae).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile

Right, it's not a species, it's a label applied to a broad range of reptiles, some large, some small, with different qualities and characteristics, and which cannot breed with each other. You might as well try to say there is no evolution because the most ancient life forms still exist in some form or other.

[Jack_]

Let me see.

If we are going to claim that early human species should not exist by gradual evolution, then all species that came before humans in any form should not exist by gradual evolution. That would include fish and bacteria.

[Walter L. Wagner]

I believe some posters should go and read Robinson Crusoe. Human flesh probably tastes good, and near-human flesh (e.g. Neanderthal) probably tastes just as good. Modernly, primate bush-meat is routinely used in Africa.

[Michael]

You're making the mistake of talking about evolution as though it proceeds in discrete steps. First there is Australopithecus, then it dies off and H. erectus takes its place, then the same with the other intermediate species, and then finally the last one dies off and H. sapiens arises. It doesn't work that way.

Mutations occur continuously in individuals within a species. Occasionally one mutation or a cluster of mutations makes the individuals who have it somewhat better suited to their environment, so they tend to reproduce and survive at a higher rate than the individuals who don't have it. Eventually most of the individuals in the population have those mutations, but it's still the same species. The individuals accept each other as the same species and, in a pack-social species like humans, they trust and care for each other as pack mates. We can't even clearly distinguish the fossilized bones of the mutated individuals from the others. In fact we often don't usually even have intermediate fossils, since the conditions for fossilization are very specific and don't occur as often as paleontoligsts would like. The creationists who ask why we don't have more fossils simply don't understand how remarkable it is that we have any at all.

Another mechanism is the genetic bottleneck. Due to a disaster or sheer luck, of the entire species, in one particular generation only the individuals with the mutation survive. The mutation itself may not even have been a survival advantage, it was just fate. This has happened a couple of times in our species within the past quarter million years. We all have one single male ancestor, Y-Chromosome Adam, and one single female ancestor, Mitochondrial Eve, from two different eras. The descendants of their peers all died out.

This happens several times, and eventually you end up with a different species. There has been a more-or-less slow and smooth transition from one to the other, and it's not possible to say clearly at which point the speciation occurred. The previous unmutated population may still be in existence, but the earlier population lacking the last ten or twenty mutations is long gone.They did survive. They just changed slowly. If you take a snapshot of the "average" human at, say, twenty-thousand year intervals, you will see a series of barely discernable differences. It's hard to tell one from the next, but over the millennia the changes are significant.

Nobody died out. Their descendants were just ever so slightly different.

The average human twenty thousand years ago was substantially shorter than the average human today. But not so short that he would necessarily stand out in a crowd. Keep going back and you find more hair, changes in skull shape, etc. Eventually after you've gone back a quarter of a million years you say, "Hey, these people are definitely not our species." But it's hard to pick a date when that speciation occurred. We're guided by the fossils we have available. There is not a flip-book, with a fossil recovered for every thousand years. We work with what we've got.

Nice post Fraggle.

I was thinking of a situation whereby a group is divided (say by a mountain range/whatever) and both populations continue to evolve as isolated groups. Over time the different pressures on each group result in two different species. Suppose that the barrier (the hypothetical mountain) is removed. Now these two different species of hominid are in direct competition with one another.


But, yes, there could be (and are) all sorts situations that may arise.



The other thing here, are we honestly asking interesting questions? Or, are we just loath to accept that evolution is the means whereby humans came into existence on this planet? There's no point in having a discussion with a fundamental monotheist. For them, The One God made man. Done. Can't really have an honest discussion can you?

[Michael]

This is insufficient.

A theory is used to predict events.

For example, if trees become dark and a certain moth has a light color and a dark color and they like these trees, then birds can see the light moths but not the dark.

So, we need to use the theory to predict why early humans did not survive.
If TOE cannot do this, then TOE is worthless.

How would you predict something that happened in the past? That makes zero sense.

Evolution is not a Theory. As to how evolution occurs - there are a lot of competing theories. We know atoms form bonds. However, there's a lot of competing theories with atomic orbital theory and molecular orbital theory. But, you're probably not all that interested in atom bonds are you? If the Bible said something about atoms - well, then we'd probably be having that debate.

[Michael]

Humans expect progress will occur when it comes to life.

Just a side note. In evolution there is no ladder of fitness. Only niches. So, you are no more "advanced" than, say, an earth worm or our second second second cousin - the mouse

[Pandaemoni]

Specifically, large brains require more protein. As dogs evolved into a distinct subspecies of wolf, C. lupus familiaris, and adapted from a predator's diet to a lower-protein scavenger's diet, the size of their brain decreased.

Larger complex brains also are energy hogs. The human brain requires 15% of our cardiac output and 25% of our total body glucose utilization.

[spidergoat]

Let me see.

If we are going to claim that early human species should not exist by gradual evolution, then all species that came before humans in any form should not exist by gradual evolution. That would include fish and bacteria.

But we are saying every species exists as the result of gradual evolution.

[Jack_]

How would you predict something that happened in the past? That makes zero sense.

Evolution is not a Theory. As to how evolution occurs - there are a lot of competing theories. We know atoms form bonds. However, there's a lot of competing theories with atomic orbital theory and molecular orbital theory. But, you're probably not all that interested in atom bonds are you? If the Bible said something about atoms - well, then we'd probably be having that debate.

Me bible?

LOL.

[Jack_]

Just a side note. In evolution there is no ladder of fitness. Only niches. So, you are no more "advanced" than, say, an earth worm or our second second second cousin - the mouse

Spell out the logic and I will break it.

I am doing that now.

[Jack_]

But we are saying every species exists as the result of gradual evolution.

We?

Is this how you function?

Anyway, you have not explained why bacteria are still here if we gradually evolved from them.

Let me know.

[Jack_]

Larger complex brains also are energy hogs. The human brain requires 15% of our cardiac output and 25% of our total body glucose utilization.

So what.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Spell out the logic and I will break it.

I am doing that now.

Mod note: Jack_, you’re being deliberately obtuse. Please stop it and start engaging appropriately. If you want to respectfully discuss the theory of evolution, then fine. If you’re here to show off or be difficult, then go away.