A very specific question for evolutionists.

[MoonLancer]

AV the changes are so small that thier would be a large large grey area from Homo ergaster to Homo sapien. a species doesn't make the change to another species in a single generation.

Its a hard concept to grasp for those who cant see the world without labels. if two fossils are different enough science proclaims them different species. We cant see the line until its already crossed. Now we can see ourselves and realize that apes are different from use, but what your asking is not really possible.

their was likely almost NO difference between the creature that was 99.99% human and the human. likewise with the creatures that was 99.98 and 99.97. they where nearly identical to each other.

If you don't have a counter while running, do you know exactly when you have run a mile if you have no landmarks? but if you keep running, at some point you must have realized you ran a mile, but did you ever know the moment that mile was run?

evolution fits these kinds of analogies. Yours is a bit simplistic. I don't think you will get an awnswer that will fit a storybook.

*edit*

fixed typo

 

[pgp_protector]

AV Do you understand what a Gradient is ?
Lets look at this one for example

We start with Blue (Think Homo Ergaster)
End with Green (Homo Sapiens)
Each step from that to Green is nearly identical to the preceding one.
And would be comparable with it neighbors.
But the farther the spread between points the more of a diffrence you get.
After a while they two points are no longer comparable. ( Red doesn't = Green )

 

[AV1611VET]

AV the changes are so small that thier would be a large large grey area from Homo ergaster to Homo ergasters. a species doesn't make the change to another species in a single generation.

Its a hard concerpt to grasp for those who cant see the world without lables. if two fossals are diffrent enough science proclaims them diffrent specieses. We cant see the line untill its already crossed. Now we can see ourselves and realize that apes are diffrent from use, but what your asking is not really possible.

thier was likely almost NO diffrence between the creature that was 99.99% human and the human.

In other words, there truly are missing links? You guys really don't have a species-by-species representation of us from Homo astropithacus (?) to Homo erectus to Homo ergaster to Homo sapien in some museum somewhere? The line is analog, not digital?

In addition, you don't need to have one to answer my question about beastiality, since the question is based on logic, not physics.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV Do you understand what a Gradient is ?
Lets look at this one for example

We start with Blue (Think Homo Ergaster)
End with Green (Homo Sapiens)
Each step from that to Green is nearly identical to the preceding one.
And would be comparable with it neighbors.
But the farther the spread between points the more of a diffrence you get.
After a while they two points are no longer comparable. ( Red doesn't = Green )

Yes, PGP, I'm aware of that --- I was under the impression that someone knew where we came from, and that it was clearly marked.

Now that I'm asking for specifics, I'm getting a whole different story, so I'm switching to a logical question, not a physics question.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

In other words, there truly are missing links? You guys really don't have a species-by-species representation of us from Homo astropithacus (?) to Homo erectus to Homo ergaster to Homo sapien in some museum somewhere? The line is analog, not digital?

In addition, you don't need to have one to answer my question about beastiality, since the question is based on logic, not physics.

Of course we don't have every single species. I don't think you realize just how rare it is for bones to be preserved, as opposed to rotting away with the flesh. We're lucky to have as many specimens as we have. But with the specimens we do have, we can connect the dots and figure out with sufficient accuracy how our species arose.

Also, just for your information, Austrolopithecus is a genus, and therefore that word comes first. The species in said genus are A. afarensis, a. anamensis, a. africanus, a. bahrelghazali, and probably more that I can't remember. It's not known if these were all direct ancestors of humans, or if some were evolutionary dead-ends.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Yes, PGP, I'm aware of that --- I was under the impression that someone knew where we came from, and that it was clearly marked.

Now that I'm asking for specifics, I'm getting a whole different story, so I'm switching to a logical question, not a physics question.

No, it's not clearly marked. Evolution doesn't work that way. Species are not clearly-defined things. In fact where one species ends and another begins is pretty much artificial, just to help us work. There are criteria for one species being separate from another, such as inability to reproduce and provide viable offspring, but it's rarely that simple, as in the case of ring species.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Accidental double post.

 

[Bombila]

AV, you know fossilization is rare - we are fortunate in having found as much as we have.

As to your "species-by-species representation of us from Homo astropithacus (?) to Homo erectus to Homo ergaster to Homo sapien in some museum somewhere" question, it isn't necessary to have such a thing, any more than it is necessary to have wolf to wolf-dog to generic dog to hound/waterdog/sheepdog fossils to identify dogs as descendents of wolves.

There are still wranglings around what species or number of species of wolf engendered the first domestic dogs, as there are wranglings around which very ancient prehistoric species engendered modern humans, but there is no doubt that certain ones are part of our direct prehistory.

I very much wish Neanderthals had made it to the present as the separate human species they undoubtedly were. Creationists can dismiss them because they aren't walking among us, despite the phenomenal amount of actual Neanderthal mtDNA and DNA information researchers are currently parsing. It would be a lot harder to ignore walking, talking people of a different species.

If you actually had the slightest interest I would recommend John Hawks' excellent site as a source for a great deal of relevant information, but since you are not, I will offer it to other people with greater curiousity on the subject.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact where one species ends and another begins is pretty much artificial, just to help us work.

So theoretically, there could be a whole new species of us humans walking around out there, and we wouldn't even know it?

And again, if the amoeba-to-us line is analog, not digital, then I submit that there are a lot of missing links.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you actually had the slightest interest I would recommend John Hawks' excellent site as a source for a great deal of relevant information, but since you are not, I will offer it to other people with greater curiousity on the subject.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog

Couldn't care less, Bombilla --- even you guys don't know where we came from --- let alone Eve.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

So theoretically, there could be a whole new species of us humans walking around out there, and we wouldn't even know it?

And again, if the amoeba-to-us line is analog, not digital, then I submit that there are a lot of missing links.

It's possible, but not probable. The constant swapping of genes all over the world kinda keeps eccentricities in line.

Yes, there's many missing links. We have specimens of very very few of the species that have lived on Earth.

Again, fossilization is extremely rare and required specific circumstances. Fossils must be buried in sedimentary layers under just the right conditions in order to have any chance of being preserved. This is the reason we have so many more aquatic specimens than land animals.

 

[MoonLancer]

In other words, there truly are missing links? You guys really don't have a species-by-species representation of us from Homo astropithacus (?) to Homo erectus to Homo ergaster to Homo sapien in some museum somewhere? The line is analog, not digital?

its not digital, its analog, but we have enough in between fossils to show the path the analog took. we also convert it to digital in order to give it names.

To have a complete anal fossil record, i think one would need to have a fossil from every single generation. What science has now is enough to show the gradient even though the full gradient would be impossible to show. Their really is no missing link though, as science has enough fossils to show the progression.

as with film, theirs 24 frames a second. if we take that and cut out 12 frames(every other frame), we can still see the animation just fine, its just little choppy. To take it to even more of an extreme, a well constructed storyboard can tell a story, one image for each action or scene (see species)

 

[sfs]

In other words, there truly are missing links?

Yes, there are missing links. There have to be missing links, unless you have in hand the remains every individual (not species), that contributed genetic material to modern humans. They're all missing links.

You guys really don't have a species-by-species representation of us from Homo astropithacus (?) to Homo erectus to Homo ergaster to Homo sapien in some museum somewhere?

It's quite possible we do have fossils of all the intermediate species. It's also quite possible we don't. Since we're talking about species changes over time, the species boundaries are largely arbitrary anyway. What we don't have is a representation of all of the hundreds of thousands of intermediate steps between the different species.

The line is analog, not digital?

Yes. So stop treating it as digital.

 

[MoonLancer]

So theoretically, there could be a whole new species of us humans walking around out there, and we wouldn't even know it?

yes. Many science fiction movies and literature has written about the possibility. its an interesting topic as long as it doesn't devolve into racism.

If the continents had remained separated without our ability to travel back and fourth between them, its likely humans would have evolved in separate ways and become different species, but its unlikely to happen now, because we are so interconnected. we will most likely drift together, and given a long time be different then the humans of today. possibly a new species.

 

[Bombila]

Couldn't care less, Bombilla --- even you guys don't know where we came from --- let alone Eve.

I noted you didn't care, and I knew you didn't want to learn, didn't want to know, and that you feel spiritually self-satisfied every time you turn your back on the possibility of having to recognize the evidence and truth and reality that bluntly debunks your personal rigid interpretation of one single translation of scripture.

It is a set of attributes I cannot admire in you, though IMO you have other admirable qualities.

Your self-imposed know-nothingness can take a hike.

 

[pgp_protector]

yes. Many science fiction movies and literature has written about the possibility. its an interesting topic as long as it doesn't devolve into racism.

If the continents had remained separated without our ability to travel back and fourth between them, its likely humans would have evolved in separate ways and become different species, but its unlikely to happen now, because we are so interconnected. we will most likely drift together, and given a long time be different then the humans of today. possibly a new species.

You ever look at the Ostrich tribe?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, there's many missing links.

Then no wonder evolution is just a theory.

Why then is the Missing Link Argument considered a PRATT - (or is it)?

 

[MoonLancer]

Then no wonder evolution is just a theory.

evolution is just a theory (but also a fact). Its nothing more, or nothing less... just like gravity (which is also a fact).

Why then is the Missing Link Argument considered a PRATT - (or is it)?

Its a pratt because when a creationist says "missing link" it has a different meaning then when a scientist says "missing link"

if i show you 100 gradients from white to black, and tell you that theirs 1000 gradients in between each one, you can still the transition from white to black without the extra 100000 gradients in between.

 

[AV1611VET]

I noted you didn't care, and I knew you didn't want to learn, didn't want to know, and that you feel spiritually self-satisfied every time you turn your back on the possibility of having to recognize the evidence and truth and reality that bluntly debunks your personal rigid interpretation of one single translation of scripture.

Well, I've got news for you, Bombilla: I do know where we came from --- and I don't need to take a course in evolution just to learn I can't answer questions like, "Where did Eve come from"?

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Then no wonder evolution is just a theory.

Why then is the Missing Link Argument considered a PRATT - (or is it)?

Yes, it is a scientific theory.

From Wikipedia:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."