Characteristics

[Strathos]

They will always be animals. Just the same way that humans are animals.

 

[Loudmouth]

Homo Habilis is equally likely to to a normal human or a normal ape?

Modern humans are as much a normal ape as the other apes are.

If you are asking if H. habilis is exactly half way, such a question is somewhat meaningless. Different features will evolve at different rates. For example, Australopithecines already had an advanced bipedal pelvic girdle but still had a brain about the same size as ancestral apes and other modern non-human apes. Bipedality evolved much earlier than intelligence. I don't know if it is really possible to say that any transitional is "exactly half way" and have it actually mean something.

Does it have so many shared features you can tell which memebr of the two (distinctly seperate) species it was?

First, H. habilis was a member of a single species, its own. In H. habilis, we can start to see many more cranial features that are more like modern humans than we see in Australopithecines. The bipedal pelvic girdle is still there as it was in Australopithecines. H. habilis still had proportionally longer arms, but a less protruding face like that seen in modern humans. We also find stone tools associated with H. habilis. H. habilis makes a very nice transition between late Australopithecines and H. erectus.

 

[EternalDragon]

We have presented several species as hominid transitionals. Are you going to tell us what features these species are missing that a true transitional would have, and why?

You have presented bones and skulls from ape animals and humans. Calling them transitional is speculation at best until you can actually observe the transitions.

Sorry but seeing slight similarities here and there is evidence of similarities, not transitional progression. Evolution has a habit of insinuating long ages because that is what evolution needs and keeps searching fossils for closer transitionals because that is what they need to show evolution theory to be fact. So far the evidence is very lacking and always will be.

 

[Loudmouth]

So in your opinion, do you think that someday we will have a real planet of the apes with evolved chimps or will chimps always be animals?

We are animals. Whether or not intelligence continues to evolve in chimps is entirely unknown.

(Even though it's been supposedly millions of years since they have been around. 15-20 million?)

The current generation of chimps has been around about as long as the current generation of humans. All species are equidistant from our shared ancestor. Evolution is not just the evolution of intelligence. It's not as if that is the only feature that evolution is trying to produce.

Also, domestic cats open doors with their paws/claws and can be trained to go to the bathroom in and flush toilets. Will they someday have a more human hand with five digits?

What you are pushing is Larmarckism which was shown to be false a long time ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have presented bones and skulls from ape animals and humans. Calling them transitional is speculation at best until you can actually observe the transitions.

So you require a time machine?

If you are not going to accept fossils as evidence, then why did you ask for them? That's a bit dishonest, isn't it?

Sorry but seeing slight similarities here and there is evidence of similarities, not transitional progression.

Then what are creationists asking for when they ask for transitional fossils?

Evolution has a habit of insinuating long ages because that is what evolution needs and keeps searching fossils for closer transitionals because that is what they need to show evolution theory to be fact.

That is what the rocks indicate. Evolution has nothing to do with dating rocks.

So far the evidence is very lacking and always will be.

How can you say that that the evidence is lacking when you are determined to ignore any evidence that is presented?

 

[EternalDragon]

Modern humans are as much a normal ape as the other apes are.

If you are asking if H. habilis is exactly half way, such a question is somewhat meaningless. Different features will evolve at different rates. For example, Australopithecines already had an advanced bipedal pelvic girdle but still had a brain about the same size as ancestral apes and other modern non-human apes. Bipedality evolved much earlier than intelligence. I don't know if it is really possible to say that any transitional is "exactly half way" and have it actually mean something.

First, H. habilis was a member of a single species, its own. In H. habilis, we can start to see many more cranial features that are more like modern humans than we see in Australopithecines. The bipedal pelvic girdle is still there as it was in Australopithecines. H. habilis still had proportionally longer arms, but a less protruding face like that seen in modern humans. We also find stone tools associated with H. habilis. H. habilis makes a very nice transition between late Australopithecines and H. erectus.

Where are all the other apes that existed 15-20 million years ago (or 4-6 millions years ago)? Still apes using sticks? Why?

There were mammals then that appear the same as today. Where is the evidence for evolution?

Not to mention the various extinction events they say happened which would have hampered much evolution progress.

 

[EternalDragon]

Fossil evidence from the Paleocene is scarce, and there is relatively little known about mammals of the time. Because of their small size (constant until late in the epoch) early mammal bones are not well preserved in the fossil record, and most of what we know comes from fossil teeth (a much tougher substance), and only a few skeletons.

Paleocene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DerelictJunction]

Where are all the other apes that existed 15-20 million years ago (or 4-6 millions years ago)? Still apes using sticks? Why?

Why ARE there still monkeys?

There were mammals then that appear the same as today. Where is the evidence for evolution?

Exactly the same? Show me the fossil.

Not to mention the various extinction events they say happened which would have hampered much evolution progress.

Well...no, but thanks for playing. Extinction events open up niches for other organisms to utilize and evolution rate typically increases after such an event.

 

[EternalDragon]

Why ARE there still monkeys?


Exactly the same? Show me the fossil.

Well...no, but thanks for playing. Extinction events open up niches for other organisms to utilize and evolution rate typically increases after such an event.

You mean speciation rate. Which did happen after the (one) mass extinction from the flood.

 

[DerelictJunction]

You mean speciation rate. Which did happen after the (one) mass extinction from the flood.

Then you agree that your statement about mass extinctions limiting evolution is completely wrong.

The difference between speciation and evolution is.....what, exactly?

Let's say there was an antelope kind. What would the bones look like of a transitional animal between a gazelle and a gnu? How would we know it was transitional?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Loudmouth: You don't need to explain human evolution to me. EternalDragon said that Homo Habilis could be either a (non-human) ape or a human. I was simply pointing out that if it could be either, then humans and apes aren't as anatomically distinct as he suggests.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fossil evidence from the Paleocene is scarce,

Why are you asking for fossil evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Where are all the other apes that existed 15-20 million years ago (or 4-6 millions years ago)? Still apes using sticks? Why?

There were mammals then that appear the same as today. Where is the evidence for evolution?

Not to mention the various extinction events they say happened which would have hampered much evolution progress.

Why are you asking for fossils?

 

[EternalDragon]

Then you agree that your statement about mass extinctions limiting evolution is completely wrong.

Not at all. Mass extinctions would limit evolution. It would not limit speciation.

The difference between speciation and evolution is.....what, exactly?

Evolution on the scale most use it to mean is a species changing completely into a new species with new, complex features. (dinosaur to a bird, mammal to a fish, etc.)

Speciation is the species adapting to different environmental changes, very quickly, using existing characteristics that natural selection can select from. Yet still remaining essentially what it is. Bird, cat, dog, worm, bacteria, human, ape, dinosaur, etc.

Let's say there was an antelope kind. What would the bones look like of a transitional animal between a gazelle and a gnu? How would we know it was transitional?

The Wildebeest and a gazelle are both antelopes so no transitionals required. In any case, man-made labels are not an exact science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution on the scale most use it to mean is a species changing completely into a new species with new, complex features. (dinosaur to a bird, mammal to a fish, etc.)

Evolution is descent with modification, not the production of a completely new species.

Do you even understand what the theory is?

Speciation is the species adapting to different environmental changes, very quickly, using existing characteristics that natural selection can select from. Yet still remaining essentially what it is. Bird, cat, dog, worm, bacteria, human, ape, dinosaur, etc.

"Bird, cat, dog, worm, bacteria, human, ape, dinosaur, etc." are not the name of species.

The Wildebeest and a gazelle are both antelopes so no transitionals required. In any case, man-made labels are not an exact science.

Chimps and humans are both primates. Why do you require a transitional for them?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Not at all. Mass extinctions would limit evolution. It would not limit speciation.

Evolution on the scale most use it to mean is a species changing completely into a new species with new, complex features. (dinosaur to a bird, mammal to a fish, etc.)

Speciation is the species adapting to different environmental changes, very quickly, using existing characteristics that natural selection can select from. Yet still remaining essentially what it is. Bird, cat, dog, worm, bacteria, human, ape, dinosaur, etc.

Your definitions are merely a matter of scale.
What characteristic of a mass extinction causes evolution to be hindered but enhances speciation?

The Wildebeest and a gazelle are both antelopes so no transitionals required. In any case, man-made labels are not an exact science.

Your second sentence does not seem to go with the first unless you are saying that we should call all the antelope species by the name antelope. Have you seen a Thompson's gazelle and a Wildebeest? They are both antelope but don't look much alike.
You say there were no transitionals, so the antelope kind that stepped off the ark simply pumped out the various antelope species without any transitional animals in between? A Thompson's gazelle gave birth to a Wildebeest?

 

[EternalDragon]

Your definitions are merely a matter of scale.
What characteristic of a mass extinction causes evolution to be hindered but enhances speciation?

Loss of species and variation isn't a positive thing for evolution. It isn't a problem for speciation with the survivors however, which acts on characteristics already programmed in.

Your second sentence does not seem to go with the first unless you are saying that we should call all the antelope species by the name antelope. Have you seen a Thompson's gazelle and a Wildebeest? They are both antelope but don't look much alike.

You say there were no transitionals, so the antelope kind that stepped off the ark simply pumped out the various antelope species without any transitional animals in between? A Thompson's gazelle gave birth to a Wildebeest?

I like how you are trying to twist it around and muddle things. There is no such thing as a transitional between an antelope and an antelope. Or a wolf and a dog. Or a crow and a pigeon. Just variation within the species.

I looked at both a Gazelle and a Wildebeest. I see a slight difference in characteristics. Basically they look nearly identical.

 

[EternalDragon]

 

[lasthero]

I looked at both a Gazelle and a Wildebeest.

You know, there's stuff inside the things, too. Two organisms can look very similar, but be very different in their underlying structure. A sugar glider looks a lot like a squirrel, and if you just compared pictures, you would assume it was that...but it's not. It's not even close to being a squirrel.

What do you do, then?

 

[lasthero]

Or a crow and a pigeon. Just variation within the species.

Wait. Stop.

Crows and pigeons are not the same species. What are you even talking about?