Dinosaurs Never Existed?

[Dharma Flower]

H. erectus and H. sapiens living in the same era is hardly controversial.

Perhaps not, but if they could interbreed, why are they considered separate species rather than different sub-species or races of the same species?

 

[Shemjaza]

Perhaps not, but if they could interbreed, why are they considered separate species rather than different sub-species or races of the same species?

Species can be a blurry concept (as you would expect in evolution). Tigers and Lions can have fertile offspring, and much of humanity have some Neanderthal ancestry.

Ring species are a good example of how species isn't an exact absolute definition.

The fact that one species can become two in evolution is why the book is called "Origin of Species".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Species can be a blurry concept (as you would expect in evolution). Tigers and Lions can have fertile offspring, and much of humanity have some Neanderthal ancestry.

Ring species are a good example of how species isn't an exact absolute definition.

The fact that one species can become two in evolution is why the book is called "Origin of Species".

Your post reminded me of the species problem:

Species problem - Wikipedia

There is no one overarching definition of "species" that covers all of the different forms of life on the Earth. I have hear creationists complaining about this, but what they don't realize is that the theory of evolution predicts such a problem.

If creationism was true there would be no species problem. One could easily define both species and "kind". But no creationist has ever properly defined "kind" and the lack of a fixed definition for species is only more evidence that life is the product of evolution.

 

[Cearbhall]

There is a trend I've seen on the internet that I think is very shortsighted, the denial that dinosaurs ever existed. What is the motivation for denying the past existence of dinosaurs?

It's not something I think about often, but if we take a moment to think about one of the people who thinks that the world is 6,000 years old, it's not difficult to see that they would have to erase dinosaurs from history to rationalize that.

This is the problem with having a predetermined conclusion, and furthermore, with thinking that there's a moral obligation to stick to that conclusion. Such individuals are willing to brush aside any amount of evidence or knowledge if it doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[Dharma Flower]

Species can be a blurry concept (as you would expect in evolution). Tigers and Lions can have fertile offspring, and much of humanity have some Neanderthal ancestry.

Ring species are a good example of how species isn't an exact absolute definition.

The fact that one species can become two in evolution is why the book is called "Origin of Species".

Why see H. erectus as our evolutionary ancestor if we lived contemporaneously with them and could interbreed with them? It would be like seeing different races alive today as different species, rather than fully human.

My grandfather came before I did, but I wouldn't consider him evidence for evolution, since we belong to the same species. Why are H. erectus evidence for human evolution just because they may have come before us?

I'm sorry for being unclear. The argument from creationists is that H. erectus was nothing more than a race within our own species. What reason is there to doubt that?

If paleontologists dug up a St. Bernard dog skeleton, then a Bloodhound skeleton underneath that, then a chihuahua skeleton underneath, they'd assume the St. Benard must have evolved from the chihuahua. If you think that's absurd, then it's just as absurd as assuming that H. erectus was a separate species from modern humans, especially since we could have interbred with each other and lived contemporaneously.

 

[Shemjaza]

Why see H. erectus as our evolutionary ancestor if we lived contemporaneously with them and could interbreed with them? It would be like seeing different races alive today as different species, rather than fully human.

My grandfather came before I did, but I wouldn't consider him evidence for evolution, since we belong to the same species. Why are H. erectus evidence for human evolution just because they may have come before us?

I'm sorry for being unclear. The argument from creationists is that H. erectus was nothing more than a race within our own species. What reason is there to doubt that?

If paleontologists dug up a St. Bernard dog skeleton, then a Bloodhound skeleton underneath that, then a chihuahua skeleton underneath, they'd assume the St. Benard must have evolved from the chihuahua. If you think that's absurd, then it's just as absurd as assuming that H. erectus was a separate species from modern humans, especially since we could have interbred with each other and lived contemporaneously.

Because erectus lived long before sapiens. And are genetically more different then any two dog breeds.

The fact that some pockets of the earlier species lived on after sapiens developed is irelivant. It is possible they were able to inter breed, but there's no evidence it happened to any significant degree.

As an analogy Icelandic and Swedish are different languages, despite one being almost identical to the ancestor of the other.

 

[Speedwell]

If paleontologists dug up a St. Bernard dog skeleton, then a Bloodhound skeleton underneath that, then a chihuahua skeleton underneath, they'd assume the St. Benard must have evolved from the chihuahua. If you think that's absurd, then it's just as absurd as assuming that H. erectus was a separate species from modern humans, especially since we could have interbred with each other and lived contemporaneously.

That kind of claim is frequently made by creationists, but it only betrays abysmal ignorance about how paleontologists reach their conclusions.

 

[bhsmte]

There is a trend I've seen on the internet that I think is very shortsighted, the denial that dinosaurs ever existed. What is the motivation for denying the past existence of dinosaurs?

There is evidence that humans existed before dinosaurs. Here is one example:



There is evidence that humans existed at the same time as dinosaurs:

Dinosaur/Human Footprints
Dinosaur/Human Footprints | Forbidden History

Primitive Man's Knowledge of Dinosaurs
Primitive Man's Knowledge of Dinosaurs | Forbidden History

It seems that the more we learn about ancient humanity's relationship with dinosaurs, the more it calls the evolutionary timeline into question. What reason, then, would creationists have for denying that dinosaurs even existed in the first place?

Likely, similar motivation that causes you to deny well evidenced scientific theories.

 

[Ophiolite]

My New Year's Resolution is not to despair when I read the nonsense some people believe. I suspect I shan't make it to the 2nd.

 

[Biologist]

I'm sorry for being unclear. The argument from creationists is that H. erectus was nothing more than a race within our own species.

The problem is you are asking questions but ignoring the answers. Go to a university, ask for a dichotomous(Biological) key on humans. You could use the key on a thousand people from African bushmen, yourself, your grandpa, even dwarfs and Shaq and you would always arrive at H. sapiens.

Use the same key, and you will find that Erectus has many specific traits not found in Sapiens and vice versa.
The key should give you every reason/trait Evolutionary Biologists use to separate the species.

Your personal speculation that Sapiens and Erectus might have been able to interbreed is not enough to refute observable morphology. It's like asking the difference between Alchemy and Chemistry while refusing to acknowledge the existence of the periodic table.

What reason is there to doubt that?

If the periodic table is a reason to doubt alchemy than Biological keys are a good place to start.

 

[Dharma Flower]

The fact that some pockets of the earlier species lived on after sapiens developed is irelivant. It is possible they were able to inter breed, but there's no evidence it happened to any significant degree.

If Mestizo Mexicans came long after Malaysians, and are separated from each other by a vast distance, and very rarely come into contact to interbreed, that still wouldn't discount that they are different races within the same species rather than distinct species.

 

[Ophiolite]

If Mestizo Mexicans came long after Malaysians, and are separated from each other by a vast distance, and very rarely come into contact to interbreed, that still wouldn't discount that they are different races within the same species rather than distinct species.

So what? Species is an artificial concept created for convenience of discussion. Evolution and its products are continuous. When terminology is getting in the way of discussion it has served its purpose.

 

[Biologist]

If Mestizo Mexicans came long after Malaysians, and are separated from each other by a vast distance, and very rarely come into contact to interbreed, that still wouldn't discount that they are different races within the same species rather than distinct species.

Read the above post.

The problem is you are asking questions but ignoring the answers. Go to a university, ask for a dichotomous(Biological) key on humans. You could use the key on a thousand people from African bushmen, yourself, your grandpa, even dwarfs and Shaq and you would always arrive at H. sapiens.

And yes, Mexicans and Malaysians key out as Sapiens. So do mongols and aboriginals, albinos and Yao Ming, people with MS and/or rickets. You won't find a single living person that remotely resembles the key's definition for Erectus.