Evolution Lesson

[Loudmouth]

Well it would seem both hypothesis are actually theories since both share the exact same evidenced data of "different things have different shapes" and you've confessed that this fact allows the evidenced conclusion that "different things with different shapes became the other different shape" - unless, you're having second thought on that logic?

Are these the same species?

 

[John Hyperspace]

I forgot one question. Are you capable of determining if these are two different species?

What criteria do you use to determine if these are different species?

Now you're asking my questions and don't even realize it. Are you sure you should be having this conversation? You may be doing more harm than good for your beliefs. I have not used the word 'species' it is your job to define it, not mine. However, being always generous, I am allowing your definition of "different shapes" and am then asking "how do we determine 'different shape means one shape became the other' by morphology?" I take it you believe the above are two different 'species/shapes'? But do you believe the one on the left became the one on the right? If not, why not? How do you determine evidence of "one shape became another shape" from "one shape is different than another shape"? Or do you propose the latter is evidence of the former?

 

[Loudmouth]

Now you're asking my questions and don't even realize it. Are you sure you should be having this conversation? You may be doing more harm than good for your beliefs. I have not used the word 'species' it is your job to define it, not mine. However, being always generous, I am allowing your definition of "different shapes" and am then asking "how do we determine 'different shape means one shape became the other' by morphology?" I take it you believe the above are two different 'species/shapes'? But do you believe the one on the left became the one on the right? If not, why not? How do you determine evidence of "one shape became another shape" from "one shape is different than another shape"? Or do you propose the latter is evidence of the former?

You seriously can't tell if these are the same species or not?

 

[John Hyperspace]

You seriously can't tell if these are the same species or not?

According to your definition of 'species' which is 'shapes' then they are clearly different shapes. And you're asking this, why; exactly?

 

[Abraxos]

1. Why can't two species separated by millions of years be capable of interbreeding?

2. Just because they can interbreed does not mean they do interbreed. The absence of gene flow is what defines species, not the possibility of gene flow.

The model is based on the actual fossil. We can use the fossil if you like, but it shows the same thing. It shows a forehead that slopes straight back from the brow ridges. The modern human photos you showed us have high foreheads. All of the modern humans have jaws almost directy below their nose. H. erectus does not. Modern humans have a "scoop" on their chin that shoots forward. The chin of H. erectus is smooth and lacks this process. All of the photos of modern humans have this forward jutting process on their chin.

A strong brow ridge is a feature found in other apes, but not in modern humans. A mixture of ape and human features is what evidences evolution.

Well seems to me that there are variations of H. Erectus as there are variations of man, because if the Smithsonian source I provided is not an actual depiction of the H. Erectus, we have a problem don't we. I probably could show you some examples of people that have a "smooth" chin, but isn't this line of reasoning defeating the purpose of an actual scientific method?
I could show you a dinosaur and a duck from the same time period and compare them with "which animal is similar to this modern day duck?" If it looks like a duck...

As I mentioned previously, 'Species' is a manmade word and the definition is often blurry. Your reasoning is a rather lousy approach to the scientific definition. Just because they don't often interbreed, doesn't mean they are not the same. The Neanderthal for example was by the biological definition a H. Sapien because they interbred with H. Sapiens.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to your definition of 'species' which is 'shapes' then they are clearly different shapes. And you're asking this, why; exactly?

I am asking YOU. Do YOU think these are the same or separate species?

I am seeing if you have a shred of honesty left.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well seems to me that there are variations of H. Erectus as there are variations of man, because if the Smithsonian source I provided is not an actual depiction of the H. Erectus, we have a problem don't we.

There are variations of kangaroos as well. Does that mean kangaroos are also modern humans?

The artistic drawing you used does not match up to modern humans either, so I don't know what you are going on about.

I probably could show you some examples of people that have a "smooth" chin, but isn't this line of reasoning defeating the purpose of an actual scientific method?

Not showing any evidence is defeating the actual scientific method. Making claims with no evidence is defeating the scientific method.

Show us some actual skulls from modern humans, no soft tissue. Show us how they match H. erectus.

I could show you a dinosaur and a duck from the same time period and compare them with "which animal is similar to this modern day duck?" If it looks like a duck...

How would you know that an animal is a duck?

Your reasoning is a rather lousy approach to the scientific definition.

Why?

Just because they don't often interbreed, doesn't mean they are not the same.

Actually, yes it does. If there is restricted interbreeding then their genomes will diverge due to different mutations accumulating in each population.

The Neanderthal for example was by definition of the interbreeding with H. Sapiens, a H. Sapien.

Separate species can occasionally interbreed. It doesn't stop them from being separate species. What matters is the divergence of the genetic populations, which did occur between Neanderthals and modern humans due to restricted interbreeding.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I am asking YOU. Do YOU think these are the same or separate species?

I am seeing if you have a shred of honesty left.

You're not seeing if I have a shred of honesty, you're displaying whether or not you have a shred of ability to use basic reason. If you ask me (which you are) "Are these the separate species?" the first thing I have to do is ask "How do you define the word 'species'?" When you say "I define 'species' as 'shapes'" then I respond "Then the two are separate 'species/shapes'" In fact, everything is a separate 'species/shape' by your definition. The two people in my profile picture are separate 'species/shapes'; by your definition there is no ability to distinguish anything as but separate 'species/shapes'

Now, if you then say "I propose one shape became another shape" then I am going to respond "How do you determine this?" This is no different than you saying "I propose the shape on the left became the shape on the right" I am going to look at you, refrain from smiling, and ask "What evidence do you have to support your proposition?"

 

[Abraxos]

There are variations of kangaroos as well. Does that mean kangaroos are also modern humans?

The artistic drawing you used does not match up to modern humans either, so I don't know what you are going on about.



Not showing any evidence is defeating the actual scientific method. Making claims with no evidence is defeating the scientific method.

Show us some actual skulls from modern humans, no soft tissue. Show us how they match H. erectus.



How would you know that an animal is a duck?


Why?



Actually, yes it does. If there is restricted interbreeding then their genomes will diverge due to different mutations accumulating in each population.



Separate species can occasionally interbreed. It doesn't stop them from being separate species. What matters is the divergence of the genetic populations, which did occur between Neanderthals and modern humans due to restricted interbreeding.

Try to focus as I honestly want to understand your reasoning behind why you think comparing a bone is evidence for evolution.

A quick google search, there are examples of man having similar bone structures. As we all know, man have a wide range of variations of bone structures, would you agree that you are not really providing adequate reasons?

Also, your jargon and persistence on definitions of this and that distracts from the core of the subject. Just because you believe in your mind that 'species' is not relevant because of a lack of interbreeding, does not at all shy away from the scientific meaning of the word.

How would you know that an animal is a duck?

Also, there is a science called taxonomy and little common sense on why it is a duck and (in the context of the discussion) not a dinosaur. Why such a silly comment? (I chuckled)

Just a little observation, your little tangent and posting style is difficult to put into context, so if you don't mind, less with the fallacious cherry picking and articulate your honest position with a broad context... if you can manage it.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're not seeing if I have a shred of honesty, you're displaying whether or not you have a shred of ability to use basic reason. If you ask me (which you are) "Are these the separate species?" the first thing I have to do is ask "How do you define the word 'species'?"

I am asking YOU. Do YOU think those are the same or separate species? Just answer the question.

When you say "I define 'species' as 'shapes'"

That's exactly what you do, do you not? Earlier you asked me if a large cat and a small cat would be considered the same or separate species. How do you know what a cat is? Can you explain that to me?

In fact, everything is a separate 'species/shape' by your definition. The two people in my profile picture are separate 'species/shapes'; by your definition there is no ability to distinguish anything as but separate 'species/shapes'

I already answered that as well.

"Usually through statistical tests such as means, standard deviations, and multivariate analyses. They use physical measurements of bones and muscle placements in order to have concrete numbers to work with."

Have you learned about basic statistical methods, like the Student's T-test? If we measured the distance from the brow ridge to the top of the cranium in both H. erectus and H. sapiens, you know what we would find? We would find two distinct groups that are statistically significant, meaning that there is a very low probability that a random sampling of the same population would produce the observed distribution. That is how it is done.

Of course, you will pretend as if you have read none of this, and keep asking the same inane questions. You don't want there to be a well understood definition of species, so you will play dumb.

 

[Loudmouth]

Try to focus as I honestly want to understand your reasoning behind why you think comparing a bone is evidence for evolution.

A bone isn't evidence for evolution. It is the mixture of characteristics in a fossil that is evidence for evolution. The theory of evolution proposes that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with chimps. If this is true (i.e. the hypothesis) then there should have been individuals in the past that had a mixture of features from apes and humans. Finding these individuals confirms the hypothesis. That is why H. erectus is evidence for evolution, because H. erectus has ape and human features.

A quick google search, there are examples of man having similar bone structures.

The forehead is nearly vertical, and the top of the head is WAY WAY higher than the brow ridge. There is also a strong chin, a small gap between the nose and upper jaw, the jaw is tucked well under the nose . . . I mean seriously, have you read none of my posts?

Also, your jargon and persistence on definitions of this and that distracts from the core of the subject. Just because you believe in your mind that 'species' is not relevant because of a lack of interbreeding, does not at all shy away from the scientific meaning of the word.

I TOLD you why lack of interbreeding is relevant. Lack of interbreeding causes genomes to diverge. That is speciation. sfs also had a great description of this process in an earlier post:

"The basic concept of species is pretty straightforward, at least for sexually reproducing organisms. A species is a population that evolves together as a group, exchanging DNA each generation, so that traits can be passed around the whole population. One species becomes two when a population like that splits into two and each starts on an independent evolutionary trajectory. Deciding exactly when they have split enough that you should call them different species is pretty arbitrary -- what if there is only occasional interbreeding between the groups, for example? "--sfs

The relevant bit is the divergence of their genomes, what sfs calls "independent evolutionary trajectory". If there is no interbreeding or very little interbreeding then this allows different mutations to accumulate in the two populations. This causes them to be less and less similar over time. The chimp and human genomes are different by a few percent, and that is due to a lack of interbreeding between the two species.

Also, there is a science called taxonomy and little common sense on why it is a duck and (in the context of the discussion) not a dinosaur. Why such a silly comment? (I chuckled)

You tell me. Why is it a duck instead of a dinosaur? I have been trying to honestly discuss this issue, but some creationists are too frightened that they may be getting to a workable definition of species, so they play dumb.

Just a little observation, your little tangent and posting style is difficult to put into context, so if you don't mind, less with the fallacious cherry picking and articulate your honest position with a broad context... if you can manage it.

Every time I put forward an honest position it is ignored.

 

[Abraxos]

A thread for creationists that want questions answered about evolution, or to learn more about it, as well as about biology in general. The questions should be directed as to not try to get evolution compared with creationism, but I doubt people will go along with that for very long.

Here is a curious thing, don't you find it awfully convenient that all these supposed "transitional" forms for man we got, while we have zero, for gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and other primates?

Also, it seems that evolutionists see problems with this evolutionary common ancestor. Is it probable, that darwinism is indeed a relic of the past and there are glaringly noticeable holes in the theory that aren't holding up with today's science?

Here's the link to a discussion among evolutionists on the common ancestor:

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is a curious thing, don't you find it awfully convenient that all these supposed "transitional" forms for man we got, while we have zero, for gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and other primates?

Don't you find it convenient that you ignore the transitional forms we do have?

Also, it seems that evolutionists see problems with this evolutionary common ancestor. Is it probable, that darwinism is indeed a relic of the past and there are glaringly noticeable holes in the theory that aren't holding up with today's science?

Craig Venter is discussing a common ancestor for eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archae. He is not casting doubt on common ancestry for primates or vertebrates. Even then, Dawkins gives him the smackdown with mountains of evidence refuting his claims.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I am asking YOU. Do YOU think those are the same or separate species? Just answer the question.

They are different shapes, yes.

That's exactly what you do, do you not? Earlier you asked me if a large cat and a small cat would be considered the same or separate species. How do you know what a cat is? Can you explain that to me?

Cats have several characteristics; generally have four legs, hair, a tail and go "meow" and "purr" when you pet them. That's how I determine a "cat"

I already answered that as well.

"Usually through statistical tests such as means, standard deviations, and multivariate analyses. They use physical measurements of bones and muscle placements in order to have concrete numbers to work with."

Have you learned about basic statistical methods, like the Student's T-test? If we measured the distance from the brow ridge to the top of the cranium in both H. erectus and H. sapiens, you know what we would find? We would find two distinct groups that are statistically significant, meaning that there is a very low probability that a random sampling of the same population would produce the observed distribution. That is how it is done.

I know, you keep answering the same question over and again. I've already noted your definition of 'species' and have been ready to move for a bit. The question now is, how do you determine evidence that "one shape became another shape"? By your definition of 'species' you've basically eliminated your ability to produce evidence for your hypothesis.

Of course, you will pretend as if you have read none of this, and keep asking the same inane questions. You don't want there to be a well understood definition of species, so you will play dumb.

If my questions seem 'dumb' it's because I'm getting 'dumb' definitions. Again, you've defined your term 'species' as 'shapes'; are you ready to move on to the question of evidence of 'shape changed into other shape'? I hope your evidence doesn't consist of "because there are different shapes!"

 

[Abraxos]

@Loudmouth
I just want you to know that I respect you being a good sport. If it seems I am ignoring some points you had emphasised, rest assured it's not intentional, and I may get back to them in due time.

I'll probably be back later. And I'll continue this.

 

[Loudmouth]

They are different shapes, yes.

Well, there you go.

Cats have several characteristics; generally have four legs, hair, a tail and go "meow" and "purr" when you pet them. That's how I determine a "cat"

Those are just shapes, aren't they?

I know, you keep answering the same question over and again. I've already noted your definition of 'species' and have been ready to move for a bit. The question now is, how do you determine evidence that "one shape became another shape"?

I will repeat the answer I gave Abraxos for the same question.

A bone isn't evidence for evolution. It is the mixture of characteristics in a fossil that is evidence for evolution. The theory of evolution proposes that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with chimps. If this is true (i.e. the hypothesis) then there should have been individuals in the past that had a mixture of features from apes and humans. Finding these individuals confirms the hypothesis. That is why H. erectus is evidence for evolution, because H. erectus has ape and human features.

By your definition of 'species' you've basically eliminated your ability to produce evidence for your hypothesis.

I am not able to determine if features are more like other apes? I am not able to determine if other features are more like modern humans?

If my questions seem 'dumb' it's because I'm getting 'dumb' definitions. Again, you've defined your term 'species' as 'shapes'; are you ready to move on to the question of evidence of 'shape changed into other shape'? I hope your evidence doesn't consist of "because there are different shapes!"

You are playing dumb. This means you are pretending as if you don't get it, when obviously you do. When shown a picture of a kangaroo and a human child you pretend as you can't determine if they are the same or separate species. That is playing dumb.

 

[Loudmouth]

@Loudmouth
I just want you to know that I respect you being a good sport. If it seems I am ignoring some points you had emphasised, rest assured it's not intentional, and I may get back to them in due time.

I'll probably be back later. And I'll continue this.

Actually, that is a relief to hear. I am flawed like anyone else and can make inappropriate assumptions. What I see as obvious apparently may not be obvious to others. Your kind words are very much appreciated.

In the mean time, I would encourage you to go back to post 80 and really look at those two photos. Turkana boy is the archetype for H. erectus since it was a nearly complete skeleton. Look at the forehead. Notice how strongly it slopes backwards, almost straight back from the brow ridges. Look at how the forehead of the modern human skull is nearly vertical, and how much higher the forehead is. Notice the gap between the nose and the to of the jaw in each photo, and how far forward the jaw is in H. erectus. By far the easiest feature to instantly differentiate modern humans from earlier hominids is the chin. The modern human chin has that scoop that goes forward. You can probably feel it on your own chin. H. erectus does not have that, nor do any other earlier hominids.

We could also look at Australopithecines and humans, since these tend to have much starker contrasts. The pelvis makes for a really good comparison.

The pelvis on the left is a human pelvis. The pelvis on the far right is a chimp pelvis. The two pelvises in the middle are from Australopithecines.

Wouldn't you agree that the two pelvises in the middle are more like the one on the left than the one on the right?

 

[John Hyperspace]

Well, there you go.

Are you surprised that people acknowledge kangaroos and children have different shapes? I'm still wondering why you were asking the question since all it is doing is undermining your position by illustrating the extreme generality of your definition.

Those are just shapes, aren't they?

They are shapes, yes. Except for the meowing and purring. That is how I define a cat. Note that how I define 'cat' isn't being employed in a scientific hypothesis as a scientific term which needs to produce evidence. Cosmic difference, true?

I will repeat the answer I gave Abraxos for the same question.

A bone isn't evidence for evolution. It is the mixture of characteristics in a fossil that is evidence for evolution.

Sorry, but if you think "different chapes is evidence that shapes turn in to other shapes" you're not very good at basic reasoning. By defining the term 'species' as 'shapes' you've eliminated your ability to produce evidence that "shapes turn in to other shapes" since all "shapes" are separate "shapes/species"

The theory of evolution proposes that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with chimps. If this is true (i.e. the hypothesis) then there should have been individuals in the past that had a mixture of features from apes and humans. Finding these individuals confirms the hypothesis. That is why H. erectus is evidence for evolution, because H. erectus has ape and human features.

You realize "shapes" will always have common features? This is why you've eliminated your ability to produce evidence with your definition of 'species'; it's so general that everything can fit the definition. When anything can fit the definition (and "shapes" is such a definition into which anything can fit) nothing can be supporting evidence.

I am not able to determine if features are more like other apes? I am not able to determine if other features are more like modern humans?

You can subjectively determine when shapes are similar to shapes, yes; as with "cats". But what you can't do is say "Since there is similarity in shape; then the one shape became the other shape" in any objective manner. The evidence of your hypothesis will be according to your own ability to cite "shape is similar" which becomes a circular reasoning which simply begs the question. If we can't be precise in our defining of the term, then we can't be precise in our production of evidence that supports the use of the term.

You are playing dumb. This means you are pretending as if you don't get it, when obviously you do. When shown a picture of a kangaroo and a human child you pretend as you can't determine if they are the same or separate species. That is playing dumb.

I never 'pretended' I couldn't determine if a kangaroo and a child are different shapes. I was the one who originally asked the question to the thread concerning the two people in my profile picture. The answer undermines your position and I'm surprised you asked it at all; and am more surprised you still aren't realizing the ramifications of your own question as it applies to your attempt to support "different shapes means one shape became another shape"

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you surprised that people acknowledge kangaroos and children have different shapes? I'm still wondering why you were asking the question since all it is doing is undermining your position by illustrating the extreme generality of your definition.

You asked for a general definition, so you got a general definition. Don't complain when you get exactly what you ask for.

I also gave a very specific definition in the case of two species: H. erectus and H. sapiens.

They are shapes, yes. Except for the meowing and purring. That is how I define a cat.

Would a fossil cat meow and purr?

Note that how I define 'cat' isn't being employed in a scientific hypothesis as a scientific term which needs to produce evidence.

It does produce evidence, as already discussed.

Sorry, but if you think "different chapes is evidence that shapes turn in to other shapes"

Who are you quoting? You certainly aren't quoting me.

Why don't you address what I actually said?

You realize "shapes" will always have common features?

You realize that some shapes A may resemble shape B more closely than shape C?

This is what I mean by playing dumb. You know this is the case. You know that a fossil can be more ape like or more human like. You can see it with your own eyes.

You can subjectively determine when shapes are similar to shapes, yes; as with "cats". But what you can't do is say "Since there is similarity in shape; then the one shape became the other shape" in any objective manner.

I already addressed this.

"Usually through statistical tests such as means, standard deviations, and multivariate analyses. They use physical measurements of bones and muscle placements in order to have concrete numbers to work with."

Have you learned about basic statistical methods, like the Student's T-test? If we measured the distance from the brow ridge to the top of the cranium in both H. erectus and H. sapiens, you know what we would find? We would find two distinct groups that are statistically significant, meaning that there is a very low probability that a random sampling of the same population would produce the observed distribution. That is how it is done.

This is what makes it objective.

The evidence of your hypothesis will be according to your own ability to cite "shape is similar" which becomes a circular reasoning which simply begs the question. If we can't be precise in our defining of the term, then we can't be precise in our production of evidence that supports the use of the term.

It isn't circular reasoning that H. erectus has a mixture of ape and human features. That determination can be made independent of the claim that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes.

I never 'pretended' I couldn't determine if a kangaroo and a child are different shapes. I was the one who originally asked the question to the thread concerning the two people in my profile picture. The answer undermines your position and I'm surprised you asked it at all; and am more surprised you still aren't realizing the ramifications of your own question as it applies to your attempt to support "different shapes means one shape became another shape"

Again, you use a quote that I never wrote.

 

[HenryM]

What's up with this evolution thing around this forum these days?

We don't have cure for common cold, yet monkey-ancestors are explaining how we can now exactly what happend millions years ago. Maybe first create a good model for weather prediction 7 days in advance.

Or better, contact police, they could use your science when they search clues for what happened in some crime scene half an hour ago. I mean, that's going to be a piece of cake for you, you can see millions of years behind.

You don't realize we are living in a scientific fake n' stall? Science is becoming a joke, which is obvious as article-readers are discussing it so pompously.

All main technologies we have and use are almost centuries old.

Phone (1880s), computer (1940s), cars/planes (around 1900s), electricity (1880s), most medicine we commonly use (before 1940s).

With all modern medicine, best thing one can do is not to overindulge in meat, dairy and oil. That's more advanced treatment for our body than all pharma combined.

Evolutionists blab about fossils yet in almost two centuries they managed to get/create/fake/ - who knows - less then thousand "hominid" fossils scattered around the world, in somewhat decent conditions as their secret guardians say, if you don't want to count a tooth as a "hominid" fossil. It is a joke.

One of the most revered current technologies is a librarian mr. Google.

But please, tell me what happend 1.5 billion years ago, mister reader of articles and books who didn't lay eyes on one "hominid" fossil let alone examined it thoroughly, and who has no absolute proof for any "science" he is saying, for you seem to know.