Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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?
You seriously can't tell if these are the same species or not?
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?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.
According to your definition of 'species' which is 'shapes' then they are clearly different shapes. And you're asking this, why; exactly?
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...
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 definition of the interbreeding with H. Sapiens, a H. Sapien.
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.
Try to focus as I honestly want to understand your reasoning behind why you think comparing a bone is evidence for evolution.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.
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)How would you know that an animal is a duck?
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'"
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'
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.
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.
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.
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?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?
I am asking YOU. Do YOU think those are the same or separate species? Just answer the question.
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?
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.
They are different shapes, yes.
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 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.
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!"
@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.
Well, there you go.
Those are just shapes, aren't they?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Sorry, but if you think "different chapes is evidence that shapes turn in to other shapes"
You realize "shapes" will always have common features?
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.
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"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?