hahahahaha OH WOW!!!
There it is. What did I say about reading comprehension?
Wow dude. Just.... wow.
Upvote
0
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.
hahahahaha OH WOW!!!You can't even so much as post a name.
So much for human evolution...
There it is. What did I say about reading comprehension?Anyway, yeah, it's true. Although the terms theory and fact get a lot of abuse in these discussions. Wikipedia has a great article on both. But as for a name? That's just taxonomy. People have given names to all these things, it's like asking for the exact color before yellow becomes green. So the name of the species that appears to be before homo sapiens is homo rhodesiensis, but remember that's just a classification thing. And since this is a massive chain, and the transition is slow, the exact previous one in the chain was, um, your mom. In a literal sense.
So the name of the species that appears to be before homo sapiens is homo rhodesiensis
Lets have the naturalists best evidence demonstrating that homo sapiens sapiens originated from another bipedal hominid.
Where is the recent evidence, in the past couple of years, to support that we somehow came from another species?
The theory of human evolution is going south at a very rapid rate.
The individuals who still cling tenaciously to some form of Darwinian evolution are simply living in the past, a generation still in denial.
Each time that this question is posed, we have the internet googlers bringing to the fore, the now defunct talkorigins decade old outmoded material or something from wiki .basically, the first one or two googled hits that happen to come up.
Who can bring forth fresh solid evidence for human evolution?
Easy. There are more genetic divergences between rats and mice, then there are between humans and chimps.
If you want fossile records you can find them if you look. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
What is the name of the species that directly originated homo sapiens sapiens, brother Rasta...?
Show us the falsifiable evidence.
Moder Humans said:Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey 1994) Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive". Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes more typical of archaic sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace 1983).
Archaic Humans said:Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.
I'm curious why you ignored every single question I asked you. Do you want me to answer your questions, without you answering mine?
Seems hypocritical to me. Perhaps you do this by necissity?
In the case that ApplePie7 will not answer my questions, as the only means necessary to promote his world view that is in conflict with documented scientific data. There are archaic forms of "humans" that share qualities of both modern humans and homo erectus. This is detailed in the link I provided, ApplePie7. In case you didn't even bother to read . . .
I will post the relevent data.
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline
You replied first without even answering the question.
Do you require more google time?
Here is it again...
"Lets have the naturalists best evidence demonstrating that homo sapiens sapiens originated from another bipedal hominid."
And....no, talkorigins does not even address the issue.
So...what is the name of the species directly responsible for homo sapiens sapiens?
Please provide falsifiable evidence.
How hard can this be to answer, brother...?
So let's see your refutation for talkorigins. Oh, wait, you can't, because you don't even comprehend what talkorigins says.
Can you refute the fact that humans and chimps are more closely related than mice and rats? No huh? Exactly what I thought.
"Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other."
So...because they look similar, then they must share a common ancestor?
This is just poor science, brother.
Show us your fasifiable theory in action...
Talkorigins, besides being outdated, shows nothing in the way of falsifiable evidence for the direct "ancestor" to homo sapiens sapiens.
The question is regarding bipedal hominids....what species originated homo sapiens sapiens?
You know the theory, now falsify the evidence.
This has already been performed with nuclear DNA testing.
Darwins certerpiece, neandertal man, has been completely falsified as being an ancestor to homo sapiens sapiens.
Can we say strawman? I did not post any data about neandrertals.
Denial is not a river in Egypt. I showed you exactly what you asked for, and you still try to tapdance.
What do you got to say about the simularities of late homo erectus and early archaic homo sapiens?
Let's see you refute the evidence. Plugging your ears and shouting does not count as a refutation by the way.
Now that you agree that Darwins centerpiece has been taken out of viability, what has google shown you to be the next species in queue that is a direct ancestor to homo sapiens sapiens?
If you chose to ignore the evidence, that's your problem. Go ahead, keep shouting for everyone to see. No skin off my back. You are representing your own faith, not mine.
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?