Evolution Primer

[dewaddict84]

You can't even so much as post a name.

So much for human evolution...

hahahahaha OH WOW!!!

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.

There it is. What did I say about reading comprehension?

Wow dude. Just.... wow.

 

[ApplePie7]

So the name of the species that appears to be before homo sapiens is homo rhodesiensis

Appears...?

Not a strong vote of confidence...yes?

Again...no mention that this species was the originator of homo sapiens sapiens.

Keep googling...

 

[Rasta]

Let’s have the naturalists’ best evidence demonstrating that homo sapiens sapiens originated from another bipedal hominid.

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/

Besides that, why do humans have a tail bone?

Where is the recent evidence, in the past couple of years, to support that we somehow came from another species?

Where is the recent evidence to the contrary? Where is ANY evidence to the contrary? There is none, because it does not exist. So much for creationism.

The theory of human evolution is going south at a very rapid rate.

Huh? This seems like an unfounded claim. Please substantiate it. If you are able.

The individuals who still cling tenaciously to some form of Darwinian evolution are simply living in the past, a generation still in denial.

Living in the past? Talk about hypocricy. Where is your recent evidence to show the truth of Christianity?

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.

Yeah, I would love to see your refutation of talkorigins. Please include any peer reviewed scientific papers you have written, and please include all relevent data that supports your claim.

Who can bring forth fresh solid evidence for human evolution?

You can't cover your eyes and expect people to take you seriously when you proclaim: "Me don't see nuthin."

 

[ApplePie7]

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.

 

[Rasta]

What is the name of the species that directly originated homo sapiens sapiens, brother Rasta...?

Show us the falsifiable evidence.

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?

 

[Rasta]

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.

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 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.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline

 

[ApplePie7]

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?

You replied first without even answering the question.

Do you require more google time?


Here is it again...

"Let’s have the naturalists’ best evidence demonstrating that homo sapiens sapiens originated from another bipedal hominid."

And....no, talkorigins does not even address the issue.

 

[ApplePie7]

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

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...?

 

[Rasta]

You replied first without even answering the question.

Do you require more google time?


Here is it again...

"Let’s 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 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.

 

[Rasta]

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...?

It is spelled out there for you. Sorry if you are having trouble comprehending . . . . Can't help you there, I can only point in the right direction.

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.

Hint* Did you read this from what I just got done posting for you?: "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."

 

[ApplePie7]

So let's see your refutation for talkorigins. Oh, wait, you can't, because you don't even comprehend what talkorigins says.

Talkorigins, besides being outdated, shows nothing in the way of falsifiable evidence for the direct "ancestor" to homo sapiens sapiens.

Can you refute the fact that humans and chimps are more closely related than mice and rats? No huh? Exactly what I thought.

The question is regarding bipedal hominids....what species originated homo sapiens sapiens?

Please stay focused...

 

[ApplePie7]

"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...

 

[Rasta]

So...because they look similar, then they must share a common ancestor?

No, it's because late homo erectus and early archaic humans are indistiguishable.

This is just poor science, brother.

HA! You are funny. If I didn't know you were dead serious, I would take you for a poe.

Show us your fasifiable theory in action...

You know the theory, now falsify the evidence.

 

[Rasta]

Talkorigins, besides being outdated, shows nothing in the way of falsifiable evidence for the direct "ancestor" to homo sapiens sapiens.

Wrong.

The question is regarding bipedal hominids....what species originated homo sapiens sapiens?

I know. The fact that humans and chimps are more closely related to eachother than mice and rats are, does show that humans and apes had a shared ancestor. Wow.

 

[ApplePie7]

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.

 

[Rasta]

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.

 

[ApplePie7]

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?

 

[Rasta]

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?

The question is, how has google failed you? Personally, I think it's user error.

 

[dewaddict84]

Rasta, Dude,
He's not even reading our posts, as is QUITE apparent. There is no way you're going to reach him if he doesn't even hear what you say. The best we can do is answer his questions in case any others come here and had similar questions. And we can correct his mistakes so others don't take it as truth.

You can lead a horse to water, etc etc.

Ah, so where to start. How bout questioning the extent to which I believe. You see that little question mark by my name? It means I'm agnostic(ish), I hold be belief that we can never be 100% certain about anything. The sun will probably rise tomorrow, but it's not philosophically assured. YES, I question these theories and ideas, but as long as they're consistent with what else I know, then they're the best solution we have so far. But hey, I'm open to other suggestions.

He's correct that Neanderthals are not the ancestor of man. We share a common ancestor, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, but they branched off and became their own thing before we came around. Plenty of other early hominids have been dug up.

And I think I mentioned this earlier, but the theory of evolution has come a long way since Darwin. Just like physics has come a long way since Newton. He was wrong when it came to time dilation, and he never really put forth a good explanation for gravity. Well, his model had been updated, but his basic concepts still hold true under normal conditions. Same with Darwin. His idea that species changed into other species still holds today. He postulated that it was a slow, smooth, and gradual change. We know now that's only part of the method. Darwin never accounted for freak mutations like the hairless cat.

Also, I don't thinks it's quite right to say that H. erectus and other early hominids are indistinguishable. There's H. floresiensis, and H. rhodesiensis that I mentioned above. They're very similar, and if we had every skull of the progression you may be right. But with the samples we have there are distinguishable features and measurements to them which are different from each other. And oh look, they seem to vary according to how deep we had to dig.

ApplePie, it would be fantastic if you could read our posts. Maybe answer some of our questions. If you ask a question then ignore the answer and then claim victory, you're really not helping your side. I'm sorry I laughed at you, but it was hilarious that you did that twice.

 

[ApplePie7]

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.

Your googled "Archaic Humans" data is over 25 years old.


Can you google something from at least from the 21st century?