The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Speedwell]

How about citing your erroneous information.

Humans jumping over two metres?

I believe the world record now is something over 8 meters and has always been more than 7 meters since records have been kept.

But so what? You seem to assume that we came down from the trees and became modern humans in one step. You also seem to assume that our primate cousins have always been as strong or agile or whatever as they are now. That's a fine fantasy you're spinning, but you have never answered my question. I don't care about your data-free speculations as to how we could not have evolved. I am more interested to know why you object to it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Australopithecus afarensis

Skeletal morphology and locomotion
Considerable debate surrounds the locomotor behaviour of A. afarensis. Some studies suggest that A. afarensis was almost exclusively bipedal, while others propose that the creatures were partly arboreal. (wikipedia)

It appears that no one really knows much about the locomotion of Australopithecus.

-_- partly arboreal means that they would move around in trees in addition to walking upright, not that they walked with a stoop or something. It's not like our hips prevent us from using the monkey bars, now do they? I could still jump from one tree to another. Obviously, I wouldn't be particularly great at doing it all the time, but if I grew up using the trees to travel when it was suitable, I could manage.

Basically, the bone structure demonstrably is not suited for knuckle walking or other forms of movement associated with chimps, etc., and is suited best for walking upright. The bone structure just doesn't exclude swinging from tree to tree from time to time, which is what makes people uncertain as to whether or not Australopithecus was partly arboreal or just stayed on the ground.

You believe that man strode the plains of Africa thousands of years ago?

Lion numbers two thousand years ago were considerably higher, than what they are today. Five thousand years ago, lions numbers in Africa were immense, you would need an army of armed men. To even attempt to cross the open plains back then.

And I believe that human women could not have possibly survived before the invention of bows and arrows, least the beasts smell the period blood (sarcasm). Humans have this thing called "intelligence", perhaps you have heard of it. Unlike, say, a buffalo, we can use the tracks left behind by lions, and patterns pertaining to where lions like to be, in order to avoid encountering them. Also, lions hunt primarily at night... humans hole up in heavily defended encampments at night and travel when predators are less active during the day. Plus, lions hold territory, more lions means they covered a larger area overall, not that they were necessarily in more concentrated populations.

You may have seen some footage of Kalahari bushmen outrunning a gazelle. Not so thousands of years ago, these bushmen would have been lunch for any one of hundreds of prides of lions.

Lol, as if lions were targeting humans exclusively. Also, as if humans didn't start out with basic tool making and fire use (more robust hominids such as Homo erectus used tools long before we existed). Also, I think you likely interpreted that footage incorrectly. Human bodies are best at long distance running. They were running the gazelle to death. You see, it doesn't matter that our prey can run faster, because we can run so much farther and easily track them even if they manage to escape our sight with their sudden sprint. We keep going and wait for our prey to inevitably collapse from exhaustion, catch up to them, and kill them.

Not only that, but should we encounter a lion's den, we wouldn't have to fight them off with our fists. We can use strategies, such as choking them with smoke, jabbing them with a poison needle, etc., and whomever lived to tell the tale could spread the news of a successful way to fight off lions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You don't lose traits like being able to instinctively navigate, it is essential for survival.

Lol, I can't find my way to my own house from any given destination with more than 4 turns, and I have lived here for years. However, my sister is a living map, so much so that as long as she knows the direction and distance a destination is from where she currently is, she can come up with a route to get there on the spot. The joy of being a communal species is that not every individual has to be equally capable in the same areas. Why use me as a navigator when she is so much better at it? Why use my sister to grow crops when she has the black thumb of death and my thumb is bright green?

Furthermore, why use instinct when I can map out an area, thus eliminating the need to spend the time and energy to memorize the area in order to find my way?

All animals navigate and accurately, we don't so we get lost.

Hahahahahahahahahaha, in what universe do ALL animals have navigation skills at all like ours? I mean, a tiger doesn't know the exact size of its territory and where everything is in it; it keeps track of the border by scent it leaves behind. It makes a smell map rather than a visual one, but it's a map all the same. The best non-bird navigators always leave some sort of trail for them to follow rather than memorizing the route or instinctively knowing where to go. Heck, spiders leave a web trail to get back home; that's the same thing as me tying a ball of yarn to my house and finding my way back by following it, the flipping spider is worse at navigation than the average person. In hunter gatherer societies, a group of 100 people (a rather large one for that lifestyle) would have a territory of about 32 square kilometers (about 20 square miles). You think that humans are so universally terrible at telling direction that a group of 100 people wouldn't be able to keep track of a territory this size, one I could reasonably walk across within a few hours? Plus we, like many other organisms, follow where the food is. If we can't find food within a reasonable distance, we try to leave the area. If we hunt animals and we notice that they are leaving, we follow them. But no, clearly, just because you personally haven't had to problem solve in this way, people never could have managed -_-.

Plenty of organisms lack various instincts we associate with survival because in their specific environment, they don't need them. Until humans found the island they lived on, dodo birds had no large predators or rodents that would take their eggs, and thus they had no instinct to hide from large animals or to vigilantly protect their nests. They died out, sure, but they had survived for thousands upon thousands of years before that point.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How about citing your erroneous information.

Humans jumping over two metres?

High jump. Clearly, with training, humans are capable of over 2 metres. Why is the average so low? because we don't need to jump.

Mankind rarely ever swam and especially not in Africa. I find it odd that you would mention swimming, given that in Africa is the most dangerous place to even go near the water.

Perhaps not in Africa, but once out of Africa, much of early human migrations appear to have been coastal - particularly through Asia and the Americas.

Humans appear to be surprisingly well adapted to semi-aquatic life - the 'Aquatic Ape' hypothesis (that there was a semi-aquatic stage in human evolution) is no longer widely accepted, but more through lack of direct evidence than lack of plausibility.

There are plenty of coastal peoples that make their living off the sea, diving for shellfish, hunting fish with simple spears; that's an activity that involves swimming. There seems to be only one surviving tribe that lives almost exclusively at sea, but that's hardly surprising.

The only people I have ever seen living in trees, are sleeping in tree houses. No human can sleep in a tree and especially not toddlers. Think about what your writing in your posts.

Of course they make tree houses, tree-living apes make complex nests to sleep in, why should we not do the same or better? I already posted a link about a tribe of tree-dwellers.

You can move the goalposts all you like, but if you're going by your own personal experience for your claims here, I can only sympathise.

 

[klutedavid]

I believe the world record now is something over 8 meters and has always been more than 7 meters since records have been kept.

But so what? You seem to assume that we came down from the trees and became modern humans in one step. You also seem to assume that our primate cousins have always been as strong or agile or whatever as they are now. That's a fine fantasy you're spinning, but you have never answered my question. I don't care about your data-free speculations as to how we could not have evolved. I am more interested to know why you object to it.

Your posts are becoming even more fictional.

I believe the world record now is something over 8 meters

You need to support your mistaken comments with evidence.

We are not talking about a jumping technique that could never be used in the wild. Modern high jumpers jump backwards and land on their backs. We are talking about general mankind, not Olympic athletes that train exclusively in one event for years.

Mankind has always walked on the ground, man never lived in trees. The genetic variations in the DNA, the differences between man and chimpanzees runs into the millions. Why do people believe that man lived in the trees, whose idea was that?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Your posts are becoming even more fictional.

You need to support your mistaken comments with evidence.

We are not talking about a jumping technique that could never be used in the wild. Modern high jumpers jump backwards and land on their backs. We are talking about general mankind, not Olympic athletes that train exclusively in one event for years.

Mankind has always walked on the ground, man never lived in trees. The genetic variations in the DNA, the differences between man and chimpanzees runs into the millions. Why do people believe that man lived in the trees, whose idea was that?

Sorry Speedwell, but the world record high jump is a little over 8 FEET, not 8 meters. In meters, the record is 2.45.

However, there are people that actually do live in treehouses, because living on the ground is more dangerous in those areas. Not sure why how high we can jump is relevant to that. Sure, even in those areas, they primarily walk on the ground, but humans can jump from tree to tree if we want for short periods of time.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm having trouble keeping track of exactly what information you're after - hybridization is hybridization, whether done in the lab, in the farmer's field, or in the wild. Two species crossbreed to produce viable offspring reproductively isolated from the parent species. It's not the same as lab genetic modification, as already explained. Genetic evidence shows it to be a hybrid of the two parent species.

You can't expect evidence that lab GMOs or hybrids thrive for hundreds or thousands of years when we haven't been doing that for hundreds or thousands of years - unless you count domesticated hybrids. The lifetime of a species is unpredictable.

New species is "discovered", its genetics shows the feature of hybridization.
This is very different from:
New species is "induced", due to artificial modification on the genetics (hybridization of not)

The latter is used to support evolution process. That is fine. But that only happened in the lab, not in nature. So it is still not enough.
The former can not be used to illustrate evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Equivocation fallacy - using that false logic, prisons are alive because they have cells. In case you didn't realise it, teacher (!), words have different meanings in different contexts.

I did not say that. I only say rock has cell. Don't think too much.

 

[klutedavid]

Lol, I can't find my way to my own house from any given destination with more than 4 turns, and I have lived here for years. However, my sister is a living map, so much so that as long as she knows the direction and distance a destination is from where she currently is, she can come up with a route to get there on the spot. The joy of being a communal species is that not every individual has to be equally capable in the same areas. Why use me as a navigator when she is so much better at it? Why use my sister to grow crops when she has the black thumb of death and my thumb is bright green?

Furthermore, why use instinct when I can map out an area, thus eliminating the need to spend the time and energy to memorize the area in order to find my way?


Hahahahahahahahahaha, in what universe do ALL animals have navigation skills at all like ours? I mean, a tiger doesn't know the exact size of its territory and where everything is in it; it keeps track of the border by scent it leaves behind. It makes a smell map rather than a visual one, but it's a map all the same. The best non-bird navigators always leave some sort of trail for them to follow rather than memorizing the route or instinctively knowing where to go. Heck, spiders leave a web trail to get back home; that's the same thing as me tying a ball of yarn to my house and finding my way back by following it, the flipping spider is worse at navigation than the average person. In hunter gatherer societies, a group of 100 people (a rather large one for that lifestyle) would have a territory of about 32 square kilometers (about 20 square miles). You think that humans are so universally terrible at telling direction that a group of 100 people wouldn't be able to keep track of a territory this size, one I could reasonably walk across within a few hours? Plus we, like many other organisms, follow where the food is. If we can't find food within a reasonable distance, we try to leave the area. If we hunt animals and we notice that they are leaving, we follow them. But no, clearly, just because you personally haven't had to problem solve in this way, people never could have managed -_-.

Plenty of organisms lack various instincts we associate with survival because in their specific environment, they don't need them. Until humans found the island they lived on, dodo birds had no large predators or rodents that would take their eggs, and thus they had no instinct to hide from large animals or to vigilantly protect their nests. They died out, sure, but they had survived for thousands upon thousands of years before that point.

Tigers don't leave scent marks because they don't know where their going. Tigers mark their territory to keep other tigers out, my cat marks inside my house. Do you think my cat needs scent marks to navigate?

Animals in nature have a phenomenal ability to navigate, and navigate enormous distances. My stupid cat could find it's way home, if I dropped it two hundred miles from home. How do I know that a house cat can navigate those distances, because our cat did that when we moved. It ran away from our new house and we waited a few days, sure enough we found it at the old residence.

The ability to navigate is a genetic trait that cannot be erased, it is never just lost. For some unknown reason, humans have never been able to navigate by instinct. We walk in circles if we cannot spot something to navigate by.

 

[Brightmoon]

Some athletes can run a marathon, most men cannot run a marathon.
No one is running around the plains of Africa five thousand years ago.

.

How would you know? The argument from personal incredulity isn’t evidence. So if I go google something like savanna populations in Africa 5 thousand years ago I doubt if a reputable anthropology site is going to give me a stupid answer.

 

[PsychoSarah]

New species is "discovered", its genetics shows the feature of hybridization.
This is very different from:
New species is "induced", due to artificial modification on the genetics (hybridization of not)

The latter is used to support evolution process. That is fine. But that only happened in the lab, not in nature. So it is still not enough.
The former can not be used to illustrate evolution.

Lol, what? I can think of not 1 evolution experiment that used animals humans hybridized. After all, that would be artificial selection rather than natural selection, which defeats the point of observing evolution without human intervention.

Plus, I already gave you an example of a hybrid that became it's own species, that all female lizard species. Clearly, hybridization is a means by which new species are generated.

 

[klutedavid]

-_- partly arboreal means that they would move around in trees in addition to walking upright, not that they walked with a stoop or something. It's not like our hips prevent us from using the monkey bars, now do they? I could still jump from one tree to another. Obviously, I wouldn't be particularly great at doing it all the time, but if I grew up using the trees to travel when it was suitable, I could manage.

Basically, the bone structure demonstrably is not suited for knuckle walking or other forms of movement associated with chimps, etc., and is suited best for walking upright. The bone structure just doesn't exclude swinging from tree to tree from time to time, which is what makes people uncertain as to whether or not Australopithecus was partly arboreal or just stayed on the ground.


And I believe that human women could not have possibly survived before the invention of bows and arrows, least the beasts smell the period blood (sarcasm). Humans have this thing called "intelligence", perhaps you have heard of it. Unlike, say, a buffalo, we can use the tracks left behind by lions, and patterns pertaining to where lions like to be, in order to avoid encountering them. Also, lions hunt primarily at night... humans hole up in heavily defended encampments at night and travel when predators are less active during the day. Plus, lions hold territory, more lions means they covered a larger area overall, not that they were necessarily in more concentrated populations.


Lol, as if lions were targeting humans exclusively. Also, as if humans didn't start out with basic tool making and fire use (more robust hominids such as Homo erectus used tools long before we existed). Also, I think you likely interpreted that footage incorrectly. Human bodies are best at long distance running. They were running the gazelle to death. You see, it doesn't matter that our prey can run faster, because we can run so much farther and easily track them even if they manage to escape our sight with their sudden sprint. We keep going and wait for our prey to inevitably collapse from exhaustion, catch up to them, and kill them.

Not only that, but should we encounter a lion's den, we wouldn't have to fight them off with our fists. We can use strategies, such as choking them with smoke, jabbing them with a poison needle, etc., and whomever lived to tell the tale could spread the news of a successful way to fight off lions.

Toddlers can't climb trees nor can women holding a baby, this is such a crazy idea.

No one runs around in Africa and especially on the open plains, certainly not thousands of years ago. People lived in walled enclosures back then, they had fires and lookouts. You cannot compare Africa in the distant past to modern Africa in the last few hundred years.
Academics for some reason seem to miss this point.

 

[klutedavid]

.

How would you know? The argument from personal incredulity isn’t evidence. So if I go google something like savanna populations in Africa 5 thousand years ago I doubt if a reputable anthropology site is going to give me a stupid answer.

All you will find if you go back far enough, is concentrated and well defended settlements. Africa was probably the most dangerous place on earth to walk around in thousands of years ago. This is obvious to anyone who extrapolates predator numbers back thousands of years. Back then lions even existed in Europe and the Middle East, no one ventured out at night in those places.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No one runs around in Africa and especially on the open plains, certainly not thousands of years ago.

You keep making this claim, but you present nothing to support it.
Sounds to me like you're just making it up off the cuff.

 

[juvenissun]

Problem: rocks have no functional units. They are crystals, made of allignments of molecules/atoms. You would have to be crazy to think that a stack of 5 molecules is equivalent to a cell.

furthermore: how the heck can you persist in trying to defend the idea that rocks are alive and yet think plants aren't? This just baffles me.

When a cell of rock changes, the rock changes. That IS the function. A rock cell has similar function to a biological cell. The functions are not the same. But, of course, the life form is not the same.

Reason for arguing this? The idea that a rock is alive supports the idea that a plant is not a life.

 

[Brightmoon]

According to the smithsonian humans were in South Africa around 77,000 years ago . Obviously they were in North Africa previous to that time . So Africa was pretty populated . So your mischaracterization of no humans running around the savanna 5000 years ago isn’t accurate

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When a cell of rock changes, the rock changes. That IS the function. A rock cell has similar function to a biological cell. The functions are not the same. But, of course, the life form is not the same.

Reason for arguing this? The idea that a rock is alive supports the idea that a plant is not a life.

What you just said, is quite literally the most wrong and dumbest thing I have ever seen anyone write.
Rocks don't have cells, so they are therefor not alive. Plants have cells, and thus are alive.

 

[Brightmoon]

I’m assuming you meant plants . We all love autocorrect

 

[juvenissun]

-_- that's like saying that I couldn't tell who your parents are through a genetic comparison.

Hybrids genetically will have sequences associated with two or more different species that arose after those species split. If the parent species didn't have the same number of chromosomes as each other, genetic abnormality is also present, such as the lizards I mentioned being triploid (the parent species are diploid).

Yes, it is almost a 1:1 relation (two 1s listed side by side).
The question is the origin. Does the left 1 cause the right 1? or does the right 1 cause the left 1? Or, they go in parallel and do not have the origin problem.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I’m assuming you meant plants . We all love autocorrect

Thank you for noticing that. I typed a bit too quickly.