Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Actually I didn't say evolution should be rejected on those grounds...but it went with the theory. Which, now I wonder if in Haeckel's idea, would the human embryo have gone through the black race first in the womb? Too bad he's not here to hypothesize about that. Or what he thought about that.

Why does it matter what Haeckel would think when his concept was refuted?

 

[YoursTrue]

Neanderthals were not predecessors. They were a side branch. Think of a tree and they are the result in a separation of one branch into two branches. Neither is a predecessor of the other.

A side branch? Are you saying humans in today's form are not descendants of the Neanderthals? Please do explain and perhaps delineate the "branches," and the separation thereof. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why does it matter what Haeckel would think when his concept was refuted?

The concept was refuted by some scientists, certainly not all. And it wasn't refuted by many textbooks or the NYC school system for many, many years. We have knowledge of that and already discussed that. Besides, haven't we already discussed that his idea about the human embryo passing through the various stages of evolution from??? what to human is true? Or is it not true? Once human, always human. Or maybe you don't think so.
So the idea is no, his concept was held as likely (and still today about recapitulation -- you certainly believe that, don't you?) for many decades. In reference to racism, however, here's what some have said about that in connection with, um, evolution.
"He [Haeckel] held that evolutionary biology had definitively proven that races were unequal in intelligence and ability, and that their lives were also of unequal value.*" Now, thinking about this, some do believe the first humans of the homo sapien branch (?) came out of Africa. Then what supposedly happened, do you think?
From *Haeckel, Ernst (1904). The Wonders of Life. London: Watts & Co. p. 406-407.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A side branch? Are you saying humans in today's form are not descendants of the Neanderthals? Please do explain and perhaps delineate the "branches," and the separation thereof. Thank you.

Here is a chart. This is not "set in stone" especially for some of the older species. But you can see the split off of Homo heidelbergensis:

 

[Subduction Zone]

The concept was refuted by some scientists, certainly not all. And it wasn't refuted by many textbooks or the NYC school system for many, many years. We have knowledge of that and already discussed that. Besides, haven't we already discussed that his idea about the human embryo passing through the various stages of evolution from??? what to human is true? Or is it not true? Once human, always human. Or maybe you don't think so.
So the idea is no, his concept was held as likely (and still today about recapitulation -- you certainly believe that, don't you?) for many decades. In reference to racism, however, here's what some have said about that in connection with, um, evolution.
"He [Haeckel] held that evolutionary biology had definitively proven that races were unequal in intelligence and ability, and that their lives were also of unequal value.*" Now, thinking about this, some do believe the first humans of the homo sapien branch (?) came out of Africa. Then what supposedly happened, do you think?
From *Haeckel, Ernst (1904). The Wonders of Life. London: Watts & Co. p. 406-407.

No, you misunderstand what is happening with the embryo. It does not pass through evolutionary changes. That is inaccurate.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you misunderstand what is happening with the embryo. It does not pass through evolutionary changes. That is inaccurate.

So then can you safely say it starts as a human embryo and stays as a human embryo?

 

[YoursTrue]

Here is a chart. This is not "set in stone" especially for some of the older species. But you can see the split off of Homo heidelbergensis:

Look, I don't even understand all those terms. So let's try to speak in simple English. At this point, I think it's a big joke. But -- wait a minute. From the chart where is the connection to any of them, one to the other? I don't see it. So maybe it's just not the best chart. But I do see where (lol) they say there is a split between humans and chimpanzees. Do they know where or how the split occurred? This is getting truly incredible. I mean it. Dating and fossils aside...

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you misunderstand what is happening with the embryo. It does not pass through evolutionary changes. That is inaccurate.

It just looks like other embryos or organisms, is that it, as it moves along in its embryonic human stages?

 

[YoursTrue]

Here is a chart. This is not "set in stone" especially for some of the older species. But you can see the split off of Homo heidelbergensis:

Plus now they're saying that Neanderthals weren't really dimwits more than homo sapiens -- even though the expression Neanderthal can be used in a pejorative way. Yet aren't Neanderthals said to be our "closest extinct relatives?" (The above chart speaks of the split between humans and chimpanzees. It's almost like a game. I like some card games,but this is interesting, too.)
But, of course, it is said that they're only our closest EXTINCT relatives...aren't they supposed to have interbred with homo sapiens? Well, we can't ask them, can we?
Here is an interesting concept offered by Paola Villa, a curator at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History:
She noted that genetic evidence shows there was interbreeding between Neanderthals and the early modern humans.
And from my reading from others, I see that it is said that many homo sapiens have "Neanderthal" genes in their bodies. But the idea is put forth that male offspring from inter-breeding were "likely infertile."
"In a certain sense, they are not completely extinct because some Neanderthal genes are present in our genome." (It reminds me of the recapitulation idea.)
The article notes, "Male offspring resulting from inter-breeding were likely infertile, which may have contributed to a Neanderthal population decline, Villa said. The remnants of the Neanderthal population eventually may have been assimilated into the larger modern human population in a process that unfolded over a period of a few thousands of years, she added."
Scientists Argue That Neanderthals Weren't Incompetent Dimwits

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you misunderstand what is happening with the embryo. It does not pass through evolutionary changes. That is inaccurate.

No, it just looks like previous ancestors of sorts, is that right? So let me get this straight. Homo sapiens, according to the chart you presented, split in evolutionary terms, from chimpanzees, is that a correct interpretation of that chart?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plus now they're saying that Neanderthals weren't really dimwits more than homo sapiens -- even though the expression Neanderthal can be used in a pejorative way. Yet aren't Neanderthals said to be our "closest extinct relatives?" (The above chart speaks of the split between humans and chimpanzees. It's almost like a game. I like some card games,but this is interesting, too.)
But, of course, it is said that they're only our closest EXTINCT relatives...aren't they supposed to have interbred with homo sapiens? Well, we can't ask them, can we?
Here is an interesting concept offered by Paola Villa, a curator at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History:
She noted that genetic evidence shows there was interbreeding between Neanderthals and the early modern humans.
And from my reading from others, I see that it is said that many homo sapiens have "Neanderthal" genes in their bodies. But the idea is put forth that male offspring from inter-breeding were "likely infertile."
"In a certain sense, they are not completely extinct because some Neanderthal genes are present in our genome." (It reminds me of the recapitulation idea.)
The article notes, "Male offspring resulting from inter-breeding were likely infertile, which may have contributed to a Neanderthal population decline, Villa said. The remnants of the Neanderthal population eventually may have been assimilated into the larger modern human population in a process that unfolded over a period of a few thousands of years, she added."
Scientists Argue That Neanderthals Weren't Incompetent Dimwits

As that article told you there was very limited interbreeding. Both sexes could not interbreed. And that is what happens quite often in speciation. Just like evolution it is not all of sudden that species cannot interbreed. One sex or the other tends to have trouble with interbreeding.

Neanderthals are our closest extinct relatives.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it just looks like previous ancestors of sorts, is that right? So let me get this straight. Homo sapiens, according to the chart you presented, split in evolutionary terms, from chimpanzees, is that a correct interpretation of that chart?

Early on in its development the embryos are similar. But they do not relive stages. There is no "amphibian stage" for example.
either
And no, Homo sapiens did not split with chimpanzee. That was poorly worded. The ancestor where the split occurred was long before man or chimps existed. This is the most likely current candidate, but since the fossil record is rather spotty it is hard to be sure if this is our common ancestor or not:

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

 

[YoursTrue]

As that article told you there was very limited interbreeding. Both sexes could not interbreed. And that is what happens quite often in speciation. Just like evolution it is not all of sudden that species cannot interbreed. One sex or the other tends to have trouble with interbreeding.

Neanderthals are our closest extinct relatives.

Wayyyt a minute here. Another article by a Chinese scientist on our "relatives."
By the way, that photo of Peking Man in the article doesn't make him look too handsome either.
“It may be hard for some people to accept, but evidence shows they [Peking Man [1]
were stupid,” said Professor Wei Qi, a researcher with the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing."
They were stupid, says he? lolol...
Back and forth, back and forth, Some say yes "Peking Man" was stupid, others say, nah...he wasn't stupid. LOLOL...
Poor, poor Peking Man.
Reconstruction of Peking man at Gothenburg Natural History Museum

 

[YoursTrue]

Early on in its development the embryos are similar. But they do not relive stages. There is no "amphibian stage" for example.
either
And no, Homo sapiens did not split with chimpanzee. That was poorly worded. The ancestor where the split occurred was long before man or chimps existed. This is the most likely current candidate, but since the fossil record is rather spotty it is hard to be sure if this is our common ancestor or not:

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Rather spotty, you say? Not worded correctly in the graph? Yes, rather spotty I would say. And, of course, you know the ancestor above looked like that? Man, I'm laughing tonight at some of the articles and pictures.

 

[YoursTrue]

Early on in its development the embryos are similar. But they do not relive stages. There is no "amphibian stage" for example.
either
And no, Homo sapiens did not split with chimpanzee. That was poorly worded. The ancestor where the split occurred was long before man or chimps existed. This is the most likely current candidate, but since the fossil record is rather spotty it is hard to be sure if this is our common ancestor or not:
..

So it isn't that the chart is wrong, but it was poorly worded, is that right? The split occurred, you say, long before man or chimps existed. OK, so how long have chimpanzees existed? Let's start there...And after you answer that, with all the fossils in the world that have been left behind, discovered, what came before the chimpanzees, and what came before "homo sapiens"? If I understand correctly, you and the chart say that humans of the homo sapien kind did not evolve or come from Neanderthals OR Denisovans. Is that correct? They were only relatives of the close kind?, but did not evolve or emerge from them. Is that right? I mean I'm trying to get my facts straight, so please help. Thank you.
Good night, too late again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wayyyt a minute here. Another article by a Chinese scientist on our "relatives."
By the way, that photo of Peking Man in the article doesn't make him look too handsome either.
“It may be hard for some people to accept, but evidence shows they [Peking Man [1]
were stupid,” said Professor Wei Qi, a researcher with the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing."
They were stupid, says he? lolol...
Back and forth, back and forth, Some say yes "Peking Man" was stupid, others say, nah...he wasn't stupid. LOLOL...
Poor, poor Peking Man.
Reconstruction of Peking man at Gothenburg Natural History Museum

Not even close. but nice try. Peking man is much much close to us. In fact he could be said to be the perfect creationist transitional fossil. The reason is that some creationists claimed he was "100% man" while others claimed he was "100% ape", and at least one claimed both at different times.

In case you did not know "Peking man" was the first example of Homo erectus found.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it isn't that the chart is wrong, but it was poorly worded, is that right? The split occurred, you say, long before man or chimps existed. OK, so how long have chimpanzees existed? Let's start there...And after you answer that, with all the fossils in the world that have been left behind, discovered, what came before the chimpanzees, and what came before "homo sapiens"? If I understand correctly, you and the chart say that humans of the homo sapien kind did not evolve or come from Neanderthals OR Denisovans. Is that correct? They were only relatives of the close kind?, but did not evolve or emerge from them. Is that right? I mean I'm trying to get my facts straight, so please help. Thank you.
Good night, too late again.

The chart could have been worded a bit better since to those trying not to understand it can be a bit misleading. It would have been better if it said "the split that led to man and chimpanzee". And if you look at it carefully you can see that the split that led to man and Neanderthals occurred at Homo heidelbergensis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rather spotty, you say? Not worded correctly in the graph? Yes, rather spotty I would say. And, of course, you know the ancestor above looked like that? Man, I'm laughing tonight at some of the articles and pictures.

You should never laugh at your own ignorance. It is a very bad sign.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." So is this, or is this not the original title of his book?

Why does it matter in a thread concerning evidence for or against evolution?

Let's pretend his 200 yeard old book was called "why the white man is superior to all others".
Why would it matter?

How would it impact evolution theory in 21st century modern biology?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Further, please do explain how Darwin thought life was a "struggle for life." Doesn't evolution teach everything and everyone dies by nature, genes, or disposition? Except of course for the one jellyfish thing someone alluded to? Long live the jellyfish. (Anyway, the argument isn't true about the everlasting jellyfish. So be it.)

Things live and then die.
During that life span, they might reproduce and thereby spread their genes.
Those who don't live long enough for whatever reason will not be spreading their genes and those lineages die out.

The "struggle for life" is the concept of creatures surviving long enough to breed. In general. By whatever means they manage to stay alive.

So science does or does not prove anything you say. It doesn't prove anything about life, how it started, or what happened before life on earth, is that right? No proof.

Theories in science are never considered "proven".
Theories can only be supported or disproven.
"proven" implies an absolute certainty and thereby excludes the posibility that future discoveries might force us to alter or even completely replace out theories.

Since we can only take into account the evidence we currently have at our disposal, we can not rule out that there is other data out there that might paint a different picture.


So yes, science doesn't deal in "proof" when it comes to explanatory models of reality, only "evidence" or "disproof".

This is like science 101 and frankly it's embarassing that you don't know this while feeling knowledgeable enough to argue against extremely well-established and well-supported theories like evolution....