how did man appear on earth

[Willamena]

Heres a question to pose to evolutionists, then: what consequences does the idea of evolution have on social and moral constructs?

Might be a little (or a lot) off topic, but just throwing it out there for the heck of it...

While I'm not an evolutionist, I do believe in evolution, so I'll answer. The Theory itself deals with biological phenomena, but the idea of evolution (i.e. graduated change) has been around since a donkey's year. It has an impact on every single thing that human's can observe. I'm not sure what consequences you expect to find from its impact on social and moral constructs, but these are things that humans observe.

 

[Valjean]

Traditionally, it's been the ability to breed fertile offspring, but today, with change being seen as a continuum, the term has become somewhat problematic. You'll see phylogenetic diagrams generally forego Linnean taxa.

 

[Willamena]

Define a species: once again, you need to know exactly what that means. What separates one species from another?

Ooh! I know this one... What separates one species from another is at least three generations.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

Ooh! I know this one... What separates one species from another is at least three generations.

What? So, I'm a different species than my great, great grandfather...? Um, no.

 

[Riverwolf]

But it does! Where on earth does the idea of good and evil come from? Why do we feel bad when we kill something, or feel good when we help someone? Doesn't that contradict "Survival of the Fittest"? We're supposed to look out for number one, but we don't like to kill and we like to be "good".

Does that make sense?

YOU don't like to kill, YOU like to be "good".

Not everybody is the same way.

Only the strong survives still applies today. You have to be strong and well-disciplined in order to make it in this world. Not only that, but we still have to kill in order to survive. And we still have to be strong in order to kill without being killed ourselves.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

Traditionally, it's been the ability to breed fertile offspring, but today, with change being seen as a continuum, the term has become somewhat problematic. You'll see phylogenetic diagrams generally forego Linnean taxa.

Again, the problem is that phylogenetics is based on the idea that evolution is fact. If you are arguing the validity of evolution, then we can't consider phyogenetics to be valid either.

 

[Riverwolf]

Traditionally, it's been the ability to breed fertile offspring, but today, with change being seen as a continuum, the term has become somewhat problematic. You'll see phylogenetic diagrams generally forego Linnean taxa.

...Uh... WHAT?!?!

Anyway, the real problem is that it is now theorized that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons interbred with each other, producing us. These are two different species breeding with each other.

Not only that, what about different breeds of dogs? Not only that, wolves can breed with dogs, from what I've heard.

So how a species is defined is a very good question.

 

[Valjean]

YOU don't like to kill, YOU like to be "good".

Not everybody is the same way.

Only the strong survives still applies today. You have to be strong and well-disciplined in order to make it in this world. Not only that, but we still have to kill in order to survive. And we still have to be strong in order to kill without being killed ourselves.

Strength has nothing to do with survival. How many "complex" creatures have thrived longer than jellyfish, for example?

 

[Riverwolf]

Strength has nothing to do with survival. How many "complex" creatures have thrived longer than jellyfish, for example?

"Strength" doesn't have to be physical, you know.

 

[S-word]

Quote.....Riverwolf
Anyway, the real problem is that it is now theorized that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons interbred with each other, producing us. These are two different species breeding with each other.

Then this would mean that all humans are mongrels.

 

[Valjean]

...Uh... WHAT?!?!

Anyway, the real problem is that it is now theorized that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons interbred with each other, producing us. These are two different species breeding with each other.

Not only that, what about different breeds of dogs? Not only that, wolves can breed with dogs, from what I've heard.

So how a species is defined is a very good question.

Genetic analysis has shown that Neanderthals and modern man (Cro-magnon) were much more different than they appeared morphologically. Its doubtful they could have interbred. Biologists have pretty much dropped the interbreeding hypothesis.

Dogs/wolves? -- genetically pretty similar, despite morphologic differences. They interbreed all the time.

 

[Willamena]

how did man appear on earth

I don't know about you, but I appeared on Earth rather unexpectedly.

 

[Riverwolf]

Quote.....Riverwolf
Anyway, the real problem is that it is now theorized that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons interbred with each other, producing us. These are two different species breeding with each other.

Then this would mean that all humans are mongrels.

And what's wrong with that?

 

[painted wolf]

ok one last post before bed.

How are you defining species? As being genetically isolated? Geographically isolated? I need to know how your defining "species" first. We need to be consistent in our arguments about the definition of this term first.

How do you define species? I find the non-biologist tends to have the best view to start with. That way I'm not jumping into explanations that are mis-aimed.

First of all, Cladistics and Phylogenetics are used to justify evolution, not prove it. Those terms were built on the presuppositions and paradigms that evolution is true. Those have no meaning if we are disputing evolutions validity.

Sey, is right. Cladistics and Phylogenetics describe more fully the genetic and paleontological relationships of species. They are not based on evolution, rather they are based on modern evidence not avalable to Linnaeous.

Are you rejecting the old classification scheme of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species?

They have a place... but their role is limited by the weakness of thier pre-genetics knowledge. I think you will find that most (if not all) biologists limit the use of the Linneaian system because of these weaknesses. Indeed it is being replaced with Phylogenetics and the ICZN is working carefully to help craft the Phylo-Code and make the transition as smooth as possible. We learn the system but its mostly to interface with the older research. Where possible Phylo-code incorperates as much of the old terminology as possible, but the solid lines between the taxa are blurred by the reality of the evidence.
You are more likely to see a Cladistic treatment of speices today than a Linnaean one, indeed every major paper on new species or re-examinations of old ones, include cladograms.

Taxa by the way covers everything from species to Domain. Domain is the level above Kingdom by the way. It was added to incorperate the vast differences in the bacterial world, again not something that Linnaeous could have known about. Other added levels include Phyla, SuperClass, SuperOrder, Infraorder, Family, SuperFamily and Tribe.... Not very useful when most people only know the old Linnean system... but they had to added to try to patch the holes in the origional.

Anyway, to sum up.... I don't reject Linnaeous... He is handy for discussions with laymen but his system is also flawed and limited in its usefullness in a broader Biological sence.

Heres a question to pose to evolutionists, then: what consequences does the idea of evolution have on social and moral constructs?

None, that is not Evolutions role... but philosophies. Anyone who argues otherwise has a pathological misunderstanding of Evolution.

So anyway... what do YOU consider a species? We can work from there.

wa:do

ps. Sey is right again... Neandethals were genetically distinct enough to make successful interbreeding unlikely. Mules at the very best.

 

[Valjean]

And what's wrong with that?

Why, it would violate prop 8, or at least some miscegenation laws!

 

[Willamena]

how did man appear on earth

Haphazardly! There's these haps that hap all the time, one might even say in a sequence; and there's these hazards... and together they make for "life".

 

[S-word]

And what's wrong with that?

Nothing at all old mate, nothing at all, I'm just pointing out the fact, that according to your statement, we're all nothing but a mob of mongrels, and I believe that you were right.

 

[Breathe]

Anyway, the real problem is that it is now theorized that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons interbred with each other, producing us. These are two different species breeding with each other.

Hmmm, I'm rather sceptical about this theory, though, unfortunately, because they're basing it on only one or two skeletons.

This has proven to be quite an unpopular idea with most scholars, who believe that we generally outperformed and out-competed the Neanderthals. There have been very, very few Cro-Magnon - Neanderthal hybrids, and considering they have nearly finished mapping the Neanderthal gene, I'm sure they would have noticed it during the final mapping - unless we've suddenly got a bunch of shared genes towards the end, so to speak.

Currently, nah, I don't think there's enough evidence, and it's really taking a leap of faith to use a couple of small children's bones as the rules, rather than the exceptions - Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals would have interbred, occasionally, but for the most part, not very often - Neanderthals would have probably be seen as ugly then, like they are seen as ugly now, and for a high scale amount of breeding it would be too tricky - Neanderthal's language was not as sophisticated as Cro-Magnon's, so the ones that were mated with would have generally been women Neanderthals who'd got lost from the group or were kidnapped, but to think it would be on such a high scale so as to breed Neanderthals out of existence within 20,000 or even 30,000 years is rather doubtful, especially since Neanderthals were known to have also practised infanticide, as well as living in small, rather isolated groups and they would have still been breeding with one another - something else would definitely have had to had a contributing factor.

It's a nice idea, but currently there isn't enough proof that it happened.

[*is a Neanderthal fan* ]

 

[Riverwolf]

Nothing at all old mate, nothing at all, I'm just pointing out the fact, that according to your statement, we're all nothing but a mob of mongrels, and I believe that you were right.

Well, according to Painted Wolf, apparently inbreeding between cro-magnons and Neanderthals was impossible.

Guess I was wrong here. ^_^

 

[painted wolf]

Well, according to Painted Wolf, apparently inbreeding between cro-magnons and Neanderthals was impossible.

Not impossible... just that the results would not have been contributing to the gene pool of either species.
I'm not saying on some cold lonely night, things didn't happen. Mules happen in the wild too you know.

wa:do