Mysterious species buried their dead and carved symbols 100,000 years before humans

[Dan From Smithville]

You were a test tube wabbit.

I must be getting tired again. I can't think of one good comeback. Everything I can think of involves kangaroos and isn't that funny.

I'm thinking about wearing a pouch. It could be the next big thing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That s more or less what I was saying. In the same sense Neanderthals are ancestral to us. But what appears to be the case is that they left Africa first. Our ancestors followed. They were the pioneers, the trendsetters. Some of our ancestors interbred with their ancestors when we first left Africa, but an article that I closed and may have lost indicates that later generations did not interbreed. I guess once the populations of humans were large enough we were more tribal.

I noticed that I was repeating some of what you said, but I was on a roll.

There could be cultural barriers related to tribalism that won't show up in the fossil record. Another wrinkle to consider, but not one easily argued with any solid evidence I can think of.

That makes sense to me that our species would be more compatible in our youth when we were not so highly divergent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That s more or less what I was saying. In the same sense Neanderthals are ancestral to us. But what appears to be the case is that they left Africa first. Our ancestors followed. They were the pioneers, the trendsetters. Some of our ancestors interbred with their ancestors when we first left Africa, but an article that I closed and may have lost indicates that later generations did not interbreed. I guess once the populations of humans were large enough we were more tribal.

I'm hoping that we get more participation from knowledgeable people to point out the flaws in what I have stated so far. That's when I start to learn the subject better. All I learn from fish still being fish or what Denis Noble says is about the claimant and not the subject.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This source puts Neanderthals quite a bit before Homo sapiens. That does not mean that either of us were "more evolved". They merely split off from our common ancestors than we did:

From the vault: A primer on early human evolution

Human evolution is not a line of cartoons from a bent-over chimpanzee to a modern human, it's a complex business according to the experts.

cosmosmagazine.com

"Neanderthals were the first on the scene: the oldest remains put their emergence back at around half a million years ago. From their European homeland, they moved east as far as Siberia in Central Asia, but never crossed into Africa."

Neanderthals were a cold-adapted species of human and that probably limited their migration into Africa.

I think a lot of people view the evolution of diverging species as being continuously equal, when that seems to be the most unlikely of possibilities.

 

[John53]

I must be getting tired again. I can't think of one good comeback. Everything I can think of involves kangaroos and isn't that funny.

I'm thinking about wearing a pouch. It could be the next big thing.

A marsupial rabbit might throw a spanner in Darwin's theory.

 

[We Never Know]

We share a common ancestry, whether we are separate species or subspecies. This would indicate that divergence wasn't so complete 250,000 years ago that viable offspring of both sexes couldn't survive. This is demonstrated in evidence from specimens as recent as 100,000 years ago.

Pääbo is adding rocket fuel to the search for the evidence of human origins.

IMO with time many things will be re-written as we advance in technology and understanding and we will think "dang we missed that one".
We have came very far in the last 100 years using technology that was great for its time but keeps getting replaced by better technology.
I think the next 100 years will be amazing for science, our knowledge and the discoveries that await.

 

[Heyo]

Dang it, now the more that I think about my reasoning may be faulty. The problem appears to be that children from Neanderthal females may not have survived.

I need a biologist!!

The important thing to take away from this is how messy the concept of "species" is. Even when we only look at the biological definition, we have no clear lines. Not only is it intransient, (see ring species, A = B, B = C, C = D, D ≠ A) but there is also a gradient as viable offspring becomes more and more rare in hybrids. (And as someone else pointed out, male offspring is less likely to be viable.)

Interestingly this mess is one of the rare arguments with which I could convince a YEC.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The important thing to take away from this is how messy the concept of "species" is. Even when we only look at the biological definition, we have no clear lines. Not only is it intransient, (see ring species, A = B, B = C, C = D, D ≠ A) but there is also a gradient as viable offspring becomes more and more rare in hybrids. (And as someone else pointed out, male offspring is less likely to be viable.)

Interestingly this mess is one of the rare arguments with which I could convince a YEC.

Yes, ""species" was originally a concept by a creationist and it shows. That there is no hard line to be found is predicted by the theory of evolution. A hard line is something that creationists desperately need and cannot find. Have you heard of Aron Ra's Phylogeny challenge?

 

[Heyo]

Yes, ""species" was originally a concept by a creationist and it shows.

Linné was a special "kind" of creationist.

That there is no hard line to be found is predicted by the theory of evolution. A hard line is something that creationists desperately need and cannot find.

Yeah, but knowing how imprecise the species concept is, I have stopped to ask YEC to define "kind".

Have you heard of Aron Ra's Phylogeny challenge?

Of course I have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Linné was a special "kind" of creationist.

Yeah, but knowing how imprecise the species concept is, I have stopped to ask YEC to define "kind".

Of course I have.

My point is that species should be vague and fuzzy in definition if evolution is correct. If creationism is correct then there should be a hard clear definition of "kind". That is essentially Aron Ra's challenge. For those that support evolution it is a good thing that there is no hard definition for species. For creationists it is a very bad thin g that there is no hard definition for "kind". It is a rare case where one side not being able to do what the other side cannot do is not hypocrisy. It is not hypocritical for us not to be able to define species in an iron clad way and yet demand that creationists do the same for kind. If evolution predicted a hard definition for species then it would be hypocritical for use to make such a demand, but since it is the other way around it is not.

 

[Heyo]

My point is that species should be vague and fuzzy in definition if evolution is correct. If creationism is correct then there should be a hard clear definition of "kind". That is essentially Aron Ra's challenge. For those that support evolution it is a good thing that there is no hard definition for species. For creationists it is a very bad thin g that there is no hard definition for "kind". It is a rare case where one side not being able to do what the other side cannot do is not hypocrisy. It is not hypocritical for us not to be able to define species in an iron clad way and yet demand that creationists do the same for kind. If evolution predicted a hard definition for species then it would be hypocritical for use to make such a demand, but since it is the other way around it is not.

The phylogeny challenge is not about species but about the hypothesized discontinuation of common ancestry. And yes, here comes the very vague definition of "kind" into play. Some YEC use it to mean any clade in the classification that fits their narrative at the time, species, family, order.
What Aron wants is basically what Linné set out to find and failed, the roots of the trees they propose in their "orchid" model.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The phylogeny challenge is not about species but about the hypothesized discontinuation of common ancestry. And yes, here comes the very vague definition of "kind" into play. Some YEC use it to mean any clade in the classification that fits their narrative at the time, species, family, order.
What Aron wants is basically what Linné set out to find and failed, the roots of the trees they propose in their "orchid" model.

It applies to the "kind" problem. If creationists could answer it they could show what a definite kind was. They would have a way of explaining why the members of two separate populations were the same kind or not. I do agree that it is not about speciation, but it still applies to the species/kind debate.