Question for Evolutionist

[Skwim]

Here's an informative chart of various Homo species. Where it's thought they arose, evolved, went extinct, and when they vanished. The whys remain an unknown.
Note the brief interbreeding of H. sapiens with H. neanderthalensis in Europe

Source: Wikipedia


.​

 

[Sunstone]

But they were still significantly spread out (considering there were no aeroplanes in those days). It is the significance of this spread that makes one (or at least me) wonder how every one of the pre sapien hominidin died - without exception.

How did all but two of the ancient pachyderm species die out? How did not only every true species of saber tooth cat die off, but also their cousins, the false or near sabertooth cats? How did every ancestor of the modern horse die off?

You question should not be limited to merely our ancestors.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I have a question for evolutionists.

From what I understand humans are supposed to have evolved from some common ancestor with apes. Now if I understand correctly evolution is not a smooth process but rather a random one where random variations occur and, with the help of natural selection, the most beneficial variations survive and continue. Now I also assume the common ancestors of human beings we found in different parts of the world.

So my question is this: Why don't we have today a remnant of some of the earlier human types (after our divergence from other apes)? That is, why are there no neanderthals or homo erectuses scattered in different parts of the world for us to see today? Why are they all dead (assuming they are all dead)?

Why is it that the only evidence we have of humans ancestors are dead bones when evolution is a rather random process? Surely there should be some parts of the world where the evolution never really took place.

By the way, although this thread is in the evolution vs creationism forum, this isn't really me trying to prove evolution to be false. I just want to know what the answers are that evolutionists have for these questions

Because of our common ancestors Humans came about in africa, Neanderthals in eastern asia and europe, and Denisovans in most of Asia for example.

In different places our ancestors either adapted to different things or died not everywhere are they going to adapt the same way.

 

[sayak83]

I have a question for evolutionists.

From what I understand humans are supposed to have evolved from some common ancestor with apes. Now if I understand correctly evolution is not a smooth process but rather a random one where random variations occur and, with the help of natural selection, the most beneficial variations survive and continue. Now I also assume the common ancestors of human beings we found in different parts of the world.

So my question is this: Why don't we have today a remnant of some of the earlier human types (after our divergence from other apes)? That is, why are there no neanderthals or homo erectuses scattered in different parts of the world for us to see today? Why are they all dead (assuming they are all dead)?

Why is it that the only evidence we have of humans ancestors are dead bones when evolution is a rather random process? Surely there should be some parts of the world where the evolution never really took place.

By the way, although this thread is in the evolution vs creationism forum, this isn't really me trying to prove evolution to be false. I just want to know what the answers are that evolutionists have for these questions

Very briefly,
The apes that eventually gave rise to the modern human species were specializing in open savanna/woodland type environmnents. Modern humans happened to be the best in this niche and hence out-competed all other sister species that existed in this kind of ecosystem. Only the apes that specialized in rainforest type eco-systems continued to survive. This kind of a wholesale replacement has occurred in other evolving species as well. Particularly prominent are when mainland animals wipe our island animals when they get introduced in such environments.
Note that traditionally apes inhabited both rainforest and open woodland types environment (monkeys still do). Now we are the only ape who thrive in grasslands having eliminated all other siblings in our niche.

 

[sayak83]

Interesting read. Quite a lot of theories. In the end the main theory appears to be about competing. And that is what I don't understand. Why do we make the assumption that we would be competing with other hominins? I expect that as some threat came along the other hominins would simply have moved away from humans. Certainly the earth is such a large place that I find it hard to believe that the number of homo sapiens in existence 30 000 years ago was enough to deny the neanderthal and other hominins all options of survival.

It think this doubt is expressed in the last part of the link you shared:

But there is one other possibility, which we can't entirely ignore. Maybe it was pure chance. Maybe our species got lucky and survived, while the Neanderthals drew the short straw.​

If the idea that other hominins were simply out competed was as strong as some might suggest, there would be no reason to consider that humans were "just lucky".

Actually we know that competition is the direct reason for extinction. There is an entire book about this (called Lone Survivors)
http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Survivor...p/B005XMK898/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=
By the time of 100,000 years when the various descendants of Homo Erectus were competing in Asia, there are enough tools and skeletons left to trace how these population lived and died and competed. Before the invention of agriculture, a band of humans (any of the species) required a large range to live in and population expansion led to stiff competition everywhere. They were too similar to coexist. There exists, in this world, no ecosystem at all where two distinct species live in the same ecological niche. The diversity occurs due to geographic isolation, but all human species were highly mobile, and thus coexistence was not possible.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I have a question for evolutionists.

From what I understand humans are supposed to have evolved from some common ancestor with apes. Now if I understand correctly evolution is not a smooth process but rather a random one where random variations occur and, with the help of natural selection, the most beneficial variations survive and continue. Now I also assume the common ancestors of human beings we found in different parts of the world.

So my question is this: Why don't we have today a remnant of some of the earlier human types (after our divergence from other apes)? That is, why are there no neanderthals or homo erectuses scattered in different parts of the world for us to see today? Why are they all dead (assuming they are all dead)?

Why is it that the only evidence we have of humans ancestors are dead bones when evolution is a rather random process? Surely there should be some parts of the world where the evolution never really took place.

By the way, although this thread is in the evolution vs creationism forum, this isn't really me trying to prove evolution to be false. I just want to know what the answers are that evolutionists have for these questions

I am not commenting beyond this as your question is beyond my realm of expertise; but I have to applaud you for demonstrating a sound understanding of evolution and for asking this great question.

 

[Thanda]

By the way, unless you call people who accept the theory of gravity "Gravitationalists", you might want to reconsider calling people who accept the theory of evolution, "Evolutionists". The use of that term makes a person look like they are attempting to make a point in a childish and immature manner.

Do you also find it childish when some people call others evolutionists?

There are around 25 different habitats in Africa. Humans are adapted to nearly everyone of them with the notable exception of the rain forest. The rain forests of Africa are largely inhospitable to humans, and the main problem is, there's not enough for humans to eat (That's a main reason just about the only group of humans that has managed to at least partly adapt to African rain forests -- the pygmies -- are of small stature). Even the pygmies are only partly adapted to the rain forests and could not actually survive without the help they get from trade with people living outside the forests.

Question: if we had not found any living Pygmy people but had seen their bones (supposing they had been killed of some thousands of years ago), what are the chances they would have been classified as homo sapien and not some other type of homo?

 

[Quintessence]

How did all but two of the ancient pachyderm species die out? How did not only every true species of saber tooth cat die off, but also their cousins, the false or near sabertooth cats? How did every ancestor of the modern horse die off?

You question should not be limited to merely our ancestors.

I'm just going to quote this here for emphasis, because I am personally perplexed by the OP's fixation on humans.

 

[Shad]

Question: if we had not found any living Pygmy people but had seen their bones (supposing they had been killed of some thousands of years ago), what are the chances they would have been classified as homo sapien and not some other type of homo?

None since they have the same DNA as us. A phenotype is why Pygmys are small. If left in isolation they could have evolved into a new species

 

[Shad]

Keep in mind they could of died out as well due to isolation. Such isolation could have caused issues due to their limited gene pool in comparison to humans that live in Eurasia and North Africa. Humans in these regions took part in a number of mass migration as a part of population moving into another area. For example the mass migration caused by the Huns introduced a genetic pool to Western Europe, the Balkans, Central Europe and Asia Minor that was foreign or had a very small influence previously. This influx of new population introduced new genetic variations that were gained in these populations previous areas. Another example would be the Tartars. If you look at Russia populations you can see some of the people living in Western Russia appear to be Asian and Mongoloid due to a distance ancestor(s) introducing the phenotypes from Asia.

 

[Thanda]

None since they have the same DNA as us. A phenotype is why Pygmys are small. If left in isolation they could have evolved into a new species

What is a genome in relation to DNA?

 

[Shad]

What is a genome in relation to DNA?

It is the same thing. A genome is just all of the DNA of a species under a single term. You have a genome, I have one, everyone has one. Without it any of the examples would have been stillborn, miscarriage or never became a zygote. Think of it as a blueprint for a species.

 

[Thanda]

None since they have the same DNA as us. A phenotype is why Pygmys are small. If left in isolation they could have evolved into a new species

Are all past homo species identified by DNA?

 

[Ouroboros]

Interesting read. Quite a lot of theories. In the end the main theory appears to be about competing. And that is what I don't understand. Why do we make the assumption that we would be competing with other hominins?

Competition for food and shelter.

I expect that as some threat came along the other hominins would simply have moved away from humans. Certainly the earth is such a large place that I find it hard to believe that the number of homo sapiens in existence 30 000 years ago was enough to deny the neanderthal and other hominins all options of survival.

H. neanderthals weren't as smart as H. sapiens, hence "sapiens". H.s was smarter in making tools, weapons, strategy for hunting and so on. There's some evidence that H.n lived together with H.s at some places (if I remember right), so the answer isn't any straight or simple one. Overall, we do know that H.n needed a lot more calories to survive, and with food becoming harder to come by during the max glaciation, they just couldn't make it. Also, H.s were in the millions before the max glaciation and dwindled down to some ten thousand survivors only, so it wasn't just H.n suffering during that time.

It think this doubt is expressed in the last part of the link you shared:

But there is one other possibility, which we can't entirely ignore. Maybe it was pure chance. Maybe our species got lucky and survived, while the Neanderthals drew the short straw.
​

​

Very much so. Considering that we're talking about the survival of a species, not survival of one single individual, which makes it more complicated. If one person dies, we can find and analyze the reason to his/her death. But when 100,000 person dies for different reasons during a period of 150,000 years, it's a lot harder to figure out the main cause. Just like it's been difficult to figure out why bees are dying out in our world today. Or certain frog species that have gone extinct. Is it viral? Is it environmental? Is it resources, competition, ...? It's not easy to know the exact answer. So yes, perhaps we can just say we were lucky.

If the idea that other hominins were simply out competed was as strong as some might suggest, there would be no reason to consider that humans were "just lucky".

We were lucky to have the skills and potential to do it. Sapiens stands for "being capable of". We were the hominid species that were capable of out thinking our environment. So it was the lucky draw that we were the capable ones.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ouroboros]

Sure, but chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and homo sapiens all survived. That means the conditions on this planet for the last few million years have been kind to the hominudae. And if it has been kind to them then it begs the question why all the other hominidin did not make it.

There are hundreds, or more likely thousands of species of apes that also went extinct. So why did chimps survive but not the giant ape? It existed for millions of years and died out about 100,000 years ago. Why? Were the chimps, gorillas, orangutans just lucky or ...?

 

[Shad]

Are all past homo species identified by DNA?

Nope, some by fossils as there is no tissue remaining to collect DNA from. However a lot do have DNA establishing a link between one species and another.

 

[Sapiens]

I have a question for evolutionists.

Quite simply, "evolutionist", as it is used on this forum by so many, is a nonsensical word and there are no such people. There are reasonable, logical, scientifically informed people, and then there are creationists. The only possible use of "evolutionist" there can logically be is in the same vein as the word "physicist", in that it denotes a scientist who specifically studies evolution. However, that term would encompass many fields including archeology, biology, and so on. While we do have some members here who are in those roles, a person who simply accepts evolution for the fact that it is is not an "evolutionist", they are sane.

From what I understand humans are supposed to have evolved from some common ancestor with apes.

So far, so good.

Now if I understand correctly evolution is not a smooth process but rather a random one where random variations occur and, with the help of natural selection, the most beneficial variations survive and continue.

Doesn't do much violence to current theory. I reserve the right to correct the misapplication of words like "random," "natural selection" and "beneficial" should the future discussion warrant doing so.

Now I also assume the common ancestors of human beings we found in different parts of the world.

No. Man came out of Africa in waves, early waves died out ... except in Africa. What we are calling separate species (e.g., Neanderthals) would be better called subspecies or races than "separate species." Interbreeding clearly could and did occur ( if you are of non-African ancestry it is likely that you're three to five percent Neanderthal).

So my question is this: Why don't we have today a remnant of some of the earlier human types (after our divergence from other apes)?

Some lines died out, others were incorporated back into the main genetic line. Most species go extinct in time, there can be many causes. One interesting hypothesis is that, like the arrival of Columbus in the New World, each wave of humans from Africa brought diseases that contributed to the extinction of Neanderthals. 100,000 yeas ago Neanderthal progenitors left Africa and they entered a new environment were no pathogens had co-evolved with human stock. More modern humans, who were resistant to the latest and greatest African pathogens that tey had co-evolved with, brought these diseases with them as they migrated north. Initial contact may have been all but wiped out the Neanderthals since they'd have had no immunity to these African pathogens.

But it was likely a number of factors, disease, competition and (as one researcher with rather good evidence suggests) the domestication of wolves by modern humans, something unseen in Neanderthal culture. Pat Shipman suggests that modern humans formed an early alliance with wolves soon after we entered Europe. Modern humans tamed some wolves and the dogs bred from them were then used to chase prey and to drive off rival carnivores, including lions and leopards. She point to the 33,000-year-old fossil remains of dogs in Siberia and Belgium, that look like wolves but that also show clear signs of domestication (e.g., short snouts, wide jaws that and teeth that are more crowded than those of a wild wolves).

That is, why are there no neanderthals or homo erectuses scattered in different parts of the world for us to see today?

Modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus. The reasons for Homo erectus extinction is not known, but one can hypothesize that it might relate to aging of the genome. Homo erectus endured 33,000 generation of gene copying. Along the line there may be errors introduced into the genome that led to the extinction of the specie. To survive the specie may have to evolve into a new specie, just like a. new born baby. It appeared that in Asia, H. erectus could not evolve a new species, and went extinct from "old age" of the species.

Why are they all dead (assuming they are all dead)?

Because that is the most likely fate of all species, it is only a rare few that persevere. The real question is why modern man is still here (and how long we can expect that condition to appertain).

Why is it that the only evidence we have of humans ancestors are dead bones when evolution is a rather random process? Surely there should be some parts of the world where the evolution never really took place.

Small, isolated populations are at much greater risk of extinction than large populations because of the loss of genetic variability and related problems of inbreeding and genetic drift; demographic fluctuations due to random variations in birth and death rate; and environmental fluctuations due to variation in predation, competition, disease and food supply as well as natural catastrophes occurring at irregular intervals (e.g., fires, floods, volcanic eruptions, storms, droughts, etc.)

 

[Thanda]

Nope, some by fossils as there is no tissue remaining to collect DNA from. However a lot do have DNA establishing a link between one species and another.

Hence my question about pygmies. If they had gone extinct say 20 000 years ago, and we had no tissue but their bones, do they have enough of a physical resemblance with other humans to have been able to classify them as sapiens based solely on skeletal evidence?

 

[Thanda]

So far, so good.

I think so long as you are happy to call people creationists I see no problem with calling people evolutionists - only fair don't you think?

Doesn't do much violence to current theory. I reserve the right to correct the misapplication of words like "random," "natural selection" and "beneficial" should the future discussion warrant doing so.
No. Man came out of Africa in waves, early waves died out ... except in Africa. What we are calling separate species (e.g., Neanderthals) would be better called subspecies or races than "separate species." Interbreeding clearly could and did occur ( if you are of non-African ancestry it is likely that you're three to five percent Neanderthal).
Some lines died out, others were incorporated back into the main genetic line. Most species go extinct in time, there can be many causes. One interesting hypothesis is that, like the arrival of Columbus in the New World, each wave of humans from Africa brought diseases that contributed to the extinction of Neanderthals. 100,000 yeas ago Neanderthal progenitors left Africa and they entered a new environment were no pathogens had co-evolved with human stock. More modern humans, who were resistant to the latest and greatest African pathogens that tey had co-evolved with, brought these diseases with them as they migrated north. Initial contact may have been all but wiped out the Neanderthals since they'd have had no immunity to these African pathogens.

But it was likely a number of factors, disease, competition and (as one researcher with rather good evidence suggests) the domestication of wolves by modern humans, something unseen in Neanderthal culture. Pat Shipman suggests that modern humans formed an early alliance with wolves soon after we entered Europe. Modern humans tamed some wolves and the dogs bred from them were then used to chase prey and to drive off rival carnivores, including lions and leopards. She point to the 33,000-year-old fossil remains of dogs in Siberia and Belgium, that look like wolves but that also show clear signs of domestication (e.g., short snouts, wide jaws that and teeth that are more crowded than those of a wild wolves).

Thanks for the info.

Modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus. The reasons for Homo erectus extinction is not known, but one can hypothesize that it might relate to aging of the genome. Homo erectus endured 33,000 generation of gene copying. Along the line there may be errors introduced into the genome that led to the extinction of the specie. To survive the specie may have to evolve into a new specie, just like a. new born baby. It appeared that in Asia, H. erectus could not evolve a new species, and went extinct from "old age" of the species.

You'll have to explain old age thing.

 

[Shad]

Hence my question about pygmies. If they had gone extinct say 20 000 years ago, and we had no tissue but their bones, do they have enough of a physical resemblance with other humans to have been able to classify them as sapiens based solely on skeletal evidence?

It depends on what happens to any individual body. Fossilization does not leave a lot of soft tissue for evaluation. However if the bodies were preserved in some way be it the environment or burial practices there could be a lot of soft tissue left. Bone can still contain DNA. Beside their bone structure beside height is not different than our own. They have the same amount of bones we do in the same place for the same purpose. The previous ancestors of Humans had different bone structures from spinal column to the skull for example