Question for Evolutionist

[prometheus11]

To some degree we "absorbed" Neanderthals. Most Homo sapiens have 6-13% Neanderthal genes. (We interbreeded with them ).

As to how we might have dealt with remaining Neanderthal or other competing hominids, see the film Beowulf and Grendel.

 

[sayak83]

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



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?

They would be classified as homo sapiens. For the identification of mammalian species, height and body weight are not considered identification markers (they vary a lot both naturally and artificially..see dogs). The pygmy people will be considered as case of insular dwarfism (LINK). Teeth structure, skull and jaw shapes and several other distinguishing features are used instead that are not affected by body size (or gender..remember in many early hominids, apes and mammals females are considerably smaller than males and hence anything that changes due to size will not be reliable).
Here is a link for an exhaustive survey of all various fossil types and their distinguishing features.
http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl new/73 hominids 3.htm

 

[Sapiens]

Chimpanzee's are our closest relatives. We are incredibly genetically similar. Gorilla before that. Also we are apes. Apes aren't some other distant beings. We belong to that family. Specifically we are with the great apes. Hominidae or apes include humans. Neanderthal was our closest living relative that was also the most recent to die out. We were so closely related apparently there was consistent interbreeding. Denisovians which were also highly close to humans only died out around 30,000 years ago. There is some controversy as to why they died out. It may have been Homo-sapiens that did the deed. We are a naturally aggressive species with an obvious and impressive talent for violence. We have ended more species than any other. Hell we fight to genocide our own species....I doubt we were any kinder to our brethren.

Bloody tooth and claw is a popular view but it is less advocated within the scientific community and it is totally unnecessary to explain what is observed.

I hear you. But humans and chimpanzees diverged 2.8million years ago. What happened to all those other homo species that evolved during that time. Why did they all die off everywhere in the world? Why didn't some of them survive in some part of the world? Even though humans are aggressive we didn't kill off gorillas or chimps - we simply left them alone. So why did we kill of all our ancestors of the genus homo?

We are hell bent on killing them off now. In the past we were not concerned with them because we had very little niche overlap.

Okay maybe I'm not making myself clear. 2.8 million years ago the first representative of the genus homo evolved. We can assume this homo was in direct competition with whatever the existing ancestor of the chimp was at that time. Why didn't we kill that ancestor of the chimp but we killed EVERY one of our homo ancestors?

No there is no reason to advance that assumption. The common ancestor inhabited a niche that included a large arboreal component ... the evolution of the genus Homo was based on a minimization of niche overlap due to the substitution of a ground-based life style for the arboreal component of the common ancestor niche.

Well I thought rather than reading a number of books I would rather get an answer from the many experts that seem to be resident here on RF. I'm not overly interested in evolution, but it was just a question I had.

I can't see why you would expect us to spend much time on you. There are many good books that have been recommended to you ... read some and come back, that will, at least, either change your mind or raise the level of your questions
.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that we managed to kill off EVERY single hominin that ever existed, without exception.

[/quote]No. Does it strike you as odd that there are no dinosaurs? No therapsids? No multituberculates, only two species of Rhynchocephalia and Pachyderma?

True. But still the question lingers - gorillas, chimps, orangutans are still alive. And yet not one member of the genus homo (save homo sapiens) - from 2.8 million years ago till the present- has managed to survive to this day.

Your question has been answered many times, it is (at best) impolite to keep pretending that it has not been.

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.

The Hominidae (I assume that's that you meant) include seven species in four genera, there are an order of magnitude more extinct species, so one might question just how "kind" the Earth has been.

Evolution isn't just random change in DNA. It's a selection of genes that are fit for survival. If some event pushes a species to evolve, then it's entirely reasonable to believe the previous species died off.
Humans and all the other modern primates evolved because something in our genetic material made us more fit for survival than the species we branched out from.

No, it appears that a good deal of evolution is random and not of necessity tied to selective advantage.

I know this - I have specified it in the OP. That some species are more fit to survive is not really saying anything. Who is more fit to survive, a gorilla or a chimpanzee? Both have survived - so far. Therefore that we are more fit to survive than say the neanderthal is not really saying anything. If you can eat and reproduce you will survive, regardless of whether you're superior to some other animal. The world is a big place and has enough space for all kinds of "inferior" species.

No, it is quite possible to have a good food supply and be able to reproduce and still go extinct. I made that clear in a previous post.

My question is specifically why is it that there are no Homo species other than sapiens around today. The other apes are not homo.

Also answered in a previous post.

Perhaps, it just seems quite odd to me. From my understanding of evolution all these homo species lived on different parts of the planet. For all of them to be killed off leaving behind only homo sapiens and other related species (like chimps) seems an odd thing to me.

You should ask yourself why you find that confusing and why no professional biologist, paleontologist or anthropologist does.

Okay. \

Yes, discovered in Germany, but for the most part they lived in Africa.

No Neanderthals in Africa.

So they didn't only live in Africa then. That really was my point.

No Neanderthals in Africa.

Here, should have started with this.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150929-why-are-we-the-only-human-species-still-alive

Excellent link.
QUOTE="Thanda, post: 4592022, member: 25104"]
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?

Without modern DNA analysis they'd likely have been called a different species, but then the "species" concept is being radically revised or even discarded by most biologists.

Are all past homo species identified by DNA?

No, you need sort tissue.

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?

Hypothetical of this sort are meaningless, especially when poised in the light of the bankruptcy of the Platonic Ideal based species concept.

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?

No, I have no problem being styled an "evolutionist," but then I have the credentials that make such a moniker stick.

You'll have to explain old age thing.

No, actually I don't. Consider looking it up as your homework ... it'll do you good.

 

[Curious George]

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


.​

Thank you
If this gets updated to account for some of the newer species that are/will be found, please share as well.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well, no one seem to have a problem calling some people "Creationists" so I didn't think it would offend anyone to be called an "evolutionist".

It just sounds.........well dumb. Like do you also call astrophysicists round earthists? Why or why not?
I understand why it's used, but it's too simplistic. A creationist is a person who believes in creation, whether that be Christian, Hindu, Muslim etc. They are more often than not strictly Theologians, with some of them having (often questionable) Scientific credentials. Generally speaking. But it's relegated to one subject all the same. "Intelligent Design" notwithstanding.

But Evolution is not just Biology. It's found in practically almost all the scientific disciplines. So you're calling geologists, doctors, Vets, Nurses, Immunologists, paleontologists, volcanologists (sp?) anthropologists and even Physicists "evolutionists" even though they more than like only have to "deal with evolution" as an indirect consequence of them being Scientists. No doubt they know more about the subject than you or I obviously. But it's such a broad and simplistic term. I mean what exactly is it supposed to mean anyway? That they accept evolution? Am I to call myself a germ theory-ist now too?
How about a Newtonist? Since I have no real qualms about questioning my feeble physics education about Newton's Laws of Physics.
A Plate Tectonicsist?
A chemical reactionist?
Why is this relegated to only one facet of Scientific inquiry (apart from the sillier sounding names, of course.)

If you've read many of the evolution vs creationism threads here you will know there actually are quite a few experts on the subject in this forum

Yes I am aware of that. I also see that many on this very thread have implored you to do some homework so as to better understand their explanations.

 

[Thanda]

It just sounds.........well dumb. Like do you also call astrophysicists round earthists? Why or why not?
I understand why it's used, but it's too simplistic. A creationist is a person who believes in creation, whether that be Christian, Hindu, Muslim etc. They are more often than not strictly Theologians, with some of them having (often questionable) Scientific credentials. Generally speaking. But it's relegated to one subject all the same. "Intelligent Design" notwithstanding.

But Evolution is not just Biology. It's found in practically almost all the scientific disciplines. So you're calling geologists, doctors, Vets, Nurses, Immunologists, paleontologists, volcanologists (sp?) anthropologists and even Physicists "evolutionists" even though they more than like only have to "deal with evolution" as an indirect consequence of them being Scientists. No doubt they know more about the subject than you or I obviously. But it's such a broad and simplistic term. I mean what exactly is it supposed to mean anyway? That they accept evolution? Am I to call myself a germ theory-ist now too?
How about a Newtonist? Since I have no real qualms about questioning my feeble physics education about Newton's Laws of Physics.
A Plate Tectonicsist?
A chemical reactionist?
Why is this relegated to only one facet of Scientific inquiry (apart from the sillier sounding names, of course.)

I hear your argument but I must say it seems quite weak to me. The same argument you use for why you shouldn't be called an evolutionist can very easily be used for why you shouldn't call others creationists. The theologians you mention deal with many subjects other than creation: they deal with the principles of salvation; good vs evil; sacrifice; atonement; prayer; love etc. My Bible has over 1600 pages. Only three of those pages is devoted to the creation of the earth. Can you see what a small part creation makes in theology?

And worse still it can be said that there is less justification for calling theologians creationists since many creationists believe evolution formed a part of the creation process.

But the moral of the story is, don't give out what you can't take in return.

 

[Thanda]

They would be classified as homo sapiens. For the identification of mammalian species, height and body weight are not considered identification markers (they vary a lot both naturally and artificially..see dogs). The pygmy people will be considered as case of insular dwarfism (LINK). Teeth structure, skull and jaw shapes and several other distinguishing features are used instead that are not affected by body size (or gender..remember in many early hominids, apes and mammals females are considerably smaller than males and hence anything that changes due to size will not be reliable).
Here is a link for an exhaustive survey of all various fossil types and their distinguishing features.
http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl new/73 hominids 3.htm

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

Without modern DNA analysis they'd likely have been called a different species, but then the "species" concept is being radically revised or even discarded by most biologists.
No, you need sort tissue.
Hypothetical of this sort are meaningless, especially when poised in the light of the bankruptcy of the Platonic Ideal based species concept.

I guess the take away from these three replies is that there is a bit of disagreement. In the same vein it makes me wonder whether, if Neanderthals had not been killed off and they were still alive, I wonder whether we would still classified them as a separate species or whether we would have expanded the definition so as to be able to include them. Basically I suspect our criteria for defining what is properly human is a bit arbitrary and would likely have been different if no pygmies existed or if Neanderthals were still extant. Of course I'm not sure about this, I just suspect it.

No, actually I don't. Consider looking it up as your homework ... it'll do you good.

Yes I am aware of that. I also see that many on this very thread have implored you to do some homework so as to better understand their explanations.

I would appreciate if we drop the "do your own homework" lectures. The very fact that I am aware of words like Hominidae is a result of research I have done during the course of the life of this thread.

Your question has been answered many times, it is (at best) impolite to keep pretending that it has not been.

You are quite right. And I have liked many of those posts that have already answered the questions, so dragging old posts just to tell me they have been answered was unnecessary.

 

[Shad]

I guess the take away from these three replies is that there is a bit of disagreement. In the same vein it makes me wonder whether, if Neanderthals had not been killed off and they were still alive, I wonder whether we would still classified them as a separate species or whether we would have expanded the definition so as to be able to include them. Basically I suspect our criteria for defining what is properly human is a bit arbitrary and would likely have been different if no pygmies existed or if Neanderthals were still extant. Of course I'm not sure about this, I just suspect it.

DNA is not required to make a claim regarding a species. Bone structure is enough in some cases.. There is no major difference between Pygmies and other humans beside height. That is it. There are vast difference between previous ancestors and us in bone structure alone.

As Sapien pointed out species is a term that can be in flux since it is a label we use. Labels change as new develops are made. People claim dogs are a different species but dogs are still wolves just distorted by humans due to artificial breeding

 

[Sunstone]

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

Thanda, thank you for a really good question about evolution! Normally, I do not participate in these threads because the questions about evolution -- or objections to it -- show little or no insight into the subject. But your OP is very different from that, in my opinion. I've actually learned some things!

 

[Thanda]

Thanda, thank you for a really good question about evolution! Normally, I do not participate in these threads because the questions about evolution -- or objections to it -- show little or no insight into the subject. But your OP is very different from that, in my opinion. I've actually learned some things!

Pleasure

 

[metis]

I guess the take away from these three replies is that there is a bit of disagreement. In the same vein it makes me wonder whether, if Neanderthals had not been killed off and they were still alive, I wonder whether we would still classified them as a separate species or whether we would have expanded the definition so as to be able to include them. Basically I suspect our criteria for defining what is properly human is a bit arbitrary and would likely have been different if no pygmies existed or if Neanderthals were still extant. Of course I'm not sure about this, I just suspect it.

Amongst us anthropologists, there's no agreement on this as some classify them as a different species and some as different species, although the latter is becoming less popular.

Generally speaking, in most cases we classify two groups that can produce fertile offspring as being of the same species, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes they can be differentiated as different species if it is felt that there's a great deal of difference between the groups to warrant separate species. Therefore, it can be and has been argued both ways in regards to Neanderthal. Those who favor them as of the same species, they tend to use the name "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" and the other as "Homo sapiens sapiens". If viewed as being of different species, I've most often seen "Homo neanderthalensis".

Through genome testing, we do know that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens could and did reproduce, but that was atypical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Doesn't it strike you as odd that we managed to kill off EVERY single hominin that ever existed, without exception.

Why do you assume we did it?

There are other genuses that used to be much more diverse but now only one or a couple of living species - the horse is one example.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, no one seem to have a problem calling some people "Creationists" so I didn't think it would offend anyone to be called an "evolutionist".

Technically, "evolutionist" refers to a scientist who studies evolution, not just to any old person who agrees with the theory.

 

[Thanda]

Technically, "evolutionist" refers to a scientist who studies evolution, not just to any old person who agrees with the theory.

Not according to dictionaries.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not according to dictionaries.

I'm going by Stephen Jay Gould's usage.

 

[Thanda]

I'm going by Stephen Jay Gould's usage.

Okay, noted.

 

[Sapiens]

I guess the take away from these three replies is that there is a bit of disagreement. In the same vein it makes me wonder whether, if Neanderthals had not been killed off and they were still alive, I wonder whether we would still classified them as a separate species or whether we would have expanded the definition so as to be able to include them. Basically I suspect our criteria for defining what is properly human is a bit arbitrary and would likely have been different if no pygmies existed or if Neanderthals were still extant. Of course I'm not sure about this, I just suspect it.

Gee ... disagreement concerning an irrelevant hypothetical ... surprise, surprise.

I would appreciate if we drop the "do your own homework" lectures. The very fact that I am aware of words like Hominidae is a result of research I have done during the course of the life of this thread.

I suppose the fact that you have read enough to now spell "Hominidae" correctly is something, if only you would also format terms like "Homo sapiens" properly you'd seem even more knowledgeable.
[/quote]
You are quite right. And I have liked many of those posts that have already answered the questions, so dragging old posts just to tell me they have been answered was unnecessary.[/QUOTE]
No, the question had been asked and answered, yet you go on and on as though it were not. Recall that you said, "True. But still the question lingers - gorillas, chimps, orangutans are still alive. And yet not one member of the genus homo (save homo sapiens) - from 2.8 million years ago till the present- has managed to survive to this day." when the point was that the question did not linger since clear answers had already been provided.

 

[sayak83]

I guess the take away from these three replies is that there is a bit of disagreement. In the same vein it makes me wonder whether, if Neanderthals had not been killed off and they were still alive, I wonder whether we would still classified them as a separate species or whether we would have expanded the definition so as to be able to include them. Basically I suspect our criteria for defining what is properly human is a bit arbitrary and would likely have been different if no pygmies existed or if Neanderthals were still extant. Of course I'm not sure about this, I just suspect it.





I would appreciate if we drop the "do your own homework" lectures. The very fact that I am aware of words like Hominidae is a result of research I have done during the course of the life of this thread.



You are quite right. And I have liked many of those posts that have already answered the questions, so dragging old posts just to tell me they have been answered was unnecessary.

You should not go by disagreements among poster's replies. Almost none of us are trained in examining fossil evidence, so our differences in opinions mean nothing. For my part, what I have tried to do was to provide you a link with visuals of various hominid skulls and how they are distinguished and a brief summary of the methods and rationale as much as I understand them. What you should look into is to see what the scientists actually do by following those links (and other from other people) and see if those methods are indeed vulnerable to misidentification of small stature modern humans in the way you describe.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is both sad and curious.



I do not pretend to have evidence against evolution but I also don't take it too seriously (for some it is the basis of their belief that there is not God). I do not study it basically either to prove or disprove it. This was simply a question that popped into my mind just as a person might have a question pop into their mind about Islam without really being interested in proving or disproving the whole religion.

I think that's a healthy perspective, I've nothing against evolution, it's just not terribly convincing to most people, unless they also are very fond of a particular spontaneous view of everything.

'if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes' is still a good question also- that a supposedly blind/chance driven gradual process, places species suddenly highly evolved and then decides to leave them unaltered for millions, sometimes billions of years without change.

 

[Skwim]

I think that's a healthy perspective, I've nothing against evolution, it's just not terribly convincing to most people, unless they also are very fond of a particular spontaneous view of everything.

Pew Research Poll shows that only 31% of the American public believes in young earth creationism. 54% believe in evolution.
Source Wikipedia

'if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes' is still a good question also-

Maybe this chart will show you why

Any questions, just ask.

that a supposedly blind/chance driven gradual process, places species suddenly highly evolved and then decides to leave them unaltered for millions, sometimes billions of years without change.

No "suddenly" at all. The point at which humans and chimps went their separate ways was about 6 million years ago. And, yes, some species did resist significant evolutionary change for quite some time, such as today's turtles and tortoises, which aren't all that different from their 200 million year-old ancestors.