Question for Evolutionist

[Thanda]

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

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.[/QUOTE]

They may have been clear to you. But they were not clear to me. It is I who needs to be satisfied with the answers.

 

[Thanda]

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.

I have bookmarked your link and go through it more thoroughly later on - I have already looked at it a bit but will delve deeper later

 

[SomeRandom]

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.

I never objected to the term, I have just always found it to be........well stupid. It's like calling anyone who believes in the earth's rotation of the sun an Earth Rotationist. It's one thing to have a label for many different theological theories/studies, we do that stuff all the bleeding time (ahem look at the term Hinduism for example, hell even the term Christian encompasses everyone from Mormons and the Amish to fundamentalist evangelicals and the Protestants and Catholics, so it's not like the words used in theological circles are particularly strict or anything.) But I don't know. Perhaps I have seen it too often misused by people in a vain attempt to manipulate discussion. Not saying you are doing that, obviously.
But it's a subtle tactic used to get the audience to associate the word "Evolutionist" to be in the same vein as the word "creationist" as if they both come from the exact same intellectual spaces. But they don't. There's overlap sure (like Theological evolution, like you mentioned.) But one comes from science, the other some form of religious study.
I just associate the word too much with intellectual dishonesty, but then perhaps maybe I have watched too much Hitchens. Make of that what you will.

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.

Which is good of you. But I'm not lecturing, I am saying. The question you posed perhaps requires a bit more research to understand the explanations in detail than relatively (for a lack of a better word) basic terms. I mean it's good that you have learnt something, I applaud you.
But you seem like you would benefit from a more in depth study of things. Not saying you should read the Origin of the Species or dissertations or anything. Just an observation.

 

[viole]

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.

We did not evolve from apes. We are apes. Great apes, to be precise.

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)?

Probably for the same reason 99% of all species that walked earth are now extinct. Weather, competition, disruption of food chain and other calamities, for them. That does not entail we killed them all. For instance, we were better equipped than Neadenthalers to sustain the end of the ice age and the sudden lack of things like Mammoths (also not killed by other elephants). We europeans even mate with them (Neanderthals, not Mammoths) as my genome seems to show.

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.

What? Do you think extant homo sapiens species (us) evolved randomly and independently in different parts of the world?

If you believe that, then you should ask yourself why we do not observe Neanderhals outside of Europe and the middle east, considering they were quite successfull here. No. Homo sapiens evolved in only one place and invaded the rest of the world. It survived because of its better adaptation capabilities. Under conditions that changed drastically during all these eons. We won they lost. Last homo standing, so to speak.

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 wonder what an evolutionist is. Do you also have gravitationists (believers in gravity)?

No doubt you are not here to deny evolution. It is difficult to deny the evolution of our species. You do not really need a lot of science and biology to see that. All you have to do is to go a zoo, to the gorillas or chimps section, and you will see evolution staring you in the face. And possibly asking you for a banana.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Midnight Rain]

Sure, you can go ahead.

Here is a Neanderthal specific one. Its a wiki page which is good since if you have any further questions it provides sources and links at the bottom of the page as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction

Do we have Homo Sapien DNA?

If we didn't we wouldn't be homo sapiens.

 

[outhouse]

Do we have Homo Sapien DNA?

We have actually now seen DNA strands, and exactly as they were stated to be is how they look.

The science behind this is not up for debate by people who have not studied it, or by anyone for that matter.

We are only adding to to it, year by year. Its why evolution is fact

 

[Deathbydefault]

I have a question for evolutionists.

What is an evolutionist?
I believe in evolution but I'm not some weird follower giving prayer to the almighty biology.

 

[Thanda]

What is an evolutionist?
I believe in evolution but I'm not some weird follower giving prayer to the almighty biology.

Check the dictionary

 

[Midnight Rain]

Check the dictionary

The usage of the term is rather archaic for its intended purpose as there are often groups of conflicting theories about certain things in science. Evolutionists would have been scientists that supported the "evolution" theory of biology. It was the define the scientific stance you took on the issue. However now its not used anymore because it is unanimously accepted across almost all reaches of science and, by some arguments, actually all reaches of respectable science.

The term was not originally intended for laymen.

 

[Thanda]

The usage of the term is rather archaic for its intended purpose as there are often groups of conflicting theories about certain things in science. Evolutionists would have been scientists that supported the "evolution" theory of biology. It was the define the scientific stance you took on the issue. However now its not used anymore because it is unanimously accepted across almost all reaches of science and, by some arguments, actually all reaches of respectable science.

The term was not originally intended for laymen.

Well, you'll have to take it up with the powers that be. But for now you're an evolutionist.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Well, you'll have to take it up with the powers that be. But for now you're an evolutionist.

I minor in biology and have been an nurse for a few years now. I'm not totally an evolutionist.

However something to note, as it is not a problem with the powers that be but rather the recipients, it is a meaningless title to anyone who isn't in the conversation. I could believe whatever it is that I want to believe but it bears no significance on evolution. Historically and really as it should be the sciences don't care what non-scientists say about science unless its backed by good evidence. Its a bit like calling someone a feminist if they only have a really really really really vague notion of what feminism is and have no actual knowledge of what the issues are.

I will gladly accept the term evolutionist as it is true. I was just letting you know the origin of the word was in regard to scientists. The current and most common usage of the term now is by creationist in an attempt to denote the "theory" aspect of evolution as a tool to further their word games and seem more legitimate to the followers of their ideology. Thus someone asking you what you mean by "evolutionist" is important.

 

[Thanda]

I minor in biology and have been an nurse for a few years now. I'm not totally an evolutionist.

However something to note, as it is not a problem with the powers that be but rather the recipients, it is a meaningless title to anyone who isn't in the conversation. I could believe whatever it is that I want to believe but it bears no significance on evolution. Historically and really as it should be the sciences don't care what non-scientists say about science unless its backed by good evidence. Its a bit like calling someone a feminist if they only have a really really really really vague notion of what feminism is and have no actual knowledge of what the issues are.

I will gladly accept the term evolutionist as it is true. I was just letting you know the origin of the word was in regard to scientists. The current and most common usage of the term now is by creationist in an attempt to denote the "theory" aspect of evolution as a tool to further their word games and seem more legitimate to the followers of their ideology. Thus someone asking you what you mean by "evolutionist" is important.

Indeed. But you are perhaps the fourth person to question this very correct usage of the term evolutionist. Regardless of how factual evolution is, one is still required to believe in it. And some do (having looked at the facts) and some don't, regardless of the facts. Therefore there are still two camps, the evolutionist and the creationists. The term will be archaic the day there is a negligible number of creationist in the world. Just like there is no Roundists with regards to the shape of the earth, since there isn't a significant number of people would believe the earth is flat.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Indeed. But you are perhaps the fourth person to question this very correct usage of the term evolutionist. Regardless of how factual evolution is, one is still required to believe in it. And some do (having looked at the facts) and some don't, regardless of the facts. Therefore there are still two camps, the evolutionist and the creationists. The term will be archaic the day there is a negligible number of creationist in the world. Just like there is no Roundists with regards to the shape of the earth, since there isn't a significant number of people would believe the earth is flat.

There are a negligible number of credible people who believe in young earth creationism. Most creationists that are scientists are still evolutionists. Some reconcile it with some form or another of faith or metaphorical belief but there is not a significant number of creationist scientists that are against evolution. The very very very very few that do have failed incredibly on the basis of evidence. What exists in America is a large number of the non-scientist population with no credibility or education on the matter taking it on faith from their religious upbringing. In America at least this number is significant. Not significant in the stance of science but significant in the geo-political dynamic of the west.

I haven't actually questioned it. I commented on your answer to shed some light on the subject. I believe I know exactly what you mean when you say evolutionist, both definition and implications.

 

[Thanda]

There are a negligible number of credible people who believe in young earth creationism. Most creationists that are scientists are still evolutionists. Some reconcile it with some form or another of faith or metaphorical belief but there is not a significant number of creationist scientists that are against evolution. The very very very very few that do have failed incredibly on the basis of evidence. What exists in America is a large number of the non-scientist population with no credibility or education on the matter taking it on faith from their religious upbringing. In America at least this number is significant. Not significant in the stance of science but significant in the geo-political dynamic of the west.

I haven't actually questioned it. I commented on your answer to shed some light on the subject. I believe I know exactly what you mean when you say evolutionist, both definition and implications.

True. And remember there are many other countries beside America in the world with all manner of beliefs and religions. And in most of those beliefs and religions there is the understanding that the earth was created. So you may be right that, from a scientific perspective, the terms evolutionist and creationist (for both must stand or fall together) have become archaic. But to the rest of the world (that is the billions of people who are not scientists) there is still the very real division between evolutionists and creationist. And I dare say that in this all encompassing demographic, it is the evolutionists who are in the minority.

So as I said, this distinction will stick around for a while yet, until all people are brought to understand things as most scientists do.

 

[Midnight Rain]

True. And remember there are many other countries beside America in the world with all manner of beliefs and religions. And in most of those beliefs and religions there is the understanding that the earth was created. So you may be right that, from a scientific perspective, the terms evolutionist and creationist (for both must stand or fall together) have become archaic. But to the rest of the world (that is the billions of people who are not scientists) there is still the very real division between evolutionists and creationist. And I dare say that in this all encompassing demographic, it is the evolutionists who are in the minority.

So as I said, this distinction will stick around for a while yet, until all people are brought to understand things as most scientists do.

In educated 1st world countries I think America is the only one that has less than half of the people who do not agree with evolution. It surely isn't a problem in Canada, UK, Japan, Russia, Italy ect. This isn't a creationism vs evolution argument. You can have your non-scientific faith but you cannot have your non-scientific facts. There is no division in science. Between the uneducated masses of the world who don't even know how to read and have never come across the theory of evolution I am sure tip the scale. However it matters absolutely not.

Are you an evolutionist?

 

[Thanda]

In educated 1st world countries I think America is the only one that has less than half of the people who do not agree with evolution. It surely isn't a problem in Canada, UK, Japan, Russia, Italy ect. This isn't a creationism vs evolution argument. You can have your non-scientific faith but you cannot have your non-scientific facts. There is no division in science. Between the uneducated masses of the world who don't even know how to read and have never come across the theory of evolution I am sure tip the scale. However it matters absolutely not.

I'm not sure what to make of this paragraph. But I think you generally agree with me that most of the world believes in creation rather than evolution (though some stories of my tribe have an element of evolution in them - we have stories such as how a leopard got its spots ).

Are you an evolutionist?

Somewhat

 

[Midnight Rain]

I'm not sure what to make of this paragraph. But I think you generally agree with me that most of the world believes in creation rather than evolution (though some stories of my tribe have an element of evolution in them - we have stories such as how a leopard got its spots ).

Yes. I just feel that this fact in and of itself is meaningless.

Somewhat

Care to elaborate?

 

[Thanda]

Yes. I just feel that this fact in and of itself is meaningless.

It's meaning is that, outside of the scientific community, the terms creationists and evolutionists are still relevant.

Care to elaborate?

Not at the moment.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It's meaning is that, outside of the scientific community, the terms creationists and evolutionists are still relevant.

...eh. I've already stated why I don't think its relevant. Its not a term really meant to define layman.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I thought that the term creationist was used because there was no actual science behind it. But As others have pointed out, there are only humans, the same way there are only horses. The fate of all species is death, maybe at some point humans will branch off or maybe this is the last hurrah. I'm sure the last genus of Saber Tooth Tigers pondered the same thing....