I dispute the 'separate species' claim. All of these haplogroups of humans can interbreed. They only differ in cosmetic, morphological appearance, not in their basic genetic structure. That is why the ambiguous, vague, and effectively meaningless term, 'species!', has little value in a scientific debate. It moves and changes like a chameleon, and has little descriptive value. Neanderthal was not a different 'species!' They were merely a different tribe, or variation of humans, as are common now. Some regionally isolated haplogroups of humans have indeed, died out. But that did not make them sub human, or 'missing links!' Here is a simplification of the genetic line, indicated by following the mtDNA flags: I could not find an exact chart for neanderthal, and the textual chart i made was destroyed by space stripping in the forum editor. Substitute 'neanderthal' for the 'out of Africa' clade, and you get the idea. We cannot depict all the haplogroups started, as the branches of humans spread out. They became regionally isolated, and narrowed in their original diversity. One of these early haplogroups (neanderthal) settled in the mid european/asian region, where they isolated to a morphological homogeneity. But there was some interbreeding between this tribe, and others. Some modern Asians, Europeans, and north Americans have a neanderthal mtDNA marker, to indicate ancestry. Not all humans do, but enough to show that their genetic line was not extinct. Some of the physical features that are considered common to neanderthal are also evident in the subsequent generations. The introduction of MORE variations from other tribes, removed the consistent appearance of neanderthal morphology. It would be like breeding African pygmy in a population of tall Scandinavians. The offspring would contain increased variability, that the parents did not have. Pygmies and Scandinavians are not different 'species!', except by arbitrary definition. Genetically, they are human beings, from different clades or haplogroups. If you inserted some pygmy genes into a population, the descendants would carry the mtDNA marker from that pygmy connection, even if no other pygmies were introduced, and the pygmy genetic information will be watered down by only breeding the dominant haplogroup in that region. That is how neanderthal connections have been made. The mtDNA marker from the earlier neanderthal mother was passed down to daughters, even if it was not the dominant clade. It is like breeding a chihuahua into a breed of poodles. If you keep breeding the descendants with other poodles, you can eliminate (mostly) any chihuahua morphology. But the mtDNA from that one chihuahua will still show up, even if they all look like poodles, now. And, the wolf ancestry in the chihuahua still shows, in the mtDNA, even though it looks nothing like a wolf. This is how genetics has changed the old 'looks like!' taxonomic classifications. What was once based on morphological and subjective opinion, now has solid scientific evidence to support it.
No, not so. Sometimes that is just variability within a species. As it is with asians and Africans. In fact, homo sapiens sapiens is one of the least genetically diverse species known.
@usfan Canis lepophagus Canis lepophagus , believed to be the ancestors of modern wolves and coyotes, appeared in the fossil record in North America about 34 million years ago. We find their fossils in layers from 34 million years ago until about 12 million years ago. They do not appear in the fossil record before or since. Where did they come from? Where did they go?
Not one creationist has the guts to tackle this, eh? Fascinating...and here I thought the Bible had the answers to all of this. Of one thing we can all be certain: when science does find the answers to tough question (as it already has with the question I asked,), religious people will swoop in to tell us how the Bible or their preferred religion text describes the answer already. But not one second before, of course. So, here is your chance, creationists: answer my question. Or, should I say, description how the Bible answers it.
If you are curious, why do you not look it up? The fact that you won't bother yourself to look it up shows me you are not honestly curious about it. But, okay: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence...lor-variation/modern-human-diversity-genetics From the article: "First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse – a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution. For example, the subspecies of the chimpanzee that lives just in central Africa, Pan troglodytes troglodytes, has higher levels of diversity than do humans globally, and the genetic differentiation between the western (P. t. verus) and central (P. t. troglodytes) subspecies of chimpanzees is much greater than that between human populations. ........................... Essentially, the very low genetic diversity of humans is the result of a very recent migration and expansion of humans all over the globe. This is supported by all the fossil and DNA evidence. And by the fact that there is more genetic diversity in sub saharan africa than there is between, say, an eskimo and an Australian .
Well, the came from the same place that all life forms came from. ha ha. And like so many other lifeforms, they went extinct, just like the dinos. But is there actually hard evidence that this presumed ancestor, or precursor species of modern canines was indeed that? Or is it just theory? A belief? That evolutionary biologists have placed a faith in? That would be relevant, I think. And then is there evidence of a species, that preceded this presumed species, which evolved into the canines, wolves, dogs, etc? Has evidence been found that shows this species evolved into the modern canine, a transitional species? I don't know, which is why I ask. If so, that species should have been present alongside the progenitor for canines, right? With this transitional species becoming modern canine, wolves, etc. Is there hard evidence for this in the fossil record. BTW, I am not a Creationist, trusting in an ancient text to yield fact and truth. But I am hardly a materialist either, accepting that philosophy as ultimate truth and much of evolutionary biology is grounded in the philosophy, the assumption, of materialism. And yet I know at least micro evolution is a verifiable fact for we can observe it. What cannot be observed lies within a theoretical idea, a creation of the brain of man and it seeks answers to these questions. And they get answered with evidence, not faith, nor beliefs, whether coming from science or anything else. What fascinates me is the sudden seeming explosion of life and species during the Cambrian Age. Why was there such an explosion? This age seems very notable, right? Because of that vast explosion of life. And what not such explosions in other ages?
It fascinates scientists, too. There are several ideas proposed, and the true answer is likely a combination of some of them. Oxygen content of the atmosphere, ozone content, population bottlenecks, embryonic activity, and ecological changes are all suspected. What would your guess be? Magic, or not magic? Softball question, if you ask me.
There is something going on with you. I do not have the problem, but I see clearly you have the problem. Your instant action to my question is something like, hey bub, look it up. When i posted a link proving a sign law violation is whyTX removed a sign, you accused me of refusing to read my own link. I had read it. I would not post the law had I not read the link. In short, you turn things asked or said back against the person making a comment as if you are in a fist fight. That crap is not good nor needed on this forum. I was asking for proof about why we should believe you. Not if you can locate things using google. For the record, though I have read a dozen books on evolution and own a fine university text book, my purpose here is not to waste time on this particular topic. A general statement such as you make is not interesting.
So, essentially, instead of contributing a productive essay to forward the discussion, you were putting me through an exercise. The message board doesn't need that, Robert. We are not here to dance at your pleasure. Now comment on the content you begged for, or don't. The fact that you chose, instead, to admonish me further cements the idea that you were never honestly curious in the first place....as I said. And this intellectually fraudulent practice is a plague on this and other message boards. I will call it out when I see it...and, as you have just done, will be immediately proven to be correct, in every instance.
A transition from one species to the next, in the fossil record. Which of course logically should present both species at the same time, before the earlier species went extinct. And then the transitional species then evolves into a modern canine, evidenced in the fossil record. The gaps seem to present most of the problem. So one must then assume it happened, because "how else could it happen?" Right? Seems to be quite a bit of presumption here. Is this asking too much? Specifically? I don't think so. But again, I am not a Creationist. Just interested but know all too well of the assumptions involved in evolution, that over time become dogma and never questioned. I have no problem at all with what is now called micro evolution. It is fact, verifiable in labs. Not so with macro evolution. Lots of faith in that sector IMO.
Sorry, but you will need to be more specific. What sort of transition? How will this transition present in the fossil record? Side note: your declaration that this "dogma" (which is precisely the opposite of what scientific knowledge is) is never questioned is utterly false. Scientists are in a constant discussion about the fossil record and about species ancestry and constantly question each other's findings, conclusions,and methods. Just because we uneducated slobs are not a part of that discussion dos not mean it is not occuring.
I am correct. Again, i ask you. You come here, make claims about biology, tell us things about the human species, why should you be believed? One thing I do note. Your age. I am your senior by 32 years. I have children your senior. All i ask is on this topic, why would you be believed?
Since I have never seen such a transition, how would I define it, specifically? But you have one species, and then you have another different species. If evolution is a fact, unless there is a spontaneous generation of a new species from nothing, then there will be some kind of transition involved.
I am not asking anyone to take my word for for it. The honestly curious person would be aware that evolution enjoys overwhelming consensus amd is considered fact, and therefore would know they could easily look up the answers to their queries. So, believe me or don't. But don't deign to act as if you are a curious babe in the woods, looking to soak up knowledge. Comment on the material you begged for,or stop wasting my time. Thanks.
The same way scientist do, as they did not see the transition either. Have you bothered to look up what they think? Have you bothered to look up what convinces scientists of either direct ancestry or the principle that a species in the fossil record is, at the very least, very closely related to the ancestor of an extant species? Apparently you don't accept their definitions or think they are poorly evidenced, else you would not call this "dogma". But that is an odd position to take, for one who doesn't even know their defitnitions,don't you think?
Magic? No. But like what Arthur Clarke said about advanced technology and magic, it might appear to be magic until we understood it, which would involve a discovery. I just have an idea that we do not completely understand what is involved, given that in biology, it moves from a foundation of materialism. And materialism might not be capable of getting a complete understanding of evolution until it moves outside of that philosophical position, that scientists never question. Well some do, like Sheldrake and others. There may be more to evolution than materialism can actually explain, without assumptions.
Actually, you can just say, "all of science", not just biology. A deterministic universe is assumed when performing science. Else, the universe is nonsensical and there is no cause and effect. In such a universe, there can be no such thing as empirical evidence. Yes, there may be more to it. And unicorns may make ice cream in the 6th dimension. But stating this possibility explains precisely NOTHING.
Actually I have in the past, and obviously you have no idea of the dogma involved, and the big picture. But you would have to listen to a critic, like Sheldrake, who gets down to the brass tacks, and he could enlighten you much more than I can, given who he is, his accomplisments in biology and the degree of his education. I know your own would never stack up against his, as mine will not. He has relevance, and I doubt you have read any of his books, that question, what you cannot question. He accepts evolution Btw, but does not think it can be explained as you think it can be. If you are a curious intellect, you will at least do some reading, if not, then who cares if you are curious, or figure you already know all that is to ever be known or will ever be known on this subject. We had physicists much like your position long ago, before quantum mechanics. Sheldrake talks about a couple of them. They thought they knew it all as well as evolutionary biologists do today.
Right, and you just don't feel like explaining it. Sure, pal. An absurd declaration,as I am not a scientist. So sheldrake running circles around me in a debate would be utterly irrelevant. A more accurate assessment would be to look at how he stacks up against the entire, global, scientific community, and how the science he publishes and the empirical evidence he uncovers stacks up against the mountain of mutually supportive evidence for the fact of evolution. Could you point me to some of this? The answer is "no", you can't, because NO SUCH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE EXISTS, and Sheldrake has certainly never even attempted to produce any. Sheldrake is a hack who forces his magical nonsense into the gaps in our understanding. Charlatans like him have been around since Aristotle's time.
I am not in the habit of taking the word of posters. Especially posters who call me a liar and tell me i do not read my own material i cite. So you are not schooled in biology. I kind of figured that.
There are some unscientific posters, here, who seem to only want to disrupt with heckling and hysteria. I ignore them, but it makes the thread harder to follow, when the hecklers are constantly replied to. This is a scientific topic, in a scientific forum. Is it too much to ask for scientific and rational replies? Can we not leave the political polemy to other subforums?
And then there are dishonest propagandists who use fallacy and outright falsehood to convince themselves that, despite having no education or experience in science, they have outsmarted the global scientific community. Unsurprisingly, these frauds offer nothing in the way of alternative explanations and ignore the questions posed to them, instead raining a Gish Gallop of questions down on everyone else and expecting their questions to be answered...an intellectually fraudulent and rude practice, to be sure.
@usfan Canis lepophagus Canis lepophagus , believed to be the ancestors of modern wolves and coyotes, appeared in the fossil record in North America about 34 million years ago. We find their fossils in layers from 34 million years ago until about 12 million years ago. They do not appear in the fossil record before or since. Where did they come from? Where did they go?
