Evolution is an exercise in creative thinking.

"Challenge your preconceptions or they'll challenge you" - Commander "Trip" Tucker, Star Trek: Enterprise

To the OP and those who think the same way - I urge you to go out into the real world and have your preconceptions challenged.

There is no use sitting around in the echo chamber of your friends and family who agree with you and only using creationist/pseudoscience propaganda websites and books as your source for information.

It might make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but it does nothing for your intellect.

If what you believe is the truth then it can stand up to any kind of doubt or cross examination, but if it is untrue then you will be all the better off for discovering that it is so.

It's a good idea for all of us to routinely re-examine all of our long-held preconceptions and core beliefs - and to do so with true objectivity and intellectual honesty.

Oh and study critical thinking. A little critical thinking and you won't end up believing in nonsense in the first place.

wake me up when you people find out how life evolved from a bunch of stuff.

why don't we have the respiratory system of birds?

A question for evolutionists.
Was the first human, male or female?

a reply to: john666

No telling, but one or the other. The first "human" had some mutation that was an advantage. Banged or was banged by a primative human. But that last gene that made them human was passed to the kids. Then it spread thru what ever our predecessor.

originally posted by: ArtemisE



a reply to: john666

No telling, but one or the other. The first "human" had some mutation that was an advantage. Banged or was banged by a primative human. But that last gene that made them human was passed to the kids. Then it spread thru what ever our predecessor.

When I am speaking about first human, I am speaking about homo sapiens.
When you say "primitive human", you are not speaking about homo sapiens.
So my request to you, is the following:
Using evolutionary terminology classify the "primitive human".

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: ArtemisE



a reply to: john666

No telling, but one or the other. The first "human" had some mutation that was an advantage. Banged or was banged by a primative human. But that last gene that made them human was passed to the kids. Then it spread thru what ever our predecessor.

When I am speaking about first human, I am speaking about homo sapiens.
When you say "primitive human", you are not speaking about homo sapiens.
So my request to you, is the following:
Using evolutionary terminology classify the "primitive human".

Wow . . . you've really stumped those darn "evolutionists" with that one . . .

Sorry . . . but, you are basing your "puzzler" on a false premise.

Homo Sapiens didn't just "pop" out one day from their ancestors . . . small changes over thousands (probably even millions) of generations led to an eventual new species. This was coupled with (as with all new species) geographic isolation until the two previous populations were unable to breed.

So the answer to your question is both arrived at about the same time. And, just for the sake of clarity modern humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens . . . which would not be able to breed with their direct ancestor Homo Sapiens Idaltu.

Maybe if creationists and religious nutters would crack a book other than the bible once and a while and stop relying on Apologetic's websites for their science education . . . they would actually learn a thing or two and stop making fools of themselves on websites such as this.

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: ArtemisE



a reply to: john666

No telling, but one or the other. The first "human" had some mutation that was an advantage. Banged or was banged by a primative human. But that last gene that made them human was passed to the kids. Then it spread thru what ever our predecessor.

When I am speaking about first human, I am speaking about homo sapiens.
When you say "primitive human", you are not speaking about homo sapiens.
So my request to you, is the following:
Using evolutionary terminology classify the "primitive human".

Homo Sapiens didn't just "pop" out one day from their ancestors . . . small changes over thousands (probably even millions) of generations led to an eventual new species. This was coupled with (as with all new species) geographic isolation until the two previous populations were unable to breed.

When you are speaking about "two previous populations", what populations are you talking about?

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: ArtemisE



a reply to: john666

No telling, but one or the other. The first "human" had some mutation that was an advantage. Banged or was banged by a primative human. But that last gene that made them human was passed to the kids. Then it spread thru what ever our predecessor.

When I am speaking about first human, I am speaking about homo sapiens.
When you say "primitive human", you are not speaking about homo sapiens.
So my request to you, is the following:
Using evolutionary terminology classify the "primitive human".

Homo Sapiens didn't just "pop" out one day from their ancestors . . . small changes over thousands (probably even millions) of generations led to an eventual new species. This was coupled with (as with all new species) geographic isolation until the two previous populations were unable to breed.

When you are speaking about "two previous populations", what populations are you talking about?

Well, since the direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens Sapiens was Homo Sapiens Idaltu . . . it would be two distinct populations of Idaltu. Again, isolated from each other in such a way that the selected traits led to changes in one population and not the other.

Just as two distinct populations of wolves led to dogs . . . wolves in the wild that had a natural fear of humans and wolves that lacked the hormone production that led to natural fear of humans.

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: ArtemisE



a reply to: john666

No telling, but one or the other. The first "human" had some mutation that was an advantage. Banged or was banged by a primative human. But that last gene that made them human was passed to the kids. Then it spread thru what ever our predecessor.

When I am speaking about first human, I am speaking about homo sapiens.
When you say "primitive human", you are not speaking about homo sapiens.
So my request to you, is the following:
Using evolutionary terminology classify the "primitive human".

Homo Sapiens didn't just "pop" out one day from their ancestors . . . small changes over thousands (probably even millions) of generations led to an eventual new species. This was coupled with (as with all new species) geographic isolation until the two previous populations were unable to breed.

When you are speaking about "two previous populations", what populations are you talking about?

Well, since the direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens Sapiens was Homo Sapiens Idaitu . . . it would be two distinct populations of Idaitu. Again, isolated from each other in such a way that the selected traits led to changes in one population and not the other.

Can you be concrete?
What selected traits?

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: ArtemisE



a reply to: john666

No telling, but one or the other. The first "human" had some mutation that was an advantage. Banged or was banged by a primative human. But that last gene that made them human was passed to the kids. Then it spread thru what ever our predecessor.

When I am speaking about first human, I am speaking about homo sapiens.
When you say "primitive human", you are not speaking about homo sapiens.
So my request to you, is the following:
Using evolutionary terminology classify the "primitive human".

Homo Sapiens didn't just "pop" out one day from their ancestors . . . small changes over thousands (probably even millions) of generations led to an eventual new species. This was coupled with (as with all new species) geographic isolation until the two previous populations were unable to breed.

When you are speaking about "two previous populations", what populations are you talking about?

Well, since the direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens Sapiens was Homo Sapiens Idaitu . . . it would be two distinct populations of Idaitu. Again, isolated from each other in such a way that the selected traits led to changes in one population and not the other.

Can you be concrete?
What selected traits?

On the limited available evidence, a subspecies of Homo sapiens distinguished from Holocene anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) by greater craniofacial robusticity, greater anterior–posterior cranial length, and large glenoid-to-occlusal plane distance. Homo sapiens idaltu is distinguished from the holotype of Homo rhodesiensis (Woodward, 1921) by a larger cranial capacity, a more vertical frontal with smaller face, and more marked midfacial topography (for example, canine fossa). We consider the holotypes of H. helmei and H. njarasensis too fragmentary for appropriate comparisons.

As you are on it . . . I know you know how to use the internet.

We also know that the change in species to Sapiens Sapiens includes interbreeding with Neanterthals . . . so the inclusion of those genes also led to the evolution from Sapiens Idaltu.

Maybe instead of asking random posters on a site like ATS, you would be better served actually taking a class in Anthropology or actually asking an Evolutionary Biologist or Anthropologist about such things. Trying to stump "evolutionists" on the inter-webs or expecting them to know "everything about Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" may make you feel better, but it would be like me asking some kid in Young Life to explain all the intricacies of the Bible and claiming victory when he can't.

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: ArtemisE



a reply to: john666

No telling, but one or the other. The first "human" had some mutation that was an advantage. Banged or was banged by a primative human. But that last gene that made them human was passed to the kids. Then it spread thru what ever our predecessor.

When I am speaking about first human, I am speaking about homo sapiens.
When you say "primitive human", you are not speaking about homo sapiens.
So my request to you, is the following:
Using evolutionary terminology classify the "primitive human".

Homo Sapiens didn't just "pop" out one day from their ancestors . . . small changes over thousands (probably even millions) of generations led to an eventual new species. This was coupled with (as with all new species) geographic isolation until the two previous populations were unable to breed.

When you are speaking about "two previous populations", what populations are you talking about?

Well, since the direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens Sapiens was Homo Sapiens Idaitu . . . it would be two distinct populations of Idaitu. Again, isolated from each other in such a way that the selected traits led to changes in one population and not the other.

Can you be concrete?
What selected traits?

Even better, what color hair did they have?



Your just trying to show that since we can't possibly know every thing. We can't possibly know that that's not where god is. Like those that say, that if you didn't see it happen how did you know?

The problem is, that that answers everything but really answers nothing. You just think that since the god you believe in is all powerful. In your world he answeres all questions. But in the real world strangely enough, after thousands of years of searching there is absolutely no proof.

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: ArtemisE



a reply to: john666

No telling, but one or the other. The first "human" had some mutation that was an advantage. Banged or was banged by a primative human. But that last gene that made them human was passed to the kids. Then it spread thru what ever our predecessor.

When I am speaking about first human, I am speaking about homo sapiens.
When you say "primitive human", you are not speaking about homo sapiens.
So my request to you, is the following:
Using evolutionary terminology classify the "primitive human".

Homo Sapiens didn't just "pop" out one day from their ancestors . . . small changes over thousands (probably even millions) of generations led to an eventual new species. This was coupled with (as with all new species) geographic isolation until the two previous populations were unable to breed.

When you are speaking about "two previous populations", what populations are you talking about?

Well, since the direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens Sapiens was Homo Sapiens Idaitu . . . it would be two distinct populations of Idaitu. Again, isolated from each other in such a way that the selected traits led to changes in one population and not the other.

Can you be concrete?
What selected traits?

On the limited available evidence, a subspecies of Homo sapiens distinguished from Holocene anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) by greater craniofacial robusticity, greater anterior–posterior cranial length, and large glenoid-to-occlusal plane distance. Homo sapiens idaltu is distinguished from the holotype of Homo rhodesiensis (Woodward, 1921) by a larger cranial capacity, a more vertical frontal with smaller face, and more marked midfacial topography (for example, canine fossa). We consider the holotypes of H. helmei and H. njarasensis too fragmentary for appropriate comparisons.

As you are on it . . . I know you know how to use the internet.

We also know that the change in species to Sapiens Sapiens includes interbreeding with Neanterthals . . . so the inclusion of those genes also led to the evolution from Sapiens Idaltu.

Maybe instead of asking random posters on a site like ATS, you would be better served actually taking a class in Anthropology or actually asking an Evolutionary Biologist or Anthropologist about such things. Trying to stump "evolutionists" on the inter-webs or expecting them to know "everything about Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" may make you feel better, but it would be like me asking some kid in Young Life to explain all the intricacies of the Bible and claiming victory when he can't.

What evolutionary advantage does the Homo Sapiens Sapiens have over Homo Sapiens Idaltu ?

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: ArtemisE



a reply to: john666

No telling, but one or the other. The first "human" had some mutation that was an advantage. Banged or was banged by a primative human. But that last gene that made them human was passed to the kids. Then it spread thru what ever our predecessor.

When I am speaking about first human, I am speaking about homo sapiens.
When you say "primitive human", you are not speaking about homo sapiens.
So my request to you, is the following:
Using evolutionary terminology classify the "primitive human".

Homo Sapiens didn't just "pop" out one day from their ancestors . . . small changes over thousands (probably even millions) of generations led to an eventual new species. This was coupled with (as with all new species) geographic isolation until the two previous populations were unable to breed.

When you are speaking about "two previous populations", what populations are you talking about?

Well, since the direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens Sapiens was Homo Sapiens Idaitu . . . it would be two distinct populations of Idaitu. Again, isolated from each other in such a way that the selected traits led to changes in one population and not the other.

Can you be concrete?
What selected traits?

On the limited available evidence, a subspecies of Homo sapiens distinguished from Holocene anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) by greater craniofacial robusticity, greater anterior–posterior cranial length, and large glenoid-to-occlusal plane distance. Homo sapiens idaltu is distinguished from the holotype of Homo rhodesiensis (Woodward, 1921) by a larger cranial capacity, a more vertical frontal with smaller face, and more marked midfacial topography (for example, canine fossa). We consider the holotypes of H. helmei and H. njarasensis too fragmentary for appropriate comparisons.

As you are on it . . . I know you know how to use the internet.

We also know that the change in species to Sapiens Sapiens includes interbreeding with Neanterthals . . . so the inclusion of those genes also led to the evolution from Sapiens Idaltu.

Maybe instead of asking random posters on a site like ATS, you would be better served actually taking a class in Anthropology or actually asking an Evolutionary Biologist or Anthropologist about such things. Trying to stump "evolutionists" on the inter-webs or expecting them to know "everything about Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" may make you feel better, but it would be like me asking some kid in Young Life to explain all the intricacies of the Bible and claiming victory when he can't.

What evolutionary advantage does the Homo Sapiens Sapiens have over Homo Sapiens Idaltu ?

Couldn't tell you . . . That's not my specific field of study. Again, if you are truly interested in an education, your first mistake is coming to ATS for a proper one.

However, there doesn't have to necessarily be an "evolutionary advantage". If you actually spent time educating yourself on Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, you would understand that. Sometimes, it is as simple as two distinct populations being geographically isolated from each other. Maybe Sapiens Sapiens also had a higher rate of infant survival . . . maybe Sapiens Sapiens were more aggressive and wiped out the remaining Idaltu . . . maybe the inclusion of Neanderthal genetic material made Sapiens Sapiens better adapted to climate changes . . . maybe they were just bred out . . .

As stated above, not knowing everything doesn't mean what we do know is "wrong". The only people who cannot accept "we don't know" seem to be the religious . . .

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: reploid

There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. That word doesn't exist.

if you don't like the word it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

new words are being created on a daily basis.

words like mime, robot etc come to mind.

just to say:

why wouldn't God use evolution?

why would religion and evolution be mutually exclusive?

evolution is a very nice theory, but it still a theory and it is constantly changing; with new evidence and insight comes new additions to the theory.

there had to be a point where humans somehow started to develop in a different way from other animals and evolution has some answers to that but than why and how exactly did that happen?

and are we going to see super human sometime in the future; meaning a start of a new race - superior to humans?

Before human ancestors were mammals, they belonged to what class of beings?

a reply to: demus

why wouldn't God use evolution?

If there is a god, then evolution is absolutely a mechanism that they are using. Evolution is a scientific fact. ("Scientific fact" means data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent).

why would religion and evolution be mutually exclusive?

They're not mutually exclusive; religion/god is not mutually exclusive with anything... that's the beauty of "belief". There is always another question, and as soon as there isn't a known answer, "god did it!" will always fit.

The non-religious understand that there is always another question, probably into infinity, and accept the facts we know… always striving to answer another in the infinite line of questions.

The religious think there is an end point to the line of questions. God. Which actually just raises more questions!?!

There is that much data out there showing evolution happens, that anyone who doesn't accept evolution is being perverse.

a reply to: john666

Mammal-like quasi-reptiles called Cynodonts.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

How did the evolution from Cynodonts to mammals occur?

If human developmentwas true, why don't we see half men, half babies walking around?

Where's the missing link between teenagers and adults? Why don't we find instances of the upper body of a teenager and the lower body of an adult walking around?

Why don't we see pensioners turning into children?

If adults grew from children, why are there still children walking around?

This is creationist's arguments against evolution in a nutshell.