Originally posted by mnicholas21
I have come to the conclusion that another species of humanoids from another planet came to Earth and helped make early man into homo
What do you base this on?
but I PROMISE that you will see the evidence in the years to come
If the evidence doesn't exist yet, then by definition your theory is a baseless and irrational one no?
the Greeks..their beliefs were that the earth was complete chaos until Zuse came from the heavens and helped make their lives
The greeks didn't beleive that. I don't see how you can site ancient mythology as supporting your ideas, but get the mythology wrong.
Originally posted by shihulud
Such as evolution says we evolved from Homo Erectus but the genetic differences between the two are so great that a macromution would have had to
There are no genetic samples from erectus
, and hte differences are extremely slight, they're differences of degree, not a difference of
Also Humans seem to have evolved without pressure, i.e environment
What are you basing that on?
Such as lack of hair
Humans have as many hair follicles as a chimp, the hair is simply thinner. What exactly is problematic here for evolution? That there aren't other
apes that have such a thin pelt? There also aren't other apes that walk across vast stretches of the african savanna. Man has had a unique
evolutionary history, why shouldn't it be different from other animals?
The fact that the human female is on 'heat' constantly but shows no sign of when conception is likely.
Why is this, or any of the items you note, a problem for evolution??
There is a possibility that the whole of life on Earth was put here by and advanced race so therefore our ancestral genes would be related as
our ancestors also were created by this advanced race. Just as we can now manipulate genes so it happened to us.
There is no 'break' in the genetics between man and other organisms that would indicate that at some point there was interference. THere is
nothing about man that requires alien or godly intervention.
The point here is that we as a species seem to have had an easy evolution to get to the stage we are at just now but it is known that humans
did not have an easy time therefore evolution cannot adequately explain the emergence of humans in the space of 5-6 million years
The logic of that conclusion does not follow the argument nor its evidences.
Most pre Sapien 'homos' are radically different than us so what type of mutation occured to change erectus(supposed ancestor) to sapien so
fast in a evolutionary timescale
Why do you think it was too fast and too much for evolution to account for? I'll agree that the differences between homo sapiens and homo erectus
are large, but they're not so large that they can't be crossed by simple evolutionary processes; increase the brain size, reduce the bulk of the
teeth, alter the chin, make the limbs more gracile, etc.
I mean great evolutionary leaps in a short space of time doesn't add up. Even evolutionary scientists have problems with human evolution.
It was not a great leap and it was not so short a time span. What evolutionsts are you talking about as having problems? There is debate, sure, but
no one thinks that aliens or god are required.
The soul-substance theory is complementary to existing Darwinian theory
Its antithetical to it, becuase its mystical mumbo-jumbo and it states that evolution is insufficient to cause these changes, whereas Darwinian
evolutionary theory states that it is sufficient. Darwin's theory is that you don't need anything like vitalism or outside direction to have
What is so different about these humans that would preclude them from breeding with modern man?
There are numerous osteological characters and correlates that are dramatically different, and these differences are great enough to qualify them as
different species. The breeding-test, called the Biological Species Concept, is the 'hard' test, but its rare that it can be performed, and usually
morphological characteristics alone are used to differentiate species. This method ends up being rather accurate, as in cases where it can be
compared against the 'breeding' test.
Is it not true that some species can interbreed and others can't, and sometimes the progeny is fertile and sometimes not, and this is not the
same in all instances?
Yes, this is true. Why is it relevant?
Do you think that whoever made up this system of classification was smoking something at the time?
? Why? Please name the differences between apes and man. All I see are differences in brain size and modifications due to bipedality. Man is
obviously very similar, physically, to the ape, and that, along with the genetic and fossil data, is why they are grouped together.
We also share 97.5 % dna with mice. Do we look like mice??
Compared to crabs, we sure do, lo and behold, man is more closely related to mice than crabs.
So why haven't other animals went hairless???
Why should they? It was beeficial for man during the course of man's evolution, that doesn't mean its beneficial for all animals at all times. Many
animals that live in hot regions retain their hair, because it protects them from the sun and keeps their skin cooler than without it. Man, however,
doesn't cool this way, man cools by sweating. Man, infact, excells at sweating, amoung the animals. Having a thick furry pelt interferes with this
excellent cooling mechanism.
how did "domesticated" plants come about for use in agriculture?
Primitive man is thought to have collected some types of plants, and then to have habitually come back to natural local 'stands' of more nutritious
plants, eventually becomming less nomadic (ie less willing to leave these natural stands of plants), and tending to these plants. During that course,
they'd naturally throw away the crappy little plants and favour the thicker and better ones. This means that the next generation of plants in the
stand will be offspring of the thicker better ones. That process amplifies with each generation.
it took millions of years for homo erectus to come about and then it took a very short 1.8 million years to bring us to the point where we are today.
What do you mean by 'it took' a long time 'for' erectus to appear? Because you have to keep in mind that australpithecines and the rest were
homo erectus. From the chart below, erectus existed for around a million years before the first sapiens
show up, that
doesn't mean that it 'takes' that long for an erectus to become sapiens, who knows if and when any new selection pressures were put on what
populations of erectus
that resulted in it becomming sapiens
. Best, perhaps, to merely consider a species that is long lived as a well
adapted and successful species. Australpithecines, as shown below, continued
to exist, even after
some of them had evolved into homo
, they were still successful.