# Concept Of Extinction? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 13, 2012, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069 "2012-06-13T21:33:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![solsolsol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@solsolsol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solsolsol)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069/21 "2012-06-14T21:38:32Z")
> [@notquitekarpov](#): > > Would not have Homo sapiens sapiens have realised they had wiped out Homo sapiens neanderthalensis i.e made them extinct when they all disappeared? > > I understood modern reseached had concluded that we didn’t just out compete with them but also exerminated them? [There’s evidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_admixture_theory#Neanderthals) that Homo sapiens sapiens might have absorbed Homo neandertals through interbreeding, a quite pleasant extermination. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069/22 "2012-06-14T21:43:39Z")
> [@solsolsol](#): > > [There’s evidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_admixture_theory#Neanderthals) that Homo sapiens sapiens might have absorbed Homo neandertals through interbreeding, a quite pleasant extermination. It’s pretty much an accepted fact of biology at this point. And it’s _Homo neanderthalensis_. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069/23 "2012-06-14T21:55:53Z")
> [@notquitekarpov](#): > > Would not have Homo sapiens sapiens have realised they had wiped out Homo sapiens neanderthalensis i.e made them extinct when they all disappeared? Until 500 years ago, humans never really understood more than the concept of local extinction. They did not have a good concept of how large the planet was, or all of the types of animals that lived on it. They often believed that animals that never existed had not yet gone extinct, but only lived far away. From that time forward as science developed, step by step people came to understand the nature of life, and realize that true extinction was possible. That God would not restore the species, that there weren’t more of the animals in some distant land, that there was no magical balance of nature that preserved all species, that species did not evolve based on lifetime experiences, and that DNA defines species, and once a species has been exterminated, it does not naturally revive. So while humans have had the concept at least as far back as the first time they found a species depleted in a locality, and probably had a very abstract concept of extinction as far back as the first time a human was bitten by a mosquito, we also have a modern concept based on the knowledge of DNA. And then the modern concept of extinction is in flux also. We now look at reviving once extinct species through genetic engineering. It might even become an archaic concept one day, something that only applied to a past where we didn’t map an animal’s genetic structure before we killed them all. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_the\_Immortal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6de8d8/32.png) [@Max\_the\_Immortal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_the_Immortal)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069/24 "2012-06-14T23:41:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s pretty much an accepted fact of biology at this point. And it’s _Homo neanderthalensis_. 😉 As long as we’re nitpicking: When you use _Homo sapiens sapiens_, you use _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_, indicating subgroups of the same species. _Homo neanderthalensis_ refers to them as a separate species from _Homo sapiens_, and is typically used by people who don’t think that the two groups interbred. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069/25 "2012-06-15T00:08:40Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Well, of course there ain’t any of those running around nowadays, and maybe there never were. The Devil put them thar fossils there to deceive us, remember? > [@TriPolar](#): > > Only through God’s will. And not extinct as you believe, because God can always recreate them. > > According to many creationists that is. This is the argument that Darwin faced. People at that time had difficulty accepting the notion that life could, and did evolve without supernatural intervention, just as some do now. Extinct species then were considered to have all dies in the Deluge, as a result of God’s will, or likely to reappear if man happened to kill them all, because it wasn’t God’s will that they die. A series of scientific theories, Darwin’s evolution among them began the process of informing people of a consistent, predictable world in which extinction could be a final end of species. These assertions bear almost no relation to the history of biology and ideas about extinction before Darwin’s work. If you think, as you appear to, that the views that informed Christians in the 18th and early 19th centuries (which group would include the young Darwin, and effectively all the scientists of the time) held about these issues bore any significant resemblance to 21st century creationism, you are quite mistaken. Their creationism, such as it was, had nothing of the anti-rational, anti-scientific animus of modern creationism. The notion that no-one knew about extinction before Darwin is manifestly false. On the contrary, it had been a major issue in the sciences for years, and was widely recognized as raising problems for conventional theism. Furthermore, local extinction (on one continent, say) was recognized to be almost equally as problematic for theism as global extinction. people were puzzled, for instance, about why there were no living elephants in Europe or North America, after mastodon remains had shown that elephant-like creatures had once lived there. ---
**Author:** ![gytalf2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ac91a4/32.png) [@gytalf2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gytalf2000)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069/26 "2012-06-15T18:18:26Z")
Well, this has been very interesting. Thanks for the information! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069/27 "2012-06-15T19:22:10Z")
> [@Max\_the\_Immortal](#): > > As long as we’re nitpicking: When you use _Homo sapiens sapiens_, you use _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_, indicating subgroups of the same species. _Homo neanderthalensis_ refers to them as a separate species from _Homo sapiens_, and is typically used by people who don’t think that the two groups interbred. Not really. I don’t use _H. sapiens sapiens_, but even if I didn’t, I still wouldn’t use _H. sapiens neanderthalensis_. There is no reason you can’t recognize us as a subspecies and Neanderthals a separate species. ---
**Author:** ![SlowMindThinking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@SlowMindThinking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlowMindThinking)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069/28 "2012-06-15T19:44:34Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > These assertions bear almost no relation to the history of biology and ideas about extinction before Darwin’s work. If you think, as you appear to, that the views that informed Christians in the 18th and early 19th centuries (which group would include the young Darwin, and effectively all the scientists of the time) held about these issues bore any significant resemblance to 21st century creationism, you are quite mistaken. Their creationism, such as it was, had nothing of the anti-rational, anti-scientific animus of modern creationism. > > The notion that no-one knew about extinction before Darwin is manifestly false. On the contrary, it had been a major issue in the sciences for years, and was widely recognized as raising problems for conventional theism. Furthermore, local extinction (on one continent, say) was recognized to be almost equally as problematic for theism as global extinction. people were puzzled, for instance, about why there were no living elephants in Europe or North America, after mastodon remains had shown that elephant-like creatures had once lived there. A thousand times this. Haven’t any of you heard the story of Noah? (I’ve heard that the absence of unicorns was once explained by, “they didn’t get on the boat”) Or any of the other flood and disaster stories in ancient cultures? I suspect the concept of extinction is too old to track down. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069/29 "2012-06-15T21:45:54Z")
> [@SlowMindThinking](#): > > A thousand times this. Haven’t any of you heard the story of Noah? (I’ve heard that the absence of unicorns was once explained by, “they didn’t get on the boat”) Or any of the other flood and disaster stories in ancient cultures? I suspect the concept of extinction is too old to track down. Much as I appreciate the ringing endorsement, it is rather at odds with the spirit and intent of my post, which was intended to point out that the people who concerned themselves with the issue of extinction before (and during, and following) Darwin’s time were not dumbass Biblical literalists like modern day creationists. So far as I am aware (I admit, I do not spend much time reading the Bible), the Noah story in Genesis says nothing about extinction. There is no reason to think extinction was an issue when it was written. In the 18th century, however, with advances in geology and with various paleontological discoveries, extinction did become an issue, and, in the earlier discussions, the Noah story was sometimes suggested as providing the framework for an explanation of the extinction of certain creatures. Maybe they got left off the ark! However, this does not actually provide a very satisfying explanation either scientifically _or theologically_. (God punishing wicked humans with a flood is one thing, but why would a just, merciful God visit destruction on animals, who are, by their nature, innocent? He should, surely, have had Noah build an ark that was big enough.) The discussion pretty quickly moved on, and, by Darwin’s time, even those paleontologists who continued to reference Noah’s flood in this context (an example would be William Buckland), regarded it as only the last in an indefinitely long series of similar catastrophic events (with long periods of calm in between) that had occurred in the history of the Earth, and had each caused multiple extinctions long before humans appeared, and thus before the events recorded in the Bible (with the exception of the first two chapters of Genesis, which were not usually taken literally). Other geologists of the time (notably Adam Sedgwick, an excellent geologist, and one of Darwin’s most important teachers and influences), although they thought that the geological record and the evidence of periodic mass extinctions pointed to such a history of global catastrophes, scrupulously avoided drawing any parallels between these geological theories and any Bible stories (and this, despite the fact that Sedgwick was an ordained Church of England minister). To repeat, despite the fact that they were effectively all Christians, and despite the fact that, if pressed on the matter of where species originally came from many might have said (for want of a better answer) that God must have created them, the many scientists and other intellectuals who discussed extinction and related issues before Darwin’s time were nothing like the followers of the modern creationist, Biblical-literalist movement. The latter has its origins in early twentieth century America, it relies on the deliberate rejection and denial of science, on the shutting of ears to evidence and rationality, and it owes its popularity almost entirely to its appeal to those who hate and fear ongoing social change and the ideology of social “progress” that they associate (rightly or wrongly) with both science in general and evolution in particular. Present day creationists are creationists precisely because they are against social “progress”, and, consequently, against science. By contrast, the pre-Darwinian “creationists” concerned with such issues as extinction were, in general, themselves actively and positively involved in the scientific enterprise (often making important contributions), and were generally in favor of the social changes that they, also, associated with the progress of science. (Of course, there were reactionaries and irrationalists back then too, but they did not generally concern themselves with biological theory.) Where did Noah keep the bees? In the archives. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069/30 "2012-06-15T22:59:53Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Present day creationists are creationists precisely because they are against social “progress”, and, consequently, against science.[/COLOR][/SIZE] I disagree. While that might be true of some creationists, for most it simply boils down to thinking that evolution contradicts their religious beliefs. They may be perfectly happy with science in other areas, but not in evolution, and especially not in human evolution. To say they are against social progress is painting with a broad brush, and not defining what you mean by “social progress”. Would you say they are against civil rights laws or suffrage for women? All of them? Most of them? ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069/31 "2012-06-15T23:42:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I disagree. While that might be true of some creationists, for most it simply boils down to thinking that evolution contradicts their religious beliefs. Systematic Biblical literalism arose in 20th century America, in response to the social changes then taking place and the progressivist ideology then associated (in the popular mind) with evolutionary theory. It has not been part of the mainstream Christian tradition since at least the time of St Augustine (4th century). The relevant religious beliefs arise out of reactionary socio-political attitudes, not vice versa. It may be true, by now, that some people are creationists because they have been brought up in or influenced by this new religious tradition, rather than because they were antecedently deeply socially conservative - the are probably some literalists or creationists by now who are politically liberal - but I am talking about the roots and continuing mainstream of creationism, not such outliers. The movement as a whole is socially conservative first, then, as a consequence, anti-evolution, then, as a consequence of that, Biblical literalist. To think the causation goes the other way is to fundamentally misunderstand it. The fact that many people do think it goes the other way is a propaganda triumph for the creationists. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > To say they are against social progress is painting with a broad brush, and not defining what you mean by “social progress”. Would you say they are against civil rights laws or suffrage for women? All of them? Most of them? I mean social change in general, because I am talking about people with deeply and viscerally conservative social attitudes, but yes, _particularly_ civil rights for non-whites and suffrage and other rights for women: the loss of the privileges of being a white Anglo Saxon male. (Full disclosure: I am a white, Anglo-Saxon male.) ---
**Author:** ![SlowMindThinking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@SlowMindThinking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlowMindThinking)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069/32 "2012-06-16T22:51:44Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > … > So far as I am aware (I admit, I do not spend much time reading the Bible), the Noah story in Genesis says nothing about extinction. .. > Where did Noah keep the bees? > > In the archives. If it wasn’t possible for a species to become extinct, why would you need an ark? IIRC, the Greeks even had several different versions of humans get wiped out. (The Golden Age, the Silver Age, …) The _concept_ of extinction has nothing so much to do with evolution. The _concept_ that a species could be obliterated off the face of the earth exists in almost every mythos I can think of. In fact, I think one purpose of the flood was to wipe out some troublesome subspecies of humanoids (giants, IIRC?) who bred with angles, or something to that effect. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069/33 "2012-06-16T23:30:39Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Systematic Biblical literalism arose in 20th century America, in response to the social changes then taking place and the progressivist ideology then associated (in the popular mind) with evolutionary theory. It has not been part of the mainstream Christian tradition since at least the time of St Augustine (4th century). The relevant religious beliefs arise out of reactionary socio-political attitudes, not vice versa. > > It may be true, by now, that some people are creationists because they have been brought up in or influenced by this new religious tradition, rather than because they were antecedently deeply socially conservative - the are probably some literalists or creationists by now who are politically liberal - but I am talking about the roots and continuing mainstream of creationism, not such outliers. The movement as a whole is socially conservative first, then, as a consequence, anti-evolution, then, as a consequence of that, Biblical literalist. To think the causation goes the other way is to fundamentally misunderstand it. The fact that many people do think it goes the other way is a propaganda triumph for the creationists. > > I mean social change in general, because I am talking about people with deeply and viscerally conservative social attitudes, but yes, _particularly_ civil rights for non-whites and suffrage and other rights for women: the loss of the privileges of being a white Anglo Saxon male. (Full disclosure: I am a white, Anglo-Saxon male.) That’s an interesting opinion, but it’s not a fact. In fact, it’s rather laughable when one considers the number of female creationists, who are not about to give up their voting rights. And that’s all I’ll say in this forum. If you’d like to discuss it further, we can do so in GD or IMHO. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concept-of-extinction/625069.md?page=1)