Not necesarily. With founder’s effect and/or genetic drift coming into play, you could easily have a colony of “freaks.” If they were isolated and not interbreeding with the “normal” colonies (or even if they were, depending on the circumstances, but that’s a different argument entirely), then you’d end up with, you guessed it, different species.
The servers are taken down for an hour, and my name is I - L - S - A. 
The sentence was meant to be taken as a whole. You seem to be implying that paleontologists, given two skeletons, are incapable of determining whether those two skeletons are individuals from two different species or two individuals of the same species with superficial differences from each other.
Ilsa, I’m so sorry. I’ve been addressing you by the wrong name all this time! I have a friend called Isla, which must have blinded me to the physical evidence.
Sounds vaguely Scandinavian.
I’ll avoid posting between 3.00-4.00am Central Standard Time in future.
How have I missed this thread for 400-some-odd posts?!?
Risking this having already been addressed:
Evolution has been observed as fact.
“Origin of the species” (through evolution), although not having been observed, is the most likely explanation for the diversity of life as we know it; and for those who say “God did it!” well, there’s no reason to assume that God didn’t use evolution to do it!
bodswood, it seems we have gone as far as we can go. If you insist on believing that humans have been around for billions of years, eating trilobites and somehow managing to prevent their corpses fossilizing until a mere half-million or so years ago while the dinosaurs died out around them, I’m afraid there’s very little I can say to you.
Cheerio. Come back if you change your mind and realise the utter absurdity of your position.
Stromatolites. I confused them with trilobites. My bad.
Since this is GD we should keep the facts straight.
Neanderthals are outside what is possible for the normal range of genetic variation for Homo sapiens. That does not mean they are outside what is possible for the normal range of genetic variation for Homo sapiens as a species. Mungo man for example is also outside what is possible for the normal range of genetic variation for modern Homo sapiens, yet he is indisputably a member of the same species.
Genetic tests give some slight indication that Neanderthals left no female descendants in the modern human population. That is all that can be derived from those tests. That is a long, long way from saying that they were outside the possible normal range of genetic variation for Homo sapiens. Nobody knows what thepossible range of Homo sapiens is, certainly it was far higher 60, 000 years agoo than it is now and could well have encompassed Neanderthals. To put it in perspective Neanderthals were genetically closer even to modern human beins than two chimapnzee tribes are to one another.
It’s a gross overstatement of the evidence to say that there is evidence that Neanderthals are oustide the normal range for our species.
bodswood, I truly sympathize with you.
As a very fundamental Christian for most of my 48 years, I’ve been a militant creationist. I’ve lost track of the number of letters to the editor I’ve had published in my local paper supporting Creationism (as if that alone proves anything, but you get the idea).
Now it may sound like I’m perpetuating the old stereotype that accepting evolution is necessarily un-Christian, because for me the two went together. The reason I believed in Creationism was because it had to be true! The bible, after all, is the verbally inspired word of God! Ergo, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are just as true as the rest of it. Evolution, in that worldview, becomes impossible, even as a tool used by God to create Man.
When I finally realized the cognitive dissonance I had been living with for decades, it was quite a shock, and making the transistion was not easy. I therefore understand completely why you’re so hesitant to jump in and say, “Jeepers, evolution is right after all!” You can imagine how difficult it is to decide that something into which you have poured so much time and energy for so many years was pure bunk.
Take your time. Think carefully. Above all, don’t limit (as I did) your sources of information to those that agree with your point of view.
For one thing, it was quite a shock to discover the degree of dishonesty many Creationists (such as Duane Gish) display in their zeal to “defend the faith.”
To everyone else, this has been one heck of a long thread to catch up with, but worth it. Thanks to all for their contributions. As I am relatively new to this idea of evolution, I’m still learning, and still likely have many misconceptions yet to be corrected.
D’oh.
Neanderthals are outside what is possible for the normal range of genetic variation for modern Homo sapiens. That does not mean they are outside what is possible for the normal range of genetic variation for Homo sapiens as a species.
Don’t feel too bad - there was a paper from IBM in 1959 which used genetic techniques to develop new programs. Very small programs, and it didn’t work so well, but he had the idea of using evolutionary techniques. It was in either the Spring Joint or Fall Joint Computer Conference that year.
This message board is taken down for about 45 minutes or so starting at 10:00 am Greenwhich Mean TIme for maintenance once a day. It sounds like that’s what you’re running into. Since I run into that too, if I get up early enough, I’ll offer you my commisserations.
Unfortunately, in the United States, we have people who not only believe in Creationism, but who regularly attempt to outlaw the teaching of evolution or mandate that creation science must be taught along with evolution in schools. Sometimes, they succeed. That goes beyond what an individual chooses to believe and starts to affect the community as a whole. Can you see why to some of us, your “puny beliefs” aren’t so puny when you’ve got people telling a school board or textbook publisher “You must teach our religious beliefs in biology class.”?
I don’t suppose you’d like to address my question about why being made in God’s image is limited to one’s physical form, would you? To me, this physical shell which is enabling my fingers to press keys on the keyboard is of far less importance than the soul which is forming the words my fingers are typing.
Respectfully,
CJ
dm, I have to admire your candor. An example for us all on either side of this or any other debate.
Siege wrote: “I don’t suppose you’d like to address my question about why being made in God’s image is limited to one’s physical form, would you? To me, this physical shell which is enabling my fingers to press keys on the keyboard is of far less importance than the soul which is forming the words my fingers are typing.”
Actually, I’m quite open to that. The physical body is pretty much a shell as you say.
Dangermouse: Fair dos. But I’ve never been a militant creationist, though strangely enough I’ve been an inveterate letter writer to the local rag, sometimes on earth-shaking issues, sometimes not. In my own education I was taught evolution in biology classes (well, not so much taught it, as I recall, it was assumed) and don’t have a particular beef with that.
At bottom, I just can’t comprehend that me and the wife are descended from a bacterium. Not because of my religious beliefs, neither because it would affront me, but just because it seems so unlikely. But I remain open to it. And if convinced, I swear I’ll be careful next time I get the bleach out!
Well it was never required to fully comprehend every step in evolution from single cell to human in order to accept evolution. If you accept that the scientific method as valid then all you have to do is realize
- Humans weren’t around billions of years ago.
- Humans are here now.
- Science has found tons of consistent evidence that provides a natural explanation of mankind’s existence.
You are free to insert your god of choice at any point in this. That however is where faith comes in. Science just explains the natural side of things.
Also no need to be careful with the bleach. You are not bacteria if you were then you’d have a good arguement that evolution doesn’t happen.
Well, I should point out that no one is expecting you to accept that; we aren’t descended from a bacterium. Ultimately from a single-celled organism, sure. But bacteria are themselves modified from the “orginal ancestor”.
But, really, what is so difficult to believe about us coming from such humble beginnings? There exists right now an entire continuum of organisms from single-cell to colony to complex and multi-cellular. It is evident that the individual steps which would be necessary to transition from one “stage” to another are not only possible in theory but possible in fact.
“Likely” really has little to do with it. The way things are now is simply one of many possible results - it is not an end, chosen from a multitude of possible ends, and thus akin to a lottery. Had things turned out differently, we might be having a very different conversation - or none at all.
Life today is simply the consequence of sequences of historical events - just as it is “unlikely” that any given event in our own history should have played out exactly as it did. It is extrememly unlikely that you or I exist at all, given that every single one of our ancestors must have survived in the past, at least long enough to have children. Every natural disaster, every plague, every war, every potential accident somehow “just happened” to not kill off an ancestor, or if such did happen, that ancestor was “fortunate” enough to not shuffle off this mortal coil until after fathering or bearing children (as the case may be).
Your very existence belies the “unlikely” argument. We are all unlikely. Some even moreso than others, perhaps.
“Your very existence belies the “unlikely” argument. We are all unlikely. Some even moreso than others, perhaps.”
Do I sense something you want to get off your chest, Finchie?!
Not particularly. I merely acknowledge that some folks’ lineages may contain some fairly outrageous coincidences or other elements of chance that might make their existence a bit more “unlikely” than others. I know I have at least one friend who, had things gone only slightly different during her birth, might not be around today. That sort of thing. Although, I have had my own share of “near misses”, which would have ensured I left no progeny had they gone differently (not that that appears to have changed despite having survived, but still…).
My main point is that any specific outcome in our history, whether it be human history or the history of life, is contingent on many variables, some of which may well be truly random, and is thus exceedingly unlikely. However, an outcome is guaranteed. Trying to calculate the probability of our existence, then, is rather a pointless effort. If we weren’t here, something else would be.
With you, DF.
Darkhold: “1. Humans weren’t around billions of years ago.”
This is the nub of the matter for me. I just keep asking “Can we be sure?” It’s true of course that many Christian theologians (and just Christians period) accept much of the theory of evolution (especially the idea of “hominids”).
They probably think I’m just as nutty as you guys think I am.
Then where is the evidence? Why aren’t there legends in every civilization about long-ago peoples? Why have humans who have been around for billions of years only been keeping records for ~15,000?
If humans have been around for billions of years, why do we only find human remains that are less than a few hundred thousand years old, while we only find australopithecus remains in a small range of a couple of million years, and dinosaur remains only range from a couple of hundred million years old to 65 million years old?