Freethought & Rationalism Archive

unworthyone · 04-06-2002, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyShea:
IIRC the consensus is the dinosaurs were wiped out quickly and their extinction involved big time (and fast) natural catastrophe. For instance an 15 mile diameter asteroid striking in the ocean, off say the Yucatan Peninsula would likely cause world wide quakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, landslides etc...burying numerous animals where they stood. The survivors of this catastrophe would be smaller organisms which eventually evolved into humans

So because they were buried? But some skulls have been found buried deeper then dinosaurs.

Viti · 04-06-2002, 12:22 AM

really? do you have a reference to this information? Keep in mind that the Earths crust is often thrust upward through other layers due to plate tectonics and earthquakes (how the Rockies were formed...where I have personally viewed numerous dinosaur fossils)

unworthyone · 04-06-2002, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyShea:
really? do you have a reference to this information?

No I'm sorry it was footprints. But that probably has a refutable answer to it right?

Viti · 04-06-2002, 12:35 AM

the footprints have been refuted for years....see talkorigins.com

I am going to bed...pick it up in the am?

parkdalian · 04-06-2002, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by unworthyone:


No my problem is I don't want to learn from the WRONG source. I need a good source that is well excepted by the evolutionary community.

Try the links below. It is up-to-date and is even-handed in the debate on the precise genetic relationship of neanderthal and modern homo sapiens.

<a href="http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/" target="_blank">http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/</a>
<a href="http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/genetic2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/genetic2.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/10/5581" target="_blank">http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/10/5581</a>

Ergaster · 04-06-2002, 02:56 AM

"Creature"? I thought creationists always insisted that Neanderthals were fully human. What do *you* think Neanderthals are?

After glancing down your posts, I see you keep asking for information you haven't already learned. Except that you haven't told us what you've already learned. And your other questions show a certain...naivete...about paleontology (no, dinosaur bones are *not* found more often than anything else, nor do they have any better chance of being preserved than anything else).

Why don't you tell us what you already know or think you know about Neanderthals, and then we'll have a starting point?

Deb

Quote:

Originally posted by unworthyone:
In what ways has this "creature" been shown to evolve into human?
Or
Is it already considered human?

Any info with "links" would be cool.

Thank you.

pseudobug · 04-06-2002, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by unworthyone:


Yeah thats what I mean. It's obvious to an extent they did not co-exist, but the problem is how are they able to find all those dinosaur bones (thousands at that) and not ape bones (for an example) between the dinosaur and the oldest known human ancestor?

Sorry, unworthyone, there is no "to an extent" with regard to man or even the immediate descendents of man co-existing with dinosaurs. There is absolutely no evidence for that and there is evidence that at approximately 60 million years elapsed from the end of the "age of the dinosaurs" in the late Cretaceous Period and the first homonids ~ 2million years ago.

One very logical reason for "finding thousands of dinosaur bones" and not "ape bones" (and I am assuming you mean close relatives of humans) is time. Dinosaurs existed on the planet for nearly 200 million years. Bipedal "apes", which is what immediate ancestors of human beings are, only date about 3.5 million years. Thus, the dinosaurs had a 60-fold greater time span for their bones to be fossilized over a much greater time span. Moreover, for much of the time period of dinosaurs existence, they were widespread over the planet. That has not been the case for humans and their immediate ancestors.

The <a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/index.htm" target="_blank">The Smithsonian Museums Human Origins web page </a> is a very good overview of the ancestors of humans.

Lizard · 04-06-2002, 08:06 AM

unworthyone wrote:

Quote:

Yeah thats what I mean. It's obvious to an extent they did not co-exist, but the problem is how are they able to find all those dinosaur bones (thousands at that) and not ape bones (for an example) between the dinosaur and the oldest known human ancestor?

I believe lots of ape and hominid bones have been found. They have provided scientists with examples of various stages in the evolutionary journey from apes to hominids to modern humans. There are still some unknowns about the relationships of various members of the human family tree. As more fossils are discovered, the puzzle pieces are put together.

See "Evidence for Human Evolution" at:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs</a>

Quote:

Summary

There are a number of clear trends (which were neither continuous nor uniform) from early australopithecines to recent humans: increasing brain size, increasing body size, increasing use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness. There are no clear dividing lines between some of the later gracile australopithecines and some of the early Homo, between erectus and archaic sapiens, or archaic sapiens and modern sapiens.

Despite this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is. Everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus, robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is our ancestor. The discoveries of A. ramidus and A. anamensis are so recent that it is hard to say what effect they will have on current theories. It is generally accepted that Homo erectus is descended from Homo habilis (or, at least, some of the fossils often assigned to habilis), but the relationship between erectus, sapiens and the Neandertals is still unclear. Neandertal affinities can be detected in some specimens of both archaic and modern sapiens.

unworthyone · 04-06-2002, 08:44 AM

How do they determine any of the skulls are direct descendant and not plainly just human in the first place (besides the fact they look different)?

Dr.GH · 04-06-2002, 10:03 AM

A good, and fairly cheap book on human paleontology is "The Fossil Trail" by Ian Tattersall, 1995 Oxford University Press. There have been some recent advances, but the book is still a good introduction.

As to what some of the diagnostic features are, I would recommend an introductory book on physical anthropology. There are a lot of good ones.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-06-2002, 12:22 AM	#22
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	really? do you have a reference to this information? Keep in mind that the Earths crust is often thrust upward through other layers due to plate tectonics and earthquakes (how the Rockies were formed...where I have personally viewed numerous dinosaur fossils)

04-06-2002, 12:35 AM	#24
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	the footprints have been refuted for years....see talkorigins.com I am going to bed...pick it up in the am?

04-06-2002, 08:44 AM	#29
unworthyone Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: oklahoma Posts: 96	How do they determine any of the skulls are direct descendant and not plainly just human in the first place (besides the fact they look different)?

04-06-2002, 10:03 AM	#30
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	A good, and fairly cheap book on human paleontology is "The Fossil Trail" by Ian Tattersall, 1995 Oxford University Press. There have been some recent advances, but the book is still a good introduction. As to what some of the diagnostic features are, I would recommend an introductory book on physical anthropology. There are a lot of good ones.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.