Human evolution News

BBC asks, why we are only humans still alive

Spread the love

From BBC News:

Rewind to 30,000 years ago. As well as modern humans, three other hominin species were around: the Neanderthals in Europe and western Asia, the Denisovans in Asia, and the “hobbits” from the Indonesian island of Flores.

The hobbits could have survived until as recently as 18,000 years ago. They may have been wiped out by a large volcanic eruption, according to geological evidence from the area. Living on one small island will also leave a species more vulnerable to extinction when disaster strikes.

We do not know enough about the Denisovans to even ask why they died out. All we have from them is a small finger bone and two teeth.

Notice how the BBC story is carefully crafted to make humans sound like animals as if intelligence does not matter. That is Darwin’s central theory, the greatest idea anyone ever invented?

It is unclear that any of these groups ever were separate species. Is that not just more Darwinspeak?

The serious discussion of what “separate species” means never happens because no Darwin follower can afford it.

Small finger bone, two teeth, big theory. Brits pay.

See also: The Little Lady of Flores spoke from the grave. But said what, exactly?

Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

and

A deep and abiding need for Neanderthals to be stupid. Why?

30 Replies to “BBC asks, why we are only humans still alive

  1. 1
    wd400 says:

    The serious discussion of what “separate species” means never happens because no Darwin follower can afford it.

    Except, you know, any intro to evolution course.

  2. 2
    Andre says:

    And in typical WD400’s spectacular ignorance, and his clear display of not being up to day with science he thinks there is no such thing as a species problem except……

    1929

    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....514a0.html

    1935

    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....954b0.html

    Then in 2004 a false statement and a lie….

    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....514a0.html

    Then in 2015

    http://www.nature.com/news/ear.....nt-1.17534

    And we are right back where we are in 1929…..

    But WD400 don’t let your lack of scientific knowledge stand in the way of the species problem please. Just carry on pretending like every other Darwinist that you have it all figured out. Just ignore the thousands of papers written about the problem will you?

  3. 3
    wd400 says:

    What do you think these links prove? News thinks that evolutionary biologists don’t discuss the species problem, you provide some links of … evolutionary biologists discussing the species problem?

  4. 4
    Dionisio says:

    BBC asks, why we are only humans still alive

    Maybe because we didn’t share this secret:

    http://andyjwells.tumblr.com/p.....-secret-to

  5. 5
    goodusername says:

    News,

    Notice how the BBC story is carefully crafted to make humans sound like animals as if intelligence does not matter.

    No. The story clearly implies that intelligence very much matters.

    The serious discussion of what “separate species” means never happens because no Darwin follower can afford it.

    The species problem has been one of the most discussed subjects in the field of evolution beginning with Origin of Species.

  6. 6
    Andre says:

    WD400

    Come now. Let us get real here. The average Darwinist avoids the species problem like the black plague. It’s public record that as soon as they do that they will be confronted with the fact that Neanderthal is not a separate species to homo sapiens the very defenition of speciation for a Darwinist is the tired and false mantra of reproductive isolation.

    Guess what sugar?

    Neanderthals and humans never meet that criteria, and because reproductive isolation is matter of fact not met and Neanderthals and homo sapiens on record have produced viable offspring, the Darwin just so story collapses.

  7. 7
    ppolish says:

    Any intro to evo course covering the origin and nature of the human species is pretty much outdated. Can’t imagine an up to date textbook is even out there. I mean come on, there is plenty of confusion at the post doc level. “introductory course” lol WD400.

  8. 8
    wd400 says:

    Andre. I can assure you a discussion of the “species problem” is a mainstay of intro to evolution courses and part of every intro text book I can think of. It’s pretty evident reading back you just didn’t understand what News was saying, there is no shame in making a mistake, but it’s a bit silly to launch into a new attack with acknowledging it.

    I guess you’ll have to explain to me why introgression of neanderthal genes into the sapiens lineage signals the “collapse” of “darwnism”? I strange claim since the possibility of such interbreeding has been a topic of debate within evolution since Feldhofer 1 was described.

  9. 9
    goodusername says:

    Andre,

    Come now. Let us get real here. The average Darwinist avoids the species problem like the black plague.

    It’s one of the most discussed subjects in the field. Pick up any popular book on Darwinism, or take any class on evolution, and chances are it will be discussed at length.

    It’s public record that as soon as they do that they will be confronted with the fact that Neanderthal is not a separate species to homo sapiens the very defenition of speciation for a Darwinist is the tired and false mantra of reproductive isolation.

    Whether Neanderthals are a true separate species or not is also discussed ad nauseum.

    Read any story regarding Neanderthals, and the subject of whether they are a separate species or not is probably brought up.

    (Also, there are many definitions for “species”. And biologists prior to Darwinism were far more inclined to call each variation they saw a “species” than they are today. Most scientists prior to 1859 were polygenists, believing that each human race was a species, and Darwin’s leading opponent – Louis Agassiz – was also probably the most notorious “splitter” of all time.)

  10. 10
    Andre says:

    And WD400 and goodusername ignore the dead give away that reproductive isolation is not met between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. Thus and I emphasise this. They are the same species.

  11. 11
    wd400 says:

    If “no reproductive isolation -> not species” where true then there’d be no species problem.

    (Also, there would probably be about 100 plant species left).

  12. 12
    goodusername says:

    Andre,

    And WD400 and goodusername ignore the dead give away that reproductive isolation is not met between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. Thus and I emphasise this. They are the same species.

    Ok. I have no strong feelings either way. It’s mostly an argument of semantics. I’ve seen the scientific community lean one way and then the other over the years on the subject. I’m not sure which side most scientists are on the issue now, but I’m sure there’ll be a lively debate on the issue for years to come.

  13. 13
    Zachriel says:

    Andre: he thinks there is no such thing as a species problem

    There’s a difference between a good scientist and a great scientist. Biologists had long been aware of the species problem. They have often argued about where to draw the line in various cases. Meanwhile, Darwin explained why interfertility varies by degree, and why there is not always a strict line to be drawn. Populations diverge from common ancestors over time. Speciation is a process. See Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859.

  14. 14
    ppolish says:

    “Populations diverge from common ancestors over time. Speciation is a process. See Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859.”

    Speciation is s guided purposeful process, Zachriel. Darwin knew that too. He just underestimated the extent of the guidance and purpose. He wasn’t very mathematical. He would be fascinated with modern evidence. Not surprised, but fascinated.

  15. 15
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: Speciation is s guided purposeful process

    You don’t seem to be making an argument, but just stating a position. Note the difference between that, and how Darwin explained why fertility was various in degree — as a consequence of evolutionary divergence. It’s a feature!

  16. 16
    Andre says:

    Fertility is not various by degree. You either have the goods on both ends to make viable offspring or you don’t. Sexual organs and systems either communicate or they don’t these systems can’t encode and decode if it’s not a perfect match. Zachriel time to stop being silly about this.

  17. 17
    wd400 says:

    Fertility is not various by degree…

    It’s like you are going out of your way to say increasingly ignorant things in this thread. Fertility does indeed vary by degree, and what’s more that degree to which two species are infertile is related to how long ago they diverged. Coyne and Orr famous study of Drosophila is one example of this [pdf]. And, as Zach noted, Darwin discusses this in The Origin.

  18. 18
    Andre says:

    WD400

    Did you not get Coyne’s latest memo?

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-species/

    What about Darwin’s famouse finches that has now gone bust?

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/674899

    I’ll say it again; The average Darwinist troll ignores the species problem. It was all good and well you told me how its discussed but you seem to choose to ignore what it means.

  19. 19
    wd400 says:

    You keep linking to these papers, but not explaining what you think they mean. I know about both of those papers, buy don’t see how they relate to anything I’ve said..

  20. 20
    Andre says:

    It means and please do listen carefully….. The Darwinian idea of speciation and what species are is wrong. When supposed sperate species make viable offspring they are not seperate species. Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal is a very good example, they are the same thing. A single species. There is no such thing as a separate lineage from a common ancestor, there is no such thing as ring species between them either because there was no reproductive isolation (core to what a species is) In addition their reproductive systems match perfectly.

  21. 21
    wd400 says:

    When supposed sperate species make viable offspring they are not seperate species

    Why do you think this is true? Why do you think there is a species problem at all when such an easy answer exists? And you really think lions and tigers, which occasionally produce fertile offspring, are the same species?

  22. 22
    Andre says:

    WD400

    Yes they are the same species. They are cats.

  23. 23
    Zachriel says:

    Andre: Yes they are the same species. They are cats.

    Lions and tigers have persistent and distinguishing characteristics. Biologists have long consider them to be separate species; named Panthera leo and Panthera tigris by Linnaeus in 1758.

    Whether one species or two, mating between a tiger and a lion is less likely to produce offspring than mating between two tigers, or two lions. Fertility varies by degree.

  24. 24
    wd400 says:

    Yes they are the same species. They are cats

    If you earlier statements force you to say something as stupid as this, then you might want to reconsider those statements. And, as Zach points out, this example does away with your earlier claim that fertility can’t vary by degree.

  25. 25
    Virgil Cain says:

    Species problem? Yes: species problem– well just look all the articles about the species problem

  26. 26
    daveS says:

    Virgil Cain,

    Even entire monographs on the species problem!

  27. 27
    Virgil Cain says:

    Thanks daveS! Awesome….

  28. 28
    Andre says:

    Zach

    Here is the problem.. if a Tiger and a lion can make viable offspring then reproductive isolation is not met, hence the same species..

  29. 29
    Zachriel says:

    Andre: if a Tiger and a lion can make viable offspring then reproductive isolation is not met, hence the same species..

    They are largely isolated, but regardless of where you draw the line between species, as this example shows, fertility varies by degree.

  30. 30
    Andre says:

    The only thing that varies by degrees is the Darwin crowd’s inconsistencies. Tiger and Lion same species.

Leave a Reply