On Human Evolution

by TD 77 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Deputy Dog

  Also, the wolf has a bite strength of about 1500 lbs per squ. inch, the golden about half that. These traits all point to separate species, albeit closely related ones--hence the ability to mate and produce a hybrid.

  That's a bunch of bullit. You just proved you don't know what you're talking about. There is no reliable test as of yet, and very little research.

  I train dogs to bite. There are dogs with a much stronger bite than a wolf. Goldens are much smaller than wolves and have been bred for a soft mouth. I've been bitten by wolves and wolf highbreds (through a bite sleeve). Pitbulls and Rottweilers are right up there with them. In fact, some breeds like the Mastiff are to dangerous to alow to bite on bite training equipment. They are able to break bones. The real danger is not the bite it's the tare.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  TD

  Personally, I wouldn't consider a creature with cognitive abilities on par, or maybe just slightly above a chimpanzee to be human regardless of whether it could hybridize with modern man or not.

  So do you consider those (humans) with abnormally high cognitive abilities to be another species?
• 

  TD

  DD

  So do you consider those (humans) with abnormally high cognitive abilities to be another species?

  No and there's no inconsistency here. The criteria I'd base that judgement on don't disappear with higher intelligence.

  And this is not unique to people who accept evolution. Line, Lubenow, Taylor, Baker, Van Beber, Bowden, Menton, Gish, Mehlert, Cuozzo and every other creationist who has tackled this question have excluded the Australopithicines from their definition of human.
• 

  PSacramento

  Personally, I wouldn't consider a creature with cognitive abilities on par, or maybe just slightly above a chimpanzee to be human regardless of whether it could hybridize with modern man or not.

  Where would the "line" be TD?
• 

  TD

  PSacramento

  Where would the "line" be TD?

  Well there's not a consensus on this. When you look at the strongly pongid features of A. afarensis, consider its brain size and the fact that it did not to our knowledge even make stone tools, it should be apparent that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but where it's drawn tells us something about what one considers a "Human" to be. That's why I thought this would be an interesting way to approach the subject.

  Where the line should be drawn and why is exactly the question I'm asking on this thread.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  TD

  You are right, it's interesting. It also begs the question, what's the difference between race and species? That was a hot topic back in Darwins day. That's the problem with those "fuzy" lines.
• 

  bohm

  DD, like i outlined in my post on the previous page, i wonder how you believe the fuzzy borders between species affect evolution?
• 

  Deputy Dog

  bohm

  i wonder how you believe the fuzzy borders between species affect evolution?

  I guess I'm missing the point to your question. Sorry
• 

  PSacramento

  Well there's not a consensus on this. When you look at the strongly pongid features of A. afarensis, consider its brain size and the fact that it did not to our knowledge even make stone tools, it should be apparent that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but where it's drawn tells us something about what one considers a "Human" to be. That's why I thought this would be an interesting way to approach the subject.

  Where the line should be drawn and why is exactly the question I'm asking on this thread.

  Does evolutionary biology have an opinion on it? I don't recall reading it but I have only read a couple of books on it so...

  Can we view the Genesis story as a storty of that "line" being drawn perhaps?

  Where "man" as we know him now ( homosapien) became such and became "self-aware" beyond simply "existing"?

  Perhaps Genesis is truly the story of the first man in the truest sense of the word ( or at least the first homosapien to catch Gods attention perhaps - Hello God are you there, it's me Adam).

  Theology aside, perhaps the line is drawn at the point where man has some sort of "dietary" change or some sort of "self-realization" or...I don't know...an evolutionary hiccup that cause his brain to develop a "conscience" or something like that.
• 

  bohm

  DD, maybe i am getting confused, some of the things seemed to indicate the inability to properly define species and destinguish between species in the fossil record was a problem for evolution per see.