Posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT by DannyTN
Yeah, that's what I have been reading, and seeing on those Discovery and History Channel programmes that I catch every once in a while. But I have also read and heard that there may have been cross breading of the species, could this have attributed to the evolution of Sapien Sapien. BTW, I thought the Sapien Sapien thing was a joke, sorry.
Why are you cackling like a loon for no particular reason. Are you somehow childishly amused by a standard taxonomic designation? (Okay, who let all the four-year-olds in?)
Ok, then I guess a better example would be from Neanderthal to Cromagnon then?
No, it wouldn't.
Except that theories purport that these two species existed at the same time.
It's not the "theories" that "purport" this, you goof, it's an established fact.
Not necessarily evidence that one didn't evolve from the other, though, right?
Right, actually, but I'll bet you can't figure out that one either without a great deal of assistance. (Hint: My mother and I are both alive at the same time, does that mean she can't possibly be my ancestor?)
In this particular case, though, the evidence is extremely strong that both species of human evolved from a common ancestor, and not one from the other.
And in this nation of deviation if I use another -ation, you'll probably want to end my chance for evolution, LOL.
No, actually I am happy to share what I have learned with anyone who is interested.
What annoys me are those who are close-minded and cannot/won't learn, no matter what the evidence may be. To me it is sad that some people wake up each morning fearing what the morning papers or internet may bring from the world of science--findings that they will have to deny no matter what they are.
Any honest questions are always treated fairly.
Thanks for the banal and completely uncalled for negative criticism there Ichneumon.
Next time, read all of my posts before attacking, thanks.
I think that the source of this is that people don't want to believe that such a successful species could have become extinct. Nobody has found a definitive reason for it yet. To date, their extinction makes no sense. There is a fossil that shows traits that appear to be from both species, but that is highly disputed. All evidence that we have shows that the Neandertal line stopped, and their DNA went nowhere but into the ground.
BTW, I thought the Sapien Sapien thing was a joke, sorry.
's'ok :-)
First time I saw it I thought, "what the heck is this? Couldn't they think up a new name or something?" ;-)
You obviously need to quite taking my statements out of context because I have not made any dispute of the theory of evolution at all. I have been making statements concerning what my understanding of evolution is. Big difference.
Sorry. But you have entered a charged environment, and many of us are somewhat tired of explaining things over and over to those who do not want to learn.
If you are willing to enter into an honest discussion I am sure you will find all of us eager to help.
I saw Ichny's post above. He is one of the brightest folks around, but he sometimes gets impatient. Approach him with honest questions and he will purr like a puppy (its late and I haven't shaved--literary critics can take a hike).
You have refreshed my recolection of the facts, or evidence that I was shown in the program. That was exactly what it stated. Hey, did you write that show!! LOL.
Only in a really loose manner of speaking.
~ we have "immune systems". Getting over a cold is not a case of "evolution in action".
Ironically, it actually is, although it's true that this is not an example of *humans* evolving.
Same with the bacteria.
Dead freaking false. Hey, I have a novel idea -- why don't you stop spewing complete nonsense? When bacteria develop antibiotic resistance, it very much *IS* achieved as a result of genetic evolutionary change.
Stop mistaking your random wild guesses for reality, and especially stop posting them to mislead your fellow Freepers.
Look, folks, we really do have to get a handle on word usage or we'll lose the words.
That's good advice -- and you really, really should start following it someday. Case in point:
I know there are some who argue that any genetic change at all constitutes "evolution",
...because it is...
but such changes sometimes bring about no change in function ~ so it's not sufficient to say that "change", per se, constitutes evolution.
Congratulations, you're an ignoramus. Nothing in evolutionary biology requires that something "change function" in order for evolution to be taking place. You just made that up. Look, kid, leave the definition of evolution to the biologists who actually have a clue, 'k?
Else, we might tell young children "evolve into your pajamas". Capice?
Is it really your contention that putting on one's pajamas involves changes in one's genetic code? Because if so, you're an even bigger fool than you had previously appeared.
That's what's good about the net in general and this site in particular. There are people from every possible field and discipline that you can imagine, from military/aviation to science/technology. It's a great resource. Better yet, they're willing and able to chat, talk about their careers and experiences and the like. It's really an amazing thing, if you think about it. Past generations had nothing like it.
And even more importantly for us, the Rock of Ages.
Indeed, as will I.
Phoenix0468, if you're really interesting learning, I'll be more than glad to help as well as I can. If I took your prior post the wrong way, I apologize -- I've been dealing all day with people making similar posts for the purpose of spreading disinformation. Plus, of course, I had previously encountered you on other threads making disparaging remarks on the topic of evolutionary biology, so of course I had to consider that you were here to do more of the same:
I think the poster is more freaked out at the arrogance of a scientist saying that evolution is "more than fact", which is a huge load of crap.(Note: The biologist hadn't actually said that.)
-- phoenix0468, on 01/27/2005
Also:
No, I understood quite well. He said evolution explains facts. This is crap.And:
-- phoenix0468, on 01/27/2005
Before the scientific method most science was bunk; based on conjecture, coincidence, and papal decrees. And what do you know, this article pretty much covers the gamut with evolution. ROFLMFAO!!!And the first post of yours to which I responded on this thread didn't ask any questions at all, it just made a number of flat-out claims that were made in an attempt to "correct" someone who was himself correct -- your "corrections" were erroneous. This is the way that the anti-evolution cranks post. So perhaps you'll understand the nature of my response.
-- phoenix0468, on 01/27/2005
But if you're actually interested in learning, and willing to tone down your penchant for lecturing and "correcting" people on topics they know much better than you do, I really am glad to help out if I can.
Local internet tavern placemarker.
Hey, this is fun!
I will. Be prepared for questioning. No lecturing or correcting included, scouts honor.
Believe it or not, this is just scratching the surface. Bookmark it, and read it when you have some time. It is absolutely fascinating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.