Archaeologica.org

Ishtar wrote: So the imaginery missing link makes the theory of the descent of man from a common ape ancestor work. That's how 'scientific' it is.

Man is an animal and we have observed evolution in other species....documented evolution.

Think of it (evolution) as a crossword puzzle if you will. You might have a word you can not get but if you fill in letters of connecting words (evidence) guess what...you can make a very good guess.

We may never find HSS but by filling in with what is found we get a better idea of what was.

I'm afraid that dear Ish still falls for the religious line that "man" is somehow special.

We aren't all that special. Apes with atomic weapons, hats, and overblown egos.

Minimalist wrote:I'm afraid that dear Ish still falls for the religious line that "man" is somehow special.

We aren't all that special. Apes with atomic weapons, hats, and overblown egos.

Where have I said that I think we're special?

That's putting words into my mouth.

And I'm not religious, either.....

Minimalist wrote: We aren't all that special. Apes with atomic weapons, hats, and overblown egos.

The one abhorrent trait that is prevalent in humans......and not found in other animals.

The ability and willingness to do wholesale slaughter.

EDIT: with that said....who is more evolved we humans or other animals?

zan wrote:

Ishtar wrote: So the imaginery missing link makes the theory of the descent of man from a common ape ancestor work. That's how 'scientific' it is.

Man is an animal and we have observed evolution in other species....documented evolution.

Think of it (evolution) as a crossword puzzle if you will. You might have a word you can not get but if you fill in letters of connecting words (evidence) guess what...you can make a very good guess.

We may never find HSS but by filling in with what is found we get a better idea of what was.

So that's fine, Zan ... but you're talking about faith, not science. In the matter of descent, there is no evidence.

Ishtar wrote:

zan wrote:

Ishtar wrote: So the imaginery missing link makes the theory of the descent of man from a common ape ancestor work. That's how 'scientific' it is.

Man is an animal and we have observed evolution in other species....documented evolution.

Think of it (evolution) as a crossword puzzle if you will. You might have a word you can not get but if you fill in letters of connecting words (evidence) guess what...you can make a very good guess.

We may never find HSS but by filling in with what is found we get a better idea of what was.

So that's fine, Zan ... but you're talking about faith, not science. In the matter of descent, there is no evidence.

I see nothing in my post indicating faith of any type.

Well, I do.

Maybe I need new glasses or something!

Or maybe you do. Who knows?

As recent as 50Kya, Neanderthals, Hss, H erectus (Java), and H. floriensis (maybe) were all stomping around the planet

If they were, in fact, different "species."

Bingo! You hit the jackpot.

How many of the above could interbreed? It is my estimate that all of them could.
They all possessed some form of cognitive ability - although I'm not too certain about Hss.

Ishtar wrote:

Minimalist wrote:I'm afraid that dear Ish still falls for the religious line that "man" is somehow special.

We aren't all that special. Apes with atomic weapons, hats, and overblown egos.

Where have I said that I think we're special?

That's putting words into my mouth.

And I'm not religious, either.....

I'm not going to import quotes from Koko's, either!

But they didn't interbreed - or not that much, I think I'm right in saying.

So what would that tell us?

Minimalist wrote:

Ishtar wrote:

Minimalist wrote:I'm afraid that dear Ish still falls for the religious line that "man" is somehow special.

We aren't all that special. Apes with atomic weapons, hats, and overblown egos.

Where have I said that I think we're special?

That's putting words into my mouth.

And I'm not religious, either.....

I'm not going to import quotes from Koko's, either!

But I haven't said that on Koko's either .....you're really confusing me now.

You can import quotes if you like .. at least then I'll know what you're talking about. Right now, I'm completely in the dark.

Cognito wrote:

As recent as 50Kya, Neanderthals, Hss, H erectus (Java), and H. floriensis (maybe) were all stomping around the planet

If they were, in fact, different "species."

Bingo! You hit the jackpot.

How many of the above could interbreed? It is my estimate that all of them could.
They all possessed some form of cognitive ability - although I'm not too certain about Hss.

Yeah... the more the Out of Africa crowd screams the more convinced I am about multi-regionalism.

Call me a throwback!

But they didn't interbreed - or not that much, I think I'm right in saying. So what would that tell us?

Admixture studies would disagree with that comment - and I ain't talkin' mtDNA. You have arrived at the core of the issue between OOA and multi-regionalists such as Wolpoff. He argues that there was just enough interbreeding to allow for continuous hybridization, thereby obviating the species bifurcation between Erectus, Neanderthals, and Sapiens. Therefore, nomenclature becomes:

H. sapien erectus
H. sapien neanderthalis
H. sapien sapien

All of the above had cognitive abilities, therefore the sapien designation.

Cognito wrote:You have arrived at the core of the issue between OOA and multi-regionalists such as Wolpoff. He argues that there was just enough interbreeding to allow for continuous hybridization, thereby obviating the species bifurcation between Erectus, Neanderthals, and Sapiens. Therefore, nomenclature becomes:

H. sapien erectus
H. sapien neanderthalis
H. sapien sapien

All of the above had cognitive abilities, therefore the sapien designation.

well, I think that was bloody clever of me to arrive so quickly at the heart of the debate when I'm walking blindfolded in an underground coal cellar on a moonless night!

Probably beginners' luck!

But I'm interested - if it's the heart of the debate between the OAs and the MRs, and Wolpof is putting the hybridisation case - what are the OAs saying about that? What is the other side of the argument?

Sorry to have so many questions ... perhaps you could do a dummies guide for me?

Ish;
I am impressed!
It is a pure defensive battle you seem to be in and you are doing well.
(I am not aware what “Koko” means, I assume another board that I do not frequent. So, like you I am in the dark on some of the arguments flying around.)

Cog;
Doesn’t species interbreeding usually produce sterile offspring?
(Horse/Donkey = Mule)
(I think we have talked about this before and someone brought up the fact that mules are not 100 percent sterile. But the percentage was so low that even in a controlled breeding environment you could not produce a mule/mule offspring.)
So, if you did have a half-breed, or hybrid, in an uncontrolled environment, what would be the chances of it passing on any traits?
Any interbreeding would just be another dead-end.

The math gets to a point that no bookie would touch.