History Channel Series

[KenH]

This series ought to give all of ya'll something to argue over:

www.historychannel.com/apetoman

 

[One View]

I should watch it for comedy purposes. The reenactments are always a hoot.

 

[Alcott]

I saw parts of this doc a few nights ago. Did they say there are at least 6 "failed" species of man?, the most notable of course being the Neandethals. How is it known that absolutely every human today is of one species and has no genetic material of another? Have all the long-isolated peoples, like some pygmies and the native of the forests of New Guinea, been tested to prove they are as "us?" But what if a tribe of a different species of hummans were to be found? Could we give them blood transfusions or accept their blood? Could we interbreed with them?

Finally-- silly question or not-- is it possible that humans regarded as "freaks" growing to 7 1/2 feet tall humpbacked, or having protruded foreheads or super long or short arms or legs, or agilities well beyond normal human limits,...., that they are displaying genes relating to these "other species" of humans which have been dormant in the ancestrol line for thousands of generations, but 'freakishly' emerge on extremely rare occasions?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Alcott:

"How is it known that absolutely every human today is of one species and has no genetic material of another?"

Every human being who has ever lived is a member of the only true species found (Human beings) in the whole human race, since even neo-Darwinist speciators will tell you that one can't scientifically divide the whole human race into different and separate species without being charged with racism.

 

[Alcott]

...since even neo-Darwinist speciators will tell you that one can't scientifically divide the whole human race into different and separate species without being charged with racism.

Not exactly scientific. If any subjects were to be found in some type of isolation which evidence different speciation, would the scientific community cover it up for that fear?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Alcott:
If any subjects were to be found in some type of isolation which evidence different speciation, would the scientific community cover it up for that fear?

Since hundreds of human groups are known to have lived in isolation for hundreds of years if not thousands, without showing any signs of speciation, what scientific reason do neo-Darwinists have for labeling different human fossils as different 'species,' other than solely for purposes of establishing evolutionary links with some 'primitive species' of African humans with common ancestors of some species of African apes?

 

[Daisy]

What would signs of speciation be?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Daisy:
What would signs of speciation be?

That's the mystery of human evolution and what creationists would like neo-Darwinist 'speciators' of our human ancestors to explain to the world.

Why do they classify any ancestral members of our human race as different and separate 'species' other than to associate some 'primitive' human 'species' or race in Africa with common ancestors of non-human African primates?

 

[Daisy]

You contend, "Since hundreds of human groups are known to have lived in isolation for hundreds of years if not thousands, without showing any signs of speciation..."

What signs are these groups failing to show?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Daisy:
You contend, "Since hundreds of human groups are known to have lived in isolation for hundreds of years if not thousands, without showing any signs of speciation..."

What signs are these groups failing to show?

Signs of becoming a different species. In other words, geographic isolation is not going to contribute to any human population evolving into a new species.

 

[UTEOTW]

And I think her question to you is just what signs of speciation you would expect to see after a few hundred years of geographic isolation. You merely asserted the same answer as before. This seems habitual.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
And I think her question to you is just what signs of speciation you would expect to see after a few hundred years of geographic isolation. You merely asserted the same answer as before. This seems habitual.

Almost, but not quite. The time element is something I am setting aside to concentrate on what the signs of speciation are so that we could determine if they are missing or present.

Jcrawford claims the signs are missing, so I'd like him to tell me what they would look like if they weren't missing. How can you tell if a sign is or isn't present if you don't know what a sign of diverging into a separate species should look like?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Daisy:
Jcrawford claims the signs are missing, so I'd like him to tell me what they would look like if they weren't missing. How can you tell if a sign is or isn't present if you don't know what a sign of diverging into a separate species should look like? [/QB]

Since the only true test or "sign" of speciation is the absence or loss of inter-fertility, and all human racial groups seem to be interfertile with each other, there is no true test or "sign" of speciation between any of our fossilized ancestors of the human race either.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
Since the only true test or "sign" of speciation is the absence or loss of inter-fertility, and all human racial groups seem to be interfertile with each other, there is no true test or "sign" of speciation between any of our fossilized ancestors of the human race either.

If there is no true test or sign possible, then it can't be missing.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jcrawford:
Since the only true test or "sign" of speciation is the absence or loss of inter-fertility, and all human racial groups seem to be interfertile with each other, there is no true test or "sign" of speciation between any of our fossilized ancestors of the human race either.

If there is no true test or sign possible, then it can't be missing. </font>[/QUOTE]If you say so.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
If you say so.

You yourself just stated, "...there is no true test...".

If there is no test to test with how can the test be failed?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jcrawford:
If you say so.

You yourself just stated, "...there is no true test...".

If there is no test to test with how can the test be failed? </font>[/QUOTE]In failing to test for interfertility between so-called neo-Darwinist 'different and separate species' in the human fossil record, neo-Darwinist theories of either the human race's or a human 'species' evolution out of Africa miserably 'fail' the test of true science.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

How would you suggest they do that?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
How would you suggest they do that?

That's just the point. They can't, and since they can't, we might just as well assume that all the thousands of human fossils in the human fossil record are just morphological variations of the past human race which really indicate the racial diversity within our human ancestral family tree.

That's why all theories pertaining to the evolution of human 'species' are a camouflaged form of scientific racism. Neo-Darwinists divide the past human race up into 'different and separate species,' only in order to apply Darwin's evolutionary theories pertaining to the 'origin of species,' to the human race when there is no scientific test which can prove that any of our fossilized ancestors really were a 'different and separate species' at all.