QUOTE = Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"If you look at observations of speciation events in modern times and if you look at the pattern of speciation events in the fossil record, you see that they generally occur when some portion of a population becomes isolated from the rest and they diverge."
You are making the mistake of intitially assuming that human speciation is evident or can be inferred from the human fossil record simply because there is some slight morphological variety in the contours of human fossil skulls and brain cavities ranging from 700-2000 cm as is also common today.
"Staying on topic with the human fossils, you see that throughout most of human evolution that there have been multiple species on the planet ata given time."
This is your second mistake. You are simply assuming and positing both evolution and speciation of humans according to the human fossils by interpreting a morphological continuum as a chronological one and superimposing an evolutionary scenario on diverse individuals in history as the inevitable consequence.
"The second fatal mistake you are making is suggesting that various fossils with significant anatomical differences should not be grouped into different species."
The fact of the matter is that all post-cranial fossil remains of human beings show no morphological or anatomical differences from people today and that the slight morphological variations found in human skull and jaw fossils are no more indicative of human speciation than the wide range of human physical diversity on earth today. That's why Lubenow considers all evolutionist beliefs about human speciation to be a form of scientific racism, albeit only in reference to teaching about our various human ancestors, of course.
"You keep making the assertion that we cannot know for sure that they were different species because we cannot do hybridization testing. But you ignore the significant fact that the various species of human ancestors can be grouped by very specfic anatomical differences. Each group has specific characteristics shared with each other but changed in other species."
You keep referring to the various ancestral groups of our human forebears as different and separate "species" though, just because some of their fossilized jaws and skulls show a different kind of human diversity than we observe in people today. The question which Lubenow seems to be both raising and answering in his seminal treatise on the human fossils and paleoanthropological interpretations thereof, is whether identifying, classifying, labeling and otherizing people by the shape, size and significance of their jaws, teeth and cranial cavities for "scientific" purposes is a subtle form of discrimination and racism. Having read his book several times, I tend to think that it is.
"You assert that brain size is the only one that matters and then choose a huge range of brain sizes to split all of the various fossils into just two groups for your own convenience."
You are fatally mistaken here because what you accuse me of doing is what theoretical evolutionists have been doing for over 100 years.
"You then ignore traits such as the presence and size of brow ridges, the presence of an occibital bun, the lack or presence of a chin, facial prognathism, the shape of the dental arcades, size of canine teeth, size and shape of long bones and patterns in the crests of molars to name just a few."
You're absolutely right for a change! Lubenow and I wouldn't care if someone had no brow ridges at all, an occibital bun, a chin or not, facial prognathism or jutting jaws, dental arcades, huge canine teeth, or any teeth, for that matter since people come in all shapes, sizes, shades, colors, skin tones, ear, eye and nose shapes, to name just a few of the common traits and differences humanity has always exhibited. Why anyone would want to divide us into special taxonomic groups or species based on our physical appearances is beyond me and Lubenow.
"But even if you cast this wide net and declare them all the same species, it still does not matter."
You just don't care what anybody else thinks, do you? Especially if they don't go along with your pet theories about African Eve evolving from hairy African apes once upon a time in Africa before photography was invented.
"There is still a record of change in humans that clearly shows evolution."
Where are you hiding this "record" of yours and why don't you "clearly" show the rest of us mortals on the Baptist Board exactly how some lucky African people "evolved" or "descended" from some African apes before they migrated to Georgia?
"Even if the various species were interfertile, the major changes in morphology with time are still there. Use all the semantics you want, they are still there."
Time is fleeting. Time is passing but fossils are forever. If it wasn't for semantics, the fossils couldn't speak and the meaning of evolution wouldn't change from day to day.
[Evasive answer, seeing how no transitionals have ever been discovered or 'produced.']
"Eusthenopteron, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Proterogyrinus, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis, Protorosaurus, Prolacerta, Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus, Clepsydrops, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Procynosuchus, Thrinaxodon, Diademodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Adelobasileus, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Steropodon, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops, Deinonychus, Oviraptor, Lisboasaurus, Archeopteryx, Protoavis, Sinornis, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Protocetes, Indocetus, Prozeuglodon, Eocetus, Dorudon, Agorophius, Aetiocetus... Just to name a very small example of some transitionals."
Nice list. Nothing to do with existentionalism or human evolution, of course.
"If you look at observations of speciation events in modern times and if you look at the pattern of speciation events in the fossil record, you see that they generally occur when some portion of a population becomes isolated from the rest and they diverge."
You are making the mistake of intitially assuming that human speciation is evident or can be inferred from the human fossil record simply because there is some slight morphological variety in the contours of human fossil skulls and brain cavities ranging from 700-2000 cm as is also common today.
"Staying on topic with the human fossils, you see that throughout most of human evolution that there have been multiple species on the planet ata given time."
This is your second mistake. You are simply assuming and positing both evolution and speciation of humans according to the human fossils by interpreting a morphological continuum as a chronological one and superimposing an evolutionary scenario on diverse individuals in history as the inevitable consequence.
"The second fatal mistake you are making is suggesting that various fossils with significant anatomical differences should not be grouped into different species."
The fact of the matter is that all post-cranial fossil remains of human beings show no morphological or anatomical differences from people today and that the slight morphological variations found in human skull and jaw fossils are no more indicative of human speciation than the wide range of human physical diversity on earth today. That's why Lubenow considers all evolutionist beliefs about human speciation to be a form of scientific racism, albeit only in reference to teaching about our various human ancestors, of course.
"You keep making the assertion that we cannot know for sure that they were different species because we cannot do hybridization testing. But you ignore the significant fact that the various species of human ancestors can be grouped by very specfic anatomical differences. Each group has specific characteristics shared with each other but changed in other species."
You keep referring to the various ancestral groups of our human forebears as different and separate "species" though, just because some of their fossilized jaws and skulls show a different kind of human diversity than we observe in people today. The question which Lubenow seems to be both raising and answering in his seminal treatise on the human fossils and paleoanthropological interpretations thereof, is whether identifying, classifying, labeling and otherizing people by the shape, size and significance of their jaws, teeth and cranial cavities for "scientific" purposes is a subtle form of discrimination and racism. Having read his book several times, I tend to think that it is.
"You assert that brain size is the only one that matters and then choose a huge range of brain sizes to split all of the various fossils into just two groups for your own convenience."
You are fatally mistaken here because what you accuse me of doing is what theoretical evolutionists have been doing for over 100 years.
"You then ignore traits such as the presence and size of brow ridges, the presence of an occibital bun, the lack or presence of a chin, facial prognathism, the shape of the dental arcades, size of canine teeth, size and shape of long bones and patterns in the crests of molars to name just a few."
You're absolutely right for a change! Lubenow and I wouldn't care if someone had no brow ridges at all, an occibital bun, a chin or not, facial prognathism or jutting jaws, dental arcades, huge canine teeth, or any teeth, for that matter since people come in all shapes, sizes, shades, colors, skin tones, ear, eye and nose shapes, to name just a few of the common traits and differences humanity has always exhibited. Why anyone would want to divide us into special taxonomic groups or species based on our physical appearances is beyond me and Lubenow.
"But even if you cast this wide net and declare them all the same species, it still does not matter."
You just don't care what anybody else thinks, do you? Especially if they don't go along with your pet theories about African Eve evolving from hairy African apes once upon a time in Africa before photography was invented.
"There is still a record of change in humans that clearly shows evolution."
Where are you hiding this "record" of yours and why don't you "clearly" show the rest of us mortals on the Baptist Board exactly how some lucky African people "evolved" or "descended" from some African apes before they migrated to Georgia?
"Even if the various species were interfertile, the major changes in morphology with time are still there. Use all the semantics you want, they are still there."
Time is fleeting. Time is passing but fossils are forever. If it wasn't for semantics, the fossils couldn't speak and the meaning of evolution wouldn't change from day to day.
[Evasive answer, seeing how no transitionals have ever been discovered or 'produced.']
"Eusthenopteron, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Proterogyrinus, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis, Protorosaurus, Prolacerta, Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus, Clepsydrops, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Procynosuchus, Thrinaxodon, Diademodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Adelobasileus, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Steropodon, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops, Deinonychus, Oviraptor, Lisboasaurus, Archeopteryx, Protoavis, Sinornis, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Protocetes, Indocetus, Prozeuglodon, Eocetus, Dorudon, Agorophius, Aetiocetus... Just to name a very small example of some transitionals."
Nice list. Nothing to do with existentionalism or human evolution, of course.