vaxx:
interesting,there are differences between anthropologists interpretation on how they interpret the evidence. Those anthropologists who think that H. homo eectus is a separate, distinct species would say that heidelbergensis is the direct ancestor of both H. sapiens and H. neanderthal (and possibly H. denisovan, too). The ancestor of H. heidelbergensis is H. ergaster/erectus found in (Africa).

Those anthropologists who look at the differences between the fossils of H. heidelbergensis do not view it as a separate species, but rather as a conglomeration of transitional individuals. The fossils in Africa link H. ergaster to H. sapiens. The H. heidelbergensis fossils in Europe are transitional between H. ergaster and H. neanderthal.

In either case, H. sapiens evolved from H. ergaster/H. erectus (Africa). The difference is whether there is an intermediate species — H. heidelbergensis — in the family tree. So H. ergaster would be our “father” or “grandfather” species.

Most anthropologists now view H. erectus in Java as a different species than H. ergaster. The evidence indicates that when members of H. ergaster migrated from Africa that one population in Northern China evolved to H. pekinsiensis (Peking Man) and another population in SE Asia evolved to H. erectus (Java Man) that was discoved in the island of java

http://www.efossils.org/species/homo-ergaster....

H. ergaster and the H. heidelbergensis are still very much like the homo-erectus and other pre humans species than they are like humans. Humans are still very much different.

nwabekeyi:
I don't need primary school knowledge to know evolution, this same primary school knowledge told us that sunrises in the east and sets in the west.

I still stand my ground that homo sapein didn't evolve directly from homo erectus, go back and read well and stop telling me a primary school rhyme.

Homo sapiens never evolved directly from homo erectus

Not all anthropologist agree with u. becareful of ur assertiveness?

nwabekeyi:
I don't need primary school knowledge to know evolution, this same primary school knowledge told us that sunrises in the east and sets in the west.

I still stand my ground that homo sapein didn't evolve directly from homo erectus, go back and read well and stop telling me a primary school rhyme.

Homo sapiens never evolved directly from homo erectus

What did homo sapiens evolve from then?

Are you an intellectual masochist? You seem to enjoy being wrong.

SoundLock:


Don't compare astronomy with evolutionary science surrounding the origin of man. Astronomy is couched in facts that can be repeatedly tested and replicated. Evolutionary science surrounding the evolution of man is just conjecturing; claims without compelling evidence and fudging of information to suit a historical narrative.

It's still the same scientists that are telling us that human civilization is only very recent when the evidence suggests that it's thousands of years older and far more advanced than we are made to believe.

There is a lot of knowledge that's kept from the population; knowledge that would shake the very grounds of our society and orthodox evolutionary and archeological science is being used as an instrument to conceal this knowledge.

don't tell me not to compare astronomy to evolution because astronomy as a field is somehow linked to evolution.

Evolution goes beyond humans and astronomy details that and even looks at how earth planetary changes has influenced humans in the past and vice versa and it will also be used to predict further evolutionary lines, you really come on your keyboard and call all these guys confused just because you don't understand the concept behind it.

Actually, No. Humans never evolved from Neanderthals and this is a widely accepted notion in the scientific community. There are (were) two dominant theories on how the Neanderthals became extinct, however recent DNA studies (fraction of Neanderthal DNA in Asians, Europeans etc but not in Africans) give credence to the interbreeding theory.

That's by the way, evolution is sort of like a description of the history of species with regard to relationships between common ancestors. I think it is therefore erroneous to say humans evolved from Neanderthals, rather, modern man and Neanderthals share(d) a common ancestor.

Much to be learned here, good explanations you've provided, I like when you go down to the molecular when you elaborate.

I am by no means an expert in the subject or a biologist, however, if there is one thing that I strongly disagree with, is you saying 'evolution is creation' probably in a different language. I wouldn't indulge religious looneys looking for gaps in scientific theories simply to give credence to their favorite book of imaginary friends and talking donkeys. How many more passes should these ancient mythological texts in trying to explain anything? From the universe moving round the earth to the world created in six days?

Religion might serve its multiplicities of benign purposes but explaining reality is where it fails and has always failed since inception, and where it hasn't, you certainly find ignorance.

nwabekeyi:
science still believe that we evolved directly from neanthertals and not homo erectus.

Homo erectus were not the immediate pregnitors of humans. I really do not know where you got this information about changing evolutionary line and saying science is confused about evolution is like saying that astronomers who predicted several eclipses that actually happened were also confused.

nwabekeyi:
you are busy looking for error but got yourself into showing you ignorance, homo sapiens never directly evolved from homo erectus, drop your primary school knowledge and read further to know how Homo heidelbergensis played a role.

Lolz

Stop being ignorant and learn. You are not yet that knowledgeable about evolution and if you were you would seen the significance of wording in what I posted.

Here is it again

Anatomically modern humans are thought to have evolved from Homo erectus between 300,000 and 200,000 years

Did you notice anything this time?

SoundLock:


What did homo sapiens evolve from then?

Are you an intellectual masochist? You seem to enjoy being wrong.

Homo heidelbergensis via the subspecie Homo rhodesiensis.

The crude knowledge in secondary school won't tell you this, you have to dig further, you can try and learn more about it online

SoundLock:


H. ergaster and the H. heidelbergensis are still very much like the homo-erectus and other pre humans species than they are like humans. Humans are still very much different.

i agree with u, but there is no consensus agreement from the angle of the anthropologist on this subject. but more likely Homo sapiens and Homo erectus has a common ancestor that we both evolved from.At least that is the current accepted idea. It might of course change if we ever get more information.

nwabekeyi:
don't tell me not to compare astronomy to evolution because astronomy as a field is somehow linked to evolution.

Evolution goes beyond humans and astronomy details that and even looks at how earth planetary changes has influenced humans in the past and vice versa and it will also be used to predict further evolutionary lines, you really come on your keyboard and call all these guys confused just because you don't understand the concept behind it.

If you read my post carefully you'd see that I specifically said not to compare astronomy with evolutionary science surrounding the evolution of man. And I've said it many times on this thread that I'm not against evolution, I agree it occurs, but it doesn't explain the emergence of man on planet earth, and you've done a piss poor job at refuting my claims.

TheEminentLaity:
Actually, No. Humans never evolved from Neanderthals and this is a widely accepted notion in the scientific community. There are (were) two dominant theories on how the Neanderthals became extinct, however recent DNA studies (fraction of Neanderthal DNA in Asians, Europeans etc but not in Africans) give credence to the interbreeding theory.

That's by the way, evolution is sort of like a description of the history of species with regard to relationships between common ancestors. I think it is therefore erroneous to say humans evolved from Neanderthals, rather, modern man and Neanderthals share(d) a common ancestor.

Much to be learned here, good explanations you've provided, I like when you go down to the molecular when you elaborate.

I am by no means an expert in the subject or a biologist, however, if there is one thing that I strongly disagree with, is you saying 'evolution is creation' probably in a different language. I wouldn't indulge religious looneys looking for gaps in scientific theories simply to give credence to their favorite book of imaginary friends and talking donkeys. How many more passes should these ancient mythological texts in trying to explain anything? From the universe moving round the earth to the world created in six days?

Religion might serve its multiplicities of benign purposes but explaining reality is where it fails and has always failed since inception, and where it hasn't, you certainly find ignorance.

I have corrected that post before now, I meant to type Homo rhodesiensis, was in rush to respond to the guy

nwabekeyi:
I have corrected that post before now, I meant to type Homo rhodesiensis, was in rush to respond to the guy

u always rush to response

nwabekeyi:
I have corrected that post before now, I meant to type Homo rhodesiensis, was in rush to respond to the guy

Ahem, cough cough there is a whole wording difference between Neanderthals and homo rhodesiensis. I would rather put it down as an after thought which occurred when you got shown your error.

nwabekeyi:
Homo heidelbergensis via the subspecie Homo rhodesiensis.

The crude knowledge in secondary school won't tell you this, you have to dig further, you can try and learn more about it online

Now you are saying something completely different. At first your claim was that humans evolved from Neanderthals and not from Homo erectus. After your ignorance has been pointed out you are now shifting gears.

Why don't you defend your earlier claim that humans evolved from Neanderthals?

nwabekeyi:
I have corrected that post before now, I meant to type Homo rhodesiensis, was in rush to respond to the guy

.

Such a liar.

SoundLock:


If you read my post carefully you'd see that I specifically said not to compare astronomy with evolutionary science surrounding the evolution of man. And I've said it many times on this thread that I'm not against evolution, I agree it occurs, but it doesn't explain the emergence of man on planet earth, and you've done a piss poor job at refuting my claims.

if you don't understand it then don't call them confused sir, I see you are even willing to drop your own ideas first so you can accept new ideas.
If you want us to share ideas, I'm ready, be specific and be open-minded

SoundLock:


Now you are saying something completely different. At first your claim was that humans evolved from Neanderthals and not from Homo erectus. After your ignorance has been pointed out you are now shifting gears.

Why don't you defend you earlier claim that humans evolved from Neanderthals?

I have already said I had to make that mistake cos I was in rush to reply, I can never accept that humans directly evolved from homo erectus like you said. Every evolutionist knows this

vaxx:
do not be lazy
buda.....goggle gene mutation and read up

I did. Came up with three sorts - insertion, deletion and duplication. Are there others you might point me to please?

nwabekeyi:
I have already said I had to make that mistake cos I was in rush to reply, I can never accept that humans directly evolved from homo erectus like you said. Every evolutionist knows this

Please, take time. And avoid the trolls! They get in the way of knowledge dissemination.

And if you don't mind pm me paypal so I can pay £10 for opening this thread.

nwabekeyi:
if you don't understand it then don't call them confused sir, I see you are even willing to drop your own ideas first so you can accept new ideas.
If you want us to share ideas, I'm ready, be specific and be open-minded

They are very confused and they will keep on being confused until they change their premise. Humans didn't evolve naturally from preceding primates. We were very likely genetically engineered or created anew by something. You can call it God if you want. I don't care.

It doesn't even take more than common sense to realize that you aren't like other animals.

Here is link showing how confused your evolutionary scientists are concerning the origin of man.

http://theconversation.com/worlds-scientists-turn-to-asia-and-australia-to-rewrite-human-history-88697

budaatum:

Please, take time. And avoid the trolls! They get in the way of knowledge dissemination.

And if you don't mind pm me paypal so I can pay £10 for opening this thread.

thanks boss, it's all about sharing ideas and nobody can know it all sir...

We keep doing our best to enlighten our people

SoundLock:


They are very confused and they will keep on being confused until they change their premise. Humans didn't evolve from anything. We were very likely genetically engineered or created anew by something. You can call it God if you want. I don't care.

It doesn't even take more than common sense to realize that you aren't like other animals.

Here is link showing how confused your evolutionary scientists are concerning the origin of man.

http://theconversation.com/worlds-scientists-turn-to-asia-and-australia-to-rewrite-human-history-88697

human didn't evolve from anything?

Are you saying evolution of living things never happened, or it stopped at a point then humans were created ?

SoundLock:


They are very confused and they will keep on being confused until they change their premise. Humans didn't evolve naturally from preceding primates. We were very likely genetically engineered or created anew by something. You can call it God if you want. I don't care.

It doesn't even take more than common sense to realize that you aren't like other animals.

Here is link showing how confused your evolutionary scientists are concerning the origin of man.

http://theconversation.com/worlds-scientists-turn-to-asia-and-australia-to-rewrite-human-history-88697

Now this is what I call a new idea. Something worth pondering on.

How come we experienced such an explosion of change in practically all areas of human evolution in such a short time? How come we are totally different from the rest?

The other allegedly evolved animals still hold many similarities. Even the Ape DNA which we were once said to share similarities at genetic levels with have been proven to be totally untrue and that our DNA is extremely far more different from theirs.

Something definitely isn't adding up.

this is one of the best threads I've seen on nairaland,where are all those creationists and their questions,una don see knowledge una no wan talk again

Butterflyleo:


Now this is what I call a new idea. Something worth pondering on.

How come we experienced such an explosion of change in practically all areas of human evolution in such a short time? How come we are totally different from the rest?

The other allegedly evolved animals still hold many similarities. Even the Ape DNA which we were once said to share similarities at genetic levels with have been proven to be totally untrue and that our DNA is extremely far more different from theirs.

Something definitely isn't adding up.

stop disgracing yourself

darkchild64:


stop disgracing yourself

More like you have no inkling about what is being said so find it intriguing.

I get you

nwabekeyi:
human didn't evolve from anything?

Are you saying evolution of living things never happened, or it stopped at a point then humans were created ?

By anything, I meant from evolving naturally from primates.

Evolution is still happening among life forms on this planet. I'm not disputing that, but in the case of the emergence of humans on earth, human evolution (if I'll even call it that) wasn't natural. It was likely rapidly expedited or humans were created anew by a higher intelligence.

Butterflyleo:


More like you have no inkling about what is being said so find it intriguing.

I get you

can u ever ignore a mention for once,just for once

Anyway I no get time for your wahala did evening,its just that I noticed no one was responding to u and I decided to indulge u a bit,I'm sure seeing someone quoting u must have giving u an erection,but I must say u have matured a bit,was expecting u to to respond to me thrice with ur long messages

All the same take my advice

SoundLock:


By anything, I meant from evolving naturally from primates.

Evolution is still happening among life forms on this planet. I'm not disputing that, but in the case of the emergence of humans on earth, human evolution (if I'll even call it that) wasn't natural. It was likely rapidly expedited or humans were created anew by a higher intelligence.

why do you think humans were created by a higher being? Because you really contradict yourself if you think evolution is still occurring and you also think humans won't also evolve in a constantly changing environment, how possible is that?

Can you also provide proof to this?

budaatum:

I did. Came up with three sorts - insertion, deletion and duplication. Are there others you might point me to please?

insertions likely stands for addition i assume.

Butterflyleo:


Now this is what I call a new idea. Something worth pondering on.

How come we experienced such an explosion of change in practically all areas of human evolution in such a short time? How come we are totally different from the rest?

The other allegedly evolved animals still hold many similarities. Even the Ape DNA which we were once said to share similarities at genetic levels with have been proven to be totally untrue and that our DNA is extremely far more different from theirs.

Something definitely isn't adding up.

And I haven't even brought up the big question of consciousness: Why only humans have it and why science hasn't discovered how it originated and it's point of locality in the human body.

People like to think that the ancients who told stories of being created by Gods were all stupid people fabricating nonsense. Well I don't think they were. I think there is some truth in all their similar accounts. They all talk of Gods from the skies coming down on earth and creating humans. Every single human civilization, even our own Nigerian cultures, had this story. I don't think it's a coincidence.

nwabekeyi:
why do you think humans were created by a higher being? Because you really contradict yourself if you think evolution is still occurring and you also think humans won't also evolve in a constantly changing environment, how possible is that?

Can you also provide proof to this?

what kind of species will human likely evolve to in the future?

nwabekeyi:
why do you think humans were created by a higher being? Because you really contradict yourself if you think evolution is still occurring and you also think humans won't also evolve in a constantly changing environment, how possible is that?

Can you also provide proof to this?

My proof is embedded in my earliest posts where I stated how unrealistic it was from an evolutionary standpoint, given the overnight transformations in anatomical and physiological features, which I listed, that humans evolved from preceding primates.