Other humanoid species?

E

Ekimklaw

Believer in God
Registered Senior Member
the other day I was watching "Lord Of The Rings" and of course there were Dwarfs, Elves, Hobbits, orcs, trolls, etc. And I started wondering... if life evolved over the course of billions of years, why is mankind the only humanoid specie on earth. Why aren't there other intelligent lifeforms here. Why just humans?

I'd like your thoughts...

-Mike
 
Because the first one with an opposable thumb picks up a club and beats the fuck out of the other contenders? :)

But seriously, on a geologic time scale we are a recent phenomenon, if we waited a couple of ticks (geologic clock) and didnt wipe them out we might have company.
 
Yea, human beings are <b>very</b> recent in terms of the age of the Earth. Give it enough time and we probably will have other humanoid species, especially if we inhabit other planets. What is more likely to happen is that humans will fork into other species, rather than another species joins humans.
Of course, we are likely to kill any other species with pollution anyways. :)
 
When man finally leaves the planet to explore the rest of the universe it seems possible that other species might evolve intelligence and take over.

How about chimps, or dogs, or dolphins?

I saw a TV news item this evening that showed a crow using a piece of wire which he had bent at the end to hook out some food from a narrow container. That demonstrates adaptibility and the rudiments of intelliegence.

Who knows how the animal world will evolve if we leave them alone.
 
dolphins are the most intelegent specise on earth at the moment (INCLUDING humans)
 
But for dolphins to evolve further they need to be faced with a challenge that will force them to adapt. All the time the ocean is comfortable and they have everything they need then they are not likely to change.

On the other hand land creatures are more likely to be faced with challenges that will encourage change and adaption.
 
Also, there were other humanoid species, eg. Neanderthals. But they lost out to, or interbred with Homo Sapiens.
 
you know why?

Humans have been in war with ither humans over centurys. The war could be for territory, food, and other resources, or differences. The other species probably had existed but were destroyed because they encountered humans.

so we humans rule
 
Originally posted by Joeman
They got fucked over by humans.
Click to expand...


This is a glittering jewel of atheist thought. Concise, to the point, and devoid of sentimentality. Furthermore it is put forth with confidence.

Congrats Joeman. You may be the poet laureate of Atheists.

-Mike
 
As to the responses to my question about why there aren't other species of humans, well, I was a bit off the mark with the question. As you know, all lifeforms are devided into segments:

1. Kingdom
2. Phylum
3. class
4. order
5. family
6. genus
7. species

It may become aparent that there are different species of humans. Namely mongoloid, negroid, australoid, and caucasoid. We call these races.

My question was a simple scientific one. If we have been evolving over billions of years where are the other "families" of humanoids?

These answers:

"...on a geologic time scale we are a recent phenomenon."
"...human beings are very recent in terms of the age of the Earth."

That my friends is fiction. Plain and simple. There is not one shred of proof that we are a recent development, and requires more faith than believing in God does. Not only that but it conveniently sweeps my question, which casts a negative light on evolution, under the rug where it can be ignored.

You'll have to do better.

-Mike
 
That my friends is fiction. Plain and simple. There is not one shred of proof that we are a recent development, and requires more faith than believing in God does. Not only that but it conveniently sweeps my question, which casts a negative light on evolution, under the rug where it can be ignored.
Click to expand...

Mike,
You seem like a level-headed guy. So how can you say there is NO evidence that we are a recent development in the history of life on earth? Have you picked up a general science book in the last couple of decades? Are you going to tell me that God put the dinosaur bones in the ground just to make things interesting? Faith can be a good thing, just don't be blinded by it...
 
Originally posted by Ekimklaw
My question was a simple scientific one. If we have been evolving over billions of years where are the other "families" of humanoids?
Click to expand...

We are the only members of our humanoid family that survive. The others can be found in the fossil record. Why didn't they survive as well? Probably due to the aggressive and territorial nature of modern humans. As our ancestors multiplied and spread, they snuffed out all competition in their wake. Simply put, our species won the war. How? Probably superior intelligence which means better organization, strategy and tool-making (the latter is well-established), plus higher all-around efficiency.

I tend not to like the interbreeding hypothesis; most modern people wouldn't want to mate with a human-like moron of questionable ape-like appearance. Isolated cases are inevitable, but wholesale interbreeding is unlikely. So I tend to side with violence (whether direct warlike, resource-hogging, or both) as the best explanation.

There is not one shred of proof that we are a recent development, and requires more faith than believing in God does.
Click to expand...

No modern human fossils and/or artifacts have been found beyond a certain cutoff in time. It stands to reason that prior to that point modern humans did not exist. That point is not very far back in time; about a hundred thousand years. That's geologically recent.

Not only that but it conveniently sweeps my question, which casts a negative light on evolution, under the rug where it can be ignored.
Click to expand...

Which is..?
 
==============================================
fadingCaptain wrote:
Mike,
You seem like a level-headed guy.
==============================================


And a huge GBV fan as well!!


==============================================
fadingCaptain wrote:
So how can you say there is NO evidence that we are a recent development in the history of life on earth? Have you picked up a general science book in the last couple of decades? Are you going to tell me that God put the dinosaur bones in the ground just to make things interesting?
==============================================



My point is you are making huge assumptions. You have taken the hypothysis of the geologic timetable as holy writ. Dating methods are not an exact science. After all many doubts have been raised about carbon dating and other methods. (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/dating.html) Since none of us were there when things first came into being, you cannot be dogmatically sure unless you use a modicum of faith.

There is some evidence that dinosaurs existed well into the age of man (http://www.triumphpro.com/dinosaurs.htm). To emphatically say that "man is a recent development" in the age of the Earth is not accurate.

Scientists themselves claim that "early man arose 3 to 4 million years ago". Did anything exist before? They don't know. So how do you know for sure this is the starting point? You don't. You BELIEVE it was -- based on flawed dating methods, and gross supposition.

Rest assured I am not blinded by faith. There is very good reasoning behind all my beliefs. As skeptical as I am by nature, I take no decision lightly. You may disagree with the conclusions I have derived, but they are my convictions. You have your own.

- Mike
 
Dating methods: individually unreliable; best when several different methods are used.

Human/dinosaur tracks: typically found "side by side" in river beds and flood plains; human tracks (when they are indeed human and genuine) are deposited much later on top of dinosaur tracks exposed on the surface through erosion.

"Modern" artifacts found in ancient strata: anecdotal and never independently verified in an objective way in-situ. Any attempts are thwarted by the "discoverers" who of course want to "keep the credit" for the "find".

Claims like these are nothing new. They had been made ever since Darwin, and even earlier. As a matter of fact, it is a testimony to the strength of the geological timetable that after all these centuries of widespread and mostly virulent Christian opposition, the current theories have been able to congeal and survive. Even the Roman Catholic theocracy finally bowed to the strength of the evidence.

As for "early man", note this is not modern man. These are the ancestral or related genera that you've been claiming are missing. As for what existed "before" -- clearly a common ancestor for apes and monkeys. It was obviously a mammal, tracing its ancestry back to the first mouse-like mammals that evolved from small reptiles (dinosaurs).

The "global flood" myth does not agree with observation. Genetic evidence of common descent through modification is in-your-face. Ancient species still surviving today (even after forming other species as off-shoots) are in no way a refutation of evolution. Ancient species no longer existing today are in no way a refutation of evolution.

If you're not "blinded by faith", then you have surely seen the successful challenges and refutations of all the objections you've posted (including through the websites you referenced.) You choose not to believe them in favor of your favorite mythology; that's your subjective choice. Just keep in mind: Christians are not the only religion in the world that desperately wants the physical record to agree with its creation myth. Blatant and express confirmation bias makes for a quick way to becoming the laughing stock of a crackpot.
 
Last edited:
And a huge GBV fan as well!!
Click to expand...
Surely you know that Bob Pollard is the anti-christ! :D I mean, that guy drinks more than my dad which is no small amount. Ok, I'll try to get back on topic here...

Mike,
Your arguments against current accepted origins of modern man have all been debunked countless times before. You really need to read more. There is a wealth of information on the internet but it is useless if you simply visit the websites that uphold your current ideals. Are you afraid that there is a possiblity that you are wrong? I am sure there is a possibility that I am wrong, therefore I always try and look at both sides of an opposing argument. This allows me to make clear and honest decisions on my beliefs.
Here is the one of the first websites that came up on a google query for 'paluxy'. It gives many references to the topic:
http://www.usd.edu/anth/cultarch/paluxybib.html
Here is a faq at talkorigins about paluxy, read this and compare it to the link you gave.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
If you still think man and dinosaurs lived together, that is fine. I just wanted to make sure you knew there was plenty of evidence to suggest the claims in your link were wrong.

Lastly, you have already claimed you are biased and it is obvious your research is an attempt to foster your beliefs. All this is your perogative and I am not one to tell you how to live your life. But you cannot say you truly are in seach of absolute truth. It takes an independent and unbiased mind to make that claim. But hey as long as you are happy, that's cool by me. Keep rockin to gbv. :)
 
==============================================
fadingCaptain wrote:
Surely you know that Bob Pollard is the anti-christ! :D I mean, that guy drinks more than my dad which is no small amount.
==============================================


Yeah, I think he could drink Joe Cocker under the table.


==============================================
fadingCaptain wrote:
Your arguments against current accepted origins of modern man have all been debunked countless times before. You really need to read more.
==============================================


I understand what you mean. Trust me, I read and have read a lot on the subject.


==============================================
fadingCaptain wrote:
There is a wealth of information on the internet but it is useless if you simply visit the websites that uphold your current ideals.
==============================================


True. But of course that knife cuts both ways. ;)


==============================================
fadingCaptain wrote:
Are you afraid that there is a possiblity that you are wrong?
==============================================



No not at all. I used to be that way. I used to be affraid (back when I was 15 or so) that if I studied "the other side", I would lose my faith. This occurred to some extent when I became pro-evolution when I was in high school.

Anyway, just trust me when I say, I have studied this subject.



==============================================
fadingCaptain wrote:
I am sure there is a possibility that I am wrong, therefore I always try and look at both sides of an opposing argument. This allows me to make clear and honest decisions on my beliefs.
==============================================



And that's cool. I do to. More power to ya! (also... I have been all over "talkorigins")



==============================================
fadingCaptain wrote:
Lastly, you have already claimed you are biased and it is obvious your research is an attempt to foster your beliefs.
==============================================


Remember as I explained it's bias AFTER the fact. Not before. (I explained this in detail). Everybody presents evidence to support their own view. That is nothing new.



==============================================
fadingCaptain wrote:
All this is your perogative and I am not one to tell you how to live your life. But you cannot say you truly are in seach of absolute truth. It takes an independent and unbiased mind to make that claim.
==============================================



Remember... yes, I am convinced of the truth, even though there are many things I don't know. For instance, I am not 100% positive that dinosaurs existed at the same time man did. But they may have. I am not 100% certain that this is a young Earth as opposed to an old Earth. But it may be. And so on.

I just present these things to show you that evolution isn't 100% certain either. We are left to size up the evidence and go with what makes the most sense to us. That is our choice.

I want you to understand that I hold no ill will or malice toward you if you are an evolutionist. I assume that you made your inquiry and came up with the most plausable theory in your mind.

Now that you are convinced of your point of view, you tend to bias your views against creationism. That's fine, and perfectly understandable.



==============================================
fadingCaptain wrote:
But hey as long as you are happy, that's cool by me. Keep rockin to gbv. :)
==============================================



Oh yeah!!!! You know it!!! (The new GBV CD is great).

Take it easy FC!

-Mike
 
Originally posted by Asguard
dolphins are the most intelegent specise on earth at the moment (INCLUDING humans)
Click to expand...

Yes, but intelligent how? If they are smarter than us why don't they show it. Much research has been done with dolphins and yet all they show is that they can learn quickly. They are without a doubt the most intelligent animal on the planet, but not species. We still can out-think and out-manuvuer any dolphin.
 
As to the responses to my question about why there aren't other species of humans, well, I was a bit off the mark with the question. As you know, all lifeforms are devided into segments:

As to the responses to my question about why there aren't other species of humans, well, I was a bit off the mark with the question. As you know, all lifeforms are devided into segments:

1. Kingdom
2. Phylum
3. class
4. order
5. family
6. genus
7. species

It may become aparent that there are different species of humans. Namely mongoloid, negroid, australoid, and caucasoid. We call these races.
Click to expand...

No. These are not species. There is no reproductive isolation

My question was a simple scientific one. If we have been evolving over billions of years where are the other "families" of humanoids?
Click to expand...

Your question is based on the incorrect premise that evolutionary theory necessitates more than one humanoid "family". <br>
<center><a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html"><img src="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/images/bigtree2.GIF" /></center></a><br><p> How about these guys? Click to visit, the original at the smithsonian is all nicely image-mapped.

These answers:

"...on a geologic time scale we are a recent phenomenon."
"...human beings are very recent in terms of the age of the Earth."

That my friends is fiction. Plain and simple. There is not one shred of proof that we are a recent development, and requires more faith than believing in God does.
Click to expand...

Hell, no. There is this thing called the geological column. Humans and human artifacts are never,ever found in the Cambrian, Ordovican or Cretaecous strata, for example. If you think the geologic column is the work of crazy satano-geologists consider how it syncs up geographically and morphologically. Consider also that about forty different types of dating confirm the youthfulness of the human race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top