TED Conversations

Theodore Holden

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

An rigorous case can be made for the proposition that modern humans cannot be native to this planet.

Hominid eye sockets and nasal areas were much larger than those of modern humans. The huge eyes of hominids and dinosaurs and even a few leftover creatures like lemurs and tarsiers, were adaptations to a very dark sort of a world. In the case of dinosaurs, the large eyes pertained in carnivores and herbivores alike

Humans by way of contrast have the smallest relative eye size of advanced creatures.

If you want to believe that humans evolved from hominids on this planet, you need to believe that some hominid/human-wannabee:

Lost his fur coat while ice ages were going on.
Lost 99% of his sense of smell while trying to make it as a land prey animal
Lost almost all of his night vision at a time when night was the only time of day to be had.

You say that doesn't sound like a formula for success?

If, on the other hand, you prefer to believe that God created modern man fully formed on this world, then there is a question as to whether God would create a creature on a world for which the creature was spectacularly ill-adapted. There's nothing in the Bible about God being stupid....

There actually is a reasonable thesis to be had for human origins, but it does not involve this planet.

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 8 2013: There's a great difference between speculation and "a rigorous case." I see a lot of the former and none of the latter in your argument. It can't be taken seriously by anyone knowledgeable about human origins and the massive and growing evidence of our gradual development from earlier hominids (we are also hominids).

    As Lejan tried to explain to you below, analysis of DNA commonalities have now shown us clear evolutionary relationships among thousands of species of plants and animals, not just humans. Evolutionary distances between any species have been shown to fit well with the fossil evidence for common descent. I'm afraid that the notion of a god or troll or whoever using a kit of parts with similar (or dissimilar) genetic characters to fashion different creatures runs up against modern genetic knowledge, and comes a cropper.
    • thumb
      Sep 8 2013: Neanderrthal DNA turns out to be roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee and all other hominids are further removed from us than that. What you'd call a broken chain...
      • thumb
        Sep 8 2013: Theodore,
        You are describing evolution.....are you not? A little bit of this.....a little bit of that.....half way between this and that? I suggest that what you refer to as "a broken chain" is actually different levels of evolution.

        More technical if you wish..."Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]"

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
      • thumb
        Sep 9 2013: Humans and chimps are distant cousins, placed in separate genera (Homo and Pan), though chimps are our closest living relatives. We both descend from an anthropoid species that probably lived 5-7 million years ago. Neanderthals, on the other hand, were our very close cousins, our lineages only diverged about a half million years ago. They were so close that there is firm evidence that the "modern" humans that invaded Europe around 40,000 years ago interbred with the Neanderthals, and many persons of European heritage carry Neanderthal genes to this day. Neanderthals are placed in our own genus Homo as H.neanderthalensis, and some anthropologists even consider them near enough to place them as a subspecies of modern humans, as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

        The upshot of this is that the Neanderthals were a good deal like modern humans. We know they buried their dead ritually, suggesting they had notions of a spirit world and an afterlife, which is a uniquely human concept. Don't confuse them with brutes.
      • Sep 9 2013: Actually Neanderthal DNA is so close to human DNA that we can detect hybridization between our two sub-species. When we look at the evidence we see that they're close to us. We also find species stretching back to our common ancestor with Chimps, think of Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis, and Ardipithecus ramidus.
        • thumb
          Sep 9 2013: The basic Neanderthal/human non-relation:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhFXQHRAzg8

          Humans and hominids don't even come from the same place:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p10PiJPEq4

          Common genes between humans and Neanderthals are best explained as an original designer or designers using a few of the same low-level genetic parts for dissimilar projects. The Neanderthal has been ruled out as a plausible ancestor for humans because the genetic gap is too wide and the idea of interpreting common genes as evidence of interbreeding does not pass any sort of a test for logic.

          For interbreeding to have happened, a male Neanderthal would have to have raped a woman and then, rather than cooking and eating her as usual, kept her alive long enough to bear a cross-species child; raised that child to reproductive age; and had him/her breed back into human populations without anybody catching on. That is ridiculous.

          What Neanderthals actually looked like:
          www.themandus.org

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.