If these two human species existed together, isn't that proof RIGHT THERE of a transitional species? We all know which two species I am talking about.
here is the tired link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070809/ap_on_sc/human_evolution;_ylt=AsVgc6kR2JmxbM1mla7VmshvieAA
2007-08-10 06:32:54 · 4 answers · asked by ♨UFO♨ 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes, I'd call it one of many transitional species.
I'm not sure why the researchers conclude that one could not have evolved from the other. I would think the older humanoid would be around for a while (possibly even 1/2 a million years) before the new version it spawned was completely overtaken.
2007-08-10 06:36:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
sorry, no! A transitional species would display the characteristics of both species. The fact that they existed side by side demonstrates that both species existed at the time. This doesn't necessarily disprove the suggestion that one species "evolved" from the other but it certainly doesn't provide any support for the hypothesis that it DID evolve! If evolution is a gradual process then as the process of evolution started, characteristics of the new species would, at some point, being to show up in the original species...thus, true transitional fossils must exist that demonstrate evidence these gradual changes.
Actually, I think this one could go either way and this most recent discovery is a step in the right direction. The scientists now know that they have pinpointed a time when both species existed...this narrows down their window of examination considerably. Now that they know where to look, it should only be a matter of time before someone finds a transitional fossil...if such a thing even exists! The argument that "we just haven't found them yet" can't possibly lead to a rational conclusion that they must exist! Maybe scientists haven't found them because the don't exist...it's all a leap of faith!!
2007-08-10 13:49:47 · answer #2 · answered by KAL 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everything is a transitional species except those who lived today or became extinct. I don't quite understand why people don't get that...
Yes, this article does lend credence to the view that Homo Habilis (spelling?) was a transitional species.
2007-08-10 13:38:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
that's actually what i thought of when i first read it
2007-08-10 13:37:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋