A Human says what?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, Brian, you’re misunderstanding what TGN said. Literally EVERYTHING that is currently alive survived all major and minor extinction events. The evidence of this is so brutally obvious that it doesn’t need explaining, but I’ll have a go.

-All life on Earth (you, me, Tardigrades, camels, penguins, cats) is descended from a common ancestor.

-This ancestor, via reproduction, mutation, and selection, formed multiple lines of descent.

-These lines, through the same processes, formed their own lines. And so on and so on.

-Everything alive today represents the current state of one or more if these lines of descent.

-Therefore, the ancestor species of living camels did not go extinct.

This doesn’t mean that there are no extinct species - there obviously are. What it means is that from the very first living organism to you is that there is a solid, unbroken chain of descent that never went extinct. This is true for every single living organism we see today.

I hope this clears it up a little.

Boru

Your point is taken but I believe that the claim was that humans didn't survive the last five extinctions. This is correct. Our distant ancestors survived them. The ones that saw the K/T fireworks were likely some form of tree rat that was barely a primate. Claiming that humans survived the last five extinctions would be akin to claiming that you fought in the Punic War because your great-great-grandfather was Italian.

Evolution is fluid, not static. If a single one of our ancestor species had gone extinct, this is precisely the as saying the human lineage went extinct. Since that clearly didn’t happen, the statement ‘Humans survived the five extinction events’ is true both semantically and scientifically.

Boru

[mediocrates]

I think we can all agree that during mass extinction events of the past no humans were present to survive or succumb to the adverse conditions. 

At the same time, we can agree that the evolutionary ancestors of humans must have been present and must have survived.

The only point left to argue is if humans could have survived if they were present... I say maybe. Our survival strategies would differ depending on our stage of development though. Modern humans would obviously die instantly.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why? Modern human beings are the most successful and resilient animals on the planet. So much so that we've become an extinction event ourselves. I'd say that no other creature in all of biological history was better equipped to survive another extinction event.

[Fireball]

Why?  Modern human beings are the most successful and resilient animals on the planet.  So much so that we've become an extinction event ourselves.  I'd say that no other creature in all of biological history was better equipped to survive another extinction event.

I gave both you and mediocrates kudos, but I'll have to agree with you. Homo Sap is one vicious predator, and I suspect that until the sun starts to expand and jack the earth over, H. Sap. will still be top predator...and if we manage to get off the planet, the galaxy is under threat. That's right, we bad! 

[mediocrates]

My comment about modern H. Sapiens wasn't meant to be taken seriously.  I was imagining us fighting among ourselves too much for our cooperative nature to help us survive...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why?  Modern human beings are the most successful and resilient animals on the planet.  So much so that we've become an extinction event ourselves.  I'd say that no other creature in all of biological history was better equipped to survive another extinction event.

‘Man is an unspecialized animal. His body, except for its enormous brain case, is primitive. He can't dig; he can't run very fast; he can't fly. But he can eat anything and he can stay alive where a goat would starve, a lizard would fry, a bird freeze. Instead of special adaptations he has general adaptability.’ - Heinlein



Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Simple point: We all evolved to this point.

[Paleophyte]

Your point is taken but I believe that the claim was that humans didn't survive the last five extinctions. This is correct. Our distant ancestors survived them. The ones that saw the K/T fireworks were likely some form of tree rat that was barely a primate. Claiming that humans survived the last five extinctions would be akin to claiming that you fought in the Punic War because your great-great-grandfather was Italian.

Evolution is fluid, not static. If a single one of our ancestor species had gone extinct, this is precisely the as saying the human lineage went extinct.

No, it isn't. If one of our ancestors had gone extinct we would never have existed. Don't make me get a time machine and your grandparents' address to prove this point.

Since that clearly didn’t happen, the statement ‘Humans survived the five extinction events’ is true both semantically and scientifically.

You are conflating humans with their ancestors. H. sapiens hasn't been around for more than about 300,000 years. There are unquestionably grey areas during speciation but the differences in time scales being discussed handily avoids that issue. In the most recent major extinction our ancestors were tree rats that were only tentatively primates. During the Permo-Triassic extinction they were therapsid reptiles that you'd have a hard time distinguishing from a dinosaur. At the end of the Archaean our ancestors were single-celled organisms bereft of an organized nucleus. None of these were humans in any sense.

Your claim is akin to the notion that the Greeks won the battle of Salamis using Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. Obviously they didn't. They used triremes, the distant distant ancestors of modern ships. It is possible to note the relationship without confusing the two.

---

Simple point: We all evolved to this point.

One look at a fundamentalist proves this wrong. It's obvious that those things emerged from the dirt some 6000 years ago and haven't benefited from one jot of evolution since that dark day.