(June 25, 2013 at 2:02 am)Gods_Unreal Wrote: It's not "just a name." Species are functional classifications of organisms, grouped according to similarities in their physiology and/or their genetic code. Perhaps your view of evolution doesn't warrant specific classification. But there are differences between organisms, and those differences are the result of evolution. With regard to organisms that are venomous or poisonous, understanding those differences can be a matter of life and death. Hardly "just a name." Homo sapiens is a distinct organism from Homo erectus, Homo habilis, or Homo neanderthalensis. You're arguing semantics, really. Yes, it's a gradual change; yes, it's hardly ever possible to notice substantial variations between parental and offspring generations; and yes, it would thus be difficult, if not impossible, to isolate a "first Homo sapiens" from a comprehensive collection of Homo heidelbergensis and Homo sapiens remains. But the fact is that modern man is not the organism we classify as Homo heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis or as Homo erectus. It is a distinct species, with distinct physiological and genetic differences from its ancestors. These distinctions arise as a result of evolution. So, perhaps, it is your view that needs updating.I'm fully aware of the biological definition of a species and said quite clearly that it is worth differentiating in the species that currently exists but doesn't make much sense besides for organizational purposes to differentiate species as we go back in time. What I mean here is a single ancestral line, not a bunch of different species at a point in time, but a single ancestral line that continued to evolve. Since the possibility of interbreeding is nonexistent because of the temporal difference, it is for organizational purposes that we name them differently. Just like we we say 18 is when a teenager turns into an adult. Obviously not by biological definition, since everyone develops at a slightly different rate, but simply to make it easier for lawmakers.
Quote:You say, "I don't think that evolving into something else is extinction...as long as a population is evolving, it's not extinct." Where did most of the 99.9% of species that are now extinct go if not evolution? We say, "all dinosaurs are extinct," despite the fact some dinosaurs evolved into modern birds. Modern birds exist, yet dinosaurs are extinct. As you mentioned, all organisms on this earth, whether human or banana, descend from a single common ancestor. We say that ancestor is extinct, yet it has evolved into us. We exist, yet it is extinct. And this is my point: regardless of whether we evolve into something other than Homo sapiens, or some extinction level event wipes us out before we can evolve, we will eventually go extinct. If the latter is the case, there will be organisms that have descended from us, but they will not be us, and thus, we will still be gone.you're again, assigning them names and saying they're extinct because we don't call them by the same thing anymore. But in fact the population did not at any point die out, merely changed. 99.9% died out, btw, not evolved into something else. Saying they evolved into something else is more accurate if you want to talk about what actually happened, saying we will evolve into something else and saying we'll go extinct are two very different things. I don't know why you saw the need to correct someone for saying we would evolve into something else, when clearly it's not the same as saying we'll die out and some other species will take over the world, which I tried to point out and then you thought i needed to "update" my views.
My main point is it's a waste of time trying to decide when we started being "human" and when we will cease to be "human". So whether or not future generation is still "us" is not a scientific question, but one of personal preference.
