Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Species of Homo Discovered: Homo naledi
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 49 of 163 (768525)
09-11-2015 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Coyote
09-11-2015 12:40 AM


Re: incredible creationists
Long as you're all in thrall to evolution I don't trust one thing any of you say about fossil finds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 09-11-2015 12:40 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-11-2015 12:52 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 52 of 163 (768528)
09-11-2015 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by DevilsAdvocate
09-11-2015 12:50 AM


Re: incredible creationists
Picture is not very clear. But a very different type of human proves nothing about evolution, just that such variations are possible from the human genome, perhaps under unusual conditions of genetic isolation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-11-2015 12:50 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-11-2015 1:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 53 of 163 (768529)
09-11-2015 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by DevilsAdvocate
09-11-2015 12:52 AM


Re: incredible creationists
No, you don't have to trust me, but you might consider that you could be deceived by a false theory because your evidence isn't very convincing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-11-2015 12:52 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-11-2015 1:01 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 56 of 163 (768532)
09-11-2015 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by DevilsAdvocate
09-11-2015 12:59 AM


Re: incredible creationists
Couldn't find a single modern skull of those types?
So they either aren't human or they are normal variations on human that no longer exist. Before the Flood there would certainly have been all kinds of wildly different versions of every living thing including human beings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-11-2015 12:59 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-11-2015 1:10 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 60 of 163 (768536)
09-11-2015 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by DevilsAdvocate
09-11-2015 1:10 AM


Re: incredible creationists
But modern science DOESN'T "show" that at all, it assumes it because the theory requires it. Variation in reality occurs quite rapidly when small numbers are isolated. After the Flood small populations would have been constantly splitting off from the larger groups and moving out geographically, which is the perfect condition for rapid phenotypic variation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-11-2015 1:10 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2015 1:21 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 65 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-11-2015 7:08 AM Faith has replied
 Message 67 by Omnivorous, posted 09-11-2015 9:49 AM Faith has replied
 Message 69 by jar, posted 09-11-2015 11:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 163 (768546)
09-11-2015 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Omnivorous
09-11-2015 9:49 AM


Re: incredible creationists
So God created "wildly different versions" of human beings before the Flood, narrowed it down to a few individuals of one specific variation with the Flood, then post-Flood conditions created "rapid phenotypic variation" which had time to develop extensive phenotypic variations that would flourish, disappear and fossilize. All of this in 6000 years.
Am I with you so far?
Not entirely. I was figuring that very different types like Neanderthal had to be antediluvian, and all those died in the Flood. About 4300 years ago. All THOSE fossilized. But living things including human beings that were preserved on the ark are what spread out after the Flood, rapidly developing the new phenotypes or new races and breeds, that make up today's range of creatures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Omnivorous, posted 09-11-2015 9:49 AM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2015 12:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 71 of 163 (768547)
09-11-2015 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by DevilsAdvocate
09-11-2015 7:08 AM


Re: incredible creationists
rapid phenotypic variation.
aka biological evolution. It is the same thing. What you mention is one form of biological evolution i.e. the isolation of genetic traits in the form of phenotypic variation. Biological evolution is genetic change over time (sometimes rapid, sometimes not depending on what is driving this change). The real question is what drives this change (phenotypic variation) and what happens when this genetic variation is so great that organisms are not able to mate with each other (speciation).
All I'm saying here is that there is variation built into the human genome, a lot of variation, but it will never produce anything but a recognizable human being. Same with the genome of every other creature. Lots of variation but recognizably same creature. You will not get an ape-like human. That artist's concept is ridiculous. If the bones suggest that kind of physiognomy it's not a human being.
Speciation is just a point in the microevolution where genetic differences caused by the reduction in genetic variability make breeding impossible. It's still the same creature. The idea that it's a new species is completely bogus, just an assumption based on the theory.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-11-2015 7:08 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2015 12:08 PM Faith has replied
 Message 116 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-13-2015 10:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 74 of 163 (768550)
09-11-2015 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dr Adequate
09-11-2015 12:08 PM


Re: incredible creationists
I don't think A is a human being.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2015 12:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2015 12:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 78 of 163 (768554)
09-11-2015 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
09-11-2015 12:36 PM


Re: Note On Language For Faith
I'd have no problem with the term "species" for what happens at the point called "speciation" if it weren't for the fact that that point is also called "macroevolution."
I take that back. NOTHING new happens at the point called "speciation" that hasn't been happening with every new population split that creates a new phenotype. I learned long ago to call those changes varieties or breeds or races because species is so problematic even if it shouldn't be. And a variety or breed is also what you have at speciation, with the only difference being that it has lost the ability to breed with others of its kind.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2015 12:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2015 2:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 81 by Admin, posted 09-11-2015 3:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 83 of 163 (768559)
09-12-2015 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Meddle
09-11-2015 8:28 PM


Look again at the series of skulls that Dr Adequate posted. We see a series of 'microevolutionary' changes as the brain cavity increases in volume and other features of the skull becoming more gracile, and somewhere in that continuum lies H.naledi. If you disagree, can you point to two adjacent skulls that show what you would call a 'macroevolutionary' change?
What evidence do you have that any particular skull in that chart microevolved from the one preceding it? I look at that collection and see an arrangement that's most likely artificial. Some overzealous evolutionist just put them in the order that seems to suggest evolution from one type to the next, but what's the evidence of that? I suspect there's none. (For one thing why should there be such a neat sequence that seems to demonstrate how we got a bigger brain than our apish ancestor anyway? Isn't that rather teleological and doesn't that violate a basic idea of how evolution supposedly works?)
Actually, genetics doesn't work like that anyway. I'll refer back to the Croatian lizard for an example. I can't seem to find the first posts on this subject, which I believe was started by Frako, but HERE's a National Geographic article on it.. a few specimens of a lizard with ordinary sized heads were deposited on an island devoid of lizards* [see corrections below] and left there for thirty years before anyone came to check on them. In that time they had developed/microevolved an unusually large head along with a new digestive system which allowed them to eat tougher foods than had been possible to their ancestors. All the same foods were available as far as I remember, by the way, they merely now had the ability to eat tougher stuff and did so.
Of course I reject the usual adaptationist interpretation as well as the cause being mutation. I think what happened is that for whatever accidental reason the genetic stuff for a larger skull had a high genetic frequency in that isolated group, and that the digestive ability is somehow linked to that feature so developed with it, and over the generations that trait came to dominate. It didn't change in response to the environment although it found itself preferring new foods as a result of its stronger bones and jaws, it was just something in the lizard genome that came to dominate the phenotype over time. It could have been a smaller skull. It could have been a longer tail. There are many things in the genome of a species that could get emphasized or deemphasized in a geographically isolated group over a few generations. The National Geographic article starts out with the usual evolutionist idea that it takes millions of years for such changes to occur. Obviously it doesn't and such examples ought to be a slapdown to evolution. Too bad the theory is so adaptable due to the human ability to rationalize anything.
I see no reason to think those skulls on Dr. A's chart are anything but normal human variations found hither, thither and yon, even possibly at great distances in geography as well as time, with no necessary genetic descent between two adjacent types at all. Smart people like to make patterns so some smart people invented this pattern, but it's just an artificial pattern as far as anyone could judge from its mere appearance. If there's any evidence of actual descent from one type to another that evidence has oddly been excluded from the presentation. Such as where each was found and how it was dated, even the relative sizes of the different skulls which can't be assumed from the picture. Etc.
As for the hands, human hands have short thumbs and those don't.
___________________________
*I see from the article that the island did have its own population of lizards but that the introduced lizards somehow did away with them.
The article gives the specifics that it was ten individuals, five male-female pairs, that were introduced. Kind of supports my claims about what would have happened after the animals left Noah's ark, except that I would suppose that back in those days there was a lot more genetic variability in those few individuals on the ark than there would be in the lizards deposited on the island. If the lizards have any further ability to evolve, that could only be tested by taking some from the new group and putting them in another isolated place. But with high genetic variability many new phenotypes are possible from geographic isolation alone, which is what must have happened to the ark creatures as they dispersed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Meddle, posted 09-11-2015 8:28 PM Meddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2015 7:03 AM Faith has replied
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2015 10:41 AM Faith has replied
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2015 11:02 AM Faith has replied
 Message 118 by Meddle, posted 09-14-2015 8:05 AM Faith has replied
 Message 138 by Meddle, posted 09-19-2015 10:55 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 89 of 163 (768610)
09-12-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Adequate
09-12-2015 10:41 AM


I already said A is not human. Obviously I'm talking about those that ARE human. Trust you to confuse things though. You must have been trained by Jesuits. Anything to misrepresent and distract and confuse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2015 10:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2015 1:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 90 of 163 (768613)
09-12-2015 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dr Adequate
09-12-2015 11:02 AM


I was OBVIOUSLY talking about the hands with the skeleton Mr. Obfuscator. They do not have short thumbs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2015 11:02 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2015 1:19 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 91 of 163 (768616)
09-12-2015 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
09-12-2015 7:03 AM


Re: Time
Sorry, I don't accept your dating methods. Lot of "adjusting" goes on to make things fit the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2015 7:03 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2015 1:19 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2015 1:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 96 of 163 (768628)
09-12-2015 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
09-12-2015 1:19 PM


THE SKELETON DOES NOT HAVE A SHORT THUMB. PERIOD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2015 1:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2015 1:51 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 98 by Admin, posted 09-12-2015 2:14 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 100 of 163 (768652)
09-12-2015 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Admin
09-12-2015 2:14 PM


Re: Moderator Attempt at Clarification
I understand all that. The hand does not have a short thumb, as clearly shown in the pictures by Dr. A despite his ridiculous attempt to pretend otherwise..
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Admin, posted 09-12-2015 2:14 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2015 7:22 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2015 7:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 103 by Admin, posted 09-12-2015 8:08 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024