The "Logic" of the creationist....

quote:

---

Originally posted by degreed:
How many other hominid species were around 50,000 years ago?

---

homo sapiens, homo erectus and homo neandarthalensis -- three species up until about 30,000 years ago.

quote:

---

Shouldn't we discuss the bigger point? We can toss our respective educations around all we want, but first tell me that this study (which, as studies go, seems to have been fairly simple once the sample population was reached) was full of crap. Then all of the talk about mutation rates becomes relevant, not before.

---

I couldn't find this article when searching Nature. Do you have a link for it?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 08-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by degreed:
sorry, wrong answer. Erectus went bye-bye about 300,000 years ago, and Neandertals about 50,000...which doesn't leave much if these gentlemen have done their math correctly. Maybe they haven't, but i think it's a point that needs to be tackled first.

---

So things seemed until finds of h. erectus near the Soho River in Java were dated the 50,000 kya. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html 404 Not Found And the funeral date for h. neandarthalensis is 30,000 kya, not 50,000.oh... there is h. hedelbergensis too.What is the point actually? I can't tell why you've brought this up?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 08-18-2002][This message has been edited by John, 08-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by degreed:
Riiight...did you read those links? Our optimistic friends dated animal bones in what they thought was the same sediment as what they believe are Erectus remains.

---

Yes, indeed I did read those links. And yes, the dates are debatable. You asked what else was around. I answered off the top of my head.When I was in college eleven years ago or so, the accepted geneology of the species was a bit different. It will likely change again as evidence comes in, which makes debating this tricky. Erectus is somewhat of a red herring anyway, as it may well be a cousin and not a precursor.Heidelbergensis is a another option for our ancestor.

quote:

---

I've seen better studies on the existence of angels.

---

No you haven't.

quote:

---

Why don't i generalize to make ends meet...current fossil records put the end of Erectus at LEAST 200,000 years ago.

---

The current replacement model puts modern homo sapiens as having evolved from archaic homo sapiens-- note homo sapiens-- around 200,000-100,000 years ago. Can't believe I missed this the first time around. This means that homo sapien evolved sometime before that date, ie. well before your date of 50kya. What started 50k ago was regional variation of modern humans-- skin color, that sort of thing. No webpage found at provided URL: http://anthropology.palomar.edu/homo2/modern_humans.htm

quote:

---

Even confirmed finds of Erectus at 50,000 ago would raise eyebrows, as we don't seem to be able to find any in between.

---

And as I said, perhaps not all that important to the issue at hand as h. erectus may not even be an ancestor.

quote:

---

The point rests in that Nature article in my previous post. If the Y chromosome study reported in this article puts Sapiens origins at no more than 50,000 years ago, then we reeeeally need to find an ancestor who was turning into Sapiens at just about that time.

---

I can't comment on the Nature article. I don't have it. I suspect it is not about sapien origins per se. Produce the article. Prove me wrong.

quote:

---

Either way, it's a bit of an important question, isn't it?

---

Sure is.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by degreed:
Moving further, the concentration and abrupt appearance of a host of cultural developments (rapid proliferation and advancement of stone tools, bone/antler carvings and 'jewelry', 'pictorial' art, etc) speak very strongly of an abrupt shift in the cultural and biological makeup of HSapiens.

---

Cultural, yes. Biological?

quote:

---

The other point of the study was simply to reinforce the lack of evidence for interspecie Hominid activity in this era...isolating the abrupt appearance of modern HSapiens.

---

But the species did not abruptly arise in this 'era'

quote:

---

It's more good, solid paleontology that doesn't support the evo paradigm.

---

What?

quote:

---

Abrupt shifts in the makeup of species or the appearance of species bring you closer to a Creator, not further.

---

Not really.

quote:

---

Moreover, do you agree that the genetic diversity among current HSapiens neither resembles what we see among living ape species, nor fits what evolution must predict?

---

No.There isn't much genetic diversity within h. sapiens. What diversity exists is due to our inhabiting vastely diverse environments. No other primate species shares that great of a range, so the analogy is flawed.

quote:

---

damn, i'm Christian...i can't swear! what the hell am i thinking!

---

I bet Jesus swore when he was trashing those money changers.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by degreed:
Is there some mystical room in evolution theory that allows for species to live in stasis for long periods of time, only to be suddenly replaced or joined by brand new species?

---

There is nothing mystical about it. Some species do live in relative stasis for long periods of time. If a form works, it may hang around for awhile. Then something happens-- climate change or reproductive isolation or some such-- and new species start to show up. Exactly what happens to trigger the change will have to be worked out on a case by case basis, and I doubt the question can be answered in many cases. The information just isn't there. I don't see the problem here.

quote:

---

Did you mean to contradict yourself?

---

I didn't contradict myself.

quote:

---

What i read from that is that our genetic diversity is due to our diversity of environmental range. This means that less-ranged species will have less diversity. This is the opposite of what we see...which is my point.

---

What primate SPECIES has a range equal to our own? There isn't one. Chimps are restricted to part of Africa, gorillas to a tiny part of Africa, etc. We don't have much genetic diversity but probably a wee bit more than, say, gorrillas. This diversity would probably be much greater if we didn't adapt via culture. Of course, if we didn't adapt via culture we may not have infested all of these various habitats. It is exactly what I'd expect actually.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com