Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread

Humans listed by name before Noah's flood:1) Adam
2) Eve3) Cain
3a) Enoch
3b) Irad
3c) Mehujael
3d)Methushael
3e) Lamech
3e1) Jabal
3e2) Jubal
3e3) Tubal Cain
3e4) Naamah4a) Adah
4b) Zillah5) Seth
5a) Enos
5b) Caanan
5c) Mahalaleel
5d) Jared
5e) Enoch
5f) Mathuselah
5g) Lamech
5h) Noah6) AbelThere are 24 names listed in the geneology up through Noah. 27 when we count Noah's three sons.Every assumption Kofh2u has made in regard to these two lists corresponding has solely been based on the claim that there are 22 names in the genesis genealogy up to the arbitrary stopping point of Noah's sons. There are not 22 names in said genealogy, there are 27. It could be advantageous to him to claim that we should only count the male names since the ark story concludes with 8 humans surviving including the women. He could claim that the women listed are necessarily of the same species as a male counterpart and are only necessary for the purposes of breeding. I wuld not be surprised at this claim since I have seen other mysogynistic postings by him.Even if Kofh2u makes some other arbitrary appeal to only the male names, we still do not arrive at 22./threadEdited by Eli, : No reason given.Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

I assumed you would make up another arbitrary rule to arrive at the figure you wanted.Kofh2u arrives at his conclusion before he begins to collect data or advance research. Then he creates false rules in order to exclude certain data that should be included and to include data that he has made up.In this case, he has created an arbitrary exclusion rule. As an example he might say "we will only consider one to be a member of this group if they are right handed. Tom is left handed and is not a member of this group."Even though the rule is arbitrary and the reasons he gives for the rule being necessary ("line of ascent requires the Y chromosome be passed down") are not scientifically based, we will allow it only if he applies it consistently.In the "right handed" example, when it is pointed out that Jenny and Jeff are also left handed, then they should also be excluded from the group.Kohf2u's second arbitrary rule (special pleading) is that paternal links who have no children cannot be counted.Very well.Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-Cain also had no children. Then by Kofh2u's own rules, we now have a count of 16. Including Noah's sons the count is 19.With or without Kofh2u's special rules meant to force a specific number, we still do not have a count of 22 in the Genesis genealogy.Got another rule you want to add?

Then it would also be common sense not to count Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-Cain for the exact same reason.The whole point of the thread is to find correspondences of 22 with 22. Before we can even get to that point, we have to establish what the two groups of 22 are. You have been unable to arrive at a list of 22 in either group.Please explain why you made up a rule and want to apply it to only one person, when it applies to four people.We have 23 males through Noah's sons and 19 when we exclude those who did not have offspring.We don't have a list of 22.

That is an illogical conclusion. But, since you want to make such a ridiculous claim, then we'll say this applies to Abel as well.LoL
Obviously Abel had offspring because we carry Neanderthal genes.Now we are back to a list of 23.

Well, 2+3=5 and according to the song "This monkey gone to heaven," man is 5.You should probably know by now that there are no coincidences.

Very true. If that were the way he thought he could demonstrate foreknowledge in the bible of modern scientific findings, he would be glad to bring up Au. sediba and insert that into the list of 22 to arrive at 23.

The bottom line is that you claimed there are 22 names in the Genesis geneology beginning with Adam and arbitrarily ending with Noah's three sons.You were wrong.You simply cannot compare or proclaim a correlation between two lists of 22 here. There is nothing by which one should even think these are similar even by coincidence because there is no list of 22.Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

Says the guy who refuses to count the 27 names in the Genesis geneology up through the flood.Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

Now I have to call you on this one. This is an outright lie.The book you point to was compiled in 2005-2006 and published in 2007. You are fully aware of this.You also are aware that since the time this book was published that no paleontolgists have made an effort to create a comprehensive list of all the hominid species, mostly because these scientists are specialists and focus on one or two aspects of human ancestors and their body of work is used collectively in order to comprise all the species rather than putting them all in a single volume. However, I have looked into this and it seems someone has already put together a comprehensive list especially for you in another forum.You are aware of this list, yes?1.Homo sapiens
2.Homo sapiensidaltu
3.Homo georgicus
4.Homo ergaster
5.Homo gautengensis
6.Homo antecessor
7.Homo heidelbergensis
8.Homo neanderthalensis
9.Homo rhodesiensis
10.Homo erectus
11.Homo habilis
12.Homo rudolfensis
13.Homo floresiensis
14. Homo cepranensis
15.Homo yuanmouensis
16.Homo lantianensis
17.Homo wushanensis
18.Homo pekinensis
19.Homo palaeojavanicus
20.Homo soloensis
21.Homo tautavelensis
22.Homo nankinensis
23.Denisova Hominin
24.Red Deer Cave Species25.Australopithecus anamensis
26.Australopithecus sediba
27.Australopithecus bahrelghazali
28.Australopithecus africanus
29.Australopithecus afarensis
30.Australopithecus garhi
31.Australopithecus aethiopicus
32.Australopithecus robustus
33.Australopithecus boisei34. Ardipithecus ramidus
35. Ardipithecus kadabba
36. Kenyanthropus platyops37. Sahelanthropus tchadensis
38. Orrorin tugenensis

I have seen your attempt to limit this list. It failed then as it does now. Their linkage is not very doubtful. It is quite established. I believe rhodesiensis is featrued in the book "The Last Man."If you want to eliminate it, you obiously haven't read the book and you also serve to discredit the very book you try to appeal to.

I see you are making up definitions now. Subspecies are different from species. Then the evidence is worthless, because you drew it from your imagination and not the real world. There was no mass extinction of all other kinds. That is a lie you keep telling yourself as it has been brought to your attention that other huminids lived as early as 12,000 years ago. Well, that is also not true. You admitted as much the last time you brought it up that the range for this MRA is from 60,000 to 142,000 years ago and that 40,000 years is quite out of that range. Why bother trying to reinsert this lie? We all know that you know that your claim about 40,000 years is bogus.

Are you bonkers? Why keep going back to these fully discredited claims. The book is not the latest. It is quite outdated as far as the subject goes.

We already found a 23rd.Au. sediba back in 2008.Of course, that doesn't coincide with the latest book on the subject (2007) so Kofh2u pretends that the discovery never happened...hm...I really shouldn't say that that find was the 23rd. I don't want to give the wrong impression that there are only 23 species discovered when we actually have at least 38 including our own species.1.Homo sapiens
2.Homo sapiensidaltu
3.Homo georgicus
4.Homo ergaster
5.Homo gautengensis
6.Homo antecessor
7.Homo heidelbergensis
8.Homo neanderthalensis
9.Homo rhodesiensis
10.Homo erectus
11.Homo habilis
12.Homo rudolfensis
13.Homo floresiensis
14. Homo cepranensis
15.Homo yuanmouensis
16.Homo lantianensis
17.Homo wushanensis
18.Homo pekinensis
19.Homo palaeojavanicus
20.Homo soloensis
21.Homo tautavelensis
22.Homo nankinensis
23.Denisova Hominin
24.Red Deer Cave Species25.Australopithecus anamensis
26.Australopithecus sediba
27.Australopithecus bahrelghazali
28.Australopithecus africanus
29.Australopithecus afarensis
30.Australopithecus garhi
31.Australopithecus aethiopicus
32.Australopithecus robustus
33.Australopithecus boisei34. Ardipithecus ramidus
35. Ardipithecus kadabba
36. Kenyanthropus platyops37. Sahelanthropus tchadensis
38. Orrorin tugenensis

You claimed that. You failed to demonstrate it, however.You did nmanage to object to at least one species in your own list however. That was pretty amusing.

Here is a few of the latest books by most of the people you sourceThis doesn't even touch on the many papers and articles written on specific species.Chris Stringer:Chris Stringer (2007), Homo britannicus. The Incredible Story of Human Life in Britain, London: Penguin, ISBN 0-14-101813-5[4]Chris Stringer (2011), The Origin of Our Species, London: Allen Lane, ISBN 978-1-84614-140-9Chris Stringer (2012), Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth, London: Times Books, ISBN 978-0805088915Ian Tattersal:The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know, 2008Paleontology: A Brief History of Life, 2010Race? Debunking A Scientific Myth, 2011The Brain: Big Bangs, Behaviors, and Beliefs. I. Tattersall & R. DeSalle, Yale University Press, 2012, ISBN 978-0300175226Masters of the Planet: The Search for Our Human Origins. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, ISBN 0-230-10875-XRichard Milner:Darwin's Universe: Evolution from A to Z, 2009