|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Java Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man??? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Not a transitional but kind of interesting...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1884000/1884525.stm Note the bit that says...
quote: So he`s hom sap sap with arthritis and they don`t claim he`s anything but hom sap sap, kind of blows the whole trasitionals were just people with arthritis line out of the water doesnt it.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7883 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: cuz he felt like it. Also its to create doubt in our faith, probably from satan. but i shouldnt start with that. they could just be really really really really really messsed up humans, which would actually fit with natural selection since the bad trait would have been eventually breeded/killed out. Maybe only that family line of humans was able to succesfully survive the time, our bone composition may have greatly changed and became more susceptible to whatever eats/destroys bones. its very improbable and i just thought of that so i doubt its possible but its a thought. ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7883 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
i dont get it explain why they saying he has arthitis would change whether or not he was affected by it and that disease tc mentioned, not the one i made up earlier.
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: TC is saying that the most similar transitionals to hom sap sap are in fact hom sap sap who were afflicted with athritis etc here we have a primitive hom sap sap who had athritis and yet he is classified as hom sap sap kind of puzzling if indeed scientists ascribe athritic hom sap sap remains to be transitionals rather than hom sap sap.... (added by edit: wow there were a lot of hom sap sap`s in that post, glad I shortened it from homo sapiens sapiens otherwise I`d probably be dying of CTS as we speak [This message has been edited by joz, 03-22-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: In the falsifying creation thread you say that ANY animal hittingbottom during the flood would have been fossilised. This would include modern humans (unless God was inept and didn't manage to kill any). Please make up your mind which way you are going to debate.
quote: Considering the rarity of fossils, we ARE finding many many proto-human remains. quote: Someone else has pointed out that Evolution IS the only mechanismcurrently explaining the data, so I won't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Why would ape remains be 'older' ? Don't we co-exist with apes ?
quote: Human ancestry is, surely, a fundamental issue in the greatdebate. It's fascinatng too ... look it up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: And just as puzzling why multiple fossils would exhibit exactlythe same deformations to a sufficient degree that they are considered a separate species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][b]cuz he felt like it.[/QUOTE]
[/b] Did He make pink elephants to? "Cuz he felt like it" is not an explanation, try again.
[QUOTE][b]Also its to create doubt in our faith, probably from satan.
[/QUOTE] [/b] So any evidence that supports evolution was made by Satan? Is your position falsifiable? Anyway this isn't the first time a Creationist has invoked Satan as an explanation for something, last I heard, evolutionists were still laughing at the poor fellow for saying Satan made craters on the Moon. If you wanted to, you could claim that the world is flat, and that any evidence to the contrary is being created by Satan to created doubt in your faith of the Godly flat earth, it would make no less sense than what you're trying to pass off here.
[QUOTE][b]they could just be really really really really really messsed up humans[/QUOTE] [/b] We have plenty of messed up humans in Third World countries, but we don't have any neanderthals. How exactly does a human disease provide you with bone structures that just happen to look simian?
[QUOTE][b]which would actually fit with natural selection since the bad trait would have been eventually breeded/killed out.[/QUOTE] [/b] That implies that God created people with "bad traits" and God's faulty creation was improved by the bad ones dieing off naturally. It does not fit with evolution however because there is no need for "bad" traits to be more common at any particular point in time if natural selection pressure remains about the same.
[QUOTE][b]our bone composition may have greatly changed and became more susceptible to whatever eats/destroys bones.[/QUOTE] [/b] We're not talking about fossils with damaged bones, we're talking about fossils with simian characteristics; raised eyebrows, foramen magnum at the rear of the skull, sloping forehead, small braincase, do you see what I mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
Yes Lee is moving the goalposts. He started with "thousands" and he will have to stick with thousands. I actually thought about prodding you by asking him by asking if he would up to "millions" since I demonstrated that there were "thousands" but thought he would be above that anyway. Apparently not. Typical dishonest tactics at work here.
"Thousands" is a good figure for the reasons I have already given, and that people have only been looking for a few decades now. No, I don't expect there to be hundreds of thousands because of the random nature of fossilization, the remote areas, the short time people have been looking, the probable small sizes of the populations of transitionals, the limited geographical distribution, and the tiny blink of geological time it all happened over. But his challenge was met, next Creationist argument please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Xombie Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
[B]Archaeologists should have found and should presently be finding hundreds, if not thousands, of these skeletal forms yet they do not.[B][/QUOTE] On the subject of fossils... You seem to be under the assumption that ALL skeletal forms become fossils. This simply isn't true.Fossils are in fact, a rare occurance. Not rare to FIND, mind you, but rare to actually happen. Fossilization only happens under certain circumstances. Out of the countless organisms that have lived on earth only to end up in soil, we've haven't even found a fraction of that amount in fossils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
leekim Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]Yes Lee is moving the goalposts. He started with "thousands" and he will have to stick with thousands. I actually thought about prodding you by asking him by asking if he would up to "millions" since I demonstrated that there were "thousands" but thought he would be above that anyway. Apparently not. Typical dishonest tactics at work here. "Thousands" is a good figure for the reasons I have already given, and that people have only been looking for a few decades now. No, I don't expect there to be hundreds of thousands because of the random nature of fossilization, the remote areas, the short time people have been looking, the probable small sizes of the populations of transitionals, the limited geographical distribution, and the tiny blink of geological time it all happened over. But his challenge was met, next Creationist argument please. ---My challenge was cetainly not met as the alleged "ancestral fossil evidence" you cite is very sparse and subject to broad interpreatation (as you should very well know). But let's delve into another sub-issue...Assuming the "Ardipithecus ramidis , Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus anamensis, Kenyanthropus platyops , Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" all existed at one time, why havn't any of these ancestral forefathers survived to the current day. Surely evolution doesn't equate with extinction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: How else would you apply the old saw of "survival of the fittest" to species?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
[b] quote: Small populations equate with extinction, though. Any rapid environmental change affects a small population vastly more than a large one. This includes competition with other hominids. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
leekim Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:
[B] Small populations equate with extinction, though. Any rapid environmental change affects a small population vastly more than a large one. This includes competition with other hominids. ---And this absolutely insufficient rationale is why NONE of the aforementioned "forefathers" exist today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
leekim Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24: [B] Small populations equate with extinction, though. Any rapid environmental change affects a small population vastly more than a large one. This includes competition with other hominids. ---And this absolutely insufficient rationale is why NONE of the aforementioned "forefathers" exist today? How convenient, so each hominid that made small progressive "advances", shall we say, either decided to kill off ALL of the prior, less advanced, hominids (ie survival of the fittest as implied above) throughout their several million years of development OR a rare disease, sudden enviornmental change, etc. would spoadically and mysteriously wipe out all of the less advanced hominids but kept the more advanced segments intact. Ahh now it all makes sense...thanks for clearing that up (insert sarcasm).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024