Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Species of Homo Discovered: Homo naledi
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 85 (768378)
09-11-2015 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
09-11-2015 1:15 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.
So these are all the results of "rapid phenotypic variation" of humans? (But don't call it evolution, that's a bad word.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 1:15 AM Faith has not replied

TheMatrix/DNA
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 47
From: Newark-NJ-USA
Joined: 06-05-2015


Message 62 of 85 (768381)
09-11-2015 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Diomedes
09-10-2015 11:26 AM


quote:
Does this look human to you?
Agnostic: " No... it seems to be a creationist or an atheist..."

There was no origins of life and universe, astronomical systems are half-alive, light waves contains the code for life and DNA is not a code: Matrix/DNA Theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Diomedes, posted 09-10-2015 11:26 AM Diomedes has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 908 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 63 of 85 (768382)
09-11-2015 2:25 AM


This is an extremely interesting topic and this bit is nuts:
During a rest, he wedged himself in a creviceand found that his feet didn’t touch the bottom. The crevice, it turned out, led to an absurdly narrow shaft, which descended for 12 meters before opening into a chamber. When Tucker dropped into it, he found bones. He took out his Go-Pro and snapped some shots.
Could any of you wedge yourself into an unknown cavern just to hopefully see some bones? Who the hell "takes a rest" by hopping down a hole in a cave? The find is worth it, so I applaud the ballsy, advernterous SOB for doing it.
It’s a long crack, punctuated by shark-teeth protrusions, says Elliott. I remember looking down and thinking: I’m not sure I made the right decision.
And here I sit, on my ass in my office, mucking about with a computer. Get outside man! I always thought of Archaeology like a bunch of people slowly chipping away tiny bits of earth, inches at a time. This is a great sounding adventure though.
Without dates, the fossils reveal almost nothing about hominin evolution, beyond supporting the growing realization that there was much more species diversity than previously thought.
So is a timeline the only thing separating certain species from other similar species? If this creature existed a mere 30 thousand years ago, that would put it well outside of our ancestry due to what we already know about H.Sapiens existence during that time? However, if it is found to be 3 million years old, it is more likely to be within our evolutionary timeline?
And their behavior might have been similarly engaging. We have very strong reason to suspect that H.naledi was doing culturally interesting things, and was doing it with a small brain, Hawks adds. What kinds of things? Well, like depositing their bodies in a cave.
This was the first question I had as well. I assumed they were simply curious, then fell and died. That is probably due to anthropomorphising them, though, since that is precisely what our human counterparts were doing. I imagine more basal beings would be more keen on survival than adventure and any remains found would be deliberate. Especially with such limited brain capacity.
Perhaps they took their dead to the cave and dropped them in from the top of the chute.
So would that make this one very small group of a species that lived there for a short period of time? How long does a typical mammalian animal family occupy a certain area? If it were a regular burial site with no other disturbance, wouldn't there be more than 15 bodies? It's a cave, so little would have disturbed it. Think of a tract of land considered to be "bear country" (Alaskan riverbanks full of salmon, for example). How long is it a place known to be frequented by bears? Would there not be a particular spot that had more than 15 bodies if it were a place frequented by the dead of that animal?
Why is dating the specimens not critical?
I had hoped that a yearlong hiatus would return more fruitful results in the form of more in depth discussions, but I see not a damn thing has changed. Excellent submission choice nonetheless, Percy.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9535
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 64 of 85 (768385)
09-11-2015 3:02 AM


Homo nailed
Funny, I read Homo naledi as Homo nailed.....

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3207 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 65 of 85 (768388)
09-11-2015 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
09-11-2015 1:15 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).
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are. - C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 1:15 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 11:52 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 66 of 85 (768389)
09-11-2015 7:30 AM


I originally initiated this thread just to post some recent news. Discussions aren't usually held in the Creation/Evolution In The News forum, but now that a discussion is taking place this thread should probably be moved to the Biological Evolution forum, even though it hasn't gone through the normal vetting process over at Proposed New Topics. If no one posts any objections over the next 24 hours then I'll go ahead and move this thread over to Biological Evolution.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 67 of 85 (768392)
09-11-2015 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
09-11-2015 1:15 AM


Re: incredible creationists
Faith in Msg 56 writes:
Before the Flood there would certainly have been all kinds of wildly different versions of every living thing including human beings.
Faith in Msg 60 writes:
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.
That should cover it, I guess.
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?
Edited by Omnivorous, : clarity

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 1:15 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 11:48 AM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1511 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 68 of 85 (768397)
09-11-2015 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
09-10-2015 7:59 AM


technicalities
Thanks for the technical paper link, Percy. All I had see to date was a video on facebook that showed the difficulty of navigating the cave.
The page link is: This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
quote:
The bones were superbly preserved, and from the duplication of body parts, it soon became clear that there was not one skeleton in the cave, but two, then three, then five ... then so many it was hard to keep a clear count. ...
There were some 1,550 specimens in all, representing at least 15 individuals. Skulls. Jaws. Ribs. Dozens of teeth. A nearly complete foot. A hand, virtually every bone intact, arranged as in life. Minuscule bones of the inner ear. Elderly adults. Juveniles. Infants, identified by their thimble-size vertebrae. Parts of the skeletons looked astonishingly modern. But others were just as astonishingly primitivein some cases, even more apelike than the australopithecines. We’ve found a most remarkable creature, Berger said. His grin went nearly to his ears.
... But these teeth weren’t like anything the scientists in the tooth booth had ever seen. Some features were astonishingly humanlikethe molar crowns were small, for instance, with five cusps like ours. But the premolar roots were weirdly primitive. ...
The same schizoid pattern was popping up at the other tables. A fully modern hand sported wackily curved fingers, fit for a creature climbing trees. The shoulders were apish too, and the widely flaring blades of the pelvis were as primitive as Lucy’sbut the bottom of the same pelvis looked like a modern human’s. The leg bones started out shaped like an australopithecine’s but gathered modernity as they descended toward the ground. The feet were virtually indistinguishable from our own.
When you read the articles and see repeated references to the fossils showing a mixture of primitive and derived characteristics, you can see the evolution of traits found in our skeletons ... and when you go to the technical paper these aspects are laid out in detail.
You'll have to page down to the video. It also says, "The NOVA/National Geographic Special, Dawn of Humanity, premieres Sept. 16, 2015, at 9 p.m. ET/8 p.m. CT on PBS in the United States and is streaming online now.
Another good source is:
South African Cave Yields Strange Bones Of Early Human-Like Species
quote:
He notes that only a small section of the cave chamber has been excavated, and it looks like many more bones are down there.
"There is the potential for thousands of specimens in that cave," says Wood. "Intellectually, it's a real puzzle. And I think it's going to take scientists quite a time to get their heads around what the real significance of these discoveries is."
So ... watch this space, more to come ...
The combination of derived modern traits with primitive ancestral traits is what shows this to be a transitional species, fitting between Australopithicus and Homosapien fossils. It will be interesting to see how they date this find.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added comment

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 09-10-2015 7:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34120
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 69 of 85 (768399)
09-11-2015 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
09-11-2015 1:15 AM


Re: incredible creationists
There are only a few problems with your post Faith; the fact that neither of the Biblical floods ever happened and that the genetics from humans thousands of years before they supposed dates of the flood show the people as far back as when the imaginary Adam character would have lived show the same genomes as people living today.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 1:15 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 85 (768400)
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 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 71 of 85 (768401)
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 not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2015 12:08 PM Faith has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1511 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 85 (768404)
09-11-2015 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
09-11-2015 11:48 AM


to fossil or not to fossil, that is the question ...
... All THOSE fossilized. ...
And what about the ones that did not fossilize? The bones in this cave are not fossilized ...
How can some bones fossilize and some bones not fossilize when they are all subjected to the same flood condition that you claim universally causes (somehow) the fossilization.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 11:48 AM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 85 (768408)
09-11-2015 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
09-11-2015 11:52 AM


Re: incredible creationists
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.
So, again, are these all "recognisable human beings"? If not, please recognize the ones that are.
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.
I hardly know what to say, except to direct you to the definitions of "species" and "speciation".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 11:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 12:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 74 of 85 (768409)
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

ringo
Member (Idle past 518 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 75 of 85 (768410)
09-11-2015 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
09-10-2015 11:59 PM


Faith writes:
Why make an issue of talking snakes when the Bible also has water turned to wine, people raised from the dead....
Talking snakes are funnier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 11:59 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024