Human Ancestors Found in Same Level?

Let me start out by saying that I am certainly not a creationist, and I have a healthy knowledge of evolutionary theory. However, I found an article by Duane Gish that troubled me. Usually I dimiss these types of articles because they are easily refuted by talkorigins and the like.However this article claims that: The rest can be found here:
The Institute for Creation ResearchI have searched talkorigins and a few of my books but have been unable to find a refutation of this particular argument. Is there a simple error in logic I am missing here? I can understand how it could be possible for these fossils to be found in the same place OR the same time, but how is it possible that all three could be found in the same place AND same time.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Unbolded quoted material and put it in a quote box instead (see "Peak" to see coding).Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added second quote box material, which are the references for the previously quoted.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well I've certainly heard of the Leakey clan - even watched a doc about them. Never heard of this, though.Considering ths source it has to be more than a bit dubious.EDIT: It does seem that mostly tools were found at bed II. There might also be some mischaracterization of the term "bed" since the beds themselves appear to have had upper and lower sections that would have corresponded to different datss.According to the diagram below Homo Erectus isn't linked to bed II but to bed III! Also the diagram is very clear about the possibility of an overlap between Australopithecus Boisei and Homo Habilis (since paleontologists understand that evolution works as a branching "tree" and not as a straight line). Mischaracterization, methinks.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : Added image.

Leakey himself put forward one obvious resolution to the first of these, the proposal that australophitecus and Homo habilis lineages existed in parallel.The only possible incongruity might be the contemporaneous existence of populations of H. habilis and H. erectus, although this is only a problem if we insist that they must both be part of a continuous lineage situated in that location. If H. erectus evolved from a geographically seperate population of H. habilis then there is no reason why they could not then migrate into the area from which the Olduvai beds come.This doesn't really seem to be an argument against any particular part of evolutiuonary theory. At best it is data relevant to the history of human evolution and perhaps contradicting certain hypotheses, but certainly not causing any problems for the general picture of human evolution.The existence at the same time and place is only a problem if you subscribe to an archaic cartoon style of human evolution where one species follows another along a linear path similar to the concept of the great chain of life. As with the history of life on Earth in general we are not studying progression up a ladder but rather the many branchings of a tree or bush.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

A. boisei is not thought to be part of our lineage correct, but an offshoot from earlier A. afarensis then?Ah ok I now see Gish's main flaw. He claim's that Australopithecus was found along habilis yet he doesn't seem to mention that this was boisei who because of its robustness is not thought to be part of the human lineage but an offshoot of earlier species. His distortion now seems apparent to me.

quote:

---

A. boisei is not thought to be part of our lineage correct, but an offshoot from earlier A. afarensis then?

---

Australopithecus Robustus and Australopithecus Boisei are considered a different branch of the tree. So much so in fact that many physical anthropologists are using the genus name Paranthropus, to distinguish the two species from both the genus Homo and genus Australopithecus.For the details see Hominid SpeciesThe graphic at the end of this particular website helps reveal the interrelationship between time and representative fossils. As can be readily seen, there were several species of upright apes that coexisted in the past.

quote:

---

Ah ok I now see Gish's main flaw. He claim's that Australopithecus was found along habilis yet he doesn't seem to mention that this was boisei who because of its robustness is not thought to be part of the human lineage but an offshoot of earlier species. His distortion now seems apparent to me.

---

One problem is the article cited in the OP concerns information that is over 30 years old. A lot has happened in the field of physical anthropology in the last 30 years, but ICR will of course grasp at and distort anything it can, given the vacuity of their arguments. Other than that, the previous posts clearly show, and you have arrived at, the correct conclusion. Edited by anglagard, : graphic a more accurate term than chart

From the linked website: I don't know about you, but I tend to doubt the validity of any source that claims an article from 1974 is "recent".

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Well the source is clearly the same bibical perspective that tells us that the world will end within our lifetime, or real soon now. Given that that turns out to be 2000 years and counting, then I'd say 1974 is but a blink of the eye! In fact the longer the world goes on with out ending the more recent 1974 gets by this reckoning!It's all in your perspective lfen