Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Java Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man???
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 20 of 52 (7609)
03-22-2002 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 5:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--I would not expect many at all humans to be present in the geologic column, it is even a thought to consider why there are any, at least in the flood scenario.

In the falsifying creation thread you say that ANY animal hitting
bottom 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:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

I totally agree that we should be finding many many of these fossilized specimens of proto-humans. Though mabye thats because were an isolated population, punctuated equillibria right?

Considering the rarity of fossils, we ARE finding many many proto-
human remains.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

As for Gene, you assertion that 'without evolution none of the above should exist' seems to be implying that Evolution is the only mechenism explaining these findings. Quite a bold statment, I have found no problem with their existance.

Someone else has pointed out that Evolution IS the only mechanism
currently explaining the data, so I won't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 5:00 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 21 of 52 (7610)
03-22-2002 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 9:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"So all fossil hominids are diseased humans?"
--No, they aren't all. Some of them are though, they each have a different explination, usually the supposed closer relatives are the humans and the older ones are the apes.

Why would ape remains be 'older' ? Don't we co-exist with apes ?
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I am not too big on human ancestory, I am more into the geology and a little bit of biology, sooner or later some cosmology. Leekim seems to be a creationist, he may have more of an interest in such homonids and its alleged perspects. He may have some input on a specific homonid.

Human ancestry is, surely, a fundamental issue in the great
debate. It's fascinatng too ... look it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 9:22 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 22 of 52 (7611)
03-22-2002 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by joz
03-22-2002 12:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
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]

And just as puzzling why multiple fossils would exhibit exactly
the same deformations to a sufficient degree that they are
considered a separate species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by joz, posted 03-22-2002 12:33 AM joz has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 45 of 52 (7803)
03-25-2002 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by leekim
03-22-2002 2:45 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
---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.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Evolution and extinction ARE intrinsically linked.
If you have 'survival of the fittest' that implies 'extinction of
the less fit'. They are the same thing.
The only reason that there is an incremental change from early
hominids to modern man is that the changes acquired along
the way made the 'newer' kids on the block more able to survive,
and having survived, breed.
The current existence of earlier forms would do more to challenge
evolution than the absence of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 2:45 PM leekim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by leekim, posted 03-27-2002 3:33 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 51 of 52 (9676)
05-15-2002 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by leekim
03-27-2002 3:33 PM


[b] [QUOTE] originally posted by leekim
---I understand all of the points you raise but that (and the prior posts) is not a sufficient explanation to justify the non-existence of any of the less advanced hominids (under a theory of evolution there must have been hundreds of these incremental, "advancing" specimens which eventually lead to the modern homo sapien sapien). Yet despite the fact that modern apes, chimps, etc found a way to survive to the current day, none, not a one, of the prior sapiens was able to find a way to survive within their environment? It just seems implausible to me.
[/b][/QUOTE]
You seem to be suggesting that modern apes have NOT evolved.
Evolutionary theory puts forward that modern apes are just as
far up (if you want to put it that way) the evolutionary
ladder as we are ... they too evolved from early hominids.
The reason, in a nutshell, that no early hominids exist today is
that they evolved ... their offspring at each generation
were subtly different, and selective pressure worked to keep
the 'variants' that could survive best.
On the African continent what would become Gorillas were able
to survive in the high forests because large, mainly plant-eating
creatures could survive better there (simplification).
Those hominid offspring that were better adapted to that lifestyle survived and bred, and differences accumulated over tens of thousands of years.
Evolution is gradual and ongoing, and cannot be detected by the
generations involved. Only by looking back several thousand
years can the accumulated differences be noticed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by leekim, posted 03-27-2002 3:33 PM leekim 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