Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
74 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,288 Year: 4,400/6,534 Month: 614/900 Week: 138/182 Day: 18/27 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Java Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man???
joz
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 52 (7563)
03-21-2002 9:50 PM


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:
Oetzi was about 159 centimetres (five feet, 2.5 inches) tall, 46 years old, arthritic, and infested with whipworm.

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.....


Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by KingPenguin, posted 03-22-2002 12:22 AM joz has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7122 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 17 of 52 (7588)
03-22-2002 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by gene90
03-21-2002 5:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
TC, why did God make half-human, half-simian creatures? Is your position even falsifiable?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 03-21-2002 5:05 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by gene90, posted 03-22-2002 11:48 AM KingPenguin has taken no action

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7122 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 18 of 52 (7589)
03-22-2002 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by joz
03-21-2002 9:50 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by joz, posted 03-21-2002 9:50 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by joz, posted 03-22-2002 12:33 AM KingPenguin has taken no action

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 52 (7594)
03-22-2002 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by KingPenguin
03-22-2002 12:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
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.

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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by KingPenguin, posted 03-22-2002 12:22 AM KingPenguin has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Peter, posted 03-22-2002 7:47 AM joz has taken no action

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 717 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 taken no action

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 717 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 taken no action

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 717 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 taken no action

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 23 of 52 (7624)
03-22-2002 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by KingPenguin
03-22-2002 12:19 AM


[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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by KingPenguin, posted 03-22-2002 12:19 AM KingPenguin has taken no action

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 24 of 52 (7625)
03-22-2002 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by leekim
03-21-2002 5:41 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by leekim, posted 03-21-2002 5:41 PM leekim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 2:45 PM gene90 has replied

  
Xombie
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 52 (7628)
03-22-2002 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by leekim
03-21-2002 4:03 PM


[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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by leekim, posted 03-21-2002 4:03 PM leekim has taken no action

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 52 (7648)
03-22-2002 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by gene90
03-22-2002 11:55 AM


[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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by gene90, posted 03-22-2002 11:55 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by joz, posted 03-22-2002 2:53 PM leekim has taken no action
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 03-22-2002 2:54 PM leekim has replied
 Message 36 by gene90, posted 03-22-2002 5:15 PM leekim has replied
 Message 45 by Peter, posted 03-25-2002 11:16 AM leekim has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 52 (7650)
03-22-2002 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by leekim
03-22-2002 2:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by leekim:
Surely evolution doesn't equate with extinction.

How else would you apply the old saw of "survival of the fittest" to species?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 2:45 PM leekim has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4434 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 28 of 52 (7651)
03-22-2002 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by leekim
03-22-2002 2:45 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
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.


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.


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 29 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 2:59 PM mark24 has taken no action

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 52 (7652)
03-22-2002 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mark24
03-22-2002 2:54 PM


[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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 03-22-2002 2:54 PM mark24 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 3:11 PM leekim has taken no action

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 52 (7656)
03-22-2002 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by leekim
03-22-2002 2:59 PM


[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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by leekim, posted 03-22-2002 2:59 PM leekim has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-22-2002 3:43 PM leekim has replied
 Message 32 by joz, posted 03-22-2002 3:46 PM leekim has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022