I assume the readers here can differentiate between the points inherent in my Hypothesis that Genesis genealogy is bout Paleontolgy, and original with myself.
Apparently you are the person unable to differentiate, because when people replied about your images in your Message 148 you mistakenly assumed they were talking about the book. For example, Coyote replied like this in his Message 149
I've rarely seen such a pile of nonsense. I'm not even going to start trying to correct all the errors I see, and I see a lot as half my Ph.D. training was in the field of fossil man.
Suffice it to say that you are just rearranging facts in an effort to support your prior beliefs with no regard to whether they actually do or not.
And you mistakenly assumed he was talking about the book when you replied thus in your Message 149:
You dispute the credentals of the cast of paleontolgists who wrote The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans.
Apparently you're subject to the very confusion you accuse others of. So when you ask questions like this:
Do you beleve there are people so dumb here?
The answer seems obvious.
Speaking very generally, I think you need to begin presenting actual evidence from the real world. This is a science thread, not a Bible thread.
I'm not moderating this thread - I'm just a participant.
I think you need to connect your ideas to evidence. For example, what evidence leads you to believe that Adam was a Sahefanthropus tchadensis? What evidence leads you to believe that a member of one species can give birth to a member of a different species?
I'm just bringing to your attention the lack of fact connecting your ideas to reality. There's no bias and no one wants to silence you, just the opposite in fact. I want you to shout your evidence from the rooftops.
So let's try to get the evidence train going, we can start with those same questions I asked before: What evidence leads you to believe that Adam was a Sahefanthropus tchadensis? What evidence leads you to believe that a member of one species can give birth to a member of a different species?
AbE: Whoops, don't bother replying, I see now that you posted three replies to my message, I'm looking at the other ones now.
And, conversely, Gen 5:2 says that Adam is the first of the human species:
And Sahefanthropus tchadensis wasn't human. Did you mean to say that Adam was the first of the hominid line? What is it that you're finding in the Bible that leads you to think Adam wasn't human?
"Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes."
Yes it does, but it isn't evidence that a member of one species can give birth to a member of a different species. Evolution has to be gradual and in terms of entire populations because any new species produced in a single generation would have no breeding partners. The genetic accident that produced the chromosome 2 fusion could not have introduced a species reproductive barrier, else the individual possessing it could never have passed it on.
The questions only get worse for you. For example, what evidence leads you to conclude that Ardipithecus ramidus is descended from Sahefanthropus tchadensis, and what leads you to believe that Cain was an Ardipithecus ramidus? How can Tubal-cain be Jabal's descendant if, according to the Bible, he's Jabal's half-brother? And so on. And there's still the major question of why you believe Adam and his descendants up until the flood were not human.
I was responding to Percy's reminder that he is a Moderator.
Like many others in this thread, I asked for the evidence behind your claims. I never mentioned my moderator status. I responded to your paranoid Message 180 that I'm a mere participant in this thread.
No one is trying to censor you. We're not trying to get you to say less. We're trying to get you to say more. Specifically, about evidence.
You have very odd ideas about how science works. Science isn't a matter of what hasn't been refuted. Science is a matter of what has been supported with evidence.
You claim there were 22 predecessor species to man and that science hasn't refuted that. Let us say, just for the sake of discussion, that this is all true.
But I could claim there were 23 predecessor species to man and that science hasn't refuted that either. It's just as true as your claim.
But they can't both be true. That's why science isn't a matter of what hasn't been refuted, because all kinds of contradictory claims haven't been refuted, and they can't all be true. Scientific claims become tentatively accepted as accurate reflections of reality because of positive evidence, not because of lack of refutation.
Addressing this more directly now:
Science does NOT refute a short list of 22 species in the ascent of man.
It has been explained to you many times that science does not believe there were 22 species between the chimp/human common ancestor and modern man. We don't know the correct number. Some of the 22 species from the book The Last Human are definitely cousin species, some have strong evidence for being on a direct line to humans, others are ambiguous. Science cannot refute that there were 22 species between the chimp/human common ancestor and modern man, but it can't refute 23 or 10 or 37 either.
All your other claims have pretty much the same problem. In other words, you've spent this entire thread making empty claims. You need to begin talking about evidence, and now is as good a time as any.
So tell us, what evidence do you have that Adam was a Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Science does not know whether it's on the line of descent to humans from the chimp/human common ancestor, nor even whether it existed before or after the split. You need to also explain what evidence leads you to conclude that the chimp/human split is relevant to Adam, as opposed to say the gorilla/human split, or the monkey/human split.
So why bash the Theistic Bible believer who chooses to see the 22 names in Genesis description of the roots in the ascent of man as corresponding with the paleontological evidence of science????
You're not getting bashed, and what is happening to you isn't because you're a theistic Bible believer but because you're ignoring everything being explained to you. When someone appears to not hear what is said then people tend to repeat it at higher volume, which at a discussion board can come across as bashing.
An example of something explained many times that you're ignoring is that science doesn't believe there are 22 species on the line from the chimp/human common ancestor to modern man. The reality is that science doesn't know how many there are.
But this is only one point that you're ignoring. You've actually ignored almost every point made. An exhaustive list of every time you've ignored a point would go on for pages.