Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 16 of 95 (693774)
03-15-2013 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Admin
03-15-2013 10:19 PM


Re: ...we all have genes from hybridization with lowerforms of man...
KOFH2u:
Second, the poor blurred graphis does NOT say "adam," but to "Adah," who corresponds to Early Homo erectus.
MODERATEOR extraodinare':
Okay, Adah. On the one hand you claim that the giants of the Bible are Homo erectus, and on the other you claim that Adah and Methuslelah are Homo erectus. They can't both be Homo erectus, so which is it?
Yes they CAN BOTH be Homo erectus, since there were two co-existing kinds of Homo erecti.
Homo ergaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo ergaster
Temporal range: Pleistocene, 1.8—1.3Ma
PreЄЄOSDCPTJKPgN
Skull KNM-ER 3733 discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1975 (Kenya)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. ergaster [aka early Homo erectus]
Homo ergaster
Groves and Mazk, 1975
Homo ergaster (also "African Homo erectus") is an extinct chronospecies of Homo that lived in eastern and southern Africa during the early Pleistocene, between 1.8 million and 1.3 million years ago.
There is still disagreement on the subject of the classification, ancestry, and progeny of H. ergaster,...
... but \[B\]it is now widely accepted (Homo ergaster) to be the direct ancestor of later hominids such as Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens, and Homo neanderthalensis AND Asian Homo erectus.
You seem to be in need of this thread and fail, imho, to be qualified to decide whether I know what I am talking about or not.
Note again for clarity, that African Homo erectus is diferent from Asian Homo Erectus is evidenced in that the former is usually called Ergaster.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Admin, posted 03-15-2013 10:19 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Admin, posted 03-16-2013 9:22 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 17 of 95 (693775)
03-15-2013 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Admin
03-15-2013 10:19 PM


Re: ...we all have genes from hybridization with lowerforms of man...
All this discussion between you and myself dmonstrates that this is a thread which others need participate in...
Super Moderator extraordinare:
What all this discussion actually demonstrates is the remarkable difficulty you are having coming up with evidence supporting your claims associating Biblical beings and persons with ancestral hominid species. Do you have evidence from archeological digs? Radiometric dating? Paleontological finds at Biblical sites? What?
Why????
Why in the devil would I need more evidence than that which the paleontologists have dug up, to show that the ascent to modern man was through 22 kinds of links from the first Adam to appear on Earth, since my ONLY point is that the Bible says this is so.
The scientist have come up with the evidence that agrees with he 22 names of creatures mentioned in the Genesis genealogy, though they have called them their own names.
THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN WHAT SCIENCE SAYS TODAY AND THE BIBLE SAID IN 1362BC IS ONE-TO ONE:
Book:
The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Admin, posted 03-15-2013 10:19 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Admin, posted 03-16-2013 9:31 AM kofh2u has replied
 Message 94 by anglagard, posted 04-02-2013 12:20 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 18 of 95 (693776)
03-16-2013 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by kofh2u
03-15-2013 10:54 PM


Re: ...we all have genes from hybridization with lowerforms of man...
kofh2u writes:
Do you also agree that all these other species disappeared in the last 40,000 years?
nd are you willing to acknowledge that all men living today carry the Y-chromosome of just one man who could correspond with this Noah whose three sons could be what is the scienice theory of Three Racial Stocks????
These issues have nothing to do with the questions I've been asking.
Threads arguing positions that lack evidence and/or contain contradictions won't be promoted. The thread proposal process exists to remove these kinds of problems before discussion begins. You can continue to argue issues I haven't raised, but until you address the issues I have raised your thread cannot be promoted. Here's a cut-n-paste of the questions from my previous message:
And getting back to the original question that was an example of the kind of evidence you need, whoever you decide is really Homo erectus, what is the supporting evidence?
All this discussion between you and myself dmonstrates that this is a thread which others need participate in...
What all this discussion actually demonstrates is the remarkable difficulty you are having coming up with evidence supporting your claims associating Biblical beings and persons with ancestral hominid species. Do you have evidence from archeological digs? Radiometric dating? Paleontological finds at Biblical sites? What?
The thread proposal process cannot go on indefinitely. If my concerns aren't begun to be addressed soon then I'll have to consider closing this proposal.
AbE: I see now that you posted three replies, not just the one. I'm looking at the other replies now.
Edited by Admin, : AbE.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by kofh2u, posted 03-15-2013 10:54 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 19 of 95 (693777)
03-16-2013 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by kofh2u
03-15-2013 11:15 PM


Re: ...we all have genes from hybridization with lowerforms of man...
Hi Kofh2u,
You seem to have misunderstood me. I was pointing out a logical error. Let me state it differently.
You originally claimed that the giants of the Bible were Homo erectus. You later claimed through a diagram that Adah and Methuslelah were Homo erectus (the Homo egaster distinction is irrelevant to the logical contradiction). So if the giants of the Bible were a different species than Adah and Methuslelah, how can they all be Homo erectus?
But the bigger problem is that you have not presented any evidence connecting the personages and beings of the Bible to specific ancestral hominid species. Until you give some indication that your position has at least some supporting evidence your proposal cannot be promoted.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by kofh2u, posted 03-15-2013 11:15 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by kofh2u, posted 03-16-2013 2:31 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 20 of 95 (693778)
03-16-2013 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by kofh2u
03-15-2013 11:25 PM


Re: ...we all have genes from hybridization with lowerforms of man...
Hi Kofh2u,
This is going on too long, so let's keep this simple by focusing on just one hominid from your diagram:
Please present your evidence that Adam was a Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by kofh2u, posted 03-15-2013 11:25 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by kofh2u, posted 03-16-2013 2:23 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 21 of 95 (693779)
03-16-2013 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Admin
03-16-2013 9:31 AM


Re: ...we all have genes from hybridization with lowerforms of man...
Please present your evidence that Adam was a Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
Easy...
Science and the Bible both say that the first evolution from apes was the first fo the 22 now extinct species of humans that lead to the three racial stocks that further developed into us, the people living today.
Hence, as the best guesses of Paleontogy and Theology, that would be Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is one of the oldest known species in the human family tree. This species lived sometime between 7 and 6 million years ago in West-Central Africa (Chad).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Admin, posted 03-16-2013 9:31 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 22 of 95 (693780)
03-16-2013 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Admin
03-16-2013 9:22 AM


Re: ...we all have genes from hybridization with lowerforms of man...
You seem to have misunderstood me. I was pointing out a logical error. Let me state it differently.
You originally claimed that the giants of the Bible were Homo erectus. You later claimed through a diagram that Adah and Methuslelah were Homo erectus (the Homo egaster distinction is irrelevant to the logical contradiction). So if the giants of the Bible were a different species than Adah and Methuslelah, how can they all be Homo erectus?
?
1) The proper spelling is Ergaster, not egaster.
2) The chart identified Homo ergaster as the partner in a hybridization with the more advanced Modern Homo erectus.
This sounds very very reasonable, in that these two DIFFERENT species where closely related, in fact Ergaster is often referred to a African Homo erectus, from which a more advance Modern Asian Homo erectus was derived.
You seem to be having difficult with the facts as presented and perhaps are a little behind in your Paleontology, so maybe you ought stop the inquisition and just let others who may be way more knowledgeable in these things debate and inquire of me on a less bias attempt to find so picayune inconsistency in what I set forth???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Admin, posted 03-16-2013 9:22 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 23 of 95 (693781)
03-16-2013 5:15 PM


Hi Kofh2u,
We don't seem to be making any progress so I'm going to close this thread proposal.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 24 of 95 (693783)
03-19-2013 8:55 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 25 of 95 (693786)
03-19-2013 9:49 PM


Humans listed by name before Noah's flood:
1) Adam
2) Eve
3) Cain
3a) Enoch
3b) Irad
3c) Mehujael
3d)Methushael
3e) Lamech
3e1) Jabal
3e2) Jubal
3e3) Tubal Cain
3e4) Naamah
4a) Adah
4b) Zillah
5) Seth
5a) Enos
5b) Caanan
5c) Mahalaleel
5d) Jared
5e) Enoch
5f) Mathuselah
5g) Lamech
5h) Noah
6) Abel
There are 24 names listed in the geneology up through Noah. 27 when we count Noah's three sons.
Every assumption Kofh2u has made in regard to these two lists corresponding has solely been based on the claim that there are 22 names in the genesis genealogy up to the arbitrary stopping point of Noah's sons. There are not 22 names in said genealogy, there are 27. It could be advantageous to him to claim that we should only count the male names since the ark story concludes with 8 humans surviving including the women. He could claim that the women listed are necessarily of the same species as a male counterpart and are only necessary for the purposes of breeding. I wuld not be surprised at this claim since I have seen other mysogynistic postings by him.
Even if Kofh2u makes some other arbitrary appeal to only the male names, we still do not arrive at 22.
/thread
Edited by Eli, : No reason given.
Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by kofh2u, posted 03-20-2013 11:08 AM Eli has replied

  
GrimSqueaker
Member (Idle past 3688 days)
Posts: 137
From: Ireland
Joined: 03-15-2013


Message 26 of 95 (693811)
03-20-2013 8:10 AM


I'm far from an expert on this particular area of discussion but isn't the problem with interptive arguments that they hinge on thongs that are subjective to the author and current understanding.
100 years ago there were also the Dravidians and Sinhalese races of man, so that'd be 5 races rather than 3 - and as it stands currently there have been no where near enough studies done on the genetic make up of the native tribes of Austrailia, but considering how far divergent the rest of the mammals there are we could probably expect some interesting findings. Not to mention that there may be more similar folk hidden around the world that may have died out or been breed into obscurity long ago

Reason > Belief
Even if we dont agree find me on Facebook, always happy to have new friends

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by kofh2u, posted 03-20-2013 11:23 AM GrimSqueaker has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 27 of 95 (693831)
03-20-2013 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
03-12-2013 8:54 AM


OK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-12-2013 8:54 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 03-20-2013 10:18 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 28 of 95 (693833)
03-20-2013 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by kofh2u
03-20-2013 10:07 AM


kofh2u writes:
OK
I assume that by now you've figured out that this is a copy of your original thread proposal over at According to Genesis, Noah collected his family and the animals of the world on his a.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by kofh2u, posted 03-20-2013 10:07 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by kofh2u, posted 03-20-2013 11:10 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 29 of 95 (693839)
03-20-2013 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Eli
03-19-2013 9:49 PM


...men in line pass on Y-chromosomes....
There are 24 names listed in the geneology up through Noah. 27 when we count Noah's three sons.
Rigt,...
Abel does not count becay-use he had no children.
The 4 women do not count because th line of Ascent reuires that the Y-chromosome be passed down to the next evolution in each case.
The women have been included as ex partners when hybridizations occurred, however, but the males that resulted from those acts are the next in the line of ascent.
This is all supported by Genesis and Science, in that the males are the names found in the genealogy of Chapter 5.
Here is the lineage according to this point of view:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Eli, posted 03-19-2013 9:49 PM Eli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Eli, posted 03-20-2013 11:35 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 30 of 95 (693840)
03-20-2013 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
03-20-2013 10:18 AM


thanks...
yeah...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 03-20-2013 10:18 AM Percy has seen this message but 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