What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?

[DeMotts]

There's quite a body of fossils that exist that illustrate a variety of archaic humans, from australopithecines to Homo rhodesiensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo naledi, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, and Homo habilis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils

For the theistic anti-evolutionists on the board: how do you explain such a variety of human fossils? What are australopithecines? How do they fit in with the creation story of the bible? Do you believe these fossils are legitimate or forgeries?

[Jose Fly]

Ok, what is the percentage difference between what you believe to be the last common ancestor of modern humans and modern apes?

We don't know, just as I don't know the percentage difference between my genome and the genome of my last ancestor from Germany.

[EarthScienceguy]

Morphology

What morphological criteria did you employ to determine that H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus, H heidelbergensis, and H. ergaster, are modern human, while A. africanus, P. boisei, P. robustus, Praeanthropus africanus and H. habilis are ape?

And could human/primate common ancestry ever be a possibility for you? Or is it a conclusion that you cannot accept under any circumstances?

No, based on observational science there is not enough time for this type of adaptation "evolution" to occur.

So if it turned out your assertion is wrong, you could potentially accept human/primate ancestry as valid? Would you have to alter your religious beliefs? If so, how?

Ok lets look at A. Africanus.

Its hands are similar to small end of the pygmy chimpanzee.
Its feet are “long, curved and heavily muscled” like those of living tree-dwelling primates
Paleoanthropologists Jack Stern and Randall Sussman conclude that no living primate has such hands and feet “for any purpose other than to meet the demands of full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life.”

Feet are a very tale-telling sign of what fossil is in regards to modern human and ape.

[Jose Fly]

Ok lets look at A. Africanus.

Its hands are similar to small end of the pygmy chimpanzee.
Its feet are “long, curved and heavily muscled” like those of living tree-dwelling primates
Paleoanthropologists Jack Stern and Randall Sussman conclude that no living primate has such hands and feet “for any purpose other than to meet the demands of full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life.”

Feet are a very tale-telling sign of what fossil is in regards to modern human and ape.

That's it? Your entire method for deciding what is "human" and what is "ape" is "look at feet and hands"? You don't look at any other characteristics?

Also, is this the work from Stern and Susman you're referring to? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. ... 1330600302

"In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a “missing link.”"

[DeMotts]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #22]

In your opinion, what happened to A. Africanus? Why do they not exist now? When did they exist?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #22]

In your opinion, what happened to A. Africanus? Why do they not exist now? When did they exist?

What are you trying to get me to say? 90% of all organisms that have existed are now extinct. What difference does it make when they exist? If you really want to have a discussion on the flood, I can do that and I have done that on this forum before. But just be careful about what you ask for.

[EarthScienceguy]

Ok lets look at A. Africanus.

Its hands are similar to small end of the pygmy chimpanzee.
Its feet are “long, curved and heavily muscled” like those of living tree-dwelling primates
Paleoanthropologists Jack Stern and Randall Sussman conclude that no living primate has such hands and feet “for any purpose other than to meet the demands of full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life.”

Feet are a very tale-telling sign of what fossil is in regards to modern human and ape.

That's it? Your entire method for deciding what is "human" and what is "ape" is "look at feet and hands"? You don't look at any other characteristics?

Also, is this the work from Stern and Susman you're referring to? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. ... 1330600302

"In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a “missing link.”"

The feet still indicate that it is an ape. And in their opinion, the feet were ape feet.

[Jose Fly]

The feet still indicate that it is an ape. And in their opinion, the feet were ape feet.

Sorry bud, I'm not about to take your baseless say-so over the analyses and conclusions from professionals.

So I take it this is all you have...nothing more than "Because I say so"?

[Inquirer]

surely that involves interpreting the fossils, yes? and all interpretation is subjective, yes?

No. We went over this before, and you stated that the way to tell which interpretation is more accurate/valid is via scientific testing. Then I posted an example of researchers scientifically testing between two interpretations of the data regarding human origins (separate ancestry vs. common ancestry with other primates) and concluding that common ancestry is overwhelmingly the superior interpretatation.

I tried three times to get you to address that and you ignored it each time (as you did with examples of speciation, gradualism in the fossil record, and preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals).

That speaks for itself.

So you travelled back in time millions of years to test this hypothesis?

[Jose Fly]

surely that involves interpreting the fossils, yes? and all interpretation is subjective, yes?

No. We went over this before, and you stated that the way to tell which interpretation is more accurate/valid is via scientific testing. Then I posted an example of researchers scientifically testing between two interpretations of the data regarding human origins (separate ancestry vs. common ancestry with other primates) and concluding that common ancestry is overwhelmingly the superior interpretatation.

I tried three times to get you to address that and you ignored it each time (as you did with examples of speciation, gradualism in the fossil record, and preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals).

That speaks for itself.

So you travelled back in time millions of years to test this hypothesis?

Oh come on...you can't be serious. You actually think the only way to investigate a past event is via time travel?

[Clownboat]

I see, but this is hardly helpful, if we consider a fossil how can we unambiguously distinguish between a human and something not human but bearing some subjective resemblance to humans? surely that involves interpreting the fossils, yes? and all interpretation is subjective, yes?

You ask how? Well, professionals in the appropriate field have already made the determination that you now question. Surely you wouldn't argue that we have priest make these kind of derterminations. Surely you agree that professionals are best suited for their job compared to the layman.

I mean we have no scientific way to determine - say - the IQ the creature had, from an observation of its fossilized bones surely?

IQ, of course not. Info about their brains, that we can.

If we cannot determine what it's IQ was then we can't scientifically claim it was human can we?

IQ is not relevant when discussing morphology.

Do you agree these are reasonable, legitimate questions I'm asking?

No, your first question has already been answered. You just reject the professionals in the field. That is on you and doesn't affect the answer.
The 2nd question about IQ needed not be asked and was a bit odd.
The 3rd question about IQ and knowing if something is human or not is even more odd.

Do you have any sort of an explanation for archaic human fossils like this thread is about?