Moderator: Moderators
For debate:EarthScienceguy wrote: There is now more evidence than ever before about 6-day creation.
Well said.Eloi wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 4:18 pm Yeah, sure ... You can call Neanderthal an abatwa, and homosapiens an abatutsi without even mention that both of them are humans in order to make believe that they are two different species
I have a couple of cousins myself on my mother's side that if someone found their bones in about 1000 years from now would say they were Neanderthals
I didn't make the taxonomic classification that separated Homo sapien from Homo neanderthalensis, but we do have full genomic sequences for both and can identify the differences. Apparently that is enough for the toxonomy gurus to place them as separate species or subspecies within the human lineage. Do you consider Homo ergaster/erectus also the same species as modern humans? What about Homo habilis? Where do you (or biblical interpretation) draw the line as to what is "human" and what isn't as far as the genus Homo?Yeah, sure ... You can call Neanderthal an abatwa, and homosapiens an abatutsi without even mention that both of them are humans in order to make believe that they are two different species.
It certainly is for those who appreciate the implications of the past few decades of genetics work, and more than a century of fossil discoveries and analysis, and what these reveal for how us Homo sapiens actually did get here. I'd be curious to see where the creationists place Adam and Eve on this figure from the Wikipedia article, even considering that it is only our current best guess based on the accumulated (fossil and genetic) evidence:Fascinating topic.
The Americas were not populated with any kind of humans when human evolution started in Africa, so you would not expect to find archaic human fossils in the Americas because there weren't any.Sometimes I even wonder what is the reason that they have not yet invented a "species" of primitive man that has appeared in the Americas instead of in the Eastern Hemisphere of the World; weren't there apes here? Or do they not realize that the origin of humans is not what they imagine?
Species and race are completely different things. There is only one extant species of human today and that is Homo sapiens. All the predecessors are extinct.Nor do I have the slightest idea what criteria will be followed by those in charge to decide how to call the owner of a piece of skull or other bone that is buried somewhere... Aren't they calling "species" what it is only a normal race of human beings, like the ones that exist today? All races are nothing more than genetic variations of the same species. Dividing ancient humans into species is like making believe that human races differ in evolutionary status.
What? 14-C dating is indeed only good to about 40,000 - 50,000 years, but 14-C is NOT used to date archaic human fossils (or anything else older than the range 14-C is good for). There are lots of other isotopic combinations that are used for older ages. Also, 14-C in the atmosphere does not depend on "sunlight", unless you're including in that term cosmic rays and other energetic particles. Did you think 14-C is the only method of radiometric dating, and used to date archaic human fossils?Another problem they have is the dating of those bones. C14 dating depends on atmospheric radiation, mostly sunlight. That amount of years that they give to the biological remains that are found is not certain at all. It seems even unlikely to me how these bone datings make them exceed even the age of the longest-living trees in the world that are still alive and continue to receive C14; none of those longest-lived trees exceed 6 millennia of life... how did a small buried bone fragment do it? 50 or 60 millennia? Did you know that this is the maximum that can be given to a biological residue by the C14 radiation method? Seriously? Are they giving the maximum because they can't give more?
You really need to read up more on this whole subject. The significant differences in the fossils are why a new genus was defined called Homo, and more than enough examples have been found to definitively determine this. But humans are apes taxonomicaly, so all the archaic human fossils that have been found are technically considered the remains of apes ... just not the apes you are evidently thinking of.Also, why do they consider them the bones of human ancestors, instead of just considering them as the remains of apes, as they might normally be?
But it isn't speculation ... we have the fossil record as well as 4-5 decades of genetics work to show that modern humans did indeed evolve from a great ape ancestor. We have many pieces of that puzzle but not all of the puzzle ... plenty enough to draw sensible conclusions. Don't believe it if you wish ... that doesn't change the facts one iota.All this hodgepodge of speculation depends on what a few decide they want to say... You people who go around saying you have a ton of proof for the evolution of man are just repeating what that little group decided you would believe.
Are you kidding me? I am talking about apes in America ... There were not "any kind of human" in Africa, since what you are saying is that they started to appear. So, why they didn't in America? Because of lack of apes?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 3:38 pm [Replying to Eloi in post #435]
The Americas were not populated with any kind of humans when human evolution started in Africa, so you would not expect to find archaic human fossils in the Americas because there weren't any.Sometimes I even wonder what is the reason that they have not yet invented a "species" of primitive man that has appeared in the Americas instead of in the Eastern Hemisphere of the World; weren't there apes here? Or do they not realize that the origin of humans is not what they imagine?
DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 3:38 pmSpecies and race are completely different things. There is only one extant species of human today and that is Homo sapiens. All the predecessors are extinct.Nor do I have the slightest idea what criteria will be followed by those in charge to decide how to call the owner of a piece of skull or other bone that is buried somewhere... Aren't they calling "species" what it is only a normal race of human beings, like the ones that exist today? All races are nothing more than genetic variations of the same species. Dividing ancient humans into species is like making believe that human races differ in evolutionary status.
Tell us more about these combinations and other methods used to date archaic human fossils.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 3:38 pmWhat? 14-C dating is indeed only good to about 40,000 - 50,000 years, but 14-C is NOT used to date archaic human fossils (or anything else older than the range 14-C is good for). There are lots of other isotopic combinations that are used for older ages. Also, 14-C in the atmosphere does not depend on "sunlight", unless you're including in that term cosmic rays and other energetic particles. Did you think 14-C is the only method of radiometric dating, and used to date archaic human fossils?Another problem they have is the dating of those bones. C14 dating depends on atmospheric radiation, mostly sunlight. That amount of years that they give to the biological remains that are found is not certain at all. It seems even unlikely to me how these bone datings make them exceed even the age of the longest-living trees in the world that are still alive and continue to receive C14; none of those longest-lived trees exceed 6 millennia of life... how did a small buried bone fragment do it? 50 or 60 millennia? Did you know that this is the maximum that can be given to a biological residue by the C14 radiation method? Seriously? Are they giving the maximum because they can't give more?
Apes are apes ... humans are humans. The link betwen is just a story. I don't need stories to sleep, I told that already. What I meant is I only read what I need to know; I don't need a whole conference of 3 hours to believe that the brain of an ape become bigger because it learnt how to cook ... at the very first moment of hearing the joke I turn off the video and use my time doing something more instructive.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 3:38 pmYou really need to read up more on this whole subject. The significant differences in the fossils are why a new genus was defined called Homo, and more than enough examples have been found to definitively determine this. But humans are apes taxonomicaly, so all the archaic human fossils that have been found are technically considered the remains of apes ... just not the apes you are evidently thinking of.Also, why do they consider them the bones of human ancestors, instead of just considering them as the remains of apes, as they might normally be?
No, you only got some pieces of bones.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 3:38 pmBut it isn't speculation ... we have the fossil record as well as 4-5 decades of genetics work to show that modern humans did indeed evolve from a great ape ancestor. We have many pieces of that puzzle but not all of the puzzle ... plenty enough to draw sensible conclusions. Don't believe it if you wish ... that doesn't change the facts one iota.All this hodgepodge of speculation depends on what a few decide they want to say... You people who go around saying you have a ton of proof for the evolution of man are just repeating what that little group decided you would believe.
So, you have absolutely no idea how a working paleontologist would go about identifying a bone fragment, but you know in your heart of hearts that their answers are wrong?
Nearly every word of this is wrong.Eloi wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 3:10 pmAnother problem they have is the dating of those bones. C14 dating depends on atmospheric radiation, mostly sunlight. That amount of years that they give to the biological remains that are found is not certain at all. It is mandatory that the atmospheric radiation has been constant since the burial until the remains were found, and that the comparison can be made between the amount of C14 in the remains and a similar one alive in the same area. The condition that the radiation has not changed in that place from then until now is taken as certain... which, obviously, is only an assumption.
Are you serious (or kidding)? The first members of the genus Homo appeared in Africa, and evolved from a great ape ancestor there. This ancestor did not exist in the Americas (north or south) so obviously humans could not have evolved in the Americas along the same evolutionary path that they did in Africa. The earliest evidence of humans in the Americas is around 30,000 years ago ... many tens of thousands of years after they were spread all over Africa and adjacent areas, and after Neanderthals had gone extinct in Europe. Why on earth would you think humans could have evolved in the Americas??Are you kidding me? I am talking about apes in America ... There were not "any kind of human" in Africa, since what you are saying is that they started to appear. So, why they didn't in America? Because of lack of apes?
I can't make any sense of this. Of course an analysis of bones found in a cemetery anywhere today would show the DNA composition of that individual, and since the only extant species of Homo that exists now are Homo sapiens, the DNA and genes would be representative of a Homo sapien. "Race" is a social construct, not a biological term.All humans, regardless of the race we have, have specific genes ... not just the bones found. If they analyze the bones of the different graves of the same cemetery in a multiracial country, the results will be the same.
There are hundreds if not thousands of websites, books, journal articles, etc. describing radiometric dating techniques and all of the different isotopic combinations that are used, for all kinds of samples including human fossils. 14-C is common for relatively recent, organic material but is useless for anything more than about 50,000 years old. For those samples, other isotopes must be used. Here are a couple of short articles:Tell us more about these combinations and other methods used to date archaic human fossils.
I think the general consensus is that it was a combination of things that led to increasing brain size and complexity (eg. more neocortex) and not just cooking food. But you already have the answer you believe anyway, and have apparently shut out any interest in learning what science thinks about the subject, despite it being a very interesting topic and certainly far more realistic than that a god being just poofed us into existence fully formed as we are now.I don't need a whole conference of 3 hours to believe that the brain of an ape become bigger because it learnt how to cook ... at the very first moment of hearing the joke I turn off the video and use my time doing something more instructive.
You are not answering my question. It seems that you don't understand it... maybe I'm not explaining myself well.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 7:58 pm [Replying to Eloi in post #437]
Are you serious (or kidding)? The first members of the genus Homo appeared in Africa, and evolved from a great ape ancestor there. This ancestor did not exist in the Americas (north or south) so obviously humans could not have evolved in the Americas along the same evolutionary path that they did in Africa. The earliest evidence of humans in the Americas is around 30,000 years ago ... many tens of thousands of years after they were spread all over Africa and adjacent areas, and after Neanderthals had gone extinct in Europe. Why on earth would you think humans could have evolved in the Americas??Are you kidding me? I am talking about apes in America ... There were not "any kind of human" in Africa, since what you are saying is that they started to appear. So, why they didn't in America? Because of lack of apes?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53486868
Tell us clearly what is the criteria to say that a bone is from a kind of normal ape or from a kind of human-linked ape.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 7:58 pmI can't make any sense of this. Of course an analysis of bones found in a cemetery anywhere today would show the DNA composition of that individual, and since the only extant species of Homo that exists now are Homo sapiens, the DNA and genes would be representative of a Homo sapien. "Race" is a social construct, not a biological term.All humans, regardless of the race we have, have specific genes ... not just the bones found. If they analyze the bones of the different graves of the same cemetery in a multiracial country, the results will be the same.
I see: you don't know any other method "used to date archaic human fossils" but C14 ... You were bluffing.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 7:58 pmThere are hundreds if not thousands of websites, books, journal articles, etc. describing radiometric dating techniques and all of the different isotopic combinations that are used, for all kinds of samples including human fossils. 14-C is common for relatively recent, organic material but is useless for anything more than about 50,000 years old. For those samples, other isotopes must be used. Here are a couple of short articles:Tell us more about these combinations and other methods used to date archaic human fossils.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
A consensus is not evidence of anything.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 7:58 pmI think the general consensus is that it was a combination of things that led to increasing brain size and complexity (eg. more neocortex) and not just cooking food. But you already have the answer you believe anyway, and have apparently shut out any interest in learning what science thinks about the subject, despite it being a very interesting topic and certainly far more realistic than that a god being just poofed us into existence fully formed as we are now.I don't need a whole conference of 3 hours to believe that the brain of an ape become bigger because it learnt how to cook ... at the very first moment of hearing the joke I turn off the video and use my time doing something more instructive.
