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?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #3]

Based on what?

Morphology

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. When was the last time a mutation caused by adaption became fixed in the human genome?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DeMotts in post #7]

What happened to all the entries in your "ape" list? I presume they died in the flood?

1. Are you saying that there are not any mass extinction events recorded in the rock record?
2. There is not enough time for this type of adaptation to occur according to observational science. Example: I will ask you. What was the last mutation caused by adaptation to become fixed in a significant portion of the population?
3. Based on morphology the apes are apes and humans are humans.

[Clownboat]

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

Stop pretending. You will need to show your work.
Clownboat then ponders about the type of evolution that would be required if all the 'kinds' on an ark had to evolve into all the species we have today. Head begins to spin.

When was the last time a mutation caused by adaption became fixed in the human genome?

How would adaption cause a mutation? Mutations coulds cause adaption, but not the other way around unless I'm missing something.
ad·ap·ta·tion
BIOLOGY
a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment.

(Grabs bib and spoon to at least show a recent human mutation).
Blue eyes, 6,000 - 10,000 years ago.
"Blue eyes are another recent-evolved trait and scientists have determined it came from a mutation in a single ancestor 6,000-10,000 years ago. The mutation affected the OCA2 gene, which codes the protein necessary for producing melanin, which gives our skin, hair and eyes their color."
Did the females find it attractive so that it became fixed in the genome? Perhaps. Either way, the mutation had to happen before adaption could be possible.

You made an empty claim, then asked to be spoon fed a question you could have dug up on your own. What you did not do is provide any sort of an explanation for archaic human fossils like this thread is about.

[Inquirer]

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?

What's a "human fossil"?

Definition of human
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

Definition of fossil
1: preserved from a past geologic age

I claim that to accept a religion is easy mode. Answers are supplied and no work is required. Not that it was a lot of work to provide definitions to Inquirer, but it does make me wonder why they were unwilling to put the work in themself for something so basic. We shouldn't have to hold the spoon for those that subscribe to a religion, that is what church is for from my experience.

To the OP:
Many Christians accept evolution as the best explanation we have for the life we see not only now, but also in the fossil record. For them, their god created humans and used evolution as its mechanism to do so. For those types of Christians, ancient human fossils are not an issue.
It is only an issue for the Christians that reject the best explanation that we have and as we saw, blanket, unevidenced proclomations are made in place of a better explanation.
Example from post 2: "No evolution here just different-sized humans." This empty claim is nothing more than a spoon for those conditioned to eat from the spoon IMO.

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?

I mean we have no scientific way to determine - say - the IQ the creature had, from an observation of its fossilized bones surely? If we cannot determine what it's IQ was then we can't scientifically claim it was human can we?

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

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #13]

(Grabs bib and spoon to at least show a recent human mutation).
Blue eyes, 6,000 - 10,000 years ago.
"Blue eyes are another recent-evolved trait and scientists have determined it came from a mutation in a single ancestor 6,000-10,000 years ago. The mutation affected the OCA2 gene, which codes the protein necessary for producing melanin, which gives our skin, hair and eyes their color."
Did the females find it attractive so that it became fixed in the genome? Perhaps. Either way, the mutation had to happen before adaption could be possible.

You made an empty claim, then asked to be spoon fed a question you could have dug up on your own. What you did not do is provide any sort of an explanation for archaic human fossils like this thread is about.

Ok, let's do the math on this genetic change that you say took place 6000 years ago. So you are saying that there was 1 mutation that became fixed in the genome in 6000 years. So that is 1.67E-4 per year. Our closest animal relative is said to be 1% different than modern humans. The size of the human genome is 3.5E9 base pairs that means that 3.5E7 base pairs needed to be changed. If there is one mutation fixed in the human genome every 6000 years then this "evolution" from our closest animal relative to modern human would take 2E11 years. One hundred billion years is just only 87% longer than the universe has been around. Like I said there is simply not enough time for evolution to happen.

[Jose Fly]

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?

[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.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to DeMotts in post #7]

What happened to all the entries in your "ape" list? I presume they died in the flood?

1. Are you saying that there are not any mass extinction events recorded in the rock record?
2. There is not enough time for this type of adaptation to occur according to observational science. Example: I will ask you. What was the last mutation caused by adaptation to become fixed in a significant portion of the population?
3. Based on morphology the apes are apes and humans are humans.

No, I asked you what happened to the creatures in your "ape" category. I didn't state anything. I asked you a question.

[Jose Fly]

Ok, let's do the math

Oh boy, creationist math! This oughta be good....

Our closest animal relative is said to be 1% different than modern humans. The size of the human genome is 3.5E9 base pairs that means that 3.5E7 base pairs needed to be changed.

LOL...um....what?

The modern human genome is not descended from the modern chimp genome.

Your math is based on a laughably poor understanding of basic biology. Yet you think yourself more knowledgeable on the subject than professional biologists and geneticists.

Creationists sure are something to behold.

[EarthScienceguy]

Ok, let's do the math

Our closest animal relative is said to be 1% different than modern humans. The size of the human genome is 3.5E9 base pairs that means that 3.5E7 base pairs needed to be changed.

The modern human genome is not descended from the modern chimp genome.

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