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?

[Inquirer]

Er, no Mr. Fly, that's your melodramatic interpretation of what I wrote.

So do you agree that we don't need to travel back in time and observe an event in order to study that event?

Well its a moot issue because we cannot travel back in time Jose, my earlier question was rhetorical.

Anyway you pretty much admit you have never observed these living organisms you regard as "human", have no objective information about their IQ.

Um....that's correct. So?

I was just establishing some facts.

How did you determine that these fossils come from organisms with an IQ typical of the modern human population?

The only one here focused on IQ is you. I've said nothing about that.

Well I regard intelligence (lets say IQ) as something that characterizes humans, a species with low intelligence can't really be regarded as human, even if they bore a strong morphological resemblance to us, don't you agree?

Since you admit that you have no way to establish IQ from fossil remains, then by simple logical extension you have no way of establishing if fossils really represent humans, they could have been as dumb as apes you'd not really know. Of course you might regard an ape as your intellectual equal, do you?

in fact you can call any fossil you like "human" in order to present a fake claim of evolution, isn't that all you're doing? Simply claiming X is an "early human" because it fits that narrative?

[Jose Fly]

Well I regard intelligence (lets say IQ) as something that characterizes humans

Good for you.

a species with low intelligence can't really be regarded as human, even if they bore a strong morphological resemblance to us, don't you agree?

Not in the context of this thread, which is specifically about fossil specimens.

Since you admit that you have no way to establish IQ from fossil remains, then by simple logical extension you have no way of establishing if fossils really represent humans.

Only if we adopt your personal criterion, which of course no one is obligated to do.

in fact you can call any fossil you like "human" in order to present a fake claim of evolution, isn't that all you're doing? Simply claiming X is an "early human" because it fits that narrative?

Seriously? You honestly think that's all there is to paleoanthropology? Wow.

How about this....pick any paper that describes a fossil hominid and show where it bases its conclusions on nothing more than "it's human because it fits the narrative of evolution". Show us what you've got.

[Inquirer]

Well I regard intelligence (lets say IQ) as something that characterizes humans

Good for you.

a species with low intelligence can't really be regarded as human, even if they bore a strong morphological resemblance to us, don't you agree?

Not in the context of this thread, which is specifically about fossil specimens.

That's quire simply not true, the OP's title even makes that clear by use of the term "archaic human fossils" - if we can't identify that a fossil came from something with a comparable intelligence to us, then we obviously can't declare it to be human can we.

Since you admit that you have no way to establish IQ from fossil remains, then by simple logical extension you have no way of establishing if fossils really represent humans.

Only if we adopt your personal criterion, which of course no one is obligated to do.

Mr. Fly, the claim that humans possess a very very high intelligence is a well established fact of science, it is not my personal opinion.

in fact you can call any fossil you like "human" in order to present a fake claim of evolution, isn't that all you're doing? Simply claiming X is an "early human" because it fits that narrative?

Seriously? You honestly think that's all there is to paleoanthropology? Wow.

No I certainly never said "that's all there is to paleoanthropology", I said that without a knowledge of the organisms IQ we can't honestly say that some fossil was "archaic human", if in fact the creature had low intelligence then I can and do argue that it cannot be regarded as in any way "human".

How about this....pick any paper that describes a fossil hominid and show where it bases its conclusions on nothing more than "it's human because it fits the narrative of evolution". Show us what you've got.

But that's the nature of deceit Mr. Fly, it never openly admits to being deceitful.

[Jose Fly]

That's quire simply not true, the OP's title even makes that clear by use of the term "archaic human fossils" - if we can't identify that a fossil came from something with a comparable intelligence to us, then we obviously can't declare it to be human can we.

Yes, we can and do. Paleoanthropologists do it all the time

Mr. Fly, the claim that humans possess a very very high intelligence is a well established fact of science, it is not my personal opinion.

So you don't understand the difference between "humans have very high intelligence" and "IQ is the sole means to categorize a fossil specimen as human". Noted.

No I certainly never said "that's all there is to paleoanthropology", I said that without a knowledge of the organisms IQ we can't honestly say that some fossil was "archaic human", if in fact the creature had low intelligence then I can and do argue that it cannot be regarded as in any way "human".

For no other reason than that you say so. Sure, let's just throw out the work of paleoanthropologists and go with the empty assertions of "Inquirer at DebatingChristianity.com".

The arrogance of creationists never ceases to amaze me.

But that's the nature of deceit Mr. Fly, it never openly admits to being deceitful.

So again, you think something is so simply because you say it is. Paleoanthropologists base their conclusions on nothing more than "it's human because it fits the narrative of evolution"...not because there's any evidence of them doing so, but merely because "Inquirer at DebatingChristianity.com says so".

Unbelievable.

[JoeyKnothead]

That's quire simply not true, the OP's title even makes that clear by use of the term "archaic human fossils" - if we can't identify that a fossil came from something with a comparable intelligence to us, then we obviously can't declare it to be human can we.

Yes, we can and do. Paleoanthropologists do it all the time

Mr. Fly, the claim that humans possess a very very high intelligence is a well established fact of science, it is not my personal opinion.

So you don't understand the difference between "humans have very high intelligence" and "IQ is the sole means to categorize a fossil specimen as human". Noted.

No I certainly never said "that's all there is to paleoanthropology", I said that without a knowledge of the organisms IQ we can't honestly say that some fossil was "archaic human", if in fact the creature had low intelligence then I can and do argue that it cannot be regarded as in any way "human".

For no other reason than that you say so. Sure, let's just throw out the work of paleoanthropologists and go with the empty assertions of "Inquirer at DebatingChristianity.com".

The arrogance of creationists never ceases to amaze me.

But that's the nature of deceit Mr. Fly, it never openly admits to being deceitful.

So again, you think something is so simply because you say it is. Paleoanthropologists base their conclusions on nothing more than "it's human because it fits the narrative of evolution"...not because there's any evidence of them doing so, but merely because "Inquirer at DebatingChristianity.com says so".

Unbelievable.

We gotta remember, IQ is not the sole criteria for determining what constitutes being human. Especially given the many diseases and such that cause profound mental incapacity, such as might be observed within this thread.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #41]

Well I regard intelligence (lets say IQ) as something that characterizes humans, a species with low intelligence can't really be regarded as human, even if they bore a strong morphological resemblance to us, don't you agree?

Where along the evolutionary path between the great apes and Homo sapien is your starting point for defining something as "human"? In the diagram below, what time period in the past (top scale) is the beginning of what you'd call a human? Do you consider only Homo sapiens as human?



We can get an idea of how intelligent some of these creatures may have been from the artifacts they left, not just their fossils. Use of fire (eg. Homo erectus), built structures, tools, etc. can shed light on how capable some of these creatures were. Brain size appears to have increased progressively from Homo habilis some 2.5 million years ago, and with it intellectual capabilities as evidenced by artifacts. "Human" intelligence didn't just appear at once ... it evolved over time (albeit relatively quickly in evolutionary terms).

The OP refers to "archaic human fossils", which narrows it down a bit but that term can be ambiguous. From Wikipedia:

"The category archaic human lacks a single, agreed definition.[9] According to one definition, Homo sapiens is a single species comprising several subspecies that include the archaics and modern humans. Under this definition, modern humans are referred to as Homo sapiens sapiens and archaics are also designated with the prefix "Homo sapiens". For example, the Neanderthals are Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and Homo heidelbergensis is Homo sapiens heidelbergensis. Other taxonomists prefer not to consider archaics and modern humans as a single species but as several different species. In this case the standard taxonomy is used, i.e. Homo rhodesiensis, or Homo neanderthalensis.[9]

The evolutionary dividing lines that separate modern humans from archaic humans and archaic humans from Homo erectus are unclear. The earliest known fossils of anatomically modern humans such as the Omo remains from 195,000 years ago, Homo sapiens idaltu from 160,000 years ago, and Qafzeh remains from 90,000 years ago are recognizably modern humans. However, these early modern humans do possess a number of archaic traits, such as moderate, but not prominent, brow ridges."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans

[brunumb]

Well I regard intelligence (lets say IQ) as something that characterizes humans, a species with low intelligence can't really be regarded as human, even if they bore a strong morphological resemblance to us, don't you agree?

By that reasoning any people born with particularly low IQs should not be regarded as human beings.

[Inquirer]

Well I regard intelligence (lets say IQ) as something that characterizes humans, a species with low intelligence can't really be regarded as human, even if they bore a strong morphological resemblance to us, don't you agree?

By that reasoning any people born with particularly low IQs should not be regarded as human beings.

When you get a minute, lookup the definition of "characterize", let me know if you still need help after reading that.

[Inquirer]

That's quire simply not true, the OP's title even makes that clear by use of the term "archaic human fossils" - if we can't identify that a fossil came from something with a comparable intelligence to us, then we obviously can't declare it to be human can we.

Yes, we can and do. Paleoanthropologists do it all the time

Mr. Fly, the claim that humans possess a very very high intelligence is a well established fact of science, it is not my personal opinion.

So you don't understand the difference between "humans have very high intelligence" and "IQ is the sole means to categorize a fossil specimen as human". Noted.

No I certainly never said "that's all there is to paleoanthropology", I said that without a knowledge of the organisms IQ we can't honestly say that some fossil was "archaic human", if in fact the creature had low intelligence then I can and do argue that it cannot be regarded as in any way "human".

For no other reason than that you say so. Sure, let's just throw out the work of paleoanthropologists and go with the empty assertions of "Inquirer at DebatingChristianity.com".

The arrogance of creationists never ceases to amaze me.

But that's the nature of deceit Mr. Fly, it never openly admits to being deceitful.

So again, you think something is so simply because you say it is. Paleoanthropologists base their conclusions on nothing more than "it's human because it fits the narrative of evolution"...not because there's any evidence of them doing so, but merely because "Inquirer at DebatingChristianity.com says so".

Unbelievable.

High intelligence is a characteristic of humans Mr. Fly, do you dispute that? if you do then just come out and say so.

Unless you can show that fossils bearing a resemblance to human bones came from creatures with a comparable high IQ then of course I do not regard them as "human" just something that bears a physical resemblance to humans.

There is a huge element of deceit here, saying that because there are fossilized bones that bear some morphological resemblance to humans then we can conclude these creatures were "human" is unjustified.

Every case we see today of animals with some morphological resemblance to us are all dumb apes, there is not trace of any living ape-like animal that even remotely exhibits our intellectual capacity.

Its fantasy, a much cherished narrative permeating the world of biology, confirmation bias not science.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes

[Jose Fly]

High intelligence is a characteristic of humans Mr. Fly, do you dispute that? if you do then just come out and say so.

IQ is irrelevant to the classification of fossils. Just because you think it is doesn't mean everyone else has to fall in line.

Unless you can show that fossils bearing a resemblance to human bones came from creatures with a comparable high IQ then of course I do not regard them as "human" just something that bears a physical resemblance to humans.

So? That only matters to you.

There is a huge element of deceit here, saying that because there are fossilized bones that bear some morphological resemblance to humans then we can conclude these creatures were "human" is unjustified.

For no other reason than that you say so. Apparently you feel everyone, including professional paleoanthropologists, should adopt and abide by your say-so.

Again, the arrogance of creationists never ceases to amaze.

Every case we see today of animals with some morphological resemblance to us are all dumb apes, there is not trace of any living ape-like animal that even remotely exhibits our intellectual capacity.

Its fantasy, a much cherished narrative permeating the world of biology, confirmation bias not science.

Gosh, I really would prefer to go with the conclusions of professional paleoanthropologists, which are based on over a century of data collection and analyses, but "Inquirer at DebatingChristianity.com" says otherwise, so I guess I have to go with that.

Is that what you're expecting?