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?

[JoeyKnothead]

"Well, if ya take ya this here femur, and compare it to that'n there, and take this jawbone and compare to that other'n, and if ya look at that cranial vault there, and compare it to... hang on, it's here som... this cranial vault here, and ya see how this hand here is similar to this'n, well here somewhere in amongst this mess, there's another species of Homo to be found."

Or...

"The Bible don't say that, so it can't be right."

Checkmate, atheists!

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #167]

I don't, as I explicitly stated in my last post. Evolution has no stopping point and I've never suggested otherwise. Are you reading the posts?

I know that you do not think that evolution stopped I just wanted you to state that you did not believe evolution stopped. Because you have said on many different occasions that the evolution of man is what caused man to be more intelligent than apes. So one of the differences between men and apes is the intelligence level of man compared to apes. So you clearly support the idea that intelligence is one of the distinguishing features between and an evolved ape "man" and an ape that that is not evovled. Using evolutionary terms for you.

What do you even mean by "more developed" than others, especially regarding a human brain? Homo sapien brains are pretty much all the same as far as general morphology. None are "more developed" than another. There are certainly people who are more intelligent than others as shown by Gaussian IQ curves, but that spread is small compared to the huge difference in intelligence between the average human and the average chimpanzee, for example. Human brains have evolved to be far more capable than a chimpanzee's brain, but within modern humans their brains are all at the same general evolutionary stage by definition. The spread in intelligence level (eg. IQ) among modern humans is a completely different thing that you appear to be confusing with evolutionary change.

The power of evolution as stated many different times the small incremental changes in a species. Now you are saying that these small incremental changes mean nothing. The whole eugenics movement of the early 19th century was based on evolutionary thought. The reason why the modern eugenics movement stopped was because of the atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis.

"Thanks to the unspeakable atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis, eugenics lost momentum in after World War II, although forced sterilizations still happened. But as medical technology advanced, a new form of eugenics came on the scene." https://www.history.com/topics/germany/eugenics

You stated above that men have all levels of intelligence. The moral thing to do using evolutionary thought would be to sterilize those that have a low IQ and let those that have higher IQ or desired traits mate as many times as they want.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #173]

There is no such thing as "more evolved".

So those unfortunate people lumbered with very low intelligence know exactly who to thank for it.

First, you say there is no such thing as more evolved and then you say that the people of low intelligence are unfortunate. So you do have a hierarchy in your beliefs about intelligence.

This is the exact thought that was the start of the eugenics movement in Germany and the United States. Picking certain races that could reproduce and other races that could not because they were not smart enough.

But you are correct in assuming that creationists would say that God did make them the exact way that He wanted them to be to bring Him glory.

Thi

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #182]

I know that you do not think that evolution stopped I just wanted you to state that you did not believe evolution stopped. Because you have said on many different occasions that the evolution of man is what caused man to be more intelligent than apes. So one of the differences between men and apes is the intelligence level of man compared to apes. So you clearly support the idea that intelligence is one of the distinguishing features between and an evolved ape "man" and an ape that that is not evovled. Using evolutionary terms for you.

The evolution of the brain was part of the evolution within the genus Homo, along with other physical changes as shown in the fossil record. I'm not sure what you are getting at. I certainly agree that Homo sapiens are more intelligent than, say, a chimpanzee, but I also claim that Homo erectus was more intelligent than Homo habilis, and Neanderthals were more intelligent than erectus but not as intelligent as sapiens. Intelligence evolved over time. Intelligent Homo sapiens did not just suddenly appear without any prior less intelligent members of the genus coming before them.

You also have to distinguish raw intelligence capacity and accumulated knowledge. A typical high school graduate today "knows" far more than a Homo sapien from 100K years ago simply because he or she has the luxury of being taught prior knowledge. I don't know of any evidence that suggests the intelligence capacity of a 100K year old Homo sapien was any different than a Homo sapien of today, but they certainly could not have been as "smart" as a modern human due to the lack of accumulated knowledge by the species.

Now you are saying that these small incremental changes mean nothing.

Huh? How did you distill that from anything that I posted?

You stated above that men have all levels of intelligence. The moral thing to do using evolutionary thought would be to sterilize those that have a low IQ and let those that have higher IQ or desired traits mate as many times as they want.

No ... I said that among moden humans there is a Gaussian (aka normal) distribution of intelligence levels as measured by IQ tests. The wings don't go to zero. And you sure have a warped concept of what "evolutionary thought" is! People who accept evolution as a valid explanation for how life diversified on this planet are just as moral as anyone else (which also follows a distribution of some sort ... hence we have serial killers as well as selfless volunteers of all kinds). "Evolutionary thought" does not lead in any way to believing that eugenics is acceptable. Hitler was a nut case.

[brunumb]

The moral thing to do using evolutionary thought would be to sterilize those that have a low IQ and let those that have higher IQ or desired traits mate as many times as they want.

Just how do you see that as a moral thing to do?

[brunumb]

First, you say there is no such thing as more evolved and then you say that the people of low intelligence are unfortunate. So you do have a hierarchy in your beliefs about intelligence.

There is no such thing as more evolved. People of low intelligence are unfortunate (thanks to your God). Your attempt to make a connection is truly desperate.

[JoeyKnothead]

The moral thing to do using evolutionary thought would be to sterilize those that have a low IQ and let those that have higher IQ or desired traits mate as many times as they want.

Just how do you see that as a moral thing to do?

Ever notice it's most often theists who propose these dooficities?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #184]

eugenics definition: the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Developed largely by Sir Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, eugenics was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis in order to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups.

No ... I said that among moden humans there is a Gaussian (aka normal) distribution of intelligence levels as measured by IQ tests. The wings don't go to zero. And you sure have a warped concept of what "evolutionary thought" is! People who accept evolution as a valid explanation for how life diversified on this planet are just as moral as anyone else (which also follows a distribution of some sort ... hence we have serial killers as well as selfless volunteers of all kinds). "Evolutionary thought" does not lead in any way to believing that eugenics is acceptable. Hitler was a nut case.

Evolutionary thought already has led to the acceptance of eugenics. And according to the article, I cited the only reason that the eugenics movement in the west ever stopped was because they saw the end result of evolutionary thought in Hitler's movement and the desire to form a master race by creating an artificial bottleneck. This is the same mechanism that evolutionist use to describe how punctuated equilibrium occurs. Hitler was not the only nut case then. All those associated with the eugenics movement would have to be considered nut cases. Which would include some of the most intelligent people of that time.

And do you really think that eugenics was left in the past?

The scientist Richard Dawkins sparked controversy when he tweeted that, aside from the moral problems, eugenics would work “in practice.” While that remark is shocking, Dawkins is hardly alone in accepting the premise at the heart of eugenic science and population-control theory. Last year, a group of 11,000 scientists signed a statement urging population control to slow human exploitation of Earth’s fragile resources. With climate change finally a topic of urgent debate, some have argued that limiting population growth — if not eugenics — could be part of saving the planet. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... s-problem/

The new documentary “Belly of the Beast” explores the epidemic of forced sterilizations within the female prison population of California. https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-am ... s-movement

How did eugenics begin?
Francis Galton, an English statistician, demographer and ethnologist (and cousin of Charles Darwin), coined the term “eugenics” in 1883.

Galton defined eugenics as “the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally.” Galton claimed that health and disease, as well as social and intellectual characteristics, were based upon heredity and the concept of race.

During the 1870s and 1880s, discussions of “human improvement” and the ideology of scientific racism became increasingly common. So-called experts determined individuals and groups of people to be either superior or inferior. They believed biological and behavioral characteristics were fixed and unchangeable, and placed individuals, populations and nations inside of that hierarchy. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/f ... fic-Racism

How do desired changes not occur when a population is forced into a population bottleneck? This is how selective breeding of dogs and any other animal is done. The process is well understood. Why would it not work in humans?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #185]

Just how do you see that as a moral thing to do?

Because that is what the modern eugenics movement believes.

The new documentary “Belly of the Beast” explores the epidemic of forced sterilizations within the female prison population of California. https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-am ... s-movement

[Jose Fly]

The moral thing to do using evolutionary thought would be to sterilize those that have a low IQ and let those that have higher IQ or desired traits mate as many times as they want.

Just how do you see that as a moral thing to do?

Ever notice it's most often theists who propose these dooficities?

You know the creationists are desperate when they start playing the "evolution = racism" card, while apparently being completely oblivious to how Christianity can be tarred with the same brush.