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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #188]

Last year, a group of 11,000 scientists signed a statement urging population control to slow human exploitation of Earth’s fragile resources.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with eugenics. It is an idea to limit exponential population growth for resource reasons, independent of any criteria for which people or groups are targeted. China long had a policy limiting the number of children a woman could have but it wasn't targeted at only less intelligent people, or disabled people ... it applied across the entire population. Eugenics is selective extermination of specific people considered undesirable by whoever is running the show. That is completely different and unrelated to what you quoted above.

Evolutionary thought already has led to the acceptance of eugenics.

That is just plain nonsense.

During the 1870s and 1880s, discussions of “human improvement” and the ideology of scientific racism became increasingly common.

It is not the 1870s anymore, and no one would argue that you couldn't breed humans the same as you can breed any other animal to cull undesirable characteristics and enhance desirable characteristics. But we have morals that are inherent in our intelligent species that make us realize that this sort of thing isn't right or productive for the population as a whole, and it would not enable the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness described in our Declaration of Independence. There are places in the world where racial discrimination is rampant, but eugenics is not something "evolutionary thought" leads to or supports.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #184]

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.

What made them more intelligent? What function did Neanderthals and homo habilis have over erectus? What function did Neanderthals have over homo habilis? If this is what you are saying intellectually happened.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #191]

It is not the 1870s anymore, and no one would argue that you couldn't breed humans the same as you can breed any other animal to cull undesirable characteristics and enhance desirable characteristics. But we have morals that are inherent in our intelligent species that make us realize that this sort of thing isn't right or productive for the population as a whole, and it would not enable the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness described in our Declaration of Independence.

So you are saying that we are more evolved now than were just 100 years ago.

I think you need to finish your quote. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That morality comes from belief in a Creator. You do not believe in a creator so where does your morality come from? If you really care about the species then you would want the species to continue on and develop and evolve. If you really believe in evolutionary thought.

Christian thought does not progress the species according to evolution.

There are places in the world where racial discrimination is rampant, but eugenics is not something "evolutionary thought" leads to or supports.

What???? That makes no sense whatsoever. Where did the eugenics movement come from then? What philisophical underpennings supported it and give it such great appeal?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #192]

What made them more intelligent? What function did Neanderthals and homo habilis have over erectus? What function did Neanderthals have over homo habilis? If this is what you are saying intellectually happened.

Evolution of the brain over time (larger brain case volumes, more neocortex, etc.). The chronological sequence earlier to later, using your examples above, was habilis > erectus > Neanderthal (with lots of others in the "bushy" path that was taken). So habilis had no intellectual advantage over erectus (the other way around), and Neanderthals were more intelligent than either. We know this from artifacts left behind (or not ... there has yet to be found any Homo erectus cave paintings or figurines as far as I know), and fossil analysis (brain case volumes). Here's a good review article for you:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00029/full

And a few more informative articles:

https://www.yourgenome.org/stories/evol ... man-brain/

https://humanorigins.si.edu/human-chara ... ics/brains

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

Reading is fundamental as they say.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #193]

You do not believe in a creator so where does your morality come from?

The same place as sheep, cows, ants, and all other social animals. It evolved as a favorable characteristics for survival and reproduction. Do you ever see fields of sheep killing and eating their young, or cows doing this? Why not? They may not "think" it is immoral but don't do it because that would quickly lead to less stable sheep populations and eventuall extinction. Not good for evolution. Humans are much more intelligent and can reason things far more deeply, but basic morals are inherent in all social animals.

Christian thought does not progress the species according to evolution.

Evolution makes no consideration of Christian thought, or any other religious thinking. These are independent things, they are orthogonal, they commute, their dot product is zero, however you want to look at it. How does evolution relate in any way whatsoever to Christian thought?

What???? That makes no sense whatsoever. Where did the eugenics movement come from then? What philisophical underpennings supported it and give it such great appeal?

It probably came from someone's idea that populations would be better off if the weak, unintelligent and disabled were culled from the population. This may be the case for lions and gazelles and their "arms race" that never ends, but (most) humans do have higher moral standards and understand that intentionally killing other humans because they may not be the smartest or strongest is wrong. This isn't some view that is exclusive to religious people. I hold that view and always have both when I was a young Christian and now that I'm an atheist, and my atheist friends have the same view. Morals don't come from religion.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #191]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with eugenics. It is an idea to limit exponential population growth for resource reasons, independent of any criteria for which people or groups are targeted. China long had a policy limiting the number of children a woman could have but it wasn't targeted at only less intelligent people, or disabled people ... it applied across the entire population. Eugenics is selective extermination of specific people considered undesirable by whoever is running the show. That is completely different and unrelated to what you quoted above.

Yes, China has passed "eugenics laws"

PIP: On October 27, 1994, China passed the "Maternal and Infant Health Care Law." This law regulates support for maternal and child health and also requires physicians to recommend a postponement of marriage if either member of a couple has an infectious, contagious disease or an active mental disorder. If one member of a couple has a serious hereditary disease, the couple may only marry if they agree to use longterm contraception or to undergo sterilization. If prenatal tests reveal that a fetus has a serious hereditary disease or serious deformity, the physician must advise the pregnant woman to have an abortion, and the law states that the pregnant woman "should" follow this recommendation. This statute also bans determining the sex of a fetus through the use of technology unless such tests are medically necessary. This ban is the reaction to the combination of China's one-child policy and the technological ability to predict the sex of a fetus which has led to a change in China's sex ratio from 103.8 boys/100 girls in 1953 to 118 boys/100 girls in 1992. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12288092/

Eugenics policies are part of China’s five-year plan, says expert https://bioedge.org/enhancement/eugenic ... ys-expert/

How is this not evolutionary thought? Simply because you may not like that things are true. That does not mean they are not true.

Laughlin's publication of Eugenical Sterilization in the United States in 1922 included the drafting of a “model law” for compulsory sterilization that was the bedrock of forced sterilization programs throughout the country. According to Davenport, Laughlin's “book on sterilization is recognized as the standard.”12 In 1930, Laughlin comments about the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a Virginia sterilization statute as, “the establishment of the eugenical authority of the state … [enabling] the prevention of hereditary degeneration by a method sound from the legal, eugenical and humanitarian points of view. … It is now possible for any state, if it desires to do so, to enact a sterilization statute.”12 A typical study prepared by Laughlin and used to justify these laws is excerpted below:

The Problem of the Feeble-Minded in Connecticut … the 11,962 feeble-minded persons—the total number who came under the purview of the Survey—have been studied individually in reference to nine subject as follows: (1) sex, (2) age, (3) recidivism, (4) diagnostic class, (5) intelligence quotient, (6) race descent, (7) nativity, (8) citizenship, (9) kin in institutions. … At the present rate every inhabitant of Connecticut is expending … 5 and 1/3 as many dollars on the socially inadequate and the individually handicapped as the average inhabitant was spending for the same purpose 20 years ago.13

Davenport's eugenical research is very typical of countless studies purporting to link perceived human differences to the burgeoning field of Genetics. This work is best appreciated by quoting the author directly:

Successful naval officers are of various types. … The three commonist traits are: (1) love of sea; (2) capacity for fighting; (3) capacity for commanding or administering. … The performance of a man depends in large degree upon his inherent, inheritable traits. … The sea makes to different people varied appeal. … The love of the sea, sea-lust or thalasssophilia is apparently a specific trait to be differentiated from wanderlust or love of adventure. … One of the most striking characteristics of sea–lust is that it is wholly a male character … so the appeal of the sea develops under the secretion of the germ gland in the boy. It is theoretically possible that some mothers are heterozygous for love of the sea, so that when married to a thalassophilic man half of their children will show sea-lust and half will not.14 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/

[JoeyKnothead]

[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

Yes, there's doofusi in every bunch.

Like preachers who wanna execute gay folks.

[Difflugia]

Eugenics policies are part of China’s five-year plan, says expert

How is this not evolutionary thought? Simply because you may not like that things are true. That does not mean they are not true.

You're trying to conflate motive and method, claiming that the will to impose one's reproductive dicta upon another is the same as being right about the outcome. If I earnestly prayed to a god to only allow people I like to have children, I'd be just as evil as your "eugenicist" even though gods aren't real and it wouldn't work.

An analogy would be the difference between using a gun to kill someone and using Voodoo. The gun would work and the Voodoo wouldn't, but nobody would reasonably say that the gun murder was the result of "metallurgical thought" or "chemical thought."

I know that guns are real and work, but my knowledge and understanding of them doesn't make me a murderer.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #191]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with eugenics. It is an idea to limit exponential population growth for resource reasons, independent of any criteria for which people or groups are targeted. China long had a policy limiting the number of children a woman could have but it wasn't targeted at only less intelligent people, or disabled people ... it applied across the entire population. Eugenics is selective extermination of specific people considered undesirable by whoever is running the show. That is completely different and unrelated to what you quoted above.

Yes, China has passed "eugenics laws"

PIP: On October 27, 1994, China passed the "Maternal and Infant Health Care Law." This law regulates support for maternal and child health and also requires physicians to recommend a postponement of marriage if either member of a couple has an infectious, contagious disease or an active mental disorder. If one member of a couple has a serious hereditary disease, the couple may only marry if they agree to use longterm contraception or to undergo sterilization. If prenatal tests reveal that a fetus has a serious hereditary disease or serious deformity, the physician must advise the pregnant woman to have an abortion, and the law states that the pregnant woman "should" follow this recommendation. This statute also bans determining the sex of a fetus through the use of technology unless such tests are medically necessary. This ban is the reaction to the combination of China's one-child policy and the technological ability to predict the sex of a fetus which has led to a change in China's sex ratio from 103.8 boys/100 girls in 1953 to 118 boys/100 girls in 1992. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12288092/

Eugenics policies are part of China’s five-year plan, says expert https://bioedge.org/enhancement/eugenic ... ys-expert/

How is this not evolutionary thought? Simply because you may not like that things are true. That does not mean they are not true.

Laughlin's publication of Eugenical Sterilization in the United States in 1922 included the drafting of a “model law” for compulsory sterilization that was the bedrock of forced sterilization programs throughout the country. According to Davenport, Laughlin's “book on sterilization is recognized as the standard.”12 In 1930, Laughlin comments about the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a Virginia sterilization statute as, “the establishment of the eugenical authority of the state … [enabling] the prevention of hereditary degeneration by a method sound from the legal, eugenical and humanitarian points of view. … It is now possible for any state, if it desires to do so, to enact a sterilization statute.”12 A typical study prepared by Laughlin and used to justify these laws is excerpted below:

The Problem of the Feeble-Minded in Connecticut … the 11,962 feeble-minded persons—the total number who came under the purview of the Survey—have been studied individually in reference to nine subject as follows: (1) sex, (2) age, (3) recidivism, (4) diagnostic class, (5) intelligence quotient, (6) race descent, (7) nativity, (8) citizenship, (9) kin in institutions. … At the present rate every inhabitant of Connecticut is expending … 5 and 1/3 as many dollars on the socially inadequate and the individually handicapped as the average inhabitant was spending for the same purpose 20 years ago.13

Davenport's eugenical research is very typical of countless studies purporting to link perceived human differences to the burgeoning field of Genetics. This work is best appreciated by quoting the author directly:

Successful naval officers are of various types. … The three commonist traits are: (1) love of sea; (2) capacity for fighting; (3) capacity for commanding or administering. … The performance of a man depends in large degree upon his inherent, inheritable traits. … The sea makes to different people varied appeal. … The love of the sea, sea-lust or thalasssophilia is apparently a specific trait to be differentiated from wanderlust or love of adventure. … One of the most striking characteristics of sea–lust is that it is wholly a male character … so the appeal of the sea develops under the secretion of the germ gland in the boy. It is theoretically possible that some mothers are heterozygous for love of the sea, so that when married to a thalassophilic man half of their children will show sea-lust and half will not.14 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #196]

How is this not evolutionary thought? Simply because you may not like that things are true. That does not mean they are not true.

Why are you trying to connect "evolutionary thought" with eugenics or policies like China once implemented? You should be using the phrase "eugenics thought" (racial improvement and planned breeding). Explain what aspect of evolution or its mechanisms supports the concept of eugenics. There's no indication that China, or the Nazi's, were basing their actions on evolution in any way. Evolution does not "know" about the concept of race, and natural selection and sexual selection drive breeding behaviors.