Counting generations in one's family tree

[Eloi]

Thinking about the genetic inheritance from my earliest ancestors to me ... it occurs to me that if my family had recorded ancestors with the same care that Jews and other ancients did from the beginning of humanity, I might find many interesting details about who they were and where my relatively distant ancestors lived, before I was born on an island in the Cuban archipelago.

I could calculate with some degree of accuracy and objectivity how many generations I would have to go back in my family tree until I reached the creation of the first human couple. As far as I know no known human civilization (for all that that word entails in the sense of human development) has been dated with certainty before the year of the Biblical creation of Adam and Eve, around 4025 BC.

Evolutionist friend, tell me: what would be the number of generations that you would have to go back in your family tree, until your ancestor is no longer an intelligent human being but a simple ape that can be considered as a common animal?

[Eloi]

I repeat this question to evolutionists:

... the bone finds supposedly attributed to apes becoming humans are all dated hundreds of thousands of years ago, and none of them appeared, say for example, only a few thousand years before the fourth millennium BC, when even human civilizations did not exist.

Can you tell me if it is not logical that I find that fact suspicious?

Are there remains of quasi-human apes that are dated to 7 millennia or a little more (not reaching the hundreds of thousands or millions of years in which I read they are dated), shortly before known civilizations begin to appear in human history according to known records?

What happened to those hominids before modern civilizations? Were they extinct hundreds of thousands of years before the first civilizations?

PS: ... not that I believe there were real non-intelligent humans in any moment ... just saying.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #11]

Are there remains of quasi-human apes that are dated to 7 millennia or a little more (not reaching the hundreds of thousands or millions of years in which I read they are dated), shortly before known civilizations begin to appear in human history according to known records?

What happened to those hominids before modern civilizations? Were they extinct hundreds of thousands of years before the first civilizations?

You really need to get a handle on the time frames involved with all of this stuff, otherwise you're just digging a deeper hole for your outdated ideas. First, what on earth is a "quasi-human" ape? Does this refer to the usual term of "archaic humans"? You can read about what that means here (nonscientific article):

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

Homo sapiens (ie. modern humans) have been around continuously for some 200-300 thousand years. They coexisted with Neanderthals and Denisovans.

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

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

There is nothing special about 7,000 years ago or 6,000 or 10,000. Nothing changed ... at all ... regarding humans as the Neanderthals and Denisovans were both extinct before any of these time periods. Modern humans (ie. Homo sapiens) existed continuously throughout all of this period, and in fact the Neolithic started nearly 12,000 years ago in the Epipalaeolithic Near East:

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

These were modern humans doing their thing long before "7 millennia or a little more." And before this we have records of migrations over long distances (out of Africa to many other parts of the world), artifacts, etc. to show that modern humans existed to well over 100,000 years ago. Wikipedia isn't a primary source, but as far removed as you seem to be on understanding human evolution, it is a great resource. This intro article can get you started:

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

[Eloi]

It is very curious to me that the vast majority of bones attributed to apes related to humans by evolutionists are simple bits of bone. Also, they usually belong to a single individual... so they end up making up a fictional story from a bone fragment with no context. Equally curious is the number of years that they attribute to these fragments and that people are forced to believe that they belong to the ape they are appointing to, when the truth is that the dating of these fragments is not completely reliable and all these "species" of apes are just their own fabrications. It's like saying: you have to believe it because I tell you so.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #13]

It is very curious to me that the vast majority of bones attributed to apes related to humans by evolutionists are simple bits of bone. Also, they usually belong to a single individual... so they end up making up a fictional story from a bone fragment with no context.

Really? The Turkana Boy example I sent a link for is nearly a full skeleton, and the unusual Homo Naledi find:

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

was 737 fragments of at least 15 individuals. Fossilization is relatively rare, and survival of fossils over long periods of erosion and other geological activity makes it rarer still to actually find fragments of any kind. Trained scientists can tell a lot from a bone fragment that you or I might just see as a completely random piece of bone. It is the collective fossil record that tells the story ... not just one find.

[Eloi]

Yeah, sure

If it is so rare, why so elaborated story?

Again: Don't keep trying to sell me stories from a few bits of bones. My knowledge about life does not depend on what those who are involved in that business say. Give me facts, and I'll draw my own conclusions: fictional stories are not facts... First learn the difference between one thing and another... and leave the sophistry, fallacies and cheap apologetics... I will never take seriously anything that's embellished with that stuff. Understanding life is more than listening to a bunch of roosters kikiriking to show that they are the bosses in the henhouse.

[Purple Knight]

Evolutionist friend, tell me: what would be the number of generations that you would have to go back in your family tree, until your ancestor is no longer an intelligent human being but a simple ape that can be considered as a common animal?

Zero.

Cynicismmeme.jpg

...So, a slightly more serious answer.

First of all, apes aren't simple now. There are certain things like complex tool use, and certain ways of teaching offspring, which only primates and some birds are capable of.

The part of the above that's not a joke is that I don't think humans are special. Humans just... got lucky. We have the intellect of a dolphin, the hands of a chimp, and the social structure of a wolf. Dolphins are smart, but they can't make cities because no hands. Chimps have intelligence and hands, but they're not as loyal as wolves and any large society they made would crumble. Some birds can learn to fish, as in, with bait, but they won't be able to relay that information to offspring. Only a human can check all these boxes: 1) Make big plans 2) Command real loyalty from those below him to carry them out 3) Extended and fruitful period of teaching offspring and 4) Manipulate objects to realise it all.

The real meat of the question is, how far back would you have to go before you can't successfully mate with your ancestor? The answer might be further than we might like to think about, because there might have been a chimp that was half-human. And even if you accept that Oliver being half-human has been debunked (they say they tested his DNA and he was pure chimp, but that doesn't explain his more upright posture) there was research before this as to whether a half-human, half-chimp could exist, and China claimed to have achieved a pregnancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

[Eloi]

A few days ago I saw a video of a man who has transformed his entire body. He doesn't look human. The most interesting thing is that he says that he does not consider himself human but an alien ... like you who consider yourselves animals.

The ancient apes, poor guys ... they cann't decide by themselves to be what they really are. Some today wanna make them "humans" by force.

By the way, read these lines about the "the unusual Homo Naledi" as the forumer DrNoGods called it, in his link to Wikipedia:

In 2017, the Dinaledi remains were dated to 335,000–236,000 years ago in the Middle Pleistocene, using electron spin resonance (ESR) and uranium–thorium (U-Th) dating on three teeth, and U-Th and paleomagnetic dating of the sediments they were deposited in.[1] The fossils were previously thought to have dated to 1–2 million years ago[6][8][9][3] because no similarly small-brained hominins had previously been known from such a recent date in Africa.[10] The smaller-brained Homo floresiensis of Indonesia lived on an isolated island, and apparently became extinct shortly after the arrival of modern humans.[11]

They were dated BEFORE 1-2 millions years, and later 335-236 thousands, only AFTER 4 YEARS!!!!!!!
Isn't it funny what people have to swallow from these guys who call themselves "scientists"? In fact, the "homo naledi"s were still jumping from branch to branch, according to them, but they were hominids (semi-human) at the same time, also according to them.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #17]

They were dated BEFORE 1-2 millions years, and later 335-236 thousands, only AFTER 4 YEARS!!!!!!!

It makes perfectly good sense if you actually read what was written rather than trying to twist it into something to suit your anti-evolution position. The English is clear in the description, but I'll paraphrase to simplify it. The fossils WERE THOUGHT to be 1-2 millions years old "because no similarly small brained hominins had previously been known from such a recent date in Africa." Then they were ACTUALLY DATED using the techniques listed to 335,000 - 236,000 years.

Your mistake was characterizing the initial guess as an actual dating age, but it wasn't and the article did not claim it was. It appears you were in a rush to try and make it out as if the scientists were incompetent and botched the dating, then drastically changed the date after only 4 years, so you could make yet another anti-evolution point.

Isn't it funny what people have to swallow from these guys who call themselves "scientists"? In fact, the "homo naledi"s were still jumping from branch to branch, according to them, but they were hominids (semi-human) at the same time, also according to them.

They are scientists, and it was your misinterpretation of the article that was funny. What problem do you have with early hominids "jumping from branch to branch" and still being a member of the genus Homo? Humans didn't just appear, fully formed and bipedal. They evolved from earlier forms, many of which were arboreal. Makes perfect sense to anyone who knows anything about how evolution actually works.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #15]

Yeah, sure

If it is so rare, why so elaborated story?

Who are you responding to? No post reference.

Again: Don't keep trying to sell me stories from a few bits of bones. My knowledge about life does not depend on what those who are involved in that business say. Give me facts, and I'll draw my own conclusions: fictional stories are not facts... First learn the difference between one thing and another... and leave the sophistry, fallacies and cheap apologetics... I will never take seriously anything that's embellished with that stuff. Understanding life is more than listening to a bunch of roosters kikiriking to show that they are the bosses in the henhouse.

Are you an expert in biological anthropology? If you were given a box of fossilized bones would you have any ability to date them, reognize what parts of the body they belong to (spine, leg, rib, etc.), and work out what animal they belonged to? I sure wouldn't, and neither could most people (that's what trained biological anthropoligists do).

The bones are facts (they exist), and from your comments I'm guessing you'd have absolutely no ability to do any of the above analyses to be able to draw any conclusions that weren't pure guesswork. Then you call the science sophistry, fallacies and cheap apologetics. What qualifications do you have to even begin to assess what biological anthropologists do? Your approach seems to be to just bash anything that doesn't line up with the bibilical narrative, even when you know nothing about the science at any level.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter to the field of anthropology that a tiny number of people do not take it seriously. The number of people who think humans were poofed into existence fully formed some 6000 years ago is so miniscule, thankfully, that they have zero influence on the field.

[Eloi]

... By the way, read these lines about the "the unusual Homo Naledi" as the forumer DrNoGods called it, in his link to Wikipedia:

In 2017, the Dinaledi remains were dated to 335,000–236,000 years ago in the Middle Pleistocene, using electron spin resonance (ESR) and uranium–thorium (U-Th) dating on three teeth, and U-Th and paleomagnetic dating of the sediments they were deposited in.[1] The fossils were previously thought to have dated to 1–2 million years ago[6][8][9][3] because no similarly small-brained hominins had previously been known from such a recent date in Africa.[10] The smaller-brained Homo floresiensis of Indonesia lived on an isolated island, and apparently became extinct shortly after the arrival of modern humans.[11]

They were dated BEFORE 1-2 millions years, and later 335-236 thousands, only AFTER 4 YEARS!!!!!!!
Isn't it funny what people have to swallow from these guys who call themselves "scientists"? In fact, the "homo naledi"s were still jumping from branch to branch, according to them, but they were hominids (semi-human) at the same time, also according to them.

Again:
Quote: "The fossils were previously thought to have dated to 1–2 million years ago[6][8][9][3]"

References:
6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4559886/
8. "The evolutionary relationships and age of Homo naledi: An assessment using dated Bayesian phylogenetic methods". Journal of Human Evolution. 97: 17–26.
9. https://doi.org/10.17159%2Fsajs.2015%2Fa0124
3. https://web.archive.org/web/20170516082 ... omo-naledi

The fossils were OFFICIALLY DATED 1-2 millions years.

The techniques to calculate the age of fossils can be various. Some of those techniques are speculative. https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/perman ... ng-methods