• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Early Man....Question

Richterface

Newbie
Feb 23, 2010
6
1
Ohio!
Visit site
✟15,131.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
THIS INFORMATION IS FROM

I know its a long post, but please read the information in order to understand the questions I am asking. Thank you very much

Homo habilis


H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with its remains. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but it projects less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and H. erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight, although females may have been smaller.
Habilis has been a controversial species. Originally, some scientists did not accept its validity, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. H. habilis is now fully accepted as a species, but it is widely thought that the 'habilis' specimens have too wide a range of variation for a single species, and that some of the specimens should be placed in one or more other species. One suggested species which is accepted by many scientists is Homo rudolfensis, which would contain fossils.

Homo georgicus


This species was named in 2002 to contain fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia, which seem intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old, consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws. The brain sizes of the skulls vary from 600 to 780 cc. The height, as estimated from a foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11"). A partial skeleton was also discovered in 2001 but no details are available on it yet. (Vekua et al. 2002, Gabunia et al. 2002)

Homo erectus


H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey 1994). The skeleton is more robust than those of modern humans, implying greater strength. Body proportions vary; the Turkana Boy is tall and slender (though still extraordinarily strong), like modern humans from the same area, while the few limb bones found of Peking Man indicate a shorter, sturdier build. Study of the Turkana Boy skeleton indicates that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans, whose skeletons have had to adapt to allow for the birth of larger-brained infants (Willis 1989). Homo habilis and all the australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and has been found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There is evidence that erectus probably used fire, and their stone tools are more sophisticated than those of habilis.

Homo ergaster


Some scientists classify some African erectus specimens as belonging to a separate species, Homo ergaster, which differs from the Asian H. erectus fossils in some details of the skull (e.g. the brow ridges differ in shape, and erectus would have a larger brain size). Under this scheme, H. ergaster would include fossils such as the Turkana boy and ER 3733.

Homo antecessor


Homo antecessor was named in 1977 from fossils found at the Spanish cave site of Atapuerca, dated to at least 780,000 years ago, making them the oldest confirmed European hominids. The mid-facial area of antecessor seems very modern, but other parts of the skull such as the teeth, forehead and browridges are much more primitive. Many scientists are doubtful about the validity of antecessor, partly because its definition is based on a juvenile specimen, and feel it may belong to another species. (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997; Kunzig 1997, Carbonell et al. 1995)

Homo sapiens
(archaic) (also Homo heidelbergensis)


Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (also Homo neanderthalensis)

Neandertal (or Neanderthal) man existed between 230,000 and 30,000 years ago. The average brain size is slightly larger than that of modern humans, about 1450 cc, but this is probably correlated with their greater bulk. The brain case however is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge at the back of the skull. Like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. The midfacial area also protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an adaptation to cold. There are other minor anatomical differences from modern humans, the most unusual being some peculiarities of the shoulder blade, and of the pubic bone in the pelvis. Neandertals mostly lived in cold climates, and their body proportions are similar to those of modern cold-adapted peoples: short and solid, with short limbs. Men averaged about 168 cm (5'6") in height. Their bones are thick and heavy, and show signs of powerful muscle attachments. Neandertals would have been extraordinarily strong by modern standards, and their skeletons show that they endured brutally hard lives. A large number of tools and weapons have been found, more advanced than those of Homo erectus. Neandertals were formidable hunters, and are the first people known to have buried their dead, with the oldest known burial site being about 100,000 years old. They are found throughout Europe and the Middle East. Western European Neandertals usually have a more robust form, and are sometimes called "classic Neandertals". Neandertals found elsewhere tend to be less excessively robust. (Trinkaus and Shipman 1992; Trinkaus and Howells 1979; Gore 1996)

Homo floresiensis


Homo floresiensis was discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003. Fossils have been discovered from a number of individuals. The most complete fossil is of an adult female about 1 meter tall with a brain size of 417cc. Other fossils indicate that this was a normal size for floresiensis. It is thought that floresiensis is a dwarf form of Homo erectus - it is not uncommon for dwarf forms of large mammals to evolve on islands. H. floresiensis was fully bipedal, used stone tools and fire, and hunted dwarf elephants also found on the island. (Brown et al. 2004, Morwood et al. 2004, Lahr and Foley 2004)

Homo sapiens sapiens
(modern)


Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey 1994)
Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive". Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes more typical of archaic sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace 1983).
------

According to science, and other physical evidence (fossils, breeding grounds,ect.) Science has come to the conclusion these are our closest relatives (in evolution, Homo sapien-modern man, and Homo hablis- closest to our modern form)
But since there is this evidence, I am so confused
Ive grown up in the church, and have experienced our perfect God in so many ways. How can I break down this evidence as truth, and still serve a God who created the whole world in 7 days? I just see conflict and want to find resolution within my own faith in order to serve God, this is a huge stumbling block for me recently since studying this in a secular university.

If my questions arent clear please inform me and I will try to rewrite them. Thanks again!

God bless
 

firechild_82

Newbie
Jan 6, 2010
129
6
✟22,789.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
AU-Liberals
Unfortunately there is no way to explain this to you in such a way thsat you will completely understand it because to understand it would lead you to question your beliefs.

You have been brainwashed by the church in such a way that they have taught you what to think, how to interpret your feelings and how to reject anything that does not support your teachings. This is not a fault of yours but it is a boundary between your beliefs and your ability to comprehend and understand facts that are presented. Based on what you have said, I am guessing you have limited understanding of evolution as a whole? By understanding the concepts of evolution, it is easier to understand the specifics such as the evolution of man.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ive grown up in the church, and have experienced our perfect God in so many ways. How can I break down this evidence as truth, and still serve a God who created the whole world in 7 days? I just see conflict and want to find resolution within my own faith in order to serve God, this is a huge stumbling block for me recently since studying this in a secular university.

This might seem coy, but I'm going to respond to your questions with a few questions.

- Does the existance of hominid fossils make God go away?
- Would a metaphorical Genesis that poetically describes God's dominion over all aspects of the Earth make God any less in charge than a literal 7 day creation?
- Does creation taking longer than a literal 7 days make God any less the Creator?
- Except for a few verses about Adam in the NT, does a long creation make humans sinful nature go away or the need for Jesus?
 
Upvote 0

Richterface

Newbie
Feb 23, 2010
6
1
Ohio!
Visit site
✟15,131.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Unfortunately there is no way to explain this to you in such a way thsat you will completely understand it because to understand it would lead you to question your beliefs.

You have been brainwashed by the church in such a way that they have taught you what to think, how to interpret your feelings and how to reject anything that does not support your teachings. This is not a fault of yours but it is a boundary between your beliefs and your ability to comprehend and understand facts that are presented. Based on what you have said, I am guessing you have limited understanding of evolution as a whole? By understanding the concepts of evolution, it is easier to understand the specifics such as the evolution of man.

I am not an expert, however I have taken human biology, and multiple Anthropology classes (currently in one).
 
Upvote 0

firechild_82

Newbie
Jan 6, 2010
129
6
✟22,789.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
AU-Liberals
I would recommend by reading up on some of the basic concepts of evolution, not pertaining directly to evolution of man. Without a basic understanding of the process it is difficult to grasp specifics such as this. In human evolution we are dealing with a relatively short time period with relatively small change. The concepts of "descent with modification" and more specifically modes of genetic change (such as mutations, horizontal gene transfer, polyploidy, insertions, etc) will give you a better basis for how change occurs within a population and natural/sexual selection will give you an understanding of how a population changes over time.
 
Upvote 0

Richterface

Newbie
Feb 23, 2010
6
1
Ohio!
Visit site
✟15,131.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Unfortunately there is no way to explain this to you in such a way thsat you will completely understand it because to understand it would lead you to question your beliefs.

You have been brainwashed by the church in such a way that they have taught you what to think, how to interpret your feelings and how to reject anything that does not support your teachings. This is not a fault of yours but it is a boundary between your beliefs and your ability to comprehend and understand facts that are presented. Based on what you have said, I am guessing you have limited understanding of evolution as a whole? By understanding the concepts of evolution, it is easier to understand the specifics such as the evolution of man.


I am already questioning my faith, however I still personally believe that although science explains the creation of life by a series of meteor strikes, and tide pools as completely unrealistic. Millions of years of this process reoccurring would not leave a single organism alive, I believe that "a higher power" had to started this process
 
Upvote 0

Richterface

Newbie
Feb 23, 2010
6
1
Ohio!
Visit site
✟15,131.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Without a basic understanding of the process it is difficult to grasp specifics such as this. In human evolution we are dealing with a relatively short time period with relatively small change. The concepts of "descent with modification" and more specifically modes of genetic change (such as mutations, horizontal gene transfer, polyploidy, insertions, etc) will give you a better basis for how change occurs within a population and natural/sexual selection will give you an understanding of how a population changes over time.

I have my basic understanding. I know how sexual selection is depending on the female, and although Copulation is occurring dosent mean that fertilization will take place, ect.
However how does this answer my questions?
 
Upvote 0

firechild_82

Newbie
Jan 6, 2010
129
6
✟22,789.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
AU-Liberals
I am already questioning my faith, however I still personally believe that although science explains the creation of life by a series of meteor strikes, and tide pools as completely unrealistic. Millions of years of this process reoccurring would not leave a single organism alive, I believe that "a higher power" had to started this process

Firstly, you perception is a misrepresentation of what we actually say happened. There were meteor strikes, mainly long before life existed on earth. It is hypothesised that a meteor strike caused the mass extinction of dinosaurs but this is still just one hypothesis of numerous. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, creationists view abiogenesis and evolution part of the same package in order to use our lack of knowledge of abiogenesis against the theory of evolution (the single most supported theory in science).

Whether life originated via abiogenesis, a creator or was planted here by aliens has no impact on the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is a theory that is not supported by even close to the amount of evidence that evolution is.
 
Upvote 0

firechild_82

Newbie
Jan 6, 2010
129
6
✟22,789.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
AU-Liberals
I have my basic understanding. I know how sexual selection is depending on the female, and although Copulation is occurring dosent mean that fertilization will take place, ect.
However how does this answer my questions?

Sexual selection actually has nothing to do with copulation or fertilisation. It is to do with mate selection. For example a peacock with larger, more colourful feathers is more likely to be selected by females and is therefore more likely to pass on his superiour genes.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
I am already questioning my faith, however I still personally believe that although science explains the creation of life by a series of meteor strikes, and tide pools as completely unrealistic. Millions of years of this process reoccurring would not leave a single organism alive, I believe that "a higher power" had to started this process


It's not your faith in God that needs questioning, but your faith in the people who have led you down a garden path to thinking that the only alternative to "a series of meteor strikes" (and actually, it's far more complicated than that), is taking every jot and tittle in the Bible is literal truth that cannot be questioned.
 
Upvote 0

firechild_82

Newbie
Jan 6, 2010
129
6
✟22,789.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
AU-Liberals
Ps. Firechild, I don't mean any disrespect. I am interested in your ideas and would like to hear all you have to say. If i do not understand something I will continue to research, please speak freely.

I am glad to hear that. It is not often people come here from a background similar to yours with a truely open mind. I am happy to answer any questions you have but you have to remember the theory of evolution is based on evidence from a huge number of scientific fields and noone is an expert on all. Anyone that claims to be, is probably a creationist (and probably doesn't even hold a science degree).
 
Upvote 0

firechild_82

Newbie
Jan 6, 2010
129
6
✟22,789.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
AU-Liberals
One thing to remember is that accepting evolution in no way means you must reject God. It is simply a matter of changing your interpretation of the bible (which you must remember was written by man) according to what you learn. Those from certain christian faiths try to keep faith and science apart in fear of knowledge challenging faith but science and religion can coincide, there are many religious scientists who do not have a literal interpretation of the bible.
 
Upvote 0

plindboe

Senior Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,965
157
47
In my pants
✟17,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
According to science, and other physical evidence (fossils, breeding grounds,ect.) Science has come to the conclusion these are our closest relatives (in evolution, Homo sapien-modern man, and Homo hablis- closest to our modern form)
But since there is this evidence, I am so confused
Ive grown up in the church, and have experienced our perfect God in so many ways. How can I break down this evidence as truth, and still serve a God who created the whole world in 7 days? I just see conflict and want to find resolution within my own faith in order to serve God, this is a huge stumbling block for me recently since studying this in a secular university.

If my questions arent clear please inform me and I will try to rewrite them. Thanks again!

God bless

You sound like an honest individual, and I don't think any person who is honest with himself can remain a creationist for long. Some people who've been brought up in creationist circles become so disillusioned, when they discover that the ideas they've been brought up to believe doesn't fit with reality, that they end up leaving their religion entirely. I don't think it has to come so far though.

If you want to keep your faith, while accepting the abundant evidence from geology, astronomy, biology and other fields that has been discovered and continues to be discovered, there are plenty of books from christian scientists that might help you square your religious beliefs with the science.

I hear from theistic evolutionists that Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" is supposed to be good. I haven't read it myself, never having been a christian, but it sounds like it might be the book for you.

Peter :)
 
Upvote 0

Nostromo

Brian Blessed can take a hike
Nov 19, 2009
2,343
56
Yorkshire
✟25,338.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Richterface, I honestly don't see how a 7 day creation can happily coexist with the evolution of mankind from Homo erectus & co.
..the creation of life by a series of meteor strikes, and tide pools as completely unrealistic. Millions of years of this process reoccurring would not leave a single organism alive, I believe that "a higher power" had to started this process
I think if you're honest with yourself, these are just assumptions. Nobody knows exactly what the conditions were, so for you to claim that no organism could survive it is pure speculation.

I'm not sure how all this is any less realistic than an eternal benevolent creator God wishing everything into existence and forming man from dust, especially when it's at odds with what we can see.
 
Upvote 0
S

solja247

Guest
You have been brainwashed by the church

I wouldnt say brainwashing. Soldiers are brainwashed and when they come back they are most of the time no longer brain washed. Due to the freedom Christians have (I believe anyways) we are allowed to question our selves scientifically and religously speaking. I went through time last year when I nearly turned Athiest, due to that phase I am much stonger and use only logic...If I was 'brainwashed' I would not question my faith, God or the Bible (If you havent questioned any three, that doesnt mean you are brainwashed).

'do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind'

This is what is my fundamental belief. Do not be brainwashed by the world or by the church. But ask yourself if you believe and it makes sense to you.

Richterface, I hope this forum will help you with you questions.

God bless
 
Upvote 0

Crankitup

Fear nothing but God.
Apr 20, 2006
1,076
141
Perth, Australia
✟19,733.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
THIS INFORMATION IS FROM



Homo habilis

.....
Habilis has been a controversial species. Originally, some scientists did not accept its validity, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. H. habilis is now fully accepted as a species, but it is widely thought that the 'habilis' specimens have too wide a range of variation for a single species, and that some of the specimens should be placed in one or more other species. One suggested species which is accepted by many scientists is Homo rudolfensis, which would contain fossils.

And that's not the half of it. The so-called study of hominid fossils is very murky and much disagreement exists bewteeen the so-called experts. I'd recommend reading Martin Lubenow if you want to know more.

Whenever anyone quotes so-called facts to me about 'human evolution' I just can't get out of my head how long that faked fossil 'Piltdown Man' fooled the so-called scientific experts of the day.
 
Upvote 0