Homosapiensim

[AV1611VET]

Suspended ... not broken.

 

[driewerf]

You pick something out of the Bible and then we will look at what Science has to say about it.

No. You claimed that creationism can be tested - not the bible - so we stick with that.
And since it was you that made the claim it is you to back it up.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't agree with this, please try and come up with your own plausible reason for why they would have curved fingers and not live in the trees, before you discredit someone's conclusions who studies skeletal anatomy for a living.

I thought I made it plain that God can (and has) placed bone-altering diseases on people.

If you found some curved-bone people that you think lived in trees (perhaps they did live in trees), I won't dispute it.

But I also believe those curved-bone people were [what you call] Homo sapiens at one time.

What would you call this guy, if he would have died in that condition and fossilized?

Daniel 4:33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can believe whatever you want to believe.

Amen.

By way of example, they want me to give up my claim that the moon was created ex nihilo, and substitute it for one of six different theories as to how it came to be.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

God commands and nature obeys.

Don't you mean the antichrist commands and nature obeys? After all, you are the one who thinks the natural world is a big con devised by satan, hence your "reality can take a hike" rejection of, um, everything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't you mean the antichrist commands and nature obeys? After all, you are the one who thinks the natural world is a big con devised by satan, hence your "reality can take a hike" rejection of, um, everything.

You must have me confused with someone else.

 

[loktai]

But I also believe those curved-bone people were [what you call] Homo sapiens at one time.

What would you call this guy, if he would have died in that condition and fossilized?

Daniel 4:33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.

On what basis do you believe that Australopithecus Afarensis were actually homo-sapiens at one time? There is approximately 2.7 million years between the newest Australopithecus Afarensis and the oldest Homo-Sapien fossils. The Australopithecus Afarensis fossils were found in multiple sites in east africa, and number in their hundreds. Are you saying that ALL these fossils from different geographic locations all had the same bone disease, resulting not only in curved fingers, but also in a massive shrinking of the skull by about 50%, arms growing to twice their size and legs shrinking, along with a much larger set of hips.

Can you show me a homo-sapien fossil from around that era to support your belief?

As to what I would call the beast you described from daniel, I would call it a myth, just like the centaur or minotaur until such a fossil is found.

In the first page of this thread you asked: If we came from Homo ergaster -- (or whatever it was our direct parents were) -- where are they?

I have given you a lot of information, including date ranges, what they looked like and where they were found, but it appears you are unwilling to address that information, and instead try to dismiss it with a poorly thought through argument of bone disease.

 

[AV1611VET]

On what basis do you believe that Australopithecus Afarensis were actually homo-sapiens at one time?

First of all, I don't believe in macroevolution, thus any Australo-this or Hespera-that or Neander-this or Cro-that is going to have to be interpreted in light of the Scriptures ... and literally so, since I'm a literalist.

The only verses I can find that would address why bones are altered would be the 'wonderful diseases' God pronounced on His people; and King David, as I said before, is an excellent example of someone who would look like a Neanderthal if his bones would have been dug up (Psalm 38).

You mentioned skulls about 50% smaller.

In a conversation between Split Rock and I, Rocky mentioned that the application of heat is used to shrink skulls.

This goes right along with what the Bible calls the 'burning ague' ...

Leviticus 26:16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

... that involves the skull, consumption, and terror.

 

[loktai]

So why did you ask the question "If we came from Homo ergaster -- (or whatever it was our direct parents were) -- where are they?" If you are not going to believe any answer other than what you already believe?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You must have me confused with someone else.

Nope, it's the same old you. Making statements and then denying their implications.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I thought I made it plain that God can (and has) placed bone-altering diseases on people.

If you found some curved-bone people that you think lived in trees (perhaps they did live in trees), I won't dispute it.

But I also believe those curved-bone people were [what you call] Homo sapiens at one time.

What would you call this guy, if he would have died in that condition and fossilized?

Daniel 4:33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.

Homo sapiens - there's nothing in that description to imply any fundamental change in the skeleton, which is what fossilises.

 

[AV1611VET]

Homo sapiens - there's nothing in that description to imply any fundamental change in the skeleton, which is what fossilises.

Okay.

 

[Jimmy D]

Okay.

 

[Mobezom]

Necromancer! I knew it! He's no Christian, he's an EVIL NECROMANCER! Drive him out, kill him! Thou shalt suffer not a necromancer to live! Get the torches and pitchforks, it's necrohunting time!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's simple ...

If we came from Homo ergaster -- (or whatever it was our direct parents were) -- where are they?

If we can trace the domestic dog's lineage back to the coyote, which is still around, then were are our 'coyotes' at?

(It's interesting you need clarification. Evidently evolution isn't as cut-and-dried as some want us to think.)

They lived some x million years ago. Why would they still need to be around?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not buying that.

I find it ... too coincidental that our direct parents died off, but [apparently] died giving birth to us.

You would think that there would at least be an overlap.

That doesn't make sense.

If a population evolves, then... the population evolves. It means that the original population "turned into" the new population. The only way the "original" population could persist would be if:
- the "new" population was the result of a subset of the original one, effectively a split in the population (due to migration or other geographic/genetic isolation)
AND
- the "original" population wouldn't be subject to new selection pressure throughout all that time, so that it would stay virtually unchanged in the same habitat.

I consider that quite unlikely.

Take the evolution of chimps and humans from a common ancestor. This split occured some 7 million years ago. One branch went on to become chimps and the other went on the become humans.

Is one of both the "continuation" of the "original" population? I guess you could say that. But then, which one? They both are, on their own evolutionary path.

Humans didn't evolve from chimps nore did chimps evolve from humans.
More then likely, looking at the other great apes, the common ancestors of both would have looked more like the chimp then like a human... but only in the sense of a gorilla looking more like a chimp then like a human. Eventhough you instantly recognise the obvious defference when looking at pictures of both.

You also make a reasoning error with the dog evolution thingy.
Yes, dogs evolved from wolves. But not from modern wolves.

The wolf you see in the woods today is not an ancestor of modern dogs.
Dogs and modern wolves share an ancestor. When examining that ancestor, it is much more like a wolf then a domestic dog. So we call it a wolf.

Also, at the same time, this is a split that occured somewhere in the past 10 to 20 thousand years. Which is extremely recent. Furthermore, dog evolution isn't really that comparable to human evolution... Primarily because this evolution wasn't entirely natural. Dogs have been part of human operated breeding programs for a REALLY long time now. Most, if not all, domestic evolutions are... things like cows, horses, oxes, camels,... The past few thousand years, their evolution wasn't really all that "natural", but rather kind of "artificial". Nature didn't do the "positive" selecting... we humans did. I mention the word "positive", just to contrast the opposite of "negative" selection: the premature deaths and / or disabilities caused by whatever birth defects or harmfull mutations that inevitably take place sooner or later.



So.... long story short....

There is no reason to assume that "ancestral" species would always survive and persist through the ages, without walking their own evolutionary path or without going extinct.

 

[AV1611VET]

They lived some x million years ago. Why would they still need to be around?

Did you miss what I said in parentheses?

 

[USincognito]

They lived some x million years ago. Why would they still need to be around?

Why are you responding to a post from 6 1/2 years ago?

That doesn't make sense.

If a population evolves, then... the population evolves. It means that the original population "turned into" the new population. The only way the "original" population could persist would be if:
- the "new" population was the result of a subset of the original one, effectively a split in the population (due to migration or other geographic/genetic isolation)
AND
- the "original" population wouldn't be subject to new selection pressure throughout all that time, so that it would stay virtually unchanged in the same habitat.

I consider that quite unlikely.

Take the evolution of chimps and humans from a common ancestor. This split occured some 7 million years ago. One branch went on to become chimps and the other went on the become humans.

Is one of both the "continuation" of the "original" population? I guess you could say that. But then, which one? They both are, on their own evolutionary path.

Humans didn't evolve from chimps nore did chimps evolve from humans.
More then likely, looking at the other great apes, the common ancestors of both would have looked more like the chimp then like a human... but only in the sense of a gorilla looking more like a chimp then like a human. Eventhough you instantly recognise the obvious defference when looking at pictures of both.

You also make a reasoning error with the dog evolution thingy.
Yes, dogs evolved from wolves. But not from modern wolves.

The wolf you see in the woods today is not an ancestor of modern dogs.
Dogs and modern wolves share an ancestor. When examining that ancestor, it is much more like a wolf then a domestic dog. So we call it a wolf.

Also, at the same time, this is a split that occured somewhere in the past 10 to 20 thousand years. Which is extremely recent. Furthermore, dog evolution isn't really that comparable to human evolution... Primarily because this evolution wasn't entirely natural. Dogs have been part of human operated breeding programs for a REALLY long time now. Most, if not all, domestic evolutions are... things like cows, horses, oxes, camels,... The past few thousand years, their evolution wasn't really all that "natural", but rather kind of "artificial". Nature didn't do the "positive" selecting... we humans did. I mention the word "positive", just to contrast the opposite of "negative" selection: the premature deaths and / or disabilities caused by whatever birth defects or harmfull mutations that inevitably take place sooner or later.



So.... long story short....

There is no reason to assume that "ancestral" species would always survive and persist through the ages, without walking their own evolutionary path or without going extinct.

Why are you responding to a post from 5 1/2 years ago?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why are you responding to a post from 6 1/2 years ago?

Why are you responding to a post from 5 1/2 years ago?

Because I'm easy to troll, I guess.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why are you responding to a post from 6 1/2 years ago?



Why are you responding to a post from 5 1/2 years ago?

Because I'm easy to troll, I guess.

AV's been necroing his own threads... reliving his Greatest Misses, I suppose...