Human evolution

[Aman777]

Apparently we share Neanderthal DNA so they are probably human.

Not so, since the first Humans (descendants of Adam) arrived in the mountains of Ararat only 11k years ago, in man's time, according to History. http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html

The size of our brains being they key difference.

Neanderthal had the larger brain when compared to modern Humans. The difference is that Humans descended from Adam and Neanderthal descended from the common ancestor of Apes. ONLY Adam's descendants have INHERITED his superior intelligence, which is like God's. Genesis 3:22

 

[mindlight]

Not so, since the first Humans (descendants of Adam) arrived in the mountains of Ararat only 11k years ago, in man's time, according to History. http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html

Not a biblical view and requires the acceptance of dating method accuracy at a distance of thousands of years.

Neanderthal had the larger brain when compared to modern Humans. The difference is that Humans descended from Adam and Neanderthal descended from the common ancestor of Apes. ONLY Adam's descendants have INHERITED his superior intelligence, which is like God's. Genesis 3:22

We seem to share DNA and the large brain speaks of an intelligence that apes lack. But it is possible they were dumb brutes that some humans interbred with or that they were humans who adapted in a different direction to most of us. The first assumes they were a separate creation and the second that they also were sons of Adam

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

 

[DogmaHunter]

. So you reject a gorilla that use sign language and who told mr Rogers that she loved him . You pretend that chimps don’t make Spears and hunt with them . The real difference between the other apes and humans is that we’ll cooperate. They haven’t quite figured that out.

Not entirely true actually. They have in fact figured that out.
What they haven't figured out though, is the importance of "the greater good". A chimp will only cooperate with another chimp, if he gets immediate reward for it.

I remember this social experiment...
It was kind of a puzzle.

2 chimps were in a cage. Just outside the cage, a plate with grapes (or whatever).
A rope was put around the plate, with the ends reaching inside the cage - but too far apart for one chimp to pull both (to get the plate closer to the cage so they were able to reach the food).

If you pulled on one end, the other end off course came out of the cage and then there was no way left to reach the food.

When the experiment starts, only one chimp is let in the cage. He tries to get to the food and quickly realises that he can't do it alone. This chimp himself, then lets the other chimp into the cage through a door. They instantly cooperate. Both chimps take an end of the rope and pull.

But then, something happens. The dominant chimp of the two goes for the food and doesn't share.

A bit later, the experiment was repeated. Again the dominant chimp starts alone in the cage. Quickly realising it's the same puzzle, he lets the other chimp in. The dominant chimp moves into position to pull the rope. The other...... does not.

The first experience taught him that he'll only be helping the other guy get food. He'll get nothing. So he won't help.

Chimps seem to only bother with things that yield immediate returns.



Another experiment comes to mind, which is quite fascinating imo, as it would seem to illustrate that young chimps are actually smarter then human children.

There's this black plastic box with some candy in it. The subjects (young chimps and humans) are shown a series of "actions/manipulations" with the box, at the end of which a piece of candy comes out of the box. Both the chimps and humans carefully repeat the series of actions step by step, to get the candy.

Next up, the exact same experiment with the exact same box. ONly this time, the box is transparant. Because it is transparant, it also becomes obvious that half of the actions/manipulations are actually not necessary at all, as they don't do anything. They are completely useless to get to the candy.

Here's the not-so-obvious result:
- chimps immediatly stop doing the unecessary steps. They only do the steps that are actually required to get the candy.
- human children... don't. They continue doing the entire series, while half of the series is completely useless.


The theory is, that we humans are so "smart", because we spend our lives learning everything - including those things that seem entirely useless at the time that we learn them.

While chimps only do and learn the absolute required minimum - and even then also only if it yields immediate results.


Lots of such experiments can be seen on youtube.

 

[Aman777]

Not a biblical view and requires the acceptance of dating method accuracy at a distance of thousands of years.

Correction: It's not the consensus of today's religion which supposes that the first day was 6k years ago....BUT...it was less than 6 days ago in God's time. Noah arrived on this Earth 11k years ago according to Scripture, Science and History.

We seem to share DNA and the large brain speaks of an intelligence that apes lack.

Adam was made with the superior intelligence which can be compared to God's. Genesis 3:22 Only Adam's descendants are Humans.

But it is possible they were dumb brutes that some humans interbred with or that they were humans who adapted in a different direction to most of us. The first assumes they were a separate creation and the second that they also were sons of Adam

Noah's grandsons, like Cain on Adam's Earth, married and produced children with the prehistoric people (sons of God) who numbered some 1 million when the Ark arrived. That's God's Truth.

 

[tas8831]

Doesn't anyone else find it awfully convenient that all these supposed bones for human evolution are found yet none are found for gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, gigantopithecus, etc?

Not as convenient as the fact that creationists are unable to produce any physical evidence for their claims at all, and then hide behind 'faith.'

 

[tas8831]

Not entirely true actually. They have in fact figured that out.
What they haven't figured out though, is the importance of "the greater good". A chimp will only cooperate with another chimp, if he gets immediate reward for it.

I remember this social experiment...
It was kind of a puzzle.

2 chimps were in a cage. Just outside the cage, a plate with grapes (or whatever).
A rope was put around the plate, with the ends reaching inside the cage - but too far apart for one chimp to pull both (to get the plate closer to the cage so they were able to reach the food).

If you pulled on one end, the other end off course came out of the cage and then there was no way left to reach the food.

When the experiment starts, only one chimp is let in the cage. He tries to get to the food and quickly realises that he can't do it alone. This chimp himself, then lets the other chimp into the cage through a door. They instantly cooperate. Both chimps take an end of the rope and pull.

But then, something happens. The dominant chimp of the two goes for the food and doesn't share.

A bit later, the experiment was repeated. Again the dominant chimp starts alone in the cage. Quickly realising it's the same puzzle, he lets the other chimp in. The dominant chimp moves into position to pull the rope. The other...... does not.

The first experience taught him that he'll only be helping the other guy get food. He'll get nothing. So he won't help.

Chimps seem to only bother with things that yield immediate returns.



Another experiment comes to mind, which is quite fascinating imo, as it would seem to illustrate that young chimps are actually smarter then human children.

There's this black plastic box with some candy in it. The subjects (young chimps and humans) are shown a series of "actions/manipulations" with the box, at the end of which a piece of candy comes out of the box. Both the chimps and humans carefully repeat the series of actions step by step, to get the candy.

Next up, the exact same experiment with the exact same box. ONly this time, the box is transparant. Because it is transparant, it also becomes obvious that half of the actions/manipulations are actually not necessary at all, as they don't do anything. They are completely useless to get to the candy.

Here's the not-so-obvious result:
- chimps immediatly stop doing the unecessary steps. They only do the steps that are actually required to get the candy.
- human children... don't. They continue doing the entire series, while half of the series is completely useless.


The theory is, that we humans are so "smart", because we spend our lives learning everything - including those things that seem entirely useless at the time that we learn them.

While chimps only do and learn the absolute required minimum - and even then also only if it yields immediate results.


Lots of such experiments can be seen on youtube.

 

[tas8831]

Do you think that coercion is a good way to get converts?

Many of them do - observe the inevitable threats of Hell via bible verse that pop up on here when Johnny Genesis can't find an archived quote to counter a claim with...

 

[pitabread]

You don't seem to know the difference between a warning and a coercion.

Apparently neither do you.

Remember that God is also the Spirit of Truth and He MUST always do that which is perfect IF He is to have a perfect Heaven. Don't be so paranoid in your thinking. Everything's gonna be alright in the end for those who love God.

And those don't get to suffer for all eternity. Yay.

 

[RealityCheck01]

We seem to share DNA and the large brain speaks of an intelligence that apes lack. But it is possible they were dumb brutes that some humans interbred with or that they were humans who adapted in a different direction to most of us. The first assumes they were a separate creation and the second that they also were sons of Adam

The evidence is that we do share DNA with Neanderthals and also Denisovans. Neanderthals had larger brains than us, however brain size by itself is not related to intelligence.
The "dumb brutes" depiction has been out of date for decades. We know that they were tool makers and hunters. There is debated evidence of culture. They have the vocal structures for speech but whether this extended to a language is debated.
Whether Neanderthals are Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is a matter of evidence based science, not religion.

 

[Abraxos]

Not as convenient as the fact that creationists are unable to produce any physical evidence for their claims at all, and then hide behind 'faith.'

I think the misconception here is that we are both looking at the same evidence. The only difference is the interpretation of the evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think the misconception here is that we are both looking at the same evidence. The only difference is the interpretation of the evidence.

Not really.

Scientists interpret the evidence.
Creationists just ignore the evidence.

 

[Abraxos]

Yes really.

Evolutionists interpret the "evidence."
Creationists disregard that interpretation of the "evidence."

Fixed it for you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Fixed it for you.

You can change my words all you want, but the fact remains.

Science analyses the evidence and builds testable models to explain said evidence.
Creationists ignore all that and just wave their bibles instead.

 

[Abraxos]

You can change my words all you want, but the fact remains.

Science analyses the evidence and builds testable models to explain said evidence.
Creationists ignore all that and just wave their bibles instead.

Provide an example of why fossils are evidence for the theory of evolution, and I'll show you why I disregard it on grounds it's not built on testable models.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Provide an example of why fossils are evidence for the theory of evolution, and I'll show you why I disregard it on grounds it's not built on testable models.

@KomatiiteBIF gave a fine example a couple days ago. I'm just gonna use that example

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/evolutions-brick-wall.8075571/page-63#post-73140603

Here is a copy paste of the full post:

People can, and have used genetics, to predict the location of fossils.

And I always turn to the popular example. The devonian is the age of fish. Fish dominated devonian strata. Terrestrial life dominates the Carboniferous. If evolution were true. Then fish-like tetrapods should exist in the mid to late devonian, after domination of fish but before the terrestrial takeover of the Carboniferous.

Not only that, but genetically, amphibians according to evolution will also be found between fish and reptiles, as reptiles are those that dominate the Carboniferous and fish dominated the devonian.

Knowing this, a team of scientists from Philadelphia and Chicago used a geologic map to find middle aged devonian rock, aged between the dominance of fish and the dominance of terrestrial vertebrates. This rock was in a random area in the Canadian tundra. That's just where the rock extends. The travelled specifically to rock consistent of shallow marine deposits, things like stream deposits and alluvial fan deposits, and they found a fish with legs.

That is tiktaalik. It has scales like a fish, but it also has rotating wrists, robust shoulders, eyes on top of it's head like an alligator. But had find Ray's rather than toes, and it had gills and spiracles on it's head indicating that it could breath both air and water. Neck vertebrae are unfused like a tetrapod, but it's jaw is shaped like a fishes.

So they truly found a part fish part tetrapod animal right where evolution predicted that such a thing would exist up in a devonian outcrop in Canada.

So what is the response from evolution deniars? Do they believe the discovery of tiktaalik was pure chance? What if I named another fossil also discovered through prediction based on the theory of evolution? What if I named 10 more? Or 100?

And if anyone wants, I can talk about a another transitional.

 

[Abraxos]

Provide an example of why fossils are evidence for the theory of evolution, and I'll show you why I disregard it on grounds it's not built on testable models.

@KomatiiteBIF gave a fine example a couple days ago. I'm just gonna use that example

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/evolutions-brick-wall.8075571/page-63#post-73140603

Here is a copy paste of the full post:

People can, and have used genetics, to predict the location of fossils.

And I always turn to the popular example. The devonian is the age of fish. Fish dominated devonian strata. Terrestrial life dominates the Carboniferous. If evolution were true. Then fish-like tetrapods should exist in the mid to late devonian, after domination of fish but before the terrestrial takeover of the Carboniferous.

Not only that, but genetically, amphibians according to evolution will also be found between fish and reptiles, as reptiles are those that dominate the Carboniferous and fish dominated the devonian.

Knowing this, a team of scientists from Philadelphia and Chicago used a geologic map to find middle aged devonian rock, aged between the dominance of fish and the dominance of terrestrial vertebrates. This rock was in a random area in the Canadian tundra. That's just where the rock extends. The travelled specifically to rock consistent of shallow marine deposits, things like stream deposits and alluvial fan deposits, and they found a fish with legs.

That is tiktaalik. It has scales like a fish, but it also has rotating wrists, robust shoulders, eyes on top of it's head like an alligator. But had find Ray's rather than toes, and it had gills and spiracles on it's head indicating that it could breath both air and water. Neck vertebrae are unfused like a tetrapod, but it's jaw is shaped like a fishes.

So they truly found a part fish part tetrapod animal right where evolution predicted that such a thing would exist up in a devonian outcrop in Canada.

So what is the response from evolution deniars? Do they believe the discovery of tiktaalik was pure chance? What if I named another fossil also discovered through prediction based on the theory of evolution? What if I named 10 more? Or 100?

And if anyone wants, I can talk about a another transitional.

I don't see what the evolutionary predictive powers demonstration is here. It is making the claim that if the theory of evolution were true, then there must have been a "transitional form" linking men coming from fish (well, whoop-dee-doo. Stating the obvious). However, the claim here is that this tiktaalik was that link, yet it it was pretty much debunked years ago as another hoax.

They found bones and not even a complete set, just the skull and a heavily fragmented half of its body. Evolutionists imagined the tiktaalik to having "fin feet". The reconstruction of the tikaalik was mostly out of preconceived speculations.
The reason why most "smart" evolutionists stay away from the tikaalik, is because they found fossilised tracks of a tetrapod creature millions of years older than the tikaalik. Why are these evolutionary "predictive powers" so commonly wrong? Not only are they commonly wrong, they are built upon fantastic stories rather than going through actual scientific applications. Remember the Piltdown man built up from nothing but a pig tooth? So, the tikaalik was quietly dismissed and put into the category as a "cousin" of the actual transitional form that's conveniently still missing.

And if anyone wants, I can talk about a another transitional.

Sure, go ahead. But this time, use your own knowledge on the subject rather than just parroting what others say.

 

[Job 33:6]

"They found bones and not even a complete set, just the skull and a heavily fragmented half of its body. "
-abraxos

The language above gives the perception that abraxos is describing 1 tiktaalik specimen with a single skull (the skull) and half of a single body (half of it's body).

There are over 10, I believe the number is closer to 15 individual tiktaalik specimen. These include specimen with the hind fins. The very first one did not have it's back end, but later ones have and research has been published on them


And with this alone, we can see that @Abraxos has been misinformed and is factually providing false information.

Also, the tetrapod tracks of Poland are actually considered to have been possibly made by something similar to tiktaalik if not by tiktaalik itself . And those tracks only predate tiktaalik by I believe the number is maybe around 15 million years. Which in a succession of 600 million years of complex fossils among fossils at large dating back a billion years, to say that because tracks were found in strata right before tiktaalik, somehow debunk a fish to tetrapod succession, doesn't hold weight when tiktaalik and the tracks are found in a geological sense, at the same time.

If we were to turn earth history into a book of say, rather than 4.56 billion years of rock, we had 4.56 thousand pages, tiktaalik at the Poland tracks would be found 10 pages apart in a 4560 page book. Or in a 456 page book, they'd be on the same page and in the same paragraph. And this book would not have double sided pages btw. So it would probably be about a 2 inch thick book.

So imagine, someone who is blind and who hasn't read the book, hands you a book 2 inches thick and 456 pages long, and says that the theory of evolution predicts that the fish to tetrapod sequence will be published on page 300, paragraph 4. And you open that book and there it is. Tiktaalik. And some random person comes along and is like...no no, this is all wrong, there are tetrapod tracks found on page 300 paragraph 3, therefore the fossil succession is all wrong.

Thats not debunking, that's fine tuning with precision.

And of course, the above post doesn't actually address the question of how the prediction was made, which is the ultimate question. How did the blind man know what page to turn to?

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't see what the evolutionary predictive powers demonstration is here. It is making the claim that if the theory of evolution were true, then there must have been a "transitional form" linking men coming from fish (well, whoop-dee-doo. Stating the obvious). However, the claim here is that this tiktaalik was that link, yet it it was pretty much debunked years ago as another hoax.

They found bones and not even a complete set, just the skull and a heavily fragmented half of its body. Evolutionists imagined the tiktaalik to having "fin feet". The reconstruction of the tikaalik was mostly out of preconceived speculations.
The reason why most "smart" evolutionists stay away from the tikaalik, is because they found fossilised tracks of a tetrapod creature millions of years older than the tikaalik. Why are these evolutionary "predictive powers" so commonly wrong? Not only are they commonly wrong, they are built upon fantastic stories rather than going through actual scientific applications. Remember the Piltdown man built up from nothing but a pig tooth? So, the tikaalik was quietly dismissed and put into the category as a "cousin" of the actual transitional form that's conveniently still missing.


Sure, go ahead. But this time, use your own knowledge on the subject rather than just parroting what others say.

Way to miss the point!

But was it deliberate?

 

[Abraxos]

I assume the pic @Jimmy D failed at was an attempt at pretending he's smart without actually providing an actual argument.

 

[Abraxos]

There are over 10, I believe the number is closer to 15 individual tiktaalik specimen. These include specimens with the feet. The very first one did not have it's back end, but later ones have and research has been published on them


And with this alone, we can see that @Abraxos has been misinformed and is factually providing false information.

Also, the tetrapod tracks of Poland are actually considered to have been possibly made by something similar to tiktaalik if not by tiktaalik itself . And those tracks only predate tiktaalik by I believe the number is maybe around 15 million years. Which in a succession of 600 million years of complex fossils among fossils at large dating back a billion years, to say that because tracks were found in strata right before tiktaalik, somehow debunk a fish to tetrapod succession, doesn't hold weight when tiktaalik and the tracks are found in a geological sense, at the same time.

If we were to turn earth history into a book of say, rather than 4.56 billion years of rock, we had 4.56 thousand pages, tiktaalik at the Poland tracks would be found 10 pages apart in a 4560 page book. Or in a 456 page book, they'd be on the same page and in the same paragraph.

So imagine, someone who is blind, hands you a book 456 pages long, and says that the theory of evolution predicts that the fish to tetrapod sequence will be published on page 300, paragraph 4. And you open that book and there it is. Tiktaalik. And someone comes along and is like...no no, this is all wrong, it actually happened on page 456, 2 sentences earlier.

That's not debunking, that's fine tuning with precision.

And of course, the above post doesn't actually address the question of how the prediction was made, which is the ultimate question.

You want to show me these other 15 specimens of the tikaalik?