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.
Jungles would be a very poor candidate for the origin of the genus Homo. It's likely that the cooling climate in the Pleistocene, with the reduction in forests and increase in grasslands gave rise to hominins that eventually evolved to humans.There was a study published fairly recently that the jungles of Africa were not the original homeland of humans, and that they were only inhabited rather late.
Never heard man evolved in Africa and migrated to Europe? That has been taught in public schools for the last 70+ years.Never heard of it. The evidence seems to indicate what is now Ethiopea and Somalia as a center of human evolution. But that could be an artifact of the strata being exposed there.
Some anatomically modern human fossils were found as far south as what is now S. Africa.
Man does get around.Some anatomically modern human fossils were found as far south as what is now S. Africa.
Ethiopia as grassland? The Caucasus is also a prime candidate. Especially in the coincidence of agricultural advances from existing species, such as horses and cattle.he evidence seems to indicate what is now Ethiopea and Somalia as a center of human evolution.
Only problem is we don't see hominins in Central Asia until much later. The first anatomically modern humans are found in Africa. And yes, North Africa was for a long time, wetter and greener.Ethiopia as grassland? The Caucasus is also a prime candidate. Especially in the coincidence of agricultural advances from existing species, such as horses and cattle.
Why, if man could walk out north of Africa to Europe but man couldn't walk south out of the Europe?
Who started the story about man evolving in deepest Africa?
I notice "deepest" dropped out there. You think the Horn of Africa is "deepest Africa?" The evidence is that man evolved in Africa. For a long time, the only place fossils of hominids were being formed was in Africa. Then first archaic H. sapiens moved into Europe and Asia and then toward the end of the ice age, anatomically modern humans moved out of Africa into Eurasia.Never heard man evolved in Africa and migrated to Europe?
Do a poll. Ask how many Americans were taught in school that man evolved from apes in the jungles of Africa. That is deepest Africa, the sub Saharan jungles.I notice "deepest" dropped out there. You think the Horn of Africa is "deepest Africa?" The evidence is that man evolved in Africa. For a long time, the only place fossils of hominids were being formed was in Africa.
The evidence seems to indicate what is now Ethiopea and Somalia as a center of human evolution.
I have. Most paleontologists acknowledge anatomically modern humans first show up in Africa.Do a poll.
Hard to say. I never saw that in any of my biology classes and certainly not in any university classes. And I've had quite a few in this area.Where did that story get started?
Darwin has been criticized in the literature for his thought that acquired characteristics are heritable, for his thoughts on how baleen whales evolved, for his insistence that evolution is only gradual in all cases and many other things. Your Chinese guy doesn't seem to have much knowledge of the scientific literature.As a Chinese man said, "In China you can criticize Darwin but you can't criticize the government. In America you can criticize the government but you can't criticize Darwin"
Yes modern human fossils. The first humans were rather different that anatomically modern humans. But they appear first in Eastern Africa. And yes, H. erectus made it as far as E. Asia, so H. sapiens wasn't the first humans out of Africa, much less anatomically modern H. sapiens.@Kale100 The oldest modern human fossil is in Morocco, Jebel Irhoud, 300,000 years. Then you have Omo Kibish at now 233,000 years, there's one in Israel 177,000 years ago.
This is an anatomically modern human, not the first human species. From your source:The skulls and teeth unearthed in Jebel Irhoud torpedoed the long-held theory that we emerged from an East African "cradle of humankind."
Quote: Jun-Yuan Chen. Professor. Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Nanjing, China.Your Chinese guy doesn't seem to have much knowledge of the scientific literature.
TJebel Irhoud, at roughly 280,000 to 350,000 years old. If they (the dates) hold up, these dates would make the remains by far the earliest known examples of Homo sapiens.Yes modern human fossils. The first humans were rather different that anatomically modern humans.
Darwin has been criticized in the literature for his thought that acquired characteristics are heritable, for his thoughts on how baleen whales evolved, for his insistence that evolution is only gradual in all cases and many other things. Your Chinese guy doesn't seem to have much knowledge of the scientific literature.Quote: Jun-Yuan Chen. Professor. Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Nanjing, China.
“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
H. sapiens is far from the first known human.TJebel Irhoud, at roughly 280,000 to 350,000 years old. If they (the dates) hold up, these dates would make the remains by far the earliest known examples of Homo sapiens.
Phrenology is a discredited "science"The first humans were rather different than anatomically modern humans.
And I predicted that Man is, was and shall be found within Latitudes defined roughly as Mediterranean. Clear around the world, based on the environment most favorable to the organism, therefore population patterns.H. habilis, for example, is known from remains over 2 million years old. TJebel Irhoud is in Africa, BTW. Darwin predicted that the earliest humans would be found in Africa.
It's pretty much an ideal latitude. You might want to read Jarred Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. He came to a similar conclusion about why the Old World overcame the New World. But we see fossils of humans in S. Africa as well. We see lots of early anatomically modern humans in North Africa, because hominids evolved in Africa.And I predicted that Man is, was and shall be found within Latitudes defined roughly as Mediterranean.
Perhaps you don't know what "phrenology" means. It has nothing whatever to do with paleontology.Phrenology is a discredited "science"
That was... random.1) Exodus 20:12 Honour thy father and mother
H. habilis was just and early member of our genus. They were possibly our ancestors, but a closely related species might be the one. Evolutionary theory does not require "ascent from simpler to more complex." Indeed chimpanzees are highly evolved in a different direction than humans.There isn't any way to prove that H. Habilis was human or an ancestor.
The Theory of Evolution Requires ascent from simpler to more complex (Ape to Man)
Genetically, yes. Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to any other ape.According to this theory, man is an ape.
Your fellow creationist Dr. Kurt Wise says that the many transitional homind fossils are among the very good evidence for macroevoltionary theory. But it's not just anatomy. As you know, genetic data also confirms anatomical evidence.Darwinist assume without any evidence that man is ape evolved from ape
Darwinist assume without any evidence that man is ape evolved from ape
I never understood how people would conclude that if God made us by evolution, we were free to sin as we like. Very poor reasoning.Man is free then to do whatever ape animals do. Unchain the "devil. There isn't any animal on earth who can sink to the level of depravity that man can devise when he looses his "ape." But then man transcends "ape" and is truly the Devils' spawn.
No. In fact, the DNA of chimpanzees and bonobos are very, very similar to each other, with both about equally distant from humans. Bonobos have some human-like traits but then so do chimpanzees.There are claims that our true "image" is Bonobos (based on today DNA.
When two troops of chimpanzees meet, there is often violence. When two troops of bonobos meet there is often lots of sex. Sounds like we're kind of a blend of the two, doesn't it?Therefore the sexual habits of Bonobos are a pattern for man's behavior:
If one makes an idol of evolution or creationism, and insists that believing or or the other is a requirement for salvation, maybe so.A case could be made for idolatry. (2nd Commandment)
I am not a creationist.Your fellow creationist
No. DNA sequencing has it closer to 5 million years ago. Hominidae includes apes outside of the genus Homo. You're thinking of hominini, all human species.Genetics:
1) MtDNA sequencing has the split hominidae / homo sapien 250,000 yrs ago
For decades, researchers seeking the origin of our species have scoured the Great Rift Valley of East Africa. Now, their quest has taken an unexpected detour west to Morocco: Researchers have redated a long-overlooked skull from a cave called Jebel Irhoud to a startling 300,000 years ago, and unearthed new fossils and stone tools. The result is the oldest well-dated evidence of Homo sapiens, pushing back the appearance of our kind by 100,000 years.A) Homo Sapien, TJebel Irhoud, at roughly 280,000 to 350,000 years old
Neanderthals were around long before anatomically modern humans. BTW, Neanderthals are almost certainly H. sapiens. Genetically, they are just a bit too close to be classified as separate species.B) Neandertal and Homo Sapiens were in close proximity from an early time
That occipital bun, I suppose. Maybe the teeth. Not much of a mental prominence (chin) but kinda. (Barbarian checks) Apparently, they did not have the "simian shelf" found in more archaic H. sapiens:TJebel Irhoud, was misidentified as Neandertal
There are much older hominids in Asia. Now an anatomically modern human that old, would be of some interest. Got a link?There is a Georgia fossil (USSR) that is 1.8m yrs old. This will rewrite the narrative about who begot who.
In the sense that Newtonism is a narrative. But evolutionary and gravitation theories are theories because they make testable predictions that have since been repeatedly validated by new evidence.Darwinism is a narrative.
Scientific theories change as evidence requires. So genetics, for example, cleared up one major problem with Darwinian theory, at the same time that it ruled out the general inheritance of acquired characteristics.Sometimes I think the only thing that "evolves" is the storyline."
Again, Phrenology is a discredited "science"We identified a mosaic of features including facial, mandibular and dental morphology that aligns the Jebel Irhoud material with early or recent anatomically modern humans and more primitive neurocranial and endocranial morphology.
There are much older hominids in Asia. Now an anatomically modern human that old, would be of some interest. Got a link?
1)Newtonianism is clearly defined objects in clearly defined systems operating under discoverable fixed laws (math)In the sense that Newtonism is a narrative. But evolutionary and gravitation theories are theories because they make testable predictions that have since been repeatedly validated by new evidence.
I don't think you know what "phrenology" means. None of this has anything to do with phrenology.Again, Phrenology is a discredited "science"
Yep.I read it was only a tooth but this link apparently is more.
Evolution is clearly defined processes in clearly defined ways operating under discoverable fixed laws (math).Newtonianism is clearly defined objects in clearly defined systems operating under discoverable fixed laws (math)
i.e. The solar system is a clearly defined system operating under fixed laws.
I know about it. It is AUM (animal unit per month) is an example of the formulas to calculate the. equilibrium. It is much simpler and more complicated than that. In fact, in practice much more complicated.Everything looks simple if you don't know anything about it.
No. Predation is a specific behavior that requires killing other organisms for sustenance. This excludes plants (with a few exceptions that prey on insects), parasites that do not kill their hosts, and so on.Every species is a predator.
Actually, plants tend to increase organic material in soil. That's why plants in rock crevices tend to produce soil over a period of time. They tend to deplete certain minerals and nitrogen. But that's not predation.Plants use up the organic material in the soil.
Mosquitos, for example, are parasites. At least the females are. The males eat nectar from flowers which benefits the flowers via pollenation.Insects, coyotes, gophers, rustlers predators all.
Close, but no cigar...Now I am going to propose:
System with Boundaries
Time: -40,000 to -500, 000 yrs ago.
System MAN
A) Interbreeding Contemporary
1) Morocco Jebel Irhoud,
2) Israel Nesher Ramla
3) Ethiopia? Omo
4) Spain Neandertal
5 Spain Denisovan
I don't see what assets under management has to do with it. But the point remains. Much of evolutionary theory involves a lot of mathematical work. Were you aware that information theory was first worked out for biological evolution?I know about it. It is AUM. It is an equilibrium. It is much simpler and more complicated than that. In fact, in practice much more
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?