If evolution is true

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, lets just say these comments never cease to keep that question in my mind:

"Molecular evidence indicates that the lineage of gibbons (family Hylobatidae), the "lesser apes", diverged from that of the great apes some 18–12 million years ago, and that of orangutans (subfamily Ponginae) diverged from the other great apes at about 12 million years. There are no fossils that clearly document the ancestry of gibbons, which may have originated in a still-unknown South East Asian hominoid population; but fossil proto-orangutans, dated to around 10 million years ago, may be represented by Sivapithecus from India and Griphopithecus from Turkey.[10] Species close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans may be represented by Nakalipithecus fossils found in Kenya and Ouranopithecus found in Greece. Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 million years ago, first the gorillas (genus Gorilla), and then the chimpanzees (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans. Human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms (see human evolutionary genetics).[11] The fossil record, however, of gorillas and chimpanzees is limited; both poor preservation—rain forest soils tend to be acidic and dissolve bone—and sampling bias probably contribute most to this problem.

Other hominins probably adapted to the drier environments outside the African equatorial belt; and there they encountered antelope, hyenas, elephants and other forms becoming adapted to surviving in the East African savannas, particularly the regions of the Sahel and the Serengeti. The wet equatorial belt contracted after about 8 million years ago, and there is very little fossil evidence for the divergence of the hominin lineage from thaDiscussion and Debatet of gorillas and chimpanzees—which split was thought to have occurred around that time. The earliest fossils argued by some to belong to the human lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 Ma) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 Ma), followed by Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 Ma), with species Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus."

Part of the problem here is that you're looking at human evolution in isolation. It is unfortunate that the fossil record is sparse for apes (for reasons explained in your quote), but when the available evidence is compared with the more complete fossil lineages of many other creatures (including other mammals) it's clearly consistent with such patterns.

It's a far more complex lineage with many more branches and interbreeding of subspecies than was ever expected, but in the light of other mammalian lineages, it is just a more fragmented record. The clincher is the genetic record that clarifies the relationships between the primate branches and shows evidence of the interbreeding between hominid subspecies.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, but that happens often with animals with no other transitioning to the level of humanity. Go back earlier than that and ask what sparked that desire in an animal that otherwise would not venture to take such steps and, in fact, the overwhelming majority didn’t (even if you are correct). And, on top of that those that did, as you suggest, developed the human quality??? I know there are many smart animals with feelings and emotions, but we are different. The human quality is not very explainable… and to me certainly not through randomness, twists of fate, macroevolution, etc. That’s my answer I suppose… there has to be more to it.

You seem to be looking for an agency-based cause for these changes, as if creatures make a deliberate decision to change habitats or become humans or birds or cetaceans, when it's a process that may take thousands of generations with no foresight or goal direction beyond how they satisfy their immediate needs.

Pre-humans may have changed habitats suddenly due to some emergency, or it may have taken thousands of years, perhaps due to climate change or ecosystem variations.

 

[tas8831]

Maybe not... just that particular point in time makes me wonder what made us take a step like that (breaking from the natural norm), if we were a lower animal form.

Evolution does not posit that we - or any other creature - were 'made' to take any steps.
Also, in taxonomy, 'lower' refers to 'older', not 'lesser.'
Creationists love to use terms that are ripe for being loaded.

 

[tas8831]

I understand very well that once the seed of ‘with enough time there is no limit to the amount of change possible’ is accepted…

As opposed to the "with God., all things are possible" platitude?

then it’s macroevolution hook, line and sinker. Ok, I get it.

Can you define macroevolution as you use it? For clarity.

I mean increased brain capacity would be like ‘I need to make the jungle or savannah more comfortable.’ And, yes, I understand the hunter/gatherer and farmer transition (but only as humans).

What?

I just can’t see a lot of ‘I don’t like this wild atmosphere at all, so I’m going to try another lifestyle altogether.’ I understand the concept of gradual change over time (micro level of course), and following and adapting to a food supply and even conditions to a point, but progressively changing from a lower animal natural lifestyle in the ‘wilds,’ to a human one outside the wilds… well, help me understand (please, no this is how evolution works) how you think this could possibly happen, regardless of the time involved?

All these years here, and you still start threads with such tripe?
Amazing... It is almost as if creationists are allergic to actually understanding what they have been programmed to hate...

 

[tas8831]

See what I mean? The bolding says it all.

Well, lets just say these comments never cease to keep that question in my mind:

"Molecular evidence indicates that the lineage of gibbons (family Hylobatidae), the "lesser apes", diverged from that of the great apes some 18–12 million years ago, and that of orangutans (subfamily Ponginae) diverged from the other great apes at about 12 million years. There are no fossils that clearly document the ancestry of gibbons, which may have originated in a still-unknown South East Asian hominoid population; but fossil proto-orangutans, dated to around 10 million years ago, may be represented by Sivapithecus from India and Griphopithecus from Turkey.[10] Species close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans may be represented by Nakalipithecus fossils found in Kenya and Ouranopithecus found in Greece. Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 million years ago, first the gorillas (genus Gorilla), and then the chimpanzees (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans. Human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms (see human evolutionary genetics).[11] The fossil record, however, of gorillas and chimpanzees is limited; both poor preservation—rain forest soils tend to be acidic and dissolve bone—and sampling bias probably contribute most to this problem.

Other hominins probably adapted to the drier environments outside the African equatorial belt; and there they encountered antelope, hyenas, elephants and other forms becoming adapted to surviving in the East African savannas, particularly the regions of the Sahel and the Serengeti. The wet equatorial belt contracted after about 8 million years ago, and there is very little fossil evidence for the divergence of the hominin lineage from that of gorillas and chimpanzees—which split was thought to have occurred around that time. The earliest fossils argued by some to belong to the human lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 Ma) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 Ma), followed by Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 Ma), with species Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus."

Creationists will focus on the tentative language as a means of justifying their rejection of things that they can't be bothered to actually learn about.
Ignorance and bliss and all that. Better to just believe in things forced upon you in church for which there is no real evidence at all than have to learn about things that might not prop up what the angry man in the weird clothes yells at you about and for which you are threatened with all manner of horrible things (post death, of course) for not believing at face value (by FAITH)...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, but that happens often with animals with no other transitioning to the level of humanity.

Each population faces different challenges from its environment. The ones that don't find a successful niche die out. Pre-humans found niches that required and selected for behavioural flexibility and creativity. Related species were in niches that didn't make those demands to the same extent. Some mammals found niches in forests, some on the savannah, some coastal and riverside. Some found semi-aquatic niches favourable (hippos, water buffalo), and some eventually became more aquatic than land-dwelling (pinnipeds), and some eventually became fully aquatic (cetaceans). They transitioned to whatever traits that were most advantageous in their environments. Nomadic hunter-gatherer niches made what we identify as human traits a selective advantage.

Go back earlier than that and ask what sparked that desire in an animal that otherwise would not venture to take such steps and, in fact, the overwhelming majority didn’t (even if you are correct).

The desire to stay alive and propagate the species, which is itself a product of evolution - those with less of a desire to survive to reproduce would be less likely to pass their genes on to the next generation, so in the long term, if the species survives, that will be a primary drive.

There need not be any explicit desire to switch habitats. For example, a forest-dwelling population that finds itself at the edge of the forest might find raiding the savannah for the kills of other predators to be advantageous. Over the generations, they might be increasingly selected for spending longer times out of the forest, becoming increasingly bipedal, scaring off predators, even hunting their own game, eventually transitioning to a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

...on top of that those that did, as you suggest, developed the human quality??? I know there are many smart animals with feelings and emotions, but we are different. The human quality is not very explainable… and to me certainly not through randomness, twists of fate, macroevolution, etc. That’s my answer I suppose… there has to be more to it.

Pre-humans needed strong cooperation within the group to coordinate their activites, which meant strong social bonds. Communication would be essential when hunting and advantageous socially, so language development would be selected for. Tool-making would also be important for hunting and butchery.

Once you have language and tool-making, you have shared knowledge, and the advantage of keeping that knowledge between generations (culture) means a selective pressure in favour of better memory and story-telling, and developing a linear sense of past and future for learning and planning.

The symbolic nature of language also facilitates deliberative thought - putting together sequences of ideas, for developing hunting and social strategies, cultural narratives, and so on. When we gained control of fire, we could vastly increase the amount of available calories and nourishment by cooking food, and we spent less time and effort eating.

The surplus nourishment and smaller jaws and jaw muscles allowed the growth of bigger brains for better communication, tool-making, strategising, planning, culture, etc., all of which had a selective advantage.

So pre-humans became human because our environmental niches selected for increasingly sophisticated cognitive traits and the traits that developed were synergistic, each reinforcing the others. IOW, we hit the cognitive jackpot.

 

[Astrophile]

So, even though he didn't know the age of the earth (as you mentioned before), he must have believed it was very, very old???

In Chapter 9 of the first edition of The Origin of Species (published in 1859), Darwin estimated the post-Cretaceous erosion of the Weald Dome in south-east England had required about 300 million years. This was an over-estimate by a factor of about ten, but it implied that the Earth was much older than other 19th-century geologists imagined.

 

[dlamberth]

Who says humans live 'outside the wilds'? We are part of 'the wilds' and we're continually reminded, surprised and sometimes shocked about that reality. Hurricances, wildfires, the pandemic, climate change etc are just reminders that the notion of 'outside the wild' is just an illusion.
Re-integration with that reality is well overdue.

We haven't escaped the earth and what she throws at us. But there's no way I consider concrete cities as "the wilds" in the sense of it being out in nature with wild life and all.

 

[inquiring mind]

1. That doesn't answer my question. Homo erectus, do you consider it an animal, or a human?

I think I'll just go with (c)... 'extinct.'

2. The evidence of settlements, fire, tools and other utensils isn't "supposed". It exists, and is both well documented and quite widely on display. And, it continues to be built on.

As I have said numerous times, it is not a question of 'evidence' existing or not, the question is with the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

3. The conditions that preserve skeletons for fossilisation are rather different and considerably rarer than the conditions that preserve stone tools and hearths, inscribing on bones and shells, excavations for fixed abodes, and burial sites for the dead. That said, we currently have skeletal remains from in excess of 300 Homo erectus individuals from better than 30 sites globally, and there are usually three to four new finds per year - like these from Kenya earlier this year.

I wonder if 'rare' is the correct answer here... or would the better conclusion be 'the desired connections for macroevolution can't be determined.'

 

[inquiring mind]

All these years here, and you still start threads with such tripe?
Amazing... It is almost as if creationists are allergic to actually understanding what they have been programmed to hate...

No, we just don't accept single-blind type studies as wholeheartedly as you. And, inquiry doesn't equal hate.

 

[tas8831]

No, we just don't accept single-blind type studies as wholeheartedly as you.

Who is "we"? You and other non-scientists? And it is precious how you try to use some sciency-sounding terms...As is often the case, the creationist shoots themselves in the foot when engaging in pretense:

"A type of clinical trial in which only the researcher doing the study knows which treatment or intervention the participant is receiving until the trial is over. A single-blind study makes results of the study less likely to be biased."​

Not all research consists of clinical trials - but I'm sure you felt that you had produced a real zinger....

And, inquiry doesn't equal hate.

Do you really believe that all you are doing is "inquiring"?

intransitive verb. 1 : to put a question : seek for information by questioning inquired about the horses. 2 : to make investigation or inquiry —often used with into. transitive verb.

I have read many, many of your posts. You clearly do NOT seek information, you use your 'inquiries' to make statements of, or in support of, your bible faith, and upon receiving answers that you clearly did not want and cannot address on their merits, seek to find ways to dismiss those answers. As you did a bit ago by bolding the tentative language used in a paper to justify your dismissal of its findings.

 

[inquiring mind]

Who is "we"? You and other non-scientists? And it is precious how you try to use some sciency-sounding terms...As is often the case, the creationist shoots themselves in the foot when engaging in pretense:

"A type of clinical trial in which only the researcher doing the study knows which treatment or intervention the participant is receiving until the trial is over. A single-blind study makes results of the study less likely to be biased."
Not all research consists of clinical trials - but I'm sure you felt that you had produced a real zinger....

You’re the only one referencing ‘clinical trials.’ I was using single-blind 'type' only in the context that it is the least reliable. I don’t have the least idea what you’re talking about, and don’t really want to know.

 

[inquiring mind]

Do you really believe that all you are doing is "inquiring"?

intransitive verb. 1 : to put a question : seek for information by questioning inquired about the horses. 2 : to make investigation or inquiry —often used with into. transitive verb.

I have read many, many of your posts. You clearly do NOT seek information, you use your 'inquiries' to make statements of, or in support of, your bible faith, and upon receiving answers that you clearly did not want and cannot address on their merits, seek to find ways to dismiss those answers. As you did a bit ago by bolding the tentative language used in a paper to justify your dismissal of its findings.

I don't know what to say... thank you?

 

[Gene2memE]

I think I'll just go with (c)... 'extinct.'

That's two evasions.

Are you scared of answering the question, or just incapable?

As I have said numerous times, it is not a question of 'evidence' existing or not, the question is with the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

No, what you said was:

"It always baffles me that they can find supposed evidence of settlements, fire, tools and other utensils, but they can’t find enough fossil remains to tie it all together. At least they are straight-forward about it though."​

There are gaps in the fossil record, but not enough that we don't have a very good overall picture of the development of humans from earlier hominid ancestors over a period of about 5.5 to 5.8 million years.

There's still details to be filled in, and conclusions within the framework will change. But, there's no concluding that "no, actually, all the available evidence of progressive hominid evolution over a period of millions of years is wrong, and actually the creation myth of a group of Middle Eastern semi-nomadic tribespeople is right"

I wonder if 'rare' is the correct answer here... or would the better conclusion be 'the desired connections for macroevolution can't be determined.'

What macroevolutionary changes are there between humans and Homo heidelbergensis homo erectus? Which of these can and cannot be determined?

What macroevolutionary changes are there between Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus? Which of these can and cannot be determined?

What macroevolutionary changes are there between Homo erectus and Australopithecus africanus? Which of these can and cannot be determined?

 

[inquiring mind]

That's two evasions.

Are you scared of answering the question, or just incapable?

Why do you think my answer is evasive... it's definitely correct, and it's not a theory.

No, what you said was:

"It always baffles me that they can find supposed evidence of settlements, fire, tools and other utensils (it is not a question of 'evidence' existing or not), but they can’t find enough fossil remains to tie it all together (the question is with the conclusions drawn from that evidence). At least they are straight-forward about it though."

Sounds sort of the same.

What macroevolutionary changes are there between humans and Homo heidelbergensis homo erectus? Which of these can and cannot be determined?

What macroevolutionary changes are there between Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus? Which of these can and cannot be determined?

What macroevolutionary changes are there between Homo erectus and Australopithecus africanus? Which of these can and cannot be determined?

The ones that keep it a theory I guess.

 

[Shemjaza]

Why do you think my answer is evasive... it's definitely correct, and it's not a theory.

Well it's not an answer to the question.

Q: "Is that milkshake (a) chocolate or (b) vanilla?"
A: "I think I'll just go with (c)... in a cup."

Is absolutely being evasive.

 

[inquiring mind]

Well it's not an answer to the question.

Q: "Is that milkshake (a) chocolate or (b) vanilla?"
A: "I think I'll just go with (c)... in a cup."

Is absolutely being evasive.

It most certainly is an answer, and the correct one, just like if the milkshake was no longer here (extinct, if you will), and you can only theorize as to what flavor it was, or if it even was a milkshake.

 

[Shemjaza]

It most certainly is an answer, and the correct one, just like if the milkshake was no longer here (extinct, if you will), and you can only theorize as to what flavor it was, or if it even was a milkshake.

No. "I don't know" is an answer... making up a non answer and claiming it's correct is evasion.

The point of the question about the nature of extinct hominids is that they demonstrate that it isn't easy to describe the limits of what we call human.

Okay if we don't have the actual milkshake (or hominid) we can't check by drinking it, but we can use evidence to infer the details.

If we have pictures of the milkshake we could examine the colour, if we have the cup we could test the residue.

For the hominids we have a significant number of their bones and tools which makes it pretty easy to work with what we mean by "human".

 

[Gene2memE]

Why do you think my answer is evasive... it's definitely correct, and it's not a theory.

Because you avoided the question by raising information unrelated to the topic. Firstly by asking why there's stronger physical evidence of early hominid settlements and tool use, and then secondly by raising a non-sequitur that Homo erectus is extinct.

Now you've evaded a third time, by failing to answer the question and then making another total non sequitur.

Given this, and your subsequent "answers", I'm forced to conclude you're not an honest interlocutor or good faith participant here and as a result are incapable of answering the question.

Now, what book has blandishments about lying, I wonder?

 

[tas8831]

You’re the only one referencing ‘clinical trials.’

Yes - because single-blind and double-blind refers to clinical trials. Did you not what your pseudo-clever dig actually referred to?

I was using single-blind 'type' only in the context that it is the least reliable.

And yet you flubbed that, too:

"A single-blind study makes results of the study less likely to be biased."

I don’t have the least idea what you’re talking about, and don’t really want to know.

Of course - that is your way with anyone that calls your bluff/provides evidence that demolish your mere layman's assertions/undercuts your assumptions/etc.

You poor thing.