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.
I am genuinely interested i what you are talking about here. Can you either PM me or post some sites I can read more about "operational taxonomic units"? I looked at a Wiki page but it hardly had anything at all.
Thank you very much.
In Christ, GB
They may be better looking than chimps we see today or they may be much uglier than the average human. Neither situation proves them to be your ancestors. DNA is thought to be the miracle identifier, but it's mostly for directing the shape of the lifeform. Similar shapes may have similar DNA independent of it's history.
They may be better looking than chimps we see today or they may be much uglier than the average human. Neither situation proves them to be your ancestors. DNA is thought to be the miracle identifier, but it's mostly for directing the shape of the lifeform. Similar shapes may have similar DNA independent of it's history.
I think the current theory is that Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis both evolved from Homo heidlebergensis. If that theory is correct, then Neanderthals aren't our ancestors. However, there is evidence that neanderthals may have inbred with Homo sapiens. Neanderthal genome reveals interbreeding with humans - life - 06 May 2010 - New Scientist In which case the inbreeding could mean that some of us (primarily europeans) have Neanderthal ancestors.
But that's a side-track. In my previous posts I was talking about species on the evolutionary line that lead to Homo sapiens. Neanderthals are likely a parallel line. But, if there is evidence of interbreeding, then that shows that they could even interbreed with "us", which surely makes them fairly human. Though, the New Scientist article in the previous paragraph talks about neanderthals interbreeding with "humans". Clearly there's some ambiguity here.
Thank you very much. I tried to open the page and it said the file was damaged. Personally I think it's the computer I am at right now/ I will try it tonight at home and see what happens. If I can't open it there I might have you send it to me via email.Sure, here's a good review:
http://www.bolinfonet.org/pdf/DefiningoperationaltaxonomicunitsusingDNAbarcodedata2005.pdf
If you've got any questions I'd be happy to discuss further either on PMs or on here. I think I may start a thread on species concepts even
Actually, most of our DNA is likely to be viral in origin, some of it repeated several times and actually does nothing functional.DNA is thought to be the miracle identifier, but it's mostly for directing the shape of the lifeform.
Similar shapes may have similar DNA independent of it's history.
It is more likely that similar-shaped animals (or even plants for that matter) with no obvious evolutionary link would have dissimilar DNA sequences as they had evolved seperatley.That is called convergent evolution, yes. But what does it say when species that look different from each other have similar DNA?
Lets just play your game for a moment, and suppose that all of your post is entirely correct - what do we have?As you are aware this 'line' changes and is debated and contested. What turns up in biology books is popular 'common thinking'.
Neanderthal is a good case in point. 20 years ago Neanderthal was depicted as a hairy bent over very primitive looking guy. That is not 'common thinking anymore'. The important thing to remember here is that so called Neanderthal fossils were numerous even 20 years ago and that is what 'common thinking' came up with, regardless of the fact that the brain size of neanderthal was larger than modern mankind. The change from 'transitional' to fully human came about on the back of better DNA analysis and not from a new fossil find. What does this tell creationists about the ability of evolutionary researchers to provide credible and valid evidence?
Human knucklewalking ancestry was another huge woopsie for evolutionists where on the back of one single find, Ardi, knucklewalking ancestry was falsified as the 'common thinking' of today.
...........
Similar misrepresentations are throughout every taxon eg ambulocetus natans the so called intermediate whale that is nothing more than a seal or sea lion ancestor.
Evolutionists seem to be content to admit that although many of the details about evolution are wrong and changing they keep insisting the general principles are right. That isnt good science. It isnt even good logic.
As you are aware this 'line' changes and is debated and contested. What turns up in biology books is popular 'common thinking'.
Neanderthal is a good case in point. 20 years ago Neanderthal was depicted as a hairy bent over very primitive looking guy. That is not 'common thinking anymore'. The important thing to remember here is that so called Neanderthal fossils were numerous even 20 years ago and that is what 'common thinking' came up with, regardless of the fact that the brain size of neanderthal was larger than modern mankind. The change from 'transitional' to fully human came about on the back of better DNA analysis and not from a new fossil find. What does this tell creationists about the ability of evolutionary researchers to provide credible and valid evidence?
Human knucklewalking ancestry was another huge woopsie for evolutionists where on the back of one single find, Ardi, knucklewalking ancestry was falsified as the 'common thinking' of today.
I could post all day about changes such as those above and yet any support evolutionists provide is no more credible.
Homo erectus eg Turkana Boy, was found to have a very small neural canal. This is all you have really to provide a theoretical assumption as to whether or not erectus had sophisticated speech. Indeed this small neural canal leads evolutionary 'common thinking' to suggest that erectus did not have sophisticated speech.
Abstact thought is tied to sophisticated speech where we find symbolic representation of concepts. We are abe to communicate abstract thought, eg debates about God and evolution, in a way that is unique to humanity.
Further to this the strapping athlete over six foot tall has recently been falsified. Turk was nothing more than a 5'3" stocky species that now does not have anthletic ability. The athlete was destroyed again on the back of the Gona female erectus pelvis find. Erectus was also hugely sexually dimorphic akin to a modern day gorilla. I suggest that Erectus is no more human than a modern day gorilla and evolutionists have nothing more than biased misrepresentations to present at best.
New estimates of stature and body mass for KNM-WT 15000 (Daniel Wescott) - Academia.edu
New fossils reveal different theory on human ancestors - CNN.com
First Humans Were More Ape-Like than Human-Like - Softpedia
Afarensis question...no longer our ancestor? (Page 1) - Human Biology and Evolution - Ask a Biologist Q&A
Given anything evolutionists provide as evolutionary support is theoretical and changeable
I also assert that erectus was not capable of abstract thought because erectus did not have the language to support abstract thought and symbolism.
The task of firelighting without modern aides and fire control is complex and requires the conceptualisation of hard woods and soft, blowing to created smoke, litter to ignite, the skills to nurture the flame into a fire. It is similar with the use of flint stone. Non human apes are incapable of performing and understanding this concept. Therefore erectus was not human in my view, nor on its way to becoming human.
Brain size calculations are ridiculous and biased. Gorillas have been found to have brain sizes of up to 700cc.
Then you have Lucy, australopithecus afarensis. Several researchers suggest Lucy, and all her so called human traits, is nothing more than a chimp or gorilla ancestor.
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
There is little fossil evidence to support chimp and gorilla ancestry. Why do you evolutionists suppose that is? I suggest all the fossil evidence purported to be transional from common ancestor to mankind are nothing more than modern day non human ape ancestors or extinct lines. Indeed many well credentialed evo researchers agree with me to some extent on early species such as Ardi and Lucy.
I concur with the thread topic. The purported overwhelming evidence in support of evolution is simply non existent.
Similar misrepresentations are throughout every taxon eg ambulocetus
natans the so called intermediate whale that is nothing more than a seal or sea lion ancestor.
Evolutionists seem to be content to admit that although many of the details about evolution are wrong and changing they keep insisting the general principles are right. That isnt good science. It isnt even good logic.
You are now demonstrating frustration. Evolution is not a science it is a theory and a bad one at that.Lets just play your game for a moment, and suppose that all of your post is entirely correct - what do we have?
- Science knows nothing because its answers always change.
- A. natans isn't a whale ancestor, it is a seal ancestor.
- Change isn't good science and it isn't good logic.
That is a silly analogy. Indeed you either have evidence of which will remain stable OR you will have a bunch of hypothesis that do not. What you have is a bunch of hypothesis that remain flavour of the month for a time. This is not evidence for anything other than a good imagination and a desperation to maintain the status quo "it all evolved'.Let's answer these nuggets one at a time:
- Scientific understanding changes, and is always open to re-interpretation in light of new evidence. This is analagous to a police investigation - they don't find someone who could have done it, lock him up and stop investigating. That would be really stupid. What you find will either support your idea about the guy or change it.
2. If this is true, then you still have evidence for evolution of a land animal into an ocean-dwelling animal. Whichever way you look at your post, it is evidence of macro-evolution.
3. Changing your mind in light of new evidence is very good logic, and to oppose change when new evidence is uncovered is really, really bad logic. By your way of thinking, acceptance of Einstein's theory of general relativity is dumb because Newton already worked out everything about gravity. Ergo Newton's laws were stupid and illogical because Galileo had already calculated the effetcs of gravity, but this was also dumb because Aristotle had already postulated that gravity causes havy objects to accelarate faster than light ones.
Can you actually see what an illogical position you have taken?
What it shows is that the evidence we have, and how we have interpreted it, has improved. Evidence arrives in piecemeal fashion. E.g. we find new fossils. We develop genetic sequencing techniques, and acquire genomes of more and more creatures. That science is based upon questioning everything leads to us finding out more information, which allows us to more and more accurately reveal what happened in the past, predict the future, etc.
You paint the way that scientific theories change and evolve over time as a bad thing, but it's actually a very good thing. If we look at physics, then Newton did extremely well for things of reasonable sizes which travel at modest speeds. E.g. even nowdays Newtonian physics can be used to design roller coasters. However, Newtonian physics predicts that with sufficient energy, you could propel a ship faster than the speed of light. Which we now believe that we can't. Albert Einstein came along and came up with a better physics which is more accurate than Newton's physics. But that doesn't mean that Newton was "wrong", just that his laws were only a very accurate approximation of the truth. Einstein's laws are a better approximation of the truth, and development of physics since then has improved things further. But this doesn't invalidate what Newton did. He did a very good job, it's just that today we can do better.
Early depictions of early man are probably less accurate than current predictions, because we've learnt more about early man and have learnt more about how to extract knowledge from the available evidence. But, early predictions weren't just 100% wrong. E.g. they didn't depict early man as giant starfish with purple wings.
Creationists often quote the way that scientific theories change over time as something "wrong" with them. But what's wrong with continual reevaluation and improvement?
You describe science working as it should do, with further discoveries and academic argument leading to a refinement of theories about what H. erectus was like. Then you suddenly say that Erectus is no more human than a modern gorilla. There is evidence that H. erectus used stone tools, and possibly even fire. This I think makes Erectus more human than a gorilla. Though given the skull shape, Erectus probably wouldn't look pretty to our eyes.
And you also say that "evolutionists have nothing more than biased misrepresentations to present at best". Why would you say this? The evidence we have is still being acquired, which will allow us to say with increasing accuracy what Erectus was like. But why would you suddenly discount what has been learned about Erectus. Theories will improve over time, but you appear to be wanting to discount everything we know because it probably isn't a perfect knowledge of what Erectus was like.
These all look like good papers that illustrate science in action as competing theories are compared and evaluated, which over time will improve our knowledge.
And what's wrong with that? Unless we invent a time machine nobody can know exactly what went on that long ago, and we need to make theories about what happened. Examining how science works show that in all fields our knowledge and the quality of our theories has improved over time. So, why should this advancement be seen as a bad thing in studies on evolution and human evolution?
There is evidence of chimpanzees and even baboons engaging in abstract thought. E.g. Baboons Show Signs of Abstract Thought, a Human Trait
Erectus had fire, but that does not mean that Erectus could make fire. I'm not personally aware of strong evidence about whether Erectus could make fire as you describe it, and think that the evidence is still light for Erectus having controlled fire of any sort. Hence I think that any conclusions about the humanity of Erectus based on control of fire is premature, and it's possible that we may never find sufficient evidence of the fine details of how Erectus used fire, and hence may never know with any certainty things such as this.
Brain size calculations are just one piece of information about species that we use to build theories about what sort of species they were and how they acted. How are they "ridiculous" and "biased"?
If you want to claim that you'll need evidence. A number of extinct species show characteristics closer to modern humans than apes. And for some not necessarily on a line to us (e.g. Neanderthals) we even have genetic evidence. Homo heidelbergensis had a brain case much larger than modern gorillas and overlapping the size of modern humans. They also used stone tools, etc. Are you saying that Homo heidelbergensis is also on the path to
Example evidence you could raise would be to show that there are no fossils of extinct proto-humans who are more human than ape-like. But, I think you'll find the existing evidence suggests the opposite.
Once again, this is an excellent example of how science works. Looking at the paper this is saying that certain fossils may have been misinterpreted. Scientists who found the bones are claiming one thing, other scientists are claiming something else, and further analysis and research will be required to solve the dispute. The work involved in solving the dispute will address something we don't know - the range of human and non-human species present at the time of the fossils, and the result will most likely be a step forward in our understanding.
Well, you can say that. But you haven't supported that. You've talked specifically about evidence for human evolution, and you've referenced papers which show science in the active pursuit of better understanding, better evidence, and hence better theories. But then you seem to say that because the theories aren't set in stone, but are reevaluated and improved as our knowledge progresses, that there is something "wrong" with this, and we should then ignore all evidence and say we have none. That's a non-sequitur, and doesn't really argue against the sum total of evidence for evolution itself.
As a biblical creationist I see evidence of transistion from one form of non human ape to another eg Lucy to chimp or gorilla. There is no credible and substantiated evidence of any transition from common ancestor to mankind.
Do you have evidence that this creature wasn't on or near to the evolutionary line that produced whales?
You've got to be more precise about what you mean by "wrong". There's a difference between out-and-out wrong, and something which is an approximation but not exact. Newton was "wrong" but his laws of physics were very good for a lot of things, such as designing roller coasters, predicting braking distance of cars, etc. For object sizes and speeds that Newton was dealing with, he got it right. It's just that later we found better approximations, that can also predict for huge or very tiny objects, or objects travelling close to the speed of light.
The same applies for evolution. We now understand and have very good evidence for the basic principles, particularly after genetic studies were able to much more directly examine the relationships between different species, genus, and taxa. If people say that our current understanding of evolution will change over time, that doesn't mean that our current understanding is bad, just that we will improve it. And there's nothing wrong with that at all.
What you say seems to be "knowledge obtained by science isn't perfect, could be improved, therefore it's useless". Like Newton's laws of physics, it doesn't work like this. Approximations tell use something close to the truth, and further work gets us even closer to the truth. And that process will continue.
No I am saying that a bunch of changeable hypothesis and theoretical assumptions are no more than that...assumptions.
IOW there is NO EVIDENCE for evolution. There is a bunch of theoretical assertions that change over time.
Evolution is a faith and you have faith that the basic concept of evolution is correct because you want to believe.
Indeed I am able to reinterpret every piece of data availabe to align with my biblical creationist view and it will take much more than a bunch of changing hypothesis about that data to change my view.
No I am saying that a bunch of changeable hypothesis and theoretical assumptions are no more than that...assumptions.
IOW there is NO EVIDENCE for evolution. There is a bunch of theoretical assertions that change over time.
Evolution is a faith and you have faith that the basic concept of evolution is correct because you want to believe.
Indeed I am able to reinterpret every piece of data availabe to align with my biblical creationist view and it will take much more than a bunch of changing hypothesis about that data to change my view.
Because I am not expressing an opinion (as it is based on evidence and not a hunch), and I am not pretending to be an ultimate authority on the subject.An orca and a shark for example, are similar in shape and form but their DNA is very different.", has the magic words in it "more likely".
Yup, you got it - it's all made up.Indeed the bottom line is that evolutionary researchers have no idea. If the DNA analysis results produced on the back of biased and convoluted algorithms gives a result researchers do not want they will tweak the insertion values until they get a result that aligns with their evolutionary view. eg Neanderthal did or did not mate. There is so called robust analysis that supports both views. Of course this means there is no evidence for either view, it is biased.
It's all imagined, isn't it?If the analysis does not align with common thinking evolutionists will speak to convergence or homoplasy. This goes for DNA, HERVs eg PTERV1, as well as morphology. Why? Let me tell you that it is for no other reason than the assumption of common ancestry.
Not just humans, every amimal DNA I have ever looked at is composed of viral DNA.The very fact that evolutionists have turned mankind into a walking viral remnant is ridiculous. This sounded plausible when there were a few. However now the claim appears to be grandious and ridiculous. Would it not be more parsinomous to suggest that indeed these ghosts and supposed tiny viral remanants that algorithmic magic has found are actually functional and integral sequence information not related to past viral infections at all.
Not frustration, trying very hard not to laugh at your post.You are now demonstrating frustration. Evolution is not a science it is a theory and a bad one at that.
So because it changes it must all be wrong?That is a silly analogy. Indeed you either have evidence of which will remain stable OR you will have a bunch of hypothesis that do not. What you have is a bunch of hypothesis that remain flavour of the month for a time. This is not evidence for anything other than a good imagination and a desperation to maintain the status quo "it all evolved'.
Who actually cares what a creationist thinks?Creationists have no problem with a kind of non human ape getting bigger, smaller, leaving the trees or moving back to them.
Akin to a sea lion?Creationists have no problem with the skull of sea lion changing shape over time. The point being a creature akin to a sea lion was created and remained in the family of sea lions. That is a very different concept to a creature such as indohyus, the mouse deer ancestor, morphing over time into a totally and non related creature akin to a whale in ambulocetus natans.
Evolution doesn't morph an animal into another.Evos love to confuse adaptation within kind with the morphing of one family of creatures into another. Evos have produces straw grabbing misrepresentations to support the possibility of this view.
Anyone who refuses to even contemplate changing their mind when new evidence is uncovered can not be considered logical - it is foolish.As I stated "Evolutionists seem to be content to admit that although many of the details about evolution are wrong and changing they keep insisting the general principles are right." This is exactly what you are doing.
Not just faith, blind faith and I pray to Darwin every night.I would suggest you have faith in evolution. Faith being a belief in a theory simply becuase you wish to believe in it and no different than any other faith that can reinterpret the data to suit any paradigm.
All of which?No I see an evolutionist choosing to reply with nonsense in desperation. You either have evidence or you do not. 20 years ago you would have shoved many so called evidences for human ancestry in my face all of which have been falsified. Hence what was considered evidence was not evidence at all but only the machinations of an over active imagination and a determination to support TOE no matter what.
So far, that is the last thing that you actually have done.You may play as many games as you wish. I prefer to talk about science.
This is a letter that evolutionary theory should send out:
"To whom it may concern,Let me know what you all think of the letter, and what kind of responses you might have to an actual letter like this.
I'm looking for a chain. The only problem with my "chain" is I have only a handful of pieces and I need my "chain" to be millions (if not billions) of "miles" long. Of the scant few links I have in my possession, some of them do bear a vague resemblance to eachother, but I cannot get them to fit with eachother. One of the problems I have with my "chain", among the many, is that all the links that I have in my possession are still closed, and welded shut. There is no way I can ever get them connected.
I "know" that the millions of "miles" long "chain" once existed because I have a scant few disconnected links in my hand. I "know" that there should be hundreds of millions of copies of my missing links scattered all over the earth because I know that my "chain" is very long and very old.
Most people have bought and paid for the whole chain when I have shown them the very few closed pieces I have in my hand. Thank goodness they just took my word that those pieces fit nicely together instead of doing any investigation and saw that the links I have cannot be connected because they are shut and welded.
I really must have more pieces of my "chain" if I am going to sell this "chain" to every thinking person. Some of those pesky people that won't buy my whole "chain" believe in this book that says there never was one long complete "chain", but instead there was a "chainmaker" that made thousands of short unlinked "chains" that are still visible today. Of course we can see all those short unlinked "chains" around us today, that's where I got my "revelation" that there must be one long "super chain" that connects all the unlinked short chains into one very long super chain. Look at the finches of the Galapogos Islands. They all belong to one of those short "unlinked chains", so there must be a super chain that connects all birds everywhere. Look at horses, zebras, and donkeys. Look all around you. We all can see these short unlinked chains all around us, so doesn't it make sense that there is a super chain just waiting to be discovered?
So please, if you see any of my chain, any at all, please send it to me. Also, if you know of anyway I can connect these welded closed links to each other I would be much obliged."
Thanks.
Sincerely, Evolution."
In Christ, GB
So offer us something to suppport your worldview.Evolutionists insist on getting down to it. However whenever a creationist does just that they get responses such as Nais11 that has many words with nothing to say, and no refute to this basic assertion....
Very good! Yes, there is a lot of research now being carried out using genetics to differentiate species. Recently, they created a new elephant species based on genetics (Africa has two elephant species, genetic analysis confirms). Also a lot of research now is being used to try and work out species among mircoorganisms, which is a real problem because they exchange DNA and don't form sexually reproducing populations. In all these cases researchers are looking at how much the genome of one popualtion differs from another population. Nevertheless, the amount of difference that would qualify as a different species remains arbitrary.
As far as the rest, we are humans. This is by definition. Are you looking for some wider definition that could apply to our ancestors? Or even toward an alien species??
All members of our species are humans. In the past, certain popualtions were branded as "sub-human" and yes you are correct that that led to treating some people as even less than dogs. How do we apply the term to other hominds? If they were around today, how would we treat them? All very good questions... but there are no black and white answers.
We differentiate ourselves from other animals because we are a social species and out of self-centerism. "We" are more important than other species. A human life is worth more than other species. This is admittedly subjective.
It's crazy how many cryptic species are popping up these days, I feel like every single critter I start researching they've split it into two or three groups. I've heard some researchers start to talk about how we should do away with the term 'species' and just use operational taxonomic units.
Good, I think you are moving toward creationism.
I disagree with that. Atheists can have any number of positions on animal rights... I suspect most in fact value human life over other animals. Like I said, its an ego-centric position, but a common one.I don't think an atheist can logically make such a claim.
Have you heard that some environmentalists (have to be atheists) rather to drive people to desperation in order to protect an endangered species of plant or fish?
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?