New Skull Found. Interesting take for YEC and TE.

[Lopez 15721]

New skull makes scientists rethink evolution of early humans.

What does this mean for YEC? What about TE?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I'm not sure exactly what it means. I'll wait for further inspection and consideration. (Biology and differentiation of species is not my long suit.)

However, I'm sure one faction who values ideology over reality will proclaim it the absolute proof of what they espouse while the polar opposite faction will claim it a hoax. And the misquotations will be rampant!

 

[SkyWriting]

However, I'm sure one faction who values ideology over reality will proclaim it the absolute proof of what they espouse while the polar opposite faction will claim it a hoax. And the misquotations will be rampant!

No matter what, it will all be Science-Fiction. Just like any story told before it. How about a direct quote that says everything we said before was wrong?

"The strong variation seen within what's believed to be a single species means that other Homo fossils from Africa could belong to that same, single lineage — they just have diverse appearances. "

 

[gluadys]

New skull makes scientists rethink evolution of early humans.

What does this mean for YEC? What about TE?

I don't think it makes a big difference for the religious aspect of either YEC or TE. It is the scientific aspect that is fascinating.

Most human skulls have been found isolated from others in time and space, and very often the skull is in poor condition with some parts missing. So the tendency has been to give each of them their own species name. But here we have a variety of skulls all found in the same place and time, and at least one in very good condition. So it suggests that what we have been referring to as different species may be only varieties of one species.

Indeed, one of the difficulties with studying fossils, is how to determine whether a new fossil is a new species or simply a different form (juvenile, female, etc.) of a known species.

So what it comes down to is that we may not have quite as many species as we thought in our family tree.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I'm with you on this one. I will be interested to see what is made of them.

***********************************
You know, having a prediction verified can sometimes be so disheartening...

 

[Hawkins]

To me, it says that evolution theory before Apr 2014 is completely wrong, as when the theory is used to date the homo erectus, it is wrong.

Some years later, they will declare the same to say that evolution before year 202X is completely wrong as the theory is falsified by yet another sample of home erectus skull.

When would this being put to a stop to have the final conclusion that the "evolution theory is correct". This takes forever until 1 million years later when the last piece of skull on earth is finally dug up by humans. Scientists by then can thus say that, "the evolution theory must be correct now because there's no more skulls can be dug up to falsify it, hooray, hooray!"

 

[High Fidelity]

Not quite sure how this is in any way related to TE.

 

[sfs]

To me, it says that evolution theory before Apr 2014 is completely wrong, as when the theory is used to date the homo erectus, it is wrong.

Why does it say that earlier evolution theory was completely wrong? This find changes one quite speculative interpretation of a small part of the history of one of the millions of species on the planet. It's mildly interesting because we happen to be that species, but it says nothing at all about the overall soundness of evolutionary biology.

 

[Hawkins]

Why does it say that earlier evolution theory was completely wrong? This find changes one quite speculative interpretation of a small part of the history of one of the millions of species on the planet. It's mildly interesting because we happen to be that species, but it says nothing at all about the overall soundness of evolutionary biology.

It is considered completely wrong because no other science ever failed this way. Your common ancestry becomes trash this way, as it if falsified completely that the whole home erectus stuff is now not any reflection of any lineage. The main problem is that the dating methods are not accurate in front of the so called "not so good skulls". If your current skull is "good" while all your previous skulls are "not good". Then your whole theory which based heavily on skulls/fossils should be considered as a complete failure.

 

[sfs]

It is considered completely wrong because no other science ever failed this way.

No other science has corrected minor errors in one tiny part of its domain? That's just nuts. Just what kind of expertise do you have in science?

Your common ancestry becomes trash this way, as it if falsified completely that the whole home erectus stuff is now not any reflection of any lineage.

To the extent that I can extract a meaning from this sentence, it's false.

The main problem is that the dating methods are not accurate in front of the so called "not so good skulls".

No, dating has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about here. The dating is just fine.

If your current skull is "good" while all your previous skulls are "not good". Then your whole theory which based heavily on skulls/fossils should be considered as a complete failure.

No one is suggesting that the previous skulls are "not good" -- that's something you just made up. They're debating whether a set of skulls -- all good -- some from a single species or from several closely related species. Not really surprising, since that's a very hard thing to tell just from looking at skeletons.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's smaller then expected:

"The cranial capacity of 546 cubic centimeters (cc) for Dmanisi Skull 5 is the smallest of the Dmanisi sample, with cranial capacities of skulls 1 to 4 reported to be between 601 to 730 cc." ( A complete skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the evolutionary biology of early Homo, Science 2013)​

The Dmanisi skulls have always been very interesting but skull 5 is something special because it's a complete skull. All the skulls are from the same time frame, as a matter of fact, they are from the same cave. The seem to think the skulls were deposited within a hundred years of one another, I'm really not sure how they figured that one out but they are all relatively contemporary with one another. Which brings one big question to my mind, is a 200cc range for the cranial capacities reflect normal variation or was the size of the other skulls exaggerated.

I don't know what it means for YEC, TE or Darwinism at large. It's got to be one of the coolest finds from paleontology in a long time and perhaps for some time to come.

To me, it says that evolution theory before Apr 2014 is completely wrong, as when the theory is used to date the homo erectus, it is wrong.

Some years later, they will declare the same to say that evolution before year 202X is completely wrong as the theory is falsified by yet another sample of home erectus skull.

When would this being put to a stop to have the final conclusion that the "evolution theory is correct". This takes forever until 1 million years later when the last piece of skull on earth is finally dug up by humans. Scientists by then can thus say that, "the evolution theory must be correct now because there's no more skulls can be dug up to falsify it, hooray, hooray!"

You have to understand, paleontology is known for it's hyperbole and melodrama. The various theories about what goes where in their big mosaic of old bones and dirt swirls around almost constantly. What you want to look at is the features, if you take the latest 'theory' too seriously it spoils all the fun.

If they wanted to impress me they would consider the possibility that one skull, just one ape like fossil for that matter, might be something other then a human ancestor. Did you know that if chimpanzees were not alive today that there would be no evidence that they ever existed? Want to know why?

Grace and peace,
Mark