What Makes us Human?

[Mallon]

You have a chimpanzee skull,australopithicus skulls which arent regarded as our ancestors by even evolutionary scientists and a selection of fragmentary habilus skulls.You would be stretching the truth to claim any of these as our ancestors.Its obvious to me,because ive actually checked up on the photos you presented, well before you posted them here..Your information is out of date.

I should probably state up front that I'm not claiming that any one of the species of skulls I posted here is our direct ancestor. I think you'll find very few evolutionary scientists would be willing to make that claim because it's a difficult one to defend, given the incompleteness of the fossil record. The claim we make is that we share successive common ancestors with each of the species depicted in that image, as evidenced by the nested distribution of shared similarities.
But with respect, you still haven't answered my question. If the skulls I posted here belong to distinct "kinds", it should be easy to distinguish between them and to point to those morphological characteristics that define them, exclusive to all other groups. That's what I'm asking you to do. Please classify the skulls according to their correct "kinds" and be explicit about the criteria you're using to define them.

How about instead of grabbing whatever you can from talkorigins,going further indepth and finding out about australopithicus for a start.Even richard leakey says it was unlikely that australopithicus was our ancestors.Also find out more about neanderthals as well,current knowledge is tending towards them being human not ape.That throws your photos into disarray.

Again, I am not making the claim that Australopithecus is a direct ancestor of humans. It does, however, share a common ancestor with us exclusive to all living apes.
And yes, I am aware that some have argued that Neanderthals are a subspecies of human, H. sapiens neanderthalensis. It's a highly contentious debate. But it does nothing to throw my photos "into disarray". Now please answer my question above.

No,ive defined it broadly because thats my biggest issue with the religion of common descent.You prove that these main kinds can transform into another kind.Without going back and trying to read fossils and attribute characteristics.What you believe in, defies genetics.

Evolutionary common descent in no way defies genetics. That is what the whole evolutionary synthesis was about in the first half of the last century, after all. Geneticists like Sewall Wright et al. demonstrated that population genetics could account for many of the patterns described previously by evolutionary scientists.
If you feel evolution somehow defies genetics, then I hope you'll explain what you mean rather than simply assert it.

Its probably an ancient form of large salamander or axolotl.Why not just view it for what it is,instead of trying to make it a link between two kinds?.There you are trying to make it into something it isnt.

It's interesting that you should call Tiktaalik a salamander. Answers in Genesis believes it to be a fish:
Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish - Answers in Genesis
So now we have two groups of anti-evolutionary creationists arguing over whether Tiktaalik is a tetrapod or a fish. I can't help but feel validated by this! If Tiktaalik did not show any transitional features between fish and tetrapods, you would both be in full agreement. How can you insist that Tiktaalik is not a perfect candidate for a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods when you can't even agree about which side of the supposed divide it belongs to?

So you are claiming theres no biological issues with amphibian to reptile?Are you sure you arent just grabbing any animal that might have a few morphological similarities with another kind and ignoring the vast gulfs in physiology?Seems that way.

What vast physiological gulfs are you referring to, specifically? I don't want you to think that I'm brainwashed, so let's talk about specifics.
(I have made note of the fact that you admit that supposedly different "kinds" do share common morphologies.)

See above,a few morphological similarities does not gloss over the fact that theres enormous physiological differences.Was this proto mammal cold or warm blooded?Did it have fur or scales.How did scales turn into fur.How did it give birth and suckle?? its young?

These are all great questions -- some of which we can offer well-supported answers for, and others we can't. I should point out two things, though:
1) The argument you just presented here is a classic argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. You're simply saying that because you cannot yet understand how something might have happened, that it did not happen.
2) Each of these questions do not need an answer before we can posit the evolution of mammals from other amniotes. The strongest evidence in favour of common ancestry is the nested hierarchical distribution of characters shared by mammals, amniotes, and all life. In order to do away with common ancestry, you would have to find some alternate explanation for this pattern, and as I explained before, an appeal to a common creator doesn't cut it.
That said, in answer to your questions, the "proto-mammals" were in all likelihood intermediate in their metabolisms. Warm-bloodedness and cold-bloodedness is a false dichotomy. In actuality, metabolic rates span a spectrum. Monotreme mammals, for example, have much lower metabolisms than the eutherian mammals. It is probable that the even more basal "proto-mammals" had lowered metabolic rates as well. As for whether they had fur or scales, we don't know because we haven't found fossil impressions of either type of integument. We also aren't sure how they gave birth, but again, viviparity and oviparity are just the extremes on a spectrum of different reproductive types. We find ovoviviparity in the middle. Interestingly, monotremes lay eggs, so it is likely that the earliest mammals did, too. The first mammals may also have exuded a nutritious milk-like substance from modified sweat glands to feed their young, as monotremes do today.

Correct.You choose this belief system not based on research or knowledge but because it suits you the best.

Whatever you say.

Well thats incorrect.I am that confident in what the bible says in Genesis,is true.

And you have the tenacity to tell me that I let my belief system blind me!
I'm reminded of Martin Luther who insisted that the sun revolves about the earth because he was so confident in what the Bible says in Joshua.

Common descent is true only to a point.I have been broad with my description of "kind" only because if you can prove a reptile can transform into a mammal,then whether a rodent can turn into a dog becomes rather moot.The patterns you see dont contradict what the bible states.

If you think evolution holds that rodents can turn into dogs, then I don't blame you for rejecting it. That's a ridiculous statement. But evolution doesn't say that. It doesn't say that one living species can morph into another living species. It doesn't say that dogs can turn into frogs can turn into bats can turn into rats. Evolution states that these disparate groups share successive common ancestors as we rewind the clock.
Maybe the reason you reject evolution so strongly is that you simply don't understand it? That seems to be the common theme among most anti-evolutionary creationists I've dealt with.

 

[praisejahupeople]

I should probably state up front that I'm not claiming that any one of the species of skulls I posted here is our direct ancestor. I think you'll find very few evolutionary scientists would be willing to make that claim because it's a difficult one to defend, given the incompleteness of the fossil record.

Well its true what you say that none of those skulls are our ancestors,why post them?You have photos of a chimpanzee,australopithicus skulls which are probably an extinct ape,neanderthals skulls which hae been shown by current research to be human ,habilus fossils which are probably ape,but its difficult to tell due to the paucity of said fossils and human skulls.Im struggling to see why you are using these photos as evidence that we came from a monkey like creature?

The claim we make is that we share successive common ancestors with each of the species depicted in that image, as evidenced by the nested distribution of shared similarities.

Shared similarities are due to a common designer.You havent posted any ancestors,its pure conjecture.You admitted this in your first statement that you have no evidence of our descent from monkeys?,its you projecting.Again.

But with respect, you still haven't answered my question. If the skulls I posted here belong to distinct "kinds", it should be easy to distinguish between them and to point to those morphological characteristics that define them, exclusive to all other groups. That's what I'm asking you to do. Please classify the skulls according to their correct "kinds" and be explicit about the criteria you're using to define them.

With respect ive classified them 3 times already.Chimpanzee,Australopithicus,Human.

Again, I am not making the claim that Australopithecus is a direct ancestor of humans.

Good.

It does, however, share a common ancestor with us exclusive to all living apes.

No proof,pure conjecture.I believe Jehovah created apes seperately and theres no biological link between man and primates.We are a seperate superior creation with installed abilities far above any other animal on the planet despite some morphological similarities,which is due once again to a common designer.

And yes, I am aware that some have argued that Neanderthals are a subspecies of human, H. sapiens neanderthalensis. It's a highly contentious debate. But it does nothing to throw my photos "into disarray". Now please answer my question above.

Take them out of the lineup,your proof starts looking rather anorexic.You never put the disclaimer in that neanderthals are now more regarded as human than a missing link between us and monkeyish?

Evolutionary common descent in no way defies genetics. That is what the whole evolutionary synthesis was about in the first half of the last century, after all. Geneticists like Sewall Wright et al. demonstrated that population genetics could account for many of the patterns described previously by evolutionary scientists.
If you feel evolution somehow defies genetics, then I hope you'll explain what you mean rather than simply assert it.

Kinds reproduce according to their kinds.Genetics backs this statement up.I dont see how genetics proves monkeys?can produce superior monkeys? which in turn ended up being us.Thats science fiction,not genetics.

It's interesting that you should call Tiktaalik a salamander. Answers in Genesis believes it to be a fish:
Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish - Answers in Genesis
So now we have two groups of anti-evolutionary creationists arguing over whether Tiktaalik is a tetrapod or a fish. I can't help but feel validated by this! If Tiktaalik did not show any transitional features between fish and tetrapods, you would both be in full agreement. How can you insist that Tiktaalik is not a perfect candidate for a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods when you can't even agree about which side of the supposed divide it belongs to?

Lets wait for more fossils shall we?, before leaping to conclusions.The next logical step would be to search for earlier examples that lean one way or the other ,right?

What vast physiological gulfs are you referring to, specifically?

I named them dude,whats with the not reading my post?You should know their are many massive differences between reptile and mammal,what gives?

I don't want you to think that I'm brainwashed, so let's talk about specifics.
(I have made note of the fact that you admit that supposedly different "kinds" do share common morphologies.)

Yeah i think you are brainwashed.Im not trying to be rude but thats the conclusion that i reach from reading and engaging atheists/theistic evolutionists on the net.Defending your education is more important than actually seeing what is true and what is false.Pride will stop you from agreeing with me.You have spent many many hours defending evolution,so im not surprised that your mind is made up.

These are all great questions -- some of which we can offer well-supported answers for, and others we can't. I should point out two things, though:
1) The argument you just presented here is a classic argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. You're simply saying that because you cannot yet understand how something might have happened, that it did not happen.

Im saying due to lack of evidence apart from predjudiced readings of fossils.Theres nothing in the natural world that supports crossover from one kind to another.Except projecting traits onto fossils.You did this with your supposed common ancestry of man.You ignore the real proof.

2) Each of these questions do not need an answer before we can posit the evolution of mammals from other amniotes. The strongest evidence in favour of common ancestry is the nested hierarchical distribution of characters shared by mammals, amniotes, and all life.

This is artificial grouping made by evolutionists and is based on the imagination when you attempt to link one kind with another.You are repeating yourself and im repeating myself, answering you.Theres no real proof ,mammals descended from reptiles.

In order to do away with common ancestry, you would have to find some alternate explanation for this pattern, and as I explained before, an appeal to a common creator doesn't cut it.

Once again repeating myself, common ancestry is useful only to a point.Your refusal of God is the issue here.

That said, in answer to your questions, the "proto-mammals" were in all likelihood intermediate in their metabolisms. Warm-bloodedness and cold-bloodedness is a false dichotomy. In actuality, metabolic rates span a spectrum. Monotreme mammals, for example, have much lower metabolisms than the eutherian mammals. It is probable that the even more basal "proto-mammals" had lowered metabolic rates as well. As for whether they had fur or scales, we don't know because we haven't found fossil impressions of either type of integument.

Neiher have you found any proof of what you just typed regarding the proto mammals blood temperature or metabolic rate. Monotremes arent a link.

aren't sure how they gave birth, but again, viviparity and oviparity are just the extremes on a spectrum of different reproductive types. We find ovoviviparity in the middle. Interestingly, monotremes lay eggs, so it is likely that the earliest mammals did, too.

This is guesswork,you have absolutely no proof the earlier eutherians laid eggs.How on earth,could they?

mammals may also have exuded a nutritious milk-like substance from modified sweat glands to feed their young, as monotremes do today.

Hold on,here you are claiming sweat glands volved into producing milk?No.
Pointing at montremes who produce milk from mammary glands,is wrong.
To sum up,you have no proof apart from pointing at monotremes,which are mammals.

If you think evolution holds that rodents can turn into dogs, then I don't blame you for rejecting it. That's a ridiculous statement. But evolution doesn't say that.

According to your belief system all mammals came from a small rodent like creature.I agree its ridiculous.See how you worded it below.

Evolution states that these disparate groups share successive common ancestors as we rewind the clock.

The common ancestor was a rodent like creature.

Maybe the reason you reject evolution so strongly is that you simply don't understand it? That seems to be the common theme among most anti-evolutionary creationists I've dealt with.

I understand it,i reject the extent of your belief in it.Genesis makes more sense.Each according to their kind is what we observe.You are right if i dont understand the amount of projecting thats needed to make it viable.I guess i need to visualise these magnificent creatures that transcend genetic boundaries.That exist only in evolutionary textbooks.

 

[praisejahupeople]

You post photos of ape skulls claiming they are related to us.Im not sure how you can read so much from a skull let alone whether its descendants were progressively smarter.

You tried to claim monotremes are a link?Im not sure what you are claiming here actually.Can you clarify how a monotremes lower blood temperature proves reptile to mammal?

You claimed evolutionists dont believe mammals(including man) descended from something that originally looked like a rodent?

You claim sweat glands can magically evolve into producing milk?

 

[Jadin Xquire]

I am a theistic evolutionist - although I believe we evolved from ape-like ancesors, I also believe humans to be above nature and evolution.
I believe that what makes us human is our "plastic brain":
Neuroplasticity

Put bluntly (very blunty), having a 'plastic brain' means that our thoughts and actions physically change the way our brains work.
Having only recently heard of this myself, there are undoubtedly many questions that need to be answered.

What do other people think of this idea, or of what makes us human?

Evolution isn't true in the sense you believe in. Evolution in Cars is true. The cars now are faster and more powerful than before. This also applies in Computers.

When we find fossils of insects, monkeys, tigers, elephants, etc.... they have the same bone structure as the living animals of today. Caveman and Humans aren't the same. Caveman were before Humans existed. Evolution states that it is through a nature process that an entity changes to something better. If you recall Gen 1:2 that God's spirit was hovering over the water of the earth. That was the flood over the whole earth. All life before Gen 1:2 had died off. Then later on in Gen 1 God made man from the ground/dust/earth. That technically isn't a nature process taking place. There is no connection from Adam to the people before Adam. So no evolution could take place. Now caveman and Nephilims are connected. That is a different story. Check out my thread to see what I am talking about
Evolutions/Devolution exist only in Hybrid man(Nephilim). It is in the same section of this forum.

 

[Mallon]

Well its true what you say that none of those skulls are our ancestors,why post them?You have photos of a chimpanzee,australopithicus skulls which are probably an extinct ape,neanderthals skulls which hae been shown by current research to be human ,habilus fossils which are probably ape,but its difficult to tell due to the paucity of said fossils and human skulls.Im struggling to see why you are using these photos as evidence that we came from a monkey like creature?

There are many misconceptions to address here. I'll give it a shot...
First, simply because we cannot positively identify our exact fossil ancestors doesn't mean we don't share common ancestry with apes. In the same way, just because neither you nor I can identify the common ancestor we share, doesn't mean such a person never existed. Common ancestry is inferred based on the nested hierarchical distribution of shared characters.
Second, none of the fossils I posted suggest common ancestry with "monkey like creatures" because none of the fossils I posted are of monkey-like creatures. Chimps aren't monkeys. We are talking about a completely different branch of the evolutionary tree. Here's an illustration to help you understand:

Notice that monkeys occur on another part of the tree.

Shared similarities are due to a common designer.You havent posted any ancestors,its pure conjecture.You admitted this in your first statement that you have no evidence of our descent from monkeys?,its you projecting.Again.

You are wrong in saying shared similarities are due to a common designer. Again, there are no rules that state a single designer must restrict himself to similar designs. A designer (particularly an omnipotent one) can create any way he likes. He might use clay, paint, or crayons. He might depict a bottle, a tree, or a lion.
Think about it: Why do brothers look more alike than cousins? Is it because brothers share a common designer apart from their cousins? No! That's silly. Brothers look more similar to one another because they share a more recent common ancestor apart from their cousins. The same reasoning applies to the fossils we are discussing.

With respect ive classified them 3 times already.Chimpanzee,Australopithicus,Human.

You still haven't answered the question as I posed it. I asked you exactly which skulls belong to which "kinds" (you can refer to them by letter) and how you know. What defines a "kind"? What characters are you using to distinguish "kinds"? How do you know that chimps and Australopithecus don't belong to the same "kind"? How do you know humans and Neanderthals do belong to the same kind? These questions require answers if the word "kind" is to have any objective meaning at all. I'll post the picture for you again:

No proof,pure conjecture.I believe Jehovah created apes seperately and theres no biological link between man and primates.We are a seperate superior creation with installed abilities far above any other animal on the planet despite some morphological similarities,which is due once again to a common designer.

If that's what you want to believe, then that's okay. I only ask that you recognize that it does nothing to help us understand the objective nested hierarchy into which life is organized. "Common designer" doesn't really explain anything. Why is a human more like a chimp than a fish? "Common designer" can't answer that unless you're willing to admit that fish have a separate designer.

Take them out of the lineup,your proof starts looking rather anorexic.You never put the disclaimer in that neanderthals are now more regarded as human than a missing link between us and monkeyish?

Again, even if Neanderthals were human, it would do little to negate my point. The Neanderthal skulls in the picture I posted are in many ways more similar to Homo heidelbergensis than to humans (case in point: compare skulls I and J). If Neanderthals were human, it would simply mean that humans are more closely related to next nearest outgroup (H. heidelbergensis) than we previously thought.
But again, the claim that Neanderthals are human is a contentious one. Even those who hold such a position classify Neanderthals as their own subspecies, H. sapiens neanderthalensis. There is much evidence to suggest that Neanderthals are species all of their own, H. neanderthalensis.

Kinds reproduce according to their kinds.Genetics backs this statement up.I dont see how genetics proves monkeys?can produce superior monkeys? which in turn ended up being us.Thats science fiction,not genetics.

Actually, genetics doesn't back you up because there is no mechanism known to constrain allelic variation through time, as you imply. If "kinds" are fixed through time, then we should be able to identify some mechanism that maintains such a fixity in the face of constant mutation. We can't. That's partly why the geneticists subscribe to evolution, too.

Lets wait for more fossils shall we?, before leaping to conclusions.The next logical step would be to search for earlier examples that lean one way or the other ,right?

In fact, we do have more fossils. Those that occur in older beds than Tiktaalik appear more fish-like (e.g., Eusthenopteron), and those that occur in younger beds than Tiktaalik appear more tetrapod-like (e.g., Acanthostega). Again, you should read that article I linked you to earlier. I'll post it again: 10.1007/s12052-009-0119-2
Here's a picture to illustrate my point:

The more fossils we find, the more this transition between fish and tetrapods gets filled -- just as evolutionary common ancestry predicts! (Incidentally, an appeal to a common creator doesn't predict such a pattern.)

I named them dude,whats with the not reading my post?You should know their are many massive differences between reptile and mammal,what gives?

My question didn't pertain to reptiles and mammals. It pertained to your statement about "vast physiological gulfs" between reptiles and amphibians (as I quoted). I want to know specifically which gulfs you are referring to between these two groups so that I can address them.

Yeah i think you are brainwashed.Im not trying to be rude but thats the conclusion that i reach from reading and engaging atheists/theistic evolutionists on the net.Defending your education is more important than actually seeing what is true and what is false.Pride will stop you from agreeing with me.You have spent many many hours defending evolution,so im not surprised that your mind is made up.

I don't know why you would accuse me of being brainwashed when I have done everything I can to address your points with reasoned discussion and reference to actual fossil material. If I really were brainwashed, I'd be reduced to simply contradicting you without ever addressing any of your points. I hope you don't think that, otherwise I'm wasting my time and energy.

Im saying due to lack of evidence apart from predjudiced readings of fossils.Theres nothing in the natural world that supports crossover from one kind to another.Except projecting traits onto fossils.You did this with your supposed common ancestry of man.You ignore the real proof.

Again, though, how do you know that "kinds" cannot bud to produce new "kinds" when you cannot even define what constitutes such a thing? I've asked you several times about how one defines a "kind" and you've avoided the question entirely. Telling me that evolution does not occur within "kinds" and then defining a "kind" as a taxonomic unit in which evolution does not occur is completely circular. You need to provide some objective definition of the term "kind" before it can have any useful meaning.

This is artificial grouping made by evolutionists and is based on the imagination when you attempt to link one kind with another.You are repeating yourself and im repeating myself, answering you.Theres no real proof ,mammals descended from reptiles.

Technically, there's no proof of anything in science. Proof exists only in mathematics. What there is is excellent evidence for the common ancestry of mammals and reptiles, as evidenced by the excellent mammal fossil record revealing the formation of the middle ear from the posterior bones of the reptilian jaw, for example:

Again, this is not a pattern predicted or described by reference to a common creator.

Once again repeating myself, common ancestry is useful only to a point.Your refusal of God is the issue here.

I have not refused God once in our conversation, so please do not pretend that I have. I've said nothing to contradict God's hand in nature. God is perfectly capable of acting through nature as He is through miracle.

Neiher have you found any proof of what you just typed regarding the proto mammals blood temperature or metabolic rate. Monotremes arent a link.

Monotremes demonstrate that mammals span a range of metabolic rates, so there is little reason to think that their metabolisms could not have evolved from a lowered, reptile-like one. Same goes for the fact that monotremes lay eggs. If mammals can lay eggs, then there is little reason to think that they could not have evolved from an egg-laying amniote.

This is guesswork,you have absolutely no proof the earlier eutherians laid eggs.How on earth,could they?

I don't think I ever made the claim that the early eutherians did lay eggs. They likely didn't, given that all modern eutherians give live birth. Early mammals likely laid eggs, though. And they probably did it the same way monotremes do today.

Hold on,here you are claiming sweat glands volved into producing milk?No.
Pointing at montremes who produce milk from mammary glands,is wrong.
To sum up,you have no proof apart from pointing at monotremes,which are mammals.

Monotremes exude a milk-like substance from mammary glands scattered over their skin. These mammary glands are structurally very similar to sebaceous glands and there is therefore good reason to think they may have had a common origin.

According to your belief system all mammals came from a small rodent like creature.I agree its ridiculous.See how you worded it below.

The first mammals would have been about the size of a rodent, but they were not rodents themselves (rodents are, in fact, quite highly derived). It is therefore wrong to say that evolution posits that dogs came from rodents. That's a strawman argument. Let's debate what evolution actually says instead of what it doesn't.

I understand it,i reject the extent of your belief in it.Genesis makes more sense.Each according to their kind is what we observe.You are right if i dont understand the amount of projecting thats needed to make it viable.I guess i need to visualise these magnificent creatures that transcend genetic boundaries.That exist only in evolutionary textbooks.

Actually, fossils exhibiting transitional morphologies are very real:

If we're going to understand God's creation, then we must first acknowledge these fossils before we can explain them.