What proof would you need? (2)

[AV1611VET]

That would literally mean thousands of genera of animals that Noah would need to collect and fit into his ark.

Really?

Are you admitting that in just 1655 years (Adam → Flood), the number of genera went from the handful that Adam could name as they were paraded past him to -- 'thousands'?

If we include dinosaurs too and other extinct genera then we are talking of hundreds of thousands of animals.

Hundreds of thousands now? you're going from bad to worse.

I wonder how he (Noah) managed to collect and return to their respective habitats (Australia, south America, Antartica, etc.) the animals after the flood.

He only had to do his part -- God did the rest.

God didn't call Noah because Noah was some kind of superhuman.

I'll bet you wonder how Moses split that Red Sea too, don't you?

Also not to mention all the genera of plants since they cannot survive submerged for long especially in sea water!

You mean like this one:

Genesis 8:11a And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off:

On the other hand ToE fits in perfectly with observed data and evidences.

But not with the Flood, as detailed in God's Diary.

To conclude I would say that ToE not only refutes the claims of creationism pertaining to life but relegates genesis to where it belongs; Namely into the spiritual world!

What does the Flood have to do with creationism?

 

[mzungu]

Really?

Are you admitting that in just 1655 years (Adam → Flood), the number of genera went from the handful that Adam could name as they were paraded past him to -- 'thousands'?

Hundreds of thousands now? you're going from bad to worse.

He only had to do his part -- God did the rest.

God didn't call Noah because Noah was some kind of superhuman.

I'll bet you wonder how Moses split that Red Sea too, don't you?

You mean like this one:

Genesis 8:11a And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off:

But not with the Flood, as detailed in God's Diary.

What does the Flood have to do with creationism?

Boy you are fast! I edited my post imediately after posting it and you had replied to the first one? WOW!
Please read my final post!

 

[mzungu]

What does the Flood have to do with creationism?

It has everything to do with genesis; Since creationists claim to a literal interpretation of the Bible and that the Bible is in whole held to be factual then suffice it to say that any flaw found within the Bible automatically negates the contents as being fictional.

Genesis claims that God created the Earth before he created light! This simply contravenes everything we know in science!

If you insist on genesis as fact and not as a spiritual guide then you are relegating it to the physical world and thus must abide to the rules governing the physical world. In conclusion; Genesis simply fails to pass the test.

On the other hand were you to claim the Bible as a spiritual guide then there could not be any arguments!

Science does not knock on the door of creationism; It is creationism that insists on knocking on science's door and as such it (creationism) must abide to the rules of science if it is to be admitted.

AV you simply cannot mix faith with empirical science. Doing so negates the very meaning of spirituality that religions hold to such a high esteem.

 

[AV1611VET]

It has everything to do with genesis;

No, it doesn't.

Since creationists claim to a literal interpretation of the Bible and that the Bible is in whole held to be factual then suffice it to say that any flaw found within the Bible automatically negates the contents as being fictional.

No, it negates the contents as being false.

I'll agree that if one jot or one tittle fail, then the whole Bible is false, but when it comes to apologetics, you have to compartmentalize, or you'll end up in an argument over the veracity of the Scriptures every time, and nothing will ever get accomplished.

Genesis claims that God created the Earth before he created light! This simply contravenes everything we know in science!

And that's the whole point, isn't it?

Genesis 1 has nothing -- repeat: nothing -- to do with science whatsoever.

I've said this before, and it bears repeating: I believe God created the universe in the order that He did, knowing that in the end times, some would depart from the faith, giving heed to evolution.

If you insist on genesis as fact and not as a spiritual guide then you are relegating it to the physical world and thus must abide to the rules governing the physical world.

The fourth word in Genesis 1 should tip you off that we are not dealing with the physical world watsoever.

In conclusion; Genesis simply fails to pass the test.

As it should.

On the other hand were you to claim the Bible as a spiritual guide then there could not be any arguments!

It is our Spiritual Guide, and that includes our history as well.

Genesis is not science -- it is history.

Science does not knock on the door of creationism; It is creationism that insists on knocking on science's door and as such it (creationism) must abide to the rules of science if it is to be admitted.

Creationism is under no obligation to follow the rules of science, since there was no [complete] science until the creation was finished.

AV you simply cannot mix faith with empirical science.

That's right -- you either walk by faith, or you walk by sight.

Doing so negates the very meaning of spirituality that religions hold to such a high esteem.

Religious spirituality can take a hike.

Religious spirituality is what put Jesus on the Cross, gave us the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Witch Trials.

Religious spirituality is also responsible for the Sarin nerve gas attacks in Tokyo and other atrocities.

 

[cupid dave]

Saying its the similar to an already well defined scientific term is not really helpful and just makes the concept look inadequate

Terms in Science require definitions that are well defined and specific.

There is no reason to expect the lay man and common folks to be more specific.
But it seems like common sense that a layman would say that anima; s come in different kinds, while the same general udea us what we mean scientifically, for a species.

 

[cupid dave]

It (the flood) has everything to do with genesis; Since creationists claim to a literal interpretation of the Bible and that the Bible is in whole held to be factual then suffice it to say that any flaw found within the Bible automatically negates the contents as being fictional.

I agree.

So we can begin reading the Buible without any foreknowledge, indoctrination, or already superimposed interpretation on Gensis and REQUIRE that every interpretation of every verse find factual support within the academic PARADIGM of this AGE.

It is foolish and trival to argue with the accepted knowledge of this Age, and pretend that the accepted knowledge of this Age is not the authority to which Genesis must bow down as far as being acceptable to this Age.

It would be immaterial to the point of making Genesis the foundation for what follows in scripture by pleading that the Age was dead wrong and falsifying what is actually true.

For one thing, such an insanity across the whole Age would be tantamount to man having grown more stupid and less able to cope with the need to adapt to the environment the longer he lived.

I would premise this discussion with the common sense foundation that man now knows way more than previous generations ever did, and that includes evolution as a part of that knowledge.

 

[Astridhere]

But there's nothing to refute because you have provided no evidence. You've asserted that
- erectus is a non-human ape, something that no one disagrees with. Erectus is an ape, like humans, but is not homo sapiens.

This does not address the misrepresentation of suggesting that a stupid half wit could perform the complex task of fire lighting and care of a dependent neonate.

-erectus is hairy, like a chimp, but provided no evidenced.

The evidence is that erectus was too stupid and sexually dimorphic to care for a fully dependent neonate. The brain size and sexual dimorphism is found by your own. Hence erectus must have had a fur coat for the baby to cling to the mother.

I have provided all that is below a plethora of times and it is ignored.

-that erectus could not have lit fires, despite evidence of controlled fires with some erectus remains. This also ignores the fact that if these were deliberately lit, it is not a skill most erectus had by the looks of things, so whether they could or could not is largely irrelevant.

So you are agreeing that erectus was too stupid to light fires? Good. So what does all the crap about fires and hearths being dated to erectus mean? I suggest that if fires were truly found with erectus this is evidence that modern mankind with full reasoning ability was already around. The alternative is the evidence of fire lighting and control in erectus is no more than imaginary delusions from your researchers desperate to humanize anything they find for glory.

So if erectus is too stupid to light fires are you suggesting the 'proof' of hearths and fire lighting will suddenly disappear? How convenient for evos. You believe in magic much more than I do.
-that erectus was too stupid to look after a dependant infant, ignoring that erectus had only a slightly smaller skull than modern human, and that many mammals that are considerably less intelligent than great apes manager to know how to feed their young and offer them the teat, rather than having a clinging infant that finds it themselves.
We are not talking about 'other animals'. We are talking about non human primates whom have babies that cling to their mothers virtually from birth and your evolutionary nonsense around them.
Adult Erectus is compared to a 7 year old child by your algorithmic magic. A 7 year old child is not intelligent enough to complete such a task as firelighting and control unless a more intelligent adult demonstrates it and that is just for starters.

Have you read the gobble presented on the Gona female erectus? Obviously not.

And yet for all this you cannot type quote /quote and put it in the appropriate brackets. </cheap shot>
Cheap shot already explained..take it or leave it, I do not care.

Darls, if you can call the mindless banter that evolutionists produce as evidence, then my reasonings about Erectus are just as valid and could not possibly be worse than yours.

You have not addressed anything with any more than your opinion. Indeed your own evolutionary meanderings proffered by your well credentailed researchers is no more than inconsistent woffle falsified by themselves on a regular basis.

Let's look at some of the interpretations and woffle produced by your researchers.

Turkana boy has been reconstructed to stand about 5&#8217;3&#8243; at an age of about 11. Had he lived into adulthood, he would&#8217;ve been around 6&#8217;1&#8243;. Estimates of female pelvic shape derived from the Turkana boy have suggested that females would&#8217;ve had to have given birth to neonates with small brains, which would&#8217;ve required a long, human-like period of infant dependency.
The New Homo erectus pelvis from Gona « A Primate of Modern Aspect

So we go from a human like dependent neonate with a human-like period of infancy to a dependent baby that can now reach developmental milestones at an earlier age in the next article.

"What this means is the offspring were not as helpless as a modern human," he said in a telephone interview.
"It is not coming out walking and talking. But it was probably capable of more advanced behavior at a younger age like grasping, like sitting up ... than we would see in a modern human."
An extended childhood is a particularly human characteristic. Helpless babies require intensive care, not only from the mothers but from an extended group, which may have spurred the development of human society and culture.
Wide-hipped fossil changes picture of Homo erectus | Reuters

So here we see the intial reasonings and interpretations based on Turkana Boy giving birth to dependent human-like offspring. Why? Because they were small brained.

Now these researchers are suggesting that a larger brained baby did what? Are they human-like dependent babies at birth whether they had small or bigger brains? How inconsisent!...and I haven't even started on Lucy and all the twoddle that reseachers speak to around her.

I might add there is nothing in the middle. A neonate can either cling to its furry mother or it cannot. Hence by the time a neonate lost the inate ability to cling to its mother for whatever reason, the mother must have already been intelligent enough to care for a fully dependent neonate and have the social structure to support such dependency, neither of which the erectus had. One does not need a PHD in biology to work that out.

Additionally there is the research relating to huge gorilla like sexual dimorphism of erectus and lack of modern social structure.
New Kenyan Fossils Challenge Established Views On Early Evolution Of Our Genus Homo

Additionally you have the shrinking erectus and Turkana Boy, now 5"4' tall and not a stapping athlete at all and likely a waddler.
Just how strapping was the Nariokotome Boy? (Daniel Wescott) - Academia.edu


So now what you have is erectus that is a hugely primitive and sexually dimorphic and all that huge sexual dimorphism akin to gorillas entails, that was also short, lacked the ability to engage in sophisticated language and higher reasoning ability and could not have given birth to dependent babies and could not have exhibited alloparenting, as they did not have the social structure that accompanies the birth of dependent babies nor the intelligence; nor did erectus have the intelligence to light and control fires. We see cognitively challenged adults now that are too challenged as humans to negotiate fire lighlighting and care of a dependent neonate. That is called OBSERVATION and putting observation into the interpretations of data.

I assert that indeed erectus was a fur laden ape no more human than a modern chimpanzee or gorilla that gave birth to independent babies that could still cling to their short waddling furry mothers. If evidence of firelighting is any more than an evolutionary delusion then modern mankind was already there to make and control fire. This is the most parsinomous interpretation. This interpretation does not support evolution and hence is ignored based on the preconceived notion of common ancestry.

I also assert that the desperate humanizing of homo erectus has been exposed to be the fraudulent misrepresentation that it is by many single fossil finds changing your so called 'evidence' and sending it to that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past. Researchers are gropping around in the dark and changing their minds with single finds not only tweaking past assertions but falsifying what was once considered and offered as evidence for the new flavour of the month.

Now I again, for the umpteenth time, have provided evidence for my interpretations that you ignore and it is now up to evolutionists to provide research based responses rather than your most humble opinion that means squat.

My interpretations could not possibly be worse that your ever changing interpretations. My interpretations support the assertion that erectus is not a human/ape intermediate, but just an ape, no more human than a modern chimpanzee.

 

[mzungu]

Darls, if you can call the mindless banter that evolutionists produce as evidence, then my reasonings about Erectus are just as valid and could not possibly be worse than yours.

YES DEAR,
SOME TEA PERHAPS?
​

 

[MoonLancer]

Terms in Science require definitions that are well defined and specific.

There is no reason to expect the lay man and common folks to be more specific.
But it seems like common sense that a layman would say that anima; s come in different kinds, while the same general udea us what we mean scientifically, for a species.

So the word kind is a concept held by uneducated ignorant people who cant exactly define it without already well established definitions that use evolution as a backbone? Ok sure. I think that was my point all along.

Thus kind is a somewhat meaningless term.

 

[cupid dave]

So the word kind is a concept held by uneducated ignorant people who cant exactly define it without already well established definitions that use evolution as a backbone? Ok sure. I think that was my point all along.

Thus kind is a somewhat meaningless term.

Give me your own alternative to the scientific term, species.

 

[USincognito]

Storks generate their own kind. Frogs also. Still don't get it?

Storks are family Ciconiidae. Frogs are order Anura.

So what is a "kind". Cupid dave claims it's a species. AV is claiming it's a genus. And you give two examles, one a family the other an order.

If you guys can't be internally consistent, how are we supposed to take scientific claims made by you guys seriously?

 

[USincognito]

It has everything to do with genesis; Since creationists claim to a literal interpretation of the Bible and that the Bible is in whole held to be factual then suffice it to say that any flaw found within the Bible automatically negates the contents as being fictional.

The book that led to the contemporary Creationist movement was Morris and Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood.

I would think Creationists would be more cognizant of their own history, but this is AV you're replying to.

 

[USincognito]

Give me your own alternative to the scientific term, species.

Isn't the onus on you to provide a concrete definition of "kind" and more importantly to explain why they are not realated to other species in higher taxa?

 

[Keachian]

If you guys can't be internally consistent, how are we supposed to take scientific claims made by you guys seriously?

Christianity internally consistent? Heaven Forbid!

 

[Psudopod]

erectus is hairy, like a chimp, but provided no evidenced.

The evidence is that erectus was too stupid and sexually dimorphic to care for a fully dependent neonate. The brain size and sexual dimorphism is found by your own. Hence erectus must have had a fur coat for the baby to cling to the mother.

You've provided nothing to back your assertion about the intelligence of erectus, and how on earth does a species being sexual dimorphic prevent it from caring for an neonate? Humans are sexual dimorphic (to a fairly small degree admittedly), but we manage. You do also know that human infants have an inate clinging ability, and humans have very little body hair comparatively.

that erectus could not have lit fires, despite evidence of controlled fires with some erectus remains. This also ignores the fact that if these were deliberately lit, it is not a skill most erectus had by the looks of things, so whether they could or could not is largely irrelevant.

So you are agreeing that erectus was too stupid to light fires? Good. So what does all the crap about fires and hearths being dated to erectus mean? I suggest that if fires were truly found with erectus this is evidence that modern mankind with full reasoning ability was already around. The alternative is the evidence of fire lighting and control in erectus is no more than imaginary delusions from your researchers desperate to humanize anything they find for glory.

Not at all. What I'm saying is the evidence points to this not being a common trait amongst erectus as we have found very little evidence of fire use, so it may be that most erectus did not light their own fires, but some did, the way some chimps hunt with spears, but most do not. It's not really here nor there in the grand scale of things.

-that erectus was too stupid to look after a dependant infant, ignoring that erectus had only a slightly smaller skull than modern human, and that many mammals that are considerably less intelligent than great apes manager to know how to feed their young and offer them the teat, rather than having a clinging infant that finds it themselves.

We are not talking about 'other animals'. We are talking about non human primates whom have babies that cling to their mothers virtually from birth and your evolutionary nonsense around them.

You've missed my point. If other mammals manage fine, what makes erectus so different, especially as erectus has a bigger brain than most of these other creatures. What makes the senario of erectus being able to raise its infants (something it obviously did as we have fossils from a range of times), so implausible, given the previous point?

Darls, if you can call the mindless banter that evolutionists produce as evidence, then my reasonings about Erectus are just as valid and could not possibly be worse than yours.

You have not addressed anything with any more than your opinion. Indeed your own evolutionary meanderings proffered by your well credentailed researchers is no more than inconsistent woffle falsified by themselves on a regular basis

I don't need to address it with anything other than opinion, because you've failed to provide any evidence. You've made up your mind about erectus because anything else clashes with your world view and you can't have things going against your apriori biblical assumptions. The links you provide either do not say what you think they say (for examples links you put up "showing" Indohyus was "just a mouse deer", showed exactly the opposite, that indohyus has a very different bone property), or a poor sources - newspaper articles, blogs etc. You continue to claim things which have been shown false (ie, the wikipedia article does not acurately reflect Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale, or that humans don't have tails, when there is a photo of one on the previous page), but somehow think its terrible when researchers revise their ideas when new evidence comes to light (erectus may appears to be more sexually dimorphic than previously expected, bipedialism emerged earlier than first thought). And you obviously have no understanding of the theory of evolution, as you think this somehow falsifies it. It doesn't.

Turkana boy has been reconstructed to stand about 5’3&#8243; at an age of about 11. Had he lived into adulthood, he would’ve been around 6’1&#8243;. Estimates of female pelvic shape derived from the Turkana boy have suggested that females would’ve had to have given birth to neonates with small brains, which would’ve required a long, human-like period of infant dependency.
The New Homo erectus pelvis from Gona « A Primate of Modern Aspect

So we go from a human like dependent neonate with a human-like period of infancy to a dependent baby that can now reach developmental milestones at an earlier age in the next article.

"What this means is the offspring were not as helpless as a modern human," he said in a telephone interview.
"It is not coming out walking and talking. But it was probably capable of more advanced behavior at a younger age like grasping, like sitting up ... than we would see in a modern human."
An extended childhood is a particularly human characteristic. Helpless babies require intensive care, not only from the mothers but from an extended group, which may have spurred the development of human society and culture.
Wide-hipped fossil changes picture of Homo erectus | Reuters

So here we see the intial reasonings and interpretations based on Turkana Boy giving birth to dependent human-like offspring. Why? Because they were small brained.

Now these researchers are suggesting that a larger brained baby did what? Are they human-like dependent babies at birth whether they had small or bigger brains? How inconsisent!...and I haven't even started on Lucy and all the twoddle that reseachers speak to around her.

What's incosistant? We have adult erectus skulls, so we know the average size adult's heads. Previously we only had a male pelvis to examine, so we had to make predictions based on what we have evidence for. While Turkana boy's pelvis is wider and more human than older apes and chimps, it is narrower than a modern humans. In order to grow up to be the modern erectus, this implies the infant must be born small, and develope outside the womb. When we found a female erectus pelvis, this showed that the birth cannal was much larger, and therefore infants were born with much bigger heads.

So now what you have is erectus that is a hugely primitive and sexually dimorphic and all that huge sexual dimorphism akin to gorillas entails, that was also short, lacked the ability to engage in sophisticated language and higher reasoning ability and could not have given birth to dependent babies and could not have exhibited alloparenting, as they did not have the social structure that accompanies the birth of dependent babies nor the intelligence; nor did erectus have the intelligence to light and control fires. We see cognitively challenged adults now that are too challenged as humans to negotiate fire lighlighting and care of a dependent neonate. That is called OBSERVATION and putting observation into the interpretations of data.

Nope, this is called Astridhere asserting things over and over again, in the hope that if she says it enough someone will believe her. You're convincing no one. The only people agree with you are people who have already bought into the creationist nonsense.

I assert that indeed erectus was a fur laden ape no more human than a modern chimpanzee or gorilla that gave birth to independent babies that could still cling to their short waddling furry mothers. If evidence of firelighting is any more than an evolutionary delusion then modern mankind was already there to make and control fire. This is the most parsinomous interpretation. This interpretation does not support evolution and hence is ignored based on the preconceived notion of common ancestry.

[/quote]

Parsimmonius except for the utter lack of any evidence of modern humans before about 400,000 years ago.

I also assert that the desperate humanizing of homo erectus has been exposed to be the fraudulent misrepresentation that it is by many single fossil finds changing your so called 'evidence' and sending it to that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past. Researchers are gropping around in the dark and changing their minds with single finds not only tweaking past assertions but falsifying what was once considered and offered as evidence for the new flavour of the month.

What has been falsified? Very little has been actually falsified (for example the point of emergence of bidedalim was a prediction, which turned out to be incorrect, but no data has been falsified), and none of it affects the theory of evolution, just where particular creatures lie in the family tree of life.

Now I again, for the umpteenth time, have provided evidence for my interpretations that you ignore and it is now up to evolutionists to provide research based responses rather than your most humble opinion that means squat.

Except, yet again, you have not. You have provided no evidence, just asserted you opinion on erectus. Even if erectus turns out not to be a direct ancestor, it makes no difference to evolution. Evolution remains the same whether erectus is a grandfather or a great-uncle species as it were. And yet again, you have failed to make any support for creationism.

 

[Astridhere]

You've provided nothing to back your assertion about the intelligence of erectus, and how on earth does a species being sexual dimorphic prevent it from caring for an neonate? Humans are sexual dimorphic (to a fairly small degree admittedly), but we manage. You do also know that human infants have an inate clinging ability, and humans have very little body hair comparatively.

Did you know that Homo erectus had an IQ of about 45? This is not just a guess, but the result of an experiment carried out by Thomas Wynn, an anthropologist at the University of Colorado.​

IQ vs. Intelligence

IQ history - Hmolpedia

As you also may know, but likely not, that Turk had a small neural canal AND was incapable of sophisticated language. Erectus was not the full dollar. Honestly Psudopod all that education and you are unable to work out the most simplest things and choose to say the first thing that comes into your head with engaging your intelligence.

So now you've got a bunch of primates that couldn't do much more than grunt at each other making fires. Truly ridiculous

Not at all. What I'm saying is the evidence points to this not being a common trait amongst erectus as we have found very little evidence of fire use, so it may be that most erectus did not light their own fires, but some did, the way some chimps hunt with spears, but most do not. It's not really here nor there in the grand scale of things.
So which is it according to Psudopod? All erectus were equal dummies, lovey. So either your researchers sprooking to the fire lighting and control of erectus and how human they are is all rubbish or you have half wits lighting fires which is about as non plausible as it comes.


You've missed my point. If other mammals manage fine, what makes erectus so different, especially as erectus has a bigger brain than most of these other creatures. What makes the senario of erectus being able to raise its infants (something it obviously did as we have fossils from a range of times), so implausible, given the previous point?

No dear, it is you that are totally missing the point biologist or not. You realy have no idea do you? Do you just invent this stuff as you go along?

Human babies are the only PRIMATE born so totally dependendent on their mother. ALL non human apes cling to their mother soon after birth. Human babies are born with reflex actions and not much more. Didn't you even read the links I provided.

So your great refute is to what? Offer Lizards or birds as an example of primate evolution....Good one Psudopod. Not even your researchers are that foolish. You do make this stuff up as you go along without checking out what your talking about first.

I don't need to address it with anything other than opinion, because you've failed to provide any evidence. You've made up your mind about erectus because anything else clashes with your world view and you can't have things going against your apriori biblical assumptions. The links you provide either do not say what you think they say (for examples links you put up "showing" Indohyus was "just a mouse deer", showed exactly the opposite, that indohyus has a very different bone property), or a poor sources - newspaper articles, blogs etc. You continue to claim things which have been shown false (ie, the wikipedia article does not acurately reflect Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale, or that humans don't have tails,
What the heck are you talking about. The beef with USincognito was his crap about Dawkins support of Lucy the chimp ancestor, and his denial. However I have shut him up well and truly. You'll note he doesn't go any where near that subject anymore. The silly lad did not think I'd get the book and show him and serve him humble pie. Well he was wrong about that also.

I don't care about Dawkins. He is as much of a goose as the rest of them. The point was Dawkins and other researchers also suggest Ardi and Lucy are not human ancestors but are chimp and gorilla ancestors. Would you like me to repost it or can that biologists mind remember it?
when there is a photo of one on the previous page), but somehow think its terrible when researchers revise their ideas when new evidence comes to light (erectus may appears to be more sexually dimorphic than previously expected, bipedialism emerged earlier than first thought). And you obviously have no understanding of the theory of evolution, as you think this somehow falsifies it. It doesn't.

Oh how simplistic. Dear, if you are any sort of biologist at all you should know this stuff without an uncredentialed creationists having to spoon feed it to you.

So far you have had many words and nothing to say of any substance. You sprooke to the forum that you're some sort of biologist. I was a lab assistant also for a short while and did QC, that does not make me a scientist!

What's incosistant? We have adult erectus skulls, so we know the average size adult's heads. Previously we only had a male pelvis to examine, so we had to make predictions based on what we have evidence for. While Turkana boy's pelvis is wider and more human than older apes and chimps, it is narrower than a modern humans. In order to grow up to be the modern erectus, this implies the infant must be born small, and develope outside the womb. When we found a female erectus pelvis, this showed that the birth cannal was much larger, and therefore infants were born with much bigger heads.
How are those comprehension skills going Psudopod?

Reasoning ability is not something that I lack, my dear. How about you? I'll give it to you again below seeing as you are having difficulty getting your mind around the obvious.


Nope, this is called Astridhere asserting things over and over again, in the hope that if she says it enough someone will believe her. You're convincing no one. The only people agree with you are people who have already bought into the creationist nonsense.
And still you have not even come close to lodging any refute let alone posting any EVIDENCE that you contantly ask of creationsists. All you ever provide is your opinion backed by zilch, and often do not even understand what your own researchers are saying.

Parsimmonius except for the utter lack of any evidence of modern humans before about 400,000 years ago.

1.Only a small percentage of fossils survive, so there should not be numerous fossils to be found when mankind was not numerous.
2.You lot have ficticious common ancestors and it is just like an evolutionists to demand more that they themselves can supply. That smacks of hypocrisy.
3. If you found a modern human along side erectus or even Lucy you would make up some myth to excuse it, like strata mixing or some other nonsense, as usual, when ever an annomoly rears its ugly head.

What has been falsified? Very little has been actually falsified (for example the point of emergence of bidedalim was a prediction, which turned out to be incorrect, but no data has been falsified), and none of it affects the theory of evolution, just where particular creatures lie in the family tree of life.
Oh rubbish! You lot were gobsmacked to find bipedalism in Lucy then earlier in Ardi and no connection between brain size and bipedalism. You lot woffled on for over 150 years about human knucklewalking ancestry. Homo habilis the ancestor of erectus onoy to find the two cohabitating. You lot went on and on about Turk the athlete and all the crap about his pelvis and long femoral bone and bla bla bla only for that to be falisfied, AGAIN, by a single fossil, and I could fill the whole page with examples. You evolutionists get so jerked around with changes, sometimes major ones, that you no longer know what a falsification of a previous theory looks like. Yet these underlying theories are what support TOE and they are all little balls of rubbish or straw at best.


Except, yet again, you have not. You have provided no evidence, just asserted you opinion on erectus. Even if erectus turns out not to be a direct ancestor, it makes no difference to evolution. Evolution remains the same whether erectus is a grandfather or a great-uncle species as it were. And yet again, you have failed to make any support for creationism.
Oh YES I have made my case indeed, and your pitiful attempt above of providing nothing except hubris and talk based on what you have no idea about is obvious and is noted. You have no idea about the science you support. You know nothing more than what's in glossy text book full of misrepresented puke that never speaks to the dark side.
[/quote]


Here Psudopod, perhaps this article will make it easier for you to assimilate.

Consequently, H. erectus would have been more developmentally mature at birth than previously suspected, said study leader Scott Simpson of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. His team's research will be detailed in the November 14 issue of the journal Science.
Early Human Babies Had Big Brains, Fossil Pelvis Shows

So previously, when Turk had, you know, that athletic build, narrow pelvis, and was nice and tall these researchers of yours were saying Turks female had dependent babies that matured more like human babies. You can work that out by reading the passage above. If you have trouble I'll explain it another way. "Previously suspected" denotes it was suspected that erectus babies were LESS developmentally mature ie like human babies.

Now with the finding of the Gona pelvis that is actually wider than a modern human female your researchers are now suggesting these primates were birthing LARGER brained babies (MORE human-like), that were LESS humanlike by becoming independent quicker. This is truly contradictory.

You should have clinging ape babies 'evolving' into less and less independent babies untill a human totally dependent baby with a long infancy is seen. You do not. You yet again have a contradictory mess. Do you understand, or do I need to take it slower? Perhaps you will understand your own researchers, or will you? Read on

What does an evolutionary researcher have to say about all this? Let's see.

"It's not that they come out walking and talking and fending for themselves, but they were not as helpless as we see in modern humans," he said.

That would be because they are no more human than a gorilla and still clinging to their mother....and

So even though the brains of modern humans are bigger at birth than H. erectus's, modern babies are less mature.

Above makes no sense........and best of all.....

"This [new] pelvis is a nice addition to the fossil record," Lieberman said. But he added that the discovery "raises many more questions than it answers."


As I said, my interpretation that erectus is no more human than a modern gorilla or chimpanzee continues to be supported. The research you lot produce, as biased and woffly as it is, still continues to support my interpretation the more they present. All it does for evolutionists is give you lot a headache, more questions and requires scenarios that are non plausible....

And ....that would obviously be because my interpretation is closer to the truth than yours.

Now if you reply, do please try to stick to the point and not take up any desperate aside just for the sake of making a post..and please post research rather than your humble opinion alone. You will need to support it, if you remember what that means.

You haven't done very well Psudopod. You have only demonstrated just how much you do not know or understand about the psuedo 'science' you try to support.

 

[Psudopod]

You've provided nothing to back your assertion about the intelligence of erectus, and how on earth does a species being sexual dimorphic prevent it from caring for an neonate? Humans are sexual dimorphic (to a fairly small degree admittedly), but we manage. You do also know that human infants have an inate clinging ability, and humans have very little body hair comparatively.

Did you know that Homo erectus had an IQ of about 45? This is not just a guess, but the result of an experiment carried out by Thomas Wynn, an anthropologist at the University of Colorado.

​

IQ vs. Intelligence

IQ history - Hmolpedia

As you also may know, but likely not, that Turk had a small neural canal AND was incapable of sophisticated language. Erectus was not the full dollar. Honestly Psudopod all that education and you are unable to work out the most simplest things and choose to say the first thing that comes into your head with engaging your intelligence.

So now you've got a bunch of primates that couldn't do much more than grunt at each other making fires. Truly ridiculous

Hah! You provide a link with an un-sourced assertion about the IQ of erectus, so I can't look at the actual study. Par for the course, but the really funny bit is this:
"

IQ tests measure something real and something terribly important, but they do not assess all of what is called intelligence. Many important mental abilities are left out. Abilities responsible for art, music, dance, cooking, mechanical invention, clerical exactness, foreign languages, caring for a baby, defeating an enemy in war, and so on, have little connection with IQ. They have little connection because literacy and numeracy have little to do with excellence in these fields."

So in trying to prove that erectus is too stupid to care for its young, you provide a source that specifically says IQ is not a good measure of many capabilities including caring for young.

You've also failed to say why sexual dimorphism prevents infant care or address the clinging response in human babies.

Not at all. What I'm saying is the evidence points to this not being a common trait amongst erectus as we have found very little evidence of fire use, so it may be that most erectus did not light their own fires, but some did, the way some chimps hunt with spears, but most do not. It's not really here nor there in the grand scale of things.

So which is it according to Psudopod? All erectus were equal dummies, lovey. So either your researchers sprooking to the fire lighting and control of erectus and how human they are is all rubbish or you have half wits lighting fires which is about as non plausible as it comes.

There is evidence for fire use with some erectus. There is not with others. Either this was something learned by a small group, or a mistake was made and the fires were not controlled. So what? None of it has any effect on erectus as a human ancestor or on the theory of evolution in general.

You've missed my point. If other mammals manage fine, what makes erectus so different, especially as erectus has a bigger brain than most of these other creatures. What makes the senario of erectus being able to raise its infants (something it obviously did as we have fossils from a range of times), so implausible, given the previous point?

No dear, it is you that are totally missing the point biologist or not. You realy have no idea do you? Do you just invent this stuff as you go along?

Human babies are the only PRIMATE born so totally dependendent on their mother. ALL non human apes cling to their mother soon after birth. Human babies are born with reflex actions and not much more. Didn't you even read the links I provided.

So your great refute is to what? Offer Lizards or birds as an example of primate evolution....Good one Psudopod. Not even your researchers are that foolish. You do make this stuff up as you go along without checking out what your talking about first.

[/quote]

Um... birds and reptiles are not mammals. Really, if you don't know that, I really have no hope for you. Mammals, Astridhere, mammals. There are many mammals that manage to care for their young, offering them the teat rather than having them specifically cling on and seek it themselves. Clinging is a common trait in arboreal mammals like primates, but not so out of the trees. The question you have failed to answer, is that if these creatures, which generally have a lower brain capacity than erectus, can manage it, why can't erectus?

Also, while we're at it, you might want to consider why humans have reflexive cling mechanism, if it is something they have never had any need for.

I don't need to address it with anything other than opinion, because you've failed to provide any evidence. You've made up your mind about erectus because anything else clashes with your world view and you can't have things going against your apriori biblical assumptions. The links you provide either do not say what you think they say (for examples links you put up "showing" Indohyus was "just a mouse deer", showed exactly the opposite, that indohyus has a very different bone property), or a poor sources - newspaper articles, blogs etc. You continue to claim things which have been shown false (ie, the wikipedia article does not acurately reflect Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale, or that humans don't have tails,

What the heck are you talking about. The beef with USincognito was his crap about Dawkins support of Lucy the chimp ancestor, and his denial. However I have shut him up well and truly. You'll note he doesn't go any where near that subject anymore. The silly lad did not think I'd get the book and show him and serve him humble pie. Well he was wrong about that also.

I don't care about Dawkins. He is as much of a goose as the rest of them. The point was Dawkins and other researchers also suggest Ardi and Lucy are not human ancestors but are chimp and gorilla ancestors. Would you like me to repost it or can that biologists mind remember it?

He posted screen shots of the book while you were still looking at a wiki link.

1.Only a small percentage of fossils survive, so there should not be numerous fossils to be found when mankind was not numerous.
2.You lot have ficticious common ancestors and it is just like an evolutionists to demand more that they themselves can supply. That smacks of hypocrisy.
3. If you found a modern human along side erectus or even Lucy you would make up some myth to excuse it, like strata mixing or some other nonsense, as usual, when ever an annomoly rears its ugly head.

Fossilisation is rare, but you still need to explain why we have a good number of erectus and not of modern humans. Nor any other evidence of them other than fossiliation. So don't know how you can claim point 2 is valid, real scientists have shown their fossils, where are the creationists' modern humans from that era? Finally, I can garentee if something as monumental as this was found, it would be throughly invesitigated. Look at the recent discovery of nutrinos travelling apparently faster than light. This breaks all sorts of rules, but somehow, despite those evil scientists and their evidence supressing ways, everyone knows about it.

What has been falsified? Very little has been actually falsified (for example the point of emergence of bidedalim was a prediction, which turned out to be incorrect, but no data has been falsified), and none of it affects the theory of evolution, just where particular creatures lie in the family tree of life.

Oh rubbish! You lot were gobsmacked to find bipedalism in Lucy then earlier in Ardi and no connection between brain size and bipedalism. You lot woffled on for over 150 years about human knucklewalking ancestry. Homo habilis the ancestor of erectus onoy to find the two cohabitating. You lot went on and on about Turk the athlete and all the crap about his pelvis and long femoral bone and bla bla bla only for that to be falisfied, AGAIN, by a single fossil, and I could fill the whole page with examples. You evolutionists get so jerked around with changes, sometimes major ones, that you no longer know what a falsification of a previous theory looks like. Yet these underlying theories are what support TOE and they are all little balls of rubbish or straw at best.

Yes finding bidedalism earlier than expected was surprising, but nothing was fasified. Again, it was a prediction, based on the fact that bidedalism is only present in humans. There was no evidence that it had to be that way, and now we have evidence, both morphological and genetic, that it was the other way round. Interesting, but not a fasiflcation of evidence.

You're the one that keeps banging on about erectus being highly sexual dimorphic. Don't you understand what that means? Hint, the female pelvis has less of an effect on Turkana boy than you appear to believe.

These things are about the position of various species on the human family tree. If erectus is not a direct ancestor it means nothing to evolution. And nothing you have said is a falsification. Predictions have been amended when new evidence comes to light, but nothing so far has been falsified.

Here Psudopod, perhaps this article will make it easier for you to assimilate.

Consequently, H. erectus would have been more developmentally mature at birth than previously suspected, said study leader Scott Simpson of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. His team's research will be detailed in the November 14 issue of the journal Science.
Early Human Babies Had Big Brains, Fossil Pelvis Shows

So previously, when Turk had, you know, that athletic build, narrow pelvis, and was nice and tall these researchers of yours were saying Turks female had dependent babies that matured more like human babies. You can work that out by reading the passage above. If you have trouble I'll explain it another way. "Previously suspected" denotes it was suspected that erectus babies were LESS developmentally mature ie like human babies.

Now with the finding of the Gona pelvis that is actually wider than a modern human female your researchers are now suggesting these primates were birthing LARGER brained babies (MORE human-like), that were LESS humanlike by becoming independent quicker. This is truly contradictory.

No it's not. One factor (brain size) was closer to humans than other apes, another factor (rate of infant maturity) was not. While these two things are linked, they are not indepentant of all other factors, therefore are not contradictory.

You should have clinging ape babies 'evolving' into less and less independent babies untill a human totally dependent baby with a long infancy is seen.

You do not. You yet again have a contradictory mess. Do you understand, or do I need to take it slower? Perhaps you will understand your own researchers, or will you? Read on

Explain why that is necessary, then we'll discuss. Remember, not all trait changes are grandual, and not all changes happen at the same speed.

What does an evolutionary researcher have to say about all this? Let's see.

"It's not that they come out walking and talking and fending for themselves, but they were not as helpless as we see in modern humans," he said.

That would be because they are no more human than a gorilla and still clinging to their mother....and

So even though the brains of modern humans are bigger at birth than H. erectus's, modern babies are less mature.

Above makes no sense........and best of all.....

"This [new] pelvis is a nice addition to the fossil record," Lieberman said. But he added that the discovery "raises many more questions than it answers."

Perhaps you can point out where any of this shows any fasification for human evolution, let alone evolution in general.

As I said, my interpretation that erectus is no more human than a modern gorilla or chimpanzee continues to be supported. The research you lot produce, as biased and woffly as it is, still continues to support my interpretation the more they present. All it does for evolutionists is give you lot a headache, more questions and requires scenarios that are non plausible....

You have backed up nothing. You have not demonstrated erectus could not take care of its young, that it must be as hairy as an ape, that it has no human traits, that it is incapable of fire use etc. Inb the mean time, erectus continues to have a cranial capacity closer to humans than other apes, and females are equiped with a wide birth canal for big headed young, through their pelvis that is much more human than chimp or gorrila, and males were upright and athletic.

Also this:

Oh how simplistic. Dear, if you are any sort of biologist at all you should know this stuff without an uncredentialed creationists having to spoon feed it to you.

So far you have had many words and nothing to say of any substance. You sprooke to the forum that you're some sort of biologist. I was a lab assistant also for a short while and did QC, that does not make me a scientist!

is a complete lie. I have never said anything other than I work in IT.​

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

IQ vs. Intelligence

IQ history - Hmolpedia

As you also may know, but likely not, that Turk had a small neural canal AND was incapable of sophisticated language. Erectus was not the full dollar. Honestly Psudopod all that education and you are unable to work out the most simplest things and choose to say the first thing that comes into your head with engaging your intelligence.

So now you've got a bunch of primates that couldn't do much more than grunt at each other making fires. Truly ridiculous

Hah! You provide a link with an un-sourced assertion about the IQ of erectus, so I can't look at the actual study. Par for the course, but the really funny bit is this:
"


IQ tests measure something real and something terribly important, but they do not assess all of what is called intelligence. Many important mental abilities are left out. Abilities responsible for art, music, dance, cooking, mechanical invention, clerical exactness, foreign languages, caring for a baby, defeating an enemy in war, and so on, have little connection with IQ. They have little connection because literacy and numeracy have little to do with excellence in these fields."

Sorry to butt in, but after I clicked on Astridhere's link of the IQ of Homo Erectus I began looking for other sites extimating the IQs of extinct hominids.

Then I found this:

Neuroscientists Gary Lynch and Richard Granger have an interesting article in Discover Magazine about the Boskops, an extinct hominid that had big eyes, child-like faces, and forebrains roughly 50% larger than modern man indicating they may have had an average intelligence of around 150, making them geniuses among Homo sapiens.

...
'With 30 percent larger brains than ours now, we can readily calculate that a population with a mean brain size of 1,750 cc would be expected to have an average IQ of 149,' write Lynch and Granger. But why did they go extinct?​

- Science.slashdot.org
(includes links to main study)​

​

So why did they go extinct? Surely we can't say they were too stupid to survive ...

 

[cupid dave]

Storks are family Ciconiidae. Frogs are order Anura.

So what is a "kind". Cupid dave claims it's a species. AV is claiming it's a genus. And you give two examles, one a family the other an order.

If you guys can't be internally consistent, how are we supposed to take scientific claims made by you guys seriously?

AV doesn't speak for me.

But in this case, the common use of the word "kind" by laymen in regard to distinguishing between to different species seems reasonable certainly not so significant that you labor the idea.


Genesis seems to clearly distinguish between the different Plants and animals by enumerating a list of different kinds.

But the matter is immaterial to the discussion here since the bible doesn't go into more detain than to tell us that the first ape-men was a "kind" called "Adam."

It seems logical that each name thereafter is also a different "kind" of humanoid:


[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Gen 5:2 [/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name "Adam," (a species or kind) in the day when THEY were created.[/FONT]

 

[Mr Strawberry]

So why did they go extinct? Surely we can't say they were too stupid to survive ...

I expect we ate them. Given human nature I would say that would be a fair bet.