30,000 feet of water?????

[1213]

...I suggest that you ask AI ...

I would not recommend that, if one wants to have real knowledge.

...The hair style and color may be lucky guesses in this example, but clearly, this was not an image of Lucy or Homo habilis:

View attachment 99862

Thanks, that is interesting. Even with well preserved skull, the end result is more neanderthal than the actual photo. Could explain why the artistic illustrations from small fragments tend to lean to "earlier species".

...Lucy's bones are shorter than modern man because Lucy was a smaller animal. She combines the pelvis and skull of a bipedal ape like man with the much smaller cranial capacity of a chimp - about 1/3 the volume. This how we know that standing upright preceded big brains in human evolution.

The difference to bones can be from several reasons:
1) was not a man
2) was not fully grown
3) had some kind of developmental disorder
4) was actually not a human at all, nor any ancient relative to humans...

I think that what can actually be observed, doesn't support the idea that those bones are evidence for evolution.

 

[1213]

You would see meaningful difference if you weren't so closed minded

So, please tell one example, what is a meaningful difference in the case?

 

[1213]

Polar bears and black bears... ... it's almost impossible for them to interbreed, and if it succeeds anyway, the chance of having viable off spring is incredibly low.

Almost impossible means it is possible, which would then by older scientific definition make them the same species.

How do you know the chances are low?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, please tell one example, what is a meaningful difference in the case?

Obvious differences include:
- Cranial capacity
- facial structure
- longer arms and curved fingers (indicating that climbing trees was still a big part of their lives even though they were bipedal)


Ow, you only asked for one difference. Well, here you have three.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Almost impossible means it is possible, which would then by older scientific definition make them the same species.

No.

All humans can interbreed. There is no "close to impossible" there. All dogs can interbreed as well, with the caveat of the brutal anatomical disfigurement due to artificial breeding I noted earlier. But genetically they are all compatible. The same species.

When I say that it is almost impossible between those different bear species, it is not merely an anatomical barrier. It is a genetic barrier. And in the rare cases where it would succeed, then still the chances of viable off spring are extremely low also.

This is so because they have diverged genetically in big ways. They are genetically pretty much incompatible.
That's what happens when you share an ancestor older then a millions years.

Dogs share ancestors that are 10 to 12000 years old at most.
Humans share ancestors that are some 100.000 years old, with a lot of interbreeding since then also.
HUGE difference.

How do you know the chances are low?

Science.

 

[shunyadragon]

By what is said in the Bible, death is the wage of sin. Evil people are destined to die. I have no problem with that, if God is the one who decides. He has given life and therefore has the right to decide how long life He gives. He would not have to give eternal life for anyone. And I think it is good, if He doesn't allow evil to continue forever.

The problem with this is, has some people the right to end other persons life. For example if someone attacks and the gets killed, I think it is the attackers fault and he got what he deserved and I don't think it is wrong to defend oneself, although I think best would be to live by the example of Jesus.

I believe in the case when Jews killed others, it was accepted when the others were evil. And I don't think it ever has been just because some believe/think differently, that is something western secular governments tends to do (for example to Gonzalo Lira).

So, I think righteous reason is, if the other is evil and violent. However, it may be difficult sometimes to judge correctly how it really is. I believe that is why Jesus told that his disciples (="Christians") should not judge, nor be violent.

I do not believe this addresses the history as I described. The elephant in the room up front is the persecution, ethnic cleansing and anti-Semitism relevant in the history of Christianity and today, which also often considered Jews as evil as in the writings of Martin Luther. Hitler followed the blueprint of Martin Luther to deal with the Jews with the full cooperation of the Christian German people, and the problem extended far beyond Germany to the history of Orthodox Russia and Eastern Europe and the widespread passion plays describing Jews as "Christ killers."

Your white wash in your post disappears in the first rain.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've always been curious about the great flood story in the Bible.
Supposedly God flooded the earth with a rainstorm for 40 days and nights.
That does not jive with me for several reasons.....
Mt. Everest is the highest natural point on earth and over 29,000 feet. The flood supposedly covered the entire earth with enough water to kill everything and everyone including the Nepheliem which were reported to be giants.
That means 30,000 feet just came and went from nowhere. There is not enough water on earth to provide that much rain.
Then the earth was repopulated by only 8 people that were one family ( Noah sons and wives ) which would mean that not only would our current civilization would be based on incest but there would only be one race on the entire planet.( not meant as racism!!!!!!) Apparently this is not true which makes me even more suspicious especially after finding out the holy Bible has been edited as early as 1875 or 1877 AD...this is the first time the words "God" and "Lord" were ever in the bible.

I take a pretty pragmatic view of the stories in the Bible like that. In my opinion, whether actual history or metaphorical allegory, there are a number of ways to see it.

First to consider is that pretty much every ancient culture of the near East has a massive flood story in their lore. That suggests that there was a massive flood at some time. Secondly, the people of the Old Testament had very little world experience and didn't know the configuration of the Earth, much less all the life that was on the vast majority of it. So a massive flood to them could easily be seen by them that the whole world was flooded and that is the way the story would be written.

But finally, I am not personally a Biblical literalist and it doesn't bother me to separate the teaching stories from what it more likely actual history, to recognize what the of the Bible is history, what is metaphor/symbolism/allegory, what is poetry, what are wisdom sayings, what is prophecy, what is to be considered the Law the people were to live by.

And those who do take the Bible absolutely literally are encouraged to not be bothered by my interpretations. I respect your beliefs whether or not I share them.

 

[Argentbear]

By what I know, this is what we have of the "Australopithecus afarensis". Without the artists imagination, I don't see any meaningful difference to modern humans.
View attachment 99858

that is one fossil, the famous Lucy i beleive. you think that is the only example? There are over 400 and more found each year.

 

[Argentbear]

I would not recommend that, if one wants to have real knowledge.

Thanks, that is interesting. Even with well preserved skull, the end result is more neanderthal than the actual photo. Could explain why the artistic illustrations from small fragments tend to lean to "earlier species".

The difference to bones can be from several reasons:
1) was not a man
2) was not fully grown
3) had some kind of developmental disorder
4) was actually not a human at all, nor any ancient relative to humans...

I think that what can actually be observed, doesn't support the idea that those bones are evidence for evolution.

1 Lucy was named that not just because the Leakey's were playing the beetles white album at the dig sight but because the fossil is a female. You can tell from the angle and spread of the pelvic bones
2 Lucy was an adult. that can be determined by many means but mostly by the terminals of the femurs
3. Lucy is not markedly different from hundreds of others austalopithecines
4 Yep actually human. Bipedal, upright posture, opposable thumbs, binocular vision etc.

 

[1213]

that is one fossil, the famous Lucy i beleive. you think that is the only example? There are over 400 and more found each year.

Ok, then we could look them separately. But, it would not change that the real information we have about Lucy is not much, the amount of interpretation is very high and it is possible that there is lot of misinterpretation.

 

[1213]

I do not believe this addresses the history as I described. The elephant in the room up front is the persecution, ethnic cleansing and anti-Semitism relevant in the history of Christianity and today, which also often considered Jews as evil as in the writings of Martin Luther. Hitler followed the blueprint of Martin Luther to deal with the Jews with the full cooperation of the Christian German people, and the problem extended far beyond Germany to the history of Orthodox Russia and Eastern Europe and the widespread passion plays describing Jews as "Christ killers."

Even if Jews were evil, as I think some have been, it does not mean Christians have the right to kill them. And when "Christians" go against what Jesus said, I don't think they can be called Christians. Also, by what is said in the Bible, it was Romans who killed Jesus. Therefore, if the Christians would have been logical and truthful, they would have killed Romans. However, also in this case, Christians don't have the right and even if they would have the right, the Romans that killed Jesus don't exist anymore, so it is not possible to kill them again. It is absolutely irrational to think that all Romans or Jews could be accused eternally from what some of them did 2000 years ago.

Can you show where Luther gave the blueprint to kill all the Jews?

 

[1213]

Obvious differences include:
- Cranial capacity
- facial structure
- longer arms and curved fingers (indicating that climbing trees was still a big part of their lives even though they were bipedal)


Ow, you only asked for one difference. Well, here you have three.

Thank you. I don't think the differences in size or color are meaningful. Modern humans have similar variations and they don't mean different species.

 

[Argentbear]

Ok, then we could look them separately. But, it would not change that the real information we have about Lucy is not much, the amount of interpretation is very high and it is possible that there is lot of misinterpretation.

The Lucy fossil provides a HUGE amount of information. For example the structure of her pelvis and leg bones show adaptation for upright posture and bipedal locomotion. Lucy shows that human ancestors were up and walking around long before the earliest stone tools. She whos that physical adaptation evolved before the enlargement of the brain.

As for "misinterpertaton"...do you have anything other than wishful thinking to suggest that?

 

[Argentbear]

Thank you. I don't think the differences in size or color are meaningful. Modern humans have similar variations and they don't mean different species.

Australopithecus afarensis had an average brain side of 446 cubic centimeters. Modern Humans have a brain size of 1,300 cc. so no we don't see similar variations in modern humans

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't think the differences in size or color are meaningful.

Not meaningful to you doesn't mean not meaningful. Uninformed opinions have little value.

Earlier, I wrote to you, "Lucy was a smaller animal. She combines the pelvis and skull of a bipedal ape like man with the much smaller cranial capacity of a chimp - about 1/3 the volume." You didn't comment. You probably didn't see it, or if you did, you didn't understand the significance of it. @Argentbear just posted the same idea, but quantitatively.

A human being that short and with that small a brain has a birth defect.

This is Schlitzie from the movie Freaks about unfortunate people often called pinheads because of their drastically reduced cranial capacity who along with other anomalous people, worked as circus freaks. He is short and has a very low IQ like Lucy, but he has language, which she probably did not have. I imagine that this is what Lucy's world looked like physically except for more chimplike faces and hairier and with creatures capable of independent living. Trigger warning - not everybody wants to see something like this. He's like a zika baby, if that means anything to you (microcephalic):

Spoiler: Schlitzie

Modern humans have similar variations

No, not if they have typical human genetics. Just birth defects.

But it's fine that you hold creationist opinions. There is no possibility of disabusing you of your unfalsifiable beliefs or of mitigating your scientific ignorance, but also no value to you or anybody else if we could. Au contraire. It would create cognitive dissonance that would leave you depressed and disoriented.

So why correct your errors? Obviously not to benefit you.

 

[1213]

Australopithecus afarensis had an average brain side of 446 cubic centimeters. Modern Humans have a brain size of 1,300 cc. so no we don't see similar variations in modern humans

For example Jaxon Buell and Noah Wall were born almost without brains. That shows the variations can be from almost zero to at least 1300.

And thanks you It Aint Necessarily So. The information about microcephaly was also useful in this. I think it shows how it could be that some of the "earlier species" could actually be just a birth defect.

Microcephaly - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thank you. I don't think the differences in size or color are meaningful.

In that case, I guess you think the difference between a chimp and a human aren't meaningful either.

Off course, what your willfully uneducated mind thinks, is off no consequence.

Modern humans have similar variations

They don't.

 

[Argentbear]

For example Jaxon Buell and Noah Wall were born almost without brains. That shows the variations can be from almost zero to at least 1300.

And thanks you It Aint Necessarily So. The information about microcephaly was also useful in this. I think it shows how it could be that some of the "earlier species" could actually be just a birth defect.

Microcephaly - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

so the 400+ distinct fossils of Australopithecus afarensis all just happen to be individuals with severe birth defects who also managed to somehow survive to adulthood. I think this is called 'grasping at straws'

 

[1213]

In that case, I guess you think the difference between a chimp and a human aren't meaningful either.

I think the difference between a chimp and a human is so large that they are not relatives.

View attachment 99964

Interesting, where did they got the soles of the feet of Lucy. By what I know, they don't exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think the difference between a chimp and a human is so large that they are not relatives.

The differences between a chimp and an australopethicus aren't larger then between an australopethicus and a homo sapiens.

But just for fun: list the differences between chimps and homo sapiens that you think are so significant.

Interesting, where did they got the soles of the feet of Lucy. By what I know, they don't exist.

We have over 400 fossils of this species.