Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[IndigoChild5559]

@YoursTrue

This is what I found googling:
"sapiens have distinctive "modern" physical characteristics: a large rounded braincase, lack of a brow-ridge, a chin (even in infancy) and a narrow pelvis compared to other species in the Homo genus. But early H. sapiens may not have had all the same features that modern H. sapiens do, Stringer said."

You should read the entire site, since this is an interest of yours. What are Homo sapiens?.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are recorded eye witness accounts.

No, there is not one in the Bible. You will not find one.

 

[McBell]

No, there is not one in the Bible. You will not find one.

If memory serves, I recall them claiming that God is the eyewitness of creation.
Thus proving ....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This question is primarily directed to @Ben Dhyan. Right at the beginning of the book The Grand Design, the authors speak of "our species," (homo sapiens) originating in sub-Saharan Africa around 200,000 BC. Now my question is about how or why the word species is used, but basically how. In other words, what do scientists consider a species to be. Not about where it is said homo sapiens are said to originate.

I see IndigoChild took up the question, which is just as well as I am not an expert on the relevant science. Besides which, though I do not want to debate it, my understanding is that life and consciousness are ubiquitous throughout the Universe being that the Universe/God is pure awareness.

 

[YoursTrue]

Its an approximation based on skeletal remains.

However, you should be aware that scientific opinion has shifted due to new evidence coming to light, from the field of genetics. It was originally assumed that homo sapiens was a species distinct from i.e. the Neanderthals. We now know that not to be the case. We know for a fact now that homo sapiens interbred successfully with a couple of other hominids--Neanderthals and Denisovans. So now we see these three groups as different branches of the same species, similar to how we view wolves and dogs. Indeed, you will find scientists who have slightly altered the name of homo sapiens to homo sapiens sapiens for modern man (you and I) and homo sapiens neanderthalensis for what was previously called homo neanderthalensis.

It is still true that homo sapiens sapiens is estimated to have come into existence about 200,000 to 300,000 years ago.

I would like to go back to this (your post) in time, if perhaps we can keep the conversation peaceable as possible. Right now I'm centering on how species is defined. Particularly in reference to the 200,000, now possibly 300,000 year denoted as the homo sapiens species. Scientific American says thusly: "Depending on the scientist you ask, you may get a different answer. Some may even offer you a few different answers all at once." Regarding the definition of species. What Is a Species?
And it brings up some interesting points about wolves.

@YoursTrue

This is what I found googling:
"sapiens have distinctive "modern" physical characteristics: a large rounded braincase, lack of a brow-ridge, a chin (even in infancy) and a narrow pelvis compared to other species in the Homo genus. But early H. sapiens may not have had all the same features that modern H. sapiens do, Stringer said."

You should read the entire site, since this is an interest of yours. What are Homo sapiens?.

I read it. Thank you.

I see IndigoChild took up the question, which is just as well as I am not an expert on the relevant science. Besides which, though I do not want to debate it, my understanding is that life and consciousness are ubiquitous throughout the Universe being that the Universe/God is pure awareness.

Ok. I can see it's a dead end at this point. But thanks for trying. Recognizing that Indigochild offered a partial explanation, and scientists argue about the definitions I can see now better that it's fruitless to ask much about this. But thanks anyway and ... Have a good day.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, there is not one in the Bible. You will not find one.

Sure about 40 writers inspired by God who recorded what others said.

 

[John53]

Sure about 40 writers inspired by God who recorded what others said.

Prove it without assumptions and circular reasoning

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sure about 40 writers inspired by God who recorded what others said.

No, that is not the definition of a witness account. That's the definition of hearsay.

Further, these authors collected the legends decades after the events, which would mean that the stories would have altered with time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure about 40 writers inspired by God who recorded what others said.

That is a claim, it is not evidence. And even if they were "inspired" they would still not be eyewitnesses by definition. You just admitted to no having any eyewitnesses.

 

[Astrophile]

How so, do you have data, fossils and genetics to verify the claim? I see the book says 200,000 years ago, not 200,000 to 300,000 years ago. But the more important question is what is the data, fossils and genetic examination to classify current humans belonging to the homo sapien species stemming from 200,000 now possibly 300,000 years ago?

I googled on 'oldest homo sapiens fossils' and found an article in Nature (7 June 2017) by Ewen Callaway, 'Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history' - Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history - Nature . According to this article, 'Remains from Morocco dated to 315,00 years ago push back our species' origins by 100,000 years - and suggest we didn't only evolve in East Africa.' 'At an archaeological site near the Atlantic coast, finds of skull, face and jaw bones identified as being from early members of our species have been dated to about 315,000 years ago.' The archaeological site is called Jebel Irhoud. No DNA has been obtained from these bones, but you will probably be able to find out more about this research by googling on Jebel Irhoud and Homo sapiens.

 

[YoursTrue]

I googled on 'oldest homo sapiens fossils' and found an article in Nature (7 June 2017) by Ewen Callaway, 'Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history' - Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history - Nature . According to this article, 'Remains from Morocco dated to 315,00 years ago push back our species' origins by 100,000 years - and suggest we didn't only evolve in East Africa.' 'At an archaeological site near the Atlantic coast, finds of skull, face and jaw bones identified as being from early members of our species have been dated to about 315,000 years ago.' The archaeological site is called Jebel Irhoud. No DNA has been obtained from these bones, but you will probably be able to find out more about this research by googling on Jebel Irhoud and Homo sapiens.

OK. How do skull, face and jaw bones identify as being from early members of so-called "our species"? If you can explain, ok. Remember I am speaking of "early members," and why are these early members so-called considered as part of the human history historically? I see no DNA has been obtained, since I am not that familiar with these things yet I wonder why they couldn't obtain DNA. But more than that I wonder how they figure from these fragments these are "early members" of what is termed as homo sapiens. I could read the article if I have time, but wonder if you would know offhand like that, thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

I googled on 'oldest homo sapiens fossils' and found an article in Nature (7 June 2017) by Ewen Callaway, 'Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history' - Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history - Nature . According to this article, 'Remains from Morocco dated to 315,00 years ago push back our species' origins by 100,000 years - and suggest we didn't only evolve in East Africa.' 'At an archaeological site near the Atlantic coast, finds of skull, face and jaw bones identified as being from early members of our species have been dated to about 315,000 years ago.' The archaeological site is called Jebel Irhoud. No DNA has been obtained from these bones, but you will probably be able to find out more about this research by googling on Jebel Irhoud and Homo sapiens.

So now if Dr. Hawking were alive, he'd have to change the point in his book about the age of homo sapiens. He said 200,000 years, now it's up to maybe 315,000 years. That is, if he accepted the assertion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK. How do skull, face and jaw bones identify as being from early members of so-called "our species"?

The features that they are referring to exist only among homo sapiens. Not earlier versions, nor other hominids.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. How do skull, face and jaw bones identify as being from early members of so-called "our species"? If you can explain, ok. Remember I am speaking of "early members," and why are these early members so-called considered as part of the human history historically? I see no DNA has been obtained, since I am not that familiar with these things yet I wonder why they couldn't obtain DNA. But more than that I wonder how they figure from these fragments these are "early members" of what is termed as homo sapiens. I could read the article if I have time, but wonder if you would know offhand like that, thank you.

Why do you think that DNA is needed for this?

Right now it looks as if you are looking for excuses not to believe. That is not a proper way to approach a topic that you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So now if Dr. Hawking were alive, he'd have to change the point in his book about the age of homo sapiens. He said 200,000 years, now it's up to maybe 315,000 years. That is, if he accepted the assertion.

Hawking? He was a physicist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So now if Dr. Hawking were alive, he'd have to change the point in his book about the age of homo sapiens. He said 200,000 years, now it's up to maybe 315,000 years. That is, if he accepted the assertion.

He based it on the evidence known at the time. He accepted that evidence.

Of course he would change it if it is valid evidence. He was a rational, intelligent person and a skilled and knowledgeable scientist.

You seem to be trying to build a case that if the details about a specific species is wrong, then the theory collapses. That is not the case.

What is it that you are attempting to do here?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hawking? He was a physicist.

This seems to be a fixation with the intent to demonstrate Hawking wrong perhaps. I have no idea.

I would expect Hawking to use the best evidence and most recent understanding of human evolution available at the time. If he were around to make a new edition or write a new book that included that information for whatever reason. I would expect the same.

I'm not really sure what the point of beating this horse is, but from past experience, we will no doubt see it continue for a while.

 

[YoursTrue]

He based it on the evidence known at the time. He accepted that evidence.

Of course he would change it if it is valid evidence. He was a rational, intelligent person and a skilled and knowledgeable scientist.

You seem to be trying to build a case that if the details about a specific species is wrong, then the theory collapses. That is not the case.

What is it that you are attempting to do here?

I realize that Drs. Hawking and Mlodinow went by the estimates at the time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK. How do skull, face and jaw bones identify as being from early members of so-called "our species"? If you can explain, ok. Remember I am speaking of "early members," and why are these early members so-called considered as part of the human history historically? I see no DNA has been obtained, since I am not that familiar with these things yet I wonder why they couldn't obtain DNA. But more than that I wonder how they figure from these fragments these are "early members" of what is termed as homo sapiens. I could read the article if I have time, but wonder if you would know offhand like that, thank you.

Is there a difference between a human skull and a cows skull for instance? Is there a difference between the skulls of two randomly selected people? Is there a difference between a human skull and that of a chimpanzee?

What features do these skulls share? Do a human and chimpanzee skull share more, as many or less features in common than either in the same comparison with a cows skull.

Shared morphology, though not definitive, would indicate a closer relationship.

Do you think there are features on human skulls that can be used to identify human skulls without being told they are human skulls? Would you expect older examples of a species skeletal remains would have defining features that persist in more recent examples of the same species?

I'm not sure why you can't look some of this up on your own and then come and ask questions. Are you expecting to be spoon fed a degree in an advanced specialty on an internet forum?

 

[YoursTrue]

This seems to be a fixation with the intent to demonstrate Hawking wrong perhaps. I have no idea.

I would expect Hawking to use the best evidence and most recent understanding of human evolution available at the time. If he were around to make a new edition or write a new book that included that information for whatever reason. I would expect the same.

I'm not really sure what the point of beating this horse is, but from past experience, we will no doubt see it continue for a while.

Now that I'm reading the book, I am seeing some facts have changed and I do question what I read. I'm glad I asked since now I see it's possibly up to 300,000+ years. And yes I question how the determination is scientifically made. I question it here if any of you might know. I also understand many take the experts' view on these things.