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

[Dan From Smithville]

I hope so but I do not know what methods they used and it would be helpful (for me, maybe not for you) to know the methodology used and understand it. Despite my interest, I'm not going to go for university education about this now, just asking questions here can be helpful.

I would suggest you search for the available literature and read the methods and materials sections to find how they performed their study.

Again, a general Google search combined with Google Scholar can get you some, perhaps all of the relevant papers. If authors are attached to a university, they often have web pages associated with the university listing their publications and even providing free pdf copies. If you are seriously interested that is what it will take.

I could tell you how insect taxonomists determine and delineate species and make higher taxonomic assignments. While the concepts are much the same, the techniques for doing this with existing humans and human fossils will differ, so that would not answer specific questions about the methods used for determining the species of these fossils. I believe that @Subduction Zone provided more detailed information above on how it was done.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I hope so but I do not know what methods they used and it would be helpful (for me, maybe not for you) to know the methodology used and understand it. Despite my interest, I'm not going to go for university education about this now, just asking questions here can be helpful.

And I apologize, that last line in my post you are responding to was highly condescending. I didn't intend it to be, but it is. If you overlook that, there really is some basis of methodology to consider.

 

[YoursTrue]

And I apologize, that last line in my post you are responding to was highly condescending. I didn't intend it to be, but it is. If you overlook that, there really is some basis of methodology to consider.

That's OK, I am pretty sure I'm guilty of same. However , once again, I am really wondering about dating and considering species. Also a point was made by a poster about plants and animals evolving from two separate origins. Question there...how would one know?

 

[YoursTrue]

I would suggest you search for the available literature and read the methods and materials sections to find how they performed their study.

Again, a general Google search combined with Google Scholar can get you some, perhaps all of the relevant papers. If authors are attached to a university, they often have web pages associated with the university listing their publications and even providing free pdf copies. If you are seriously interested that is what it will take.

I could tell you how insect taxonomists determine and delineate species and make higher taxonomic assignments. While the concepts are much the same, the techniques for doing this with existing humans and human fossils will differ, so that would not answer specific questions about the methods used for determining the species of these fossils. I believe that @Subduction Zone provided more detailed information above on how it was done.

I've already tried to read the book by Hawking and Mlodinow but I'm stymied now about how they figure the 200,000 year background of homo sapiens. Really the 200-300,000+ doesn't matter in this instance so much as how the remnants are determined to be homo sapien. I do have basic questions. Such as the DNA considered to be homo sapien. I hope to continue reading.

 

[YoursTrue]

Remember that science is loyal to the evidence, not the theory. When new evidence comes up, you can EXPECT scientists to adjust their theories.

To me it's obvious that the evidence is placed within the theory. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

To me it's obvious that the evidence is placed within the theory. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

Yes, you are wrong. The theory always follows wherever the evidence leads. Any line of reasoning that decides what is true first, and then just looks for evidence to support it, is NOT science and NOT reliable. Indeed it is precisely due to that that creationism is not a real science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, you are wrong. The theory always follows wherever the evidence leads. Any line of reasoning that decides what is true first, and then just looks for evidence to support it, is NOT science and NOT reliable. Indeed it is precisely due to that that creationism is not a real science.

Right now to me a theory is like a changing outline of a jigsaw puzzle. Pieces are placed within the framework and if the outline needs to be changed the owner of the puzzle can change it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Right now to me a theory is like a changing outline of a jigsaw puzzle. Pieces are placed within the framework and if the outline needs to be changed the owner of the puzzle can change it.

A scientific theory is an overarching explanation of evidence coming in from multiple sources. Most theories have adjusted over time as new evidence comes to light. That is the ADVANTAGE of scientific method -- it constantly improves and self corrects.

 

[metis]

So then can you kindly explain how homo sapiens (as we are known to be part of) are ascertained to have begun 200,000 years ago?

Sometimes forms are put into different "species" categories if the differences are substantial. We cannot test the dna of many fossils if there's no dna found.

Thus, whether Australopithecines and modern humans are actually of the same or different species if we could test the dna is moot. The fact of the matter is that life forms clearly evolve over time, so just because we don't know all the answers doesn't logically mean we didn't and don't evolve.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sometimes forms are put into different "species" categories if the differences are substantial. We cannot test the dna of many fossils if there's no dna found.

Thus, whether Australopithecines and modern humans are actually of the same or different species if we could test the dna is moot. The fact of the matter is that life forms clearly evolve over time, so just because we don't know all the answers doesn't logically mean we didn't and don't evolve.

Thanks. I am wondering also about how the timeline is developed, I mean like 200,000-300,000+ years figuring if these specimens or artifacts belong to the same species.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sometimes forms are put into different "species" categories if the differences are substantial. We cannot test the dna of many fossils if there's no dna found.

Thus, whether Australopithecines and modern humans are actually of the same or different species if we could test the dna is moot. The fact of the matter is that life forms clearly evolve over time, so just because we don't know all the answers doesn't logically mean we didn't and don't evolve.

I actually don't understand your first statement there about forms put into different species categories. Although foreheads and chins may be markedly different, how is it they are categorized as homo sapiens? Especially if there is no DNA present. or able to be tested. Thanks for your answer, but in a way, my query has been answered, so I thank all of you for offering your opinions and yes, I have done some research insofar as questioning what is determined by scientists.

 

[YoursTrue]

A scientific theory is an overarching explanation of evidence coming in from multiple sources. Most theories have adjusted over time as new evidence comes to light. That is the ADVANTAGE of scientific method -- it constantly improves and self corrects.

I hope you will look at the reference to species determination among scientists. It's interesting and really shows the definitions are kind of blurry amongst many. What is a species? The tricky business of defining new animals and plants. Now, however, my query concerns how scientists determine the 200,000, now 300,000+ years of what has been said to be homo sapiens.

 

[metis]

Thanks. I am wondering also about how the timeline is developed, I mean like 200,000-300,000+ years figuring if these specimens or artifacts belong to the same species.

The timeline is determined by the dating of the strata the fossils are found in, but if there's any dna present that can help determine genetic relationship. Thus, it can be hit & miss sometimes and the researchers can only go by what's available. I wish we had all the answers, but we don't.

 

[metis]

I actually don't understand your first statement there about forms put into different species categories. Although foreheads and chins may be markedly different, how is it they are categorized as homo sapiens?

Even within a single species, we just don't all look alike.

Thanks for your answer, but in a way, my query has been answered, so I thank all of you for offering your opinions and yes, I have done some research insofar as questioning what is determined by scientists.

"Opinions" need to be based on evidence, thus it's the latter that's crucial. If we have the bones of a modern human and compare it to the bones of a modern ape, even though there are some similarities there's also some differences. Now compare a modern human with a modern dog, and obviously the differences are far greater.

Have a Merry Christmas.

 

[YoursTrue]

Even within a single species, we just don't all look alike.


"Opinions" need to be based on evidence, thus it's the latter that's crucial. If we have the bones of a modern human and compare it to the bones of a modern ape, even though there are some similarities there's also some differences. Now compare a modern human with a modern dog, and obviously the differences are far greater.

Have a Merry Christmas.

Thank you. Perhaps you think homo sapiens evolved to the point of figuring about Christmas. Gorillas, to the best knowledge available to anyone, have not figured on Christmas. You probably know that though. We can discuss Christmas another time if you like, and, as ascertained here, chaqu'un a son gout. Or, each one to his own taste.
I do notice, however, that thousands upon thousands are being killed in war, earthquakes, building collapses and murders. I doubt their families will be having a real Merry Christmas. Last time I went to an office party lots of people got drunk having a "Merry Christmas" and some puke on the way home. Yes, I have questions but -- since the celebration of Christmas is probably said by some to have evolved however, perhaps another time to discuss such. In the meantime, you have a good day.

 

[YoursTrue]

I would suggest you search for the available literature and read the methods and materials sections to find how they performed their study.

Again, a general Google search combined with Google Scholar can get you some, perhaps all of the relevant papers. If authors are attached to a university, they often have web pages associated with the university listing their publications and even providing free pdf copies. If you are seriously interested that is what it will take.

I could tell you how insect taxonomists determine and delineate species and make higher taxonomic assignments. While the concepts are much the same, the techniques for doing this with existing humans and human fossils will differ, so that would not answer specific questions about the methods used for determining the species of these fossils. I believe that @Subduction Zone provided more detailed information above on how it was done.

Actually I'm asking here of those who claim the statistics are right. I can check the details later. As I see now, since many here trust the compendium of scientific claims then it's a matter of trusting the information put forth. And that simply by trusting what is said by scientists. But here yes, there are few (obviously including myself) that really know what is the background of the scientific published data, meaning the examination of the fossils and how they are categorized, species and time-wise. This is not to put anyone down, but just to mention. And so now, even though I bid you a good evening, I shall change a signoff to "I HOPE you have a good evening." And that is true insofar as my heart, mind, and soul is concerned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually I'm asking here of those who claim the statistics are right. I can check the details later. As I see now, since many here trust the compendium of scientific claims then it's a matter of trusting the information put forth. And that simply by trusting what is said by scientists. But here yes, there are few (obviously including myself) that really know what is the background of the scientific published data, meaning the examination of the fossils and how they are categorized, species and time-wise. This is not to put anyone down, but just to mention. And so now, even though I bid you a good evening, I shall change a signoff to "I HOPE you have a good evening." And that is true insofar as my heart, mind, and soul is concerned.

You do not have to trust once you learn the basics. It may take a while but with effort many can wade through a peer reviewed article.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've already tried to read the book by Hawking and Mlodinow but I'm stymied now about how they figure the 200,000 year background of homo sapiens. Really the 200-300,000+ doesn't matter in this instance so much as how the remnants are determined to be homo sapien. I do have basic questions. Such as the DNA considered to be homo sapien. I hope to continue reading.

Why are you stymied? The evidence is available for you to see how they did it.

As is often the case, I have no idea what DNA you are talking about. You have to put more on the table than you do to know what you are talking about.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why are you stymied? The evidence is available for you to see how they did it.

As is often the case, I have no idea what DNA you are talking about. You have to put more on the table than you do to know what you are talking about.

The report about no DNA for the 300,000+ fragments said to place homo sapiens in Morocco, not Sub-Saharan Africa. Before the 200,000 earlier placement by scientists. When I come across it again I'll let you know.

 

[Astrophile]

I've already tried to read the book by Hawking and Mlodinow but I'm stymied now about how they figure the 200,000 year background of homo sapiens. Really the 200-300,000+ doesn't matter in this instance so much as how the remnants are determined to be homo sapien. I do have basic questions. Such as the DNA considered to be Homo sapiens. I hope to continue reading.

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow wrote two books together, The Grand Design (2010), which I have read, and A Briefer History of Time (2005), which I have not. Which of these two are you reading?

Also, why are you reading a book by a cosmologist (Hawking) and a theoretical physicist and mathematician (Mlodinow) to find information about human evolution? There must be books by biologists and palaeontologists that can give you more information on this subject.