Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[TagliatelliMonster]

Except I generally did not claim things were the same kind. There are some kinds we do know about such as man kind.

You just acknowledge that you have no way of determining what the "kind" of a creature is.

So I could say that humans and fish are the same kind while chimps and gorilla's are of the primate kind.
And you, by your very own acknowledgement and admission, by your very own words, would have NOTHING of any value to tell me that I am wrong or correct.

So what are you doing talking about "man kind"? How do you know? You don't know... you just said that you can't know.

So, what's that about?

Science cannot tell us if man was the same in the beginning

Except that it can and it concluded that man didn't.
If you represent the history of life on a 24 hour clock, then man appears in the last seconds.

 

[dad]

God claimed nothing on this forum. You did.

Once again, we're talking about the lack of logic present in your argument. Not God's argument. Not science's argument.
Your argument.

Ha...sure l made up creation and that animals and man were created.....gong

 

[dad]

You just acknowledge that you have no way of determining what the "kind" of a creature is.

So I could say that humans and fish are the same kind while chimps and gorilla's are of the primate kind.
And you, by your very own acknowledgement and admission, by your very own words, would have NOTHING of any value to tell me that I am wrong or correct.

So what are you doing talking about "man kind"? How do you know? You don't know... you just said that you can't know.

So, what's that about?




Except that it can and it concluded that man didn't.
If you represent the history of life on a 24 hour clock, then man appears in the last seconds.

We do know man was unique and special..so no you cannot make stuff up. Science thinks man is recent because it does not know how to interpret evidence. I have my own religion tks

 

[nPeace]

No, it's entirely relevant. Evolutionary theory is the only plausible explanation for what we see in the fossil record, and is therefore the best available conclusion we have that accounts for an explains the relevant facts. It is specific, testable, and supported by overwhelming evidence. If you do not have an alternative explanation that better explains the facts and is supported by them, you have no reason to believe anything other than that common ancestry is true.

No, it is not relevant, and creating another strawman doesn't make it so.
The point I made, was that the fossil record is interpreted.
You chimed in with the need to provide a better explanation. How is that relevant?
Whether someone provides a million alternative interpretations, is besides the point.
When there are different interpretations in the scientific community, often what is decided on as the best, is accepted. Doesn't mean it is right. It's accepted, and research continues.
The point is, the interpretations are just that - interpretations.

When people claim the Bible is not reliable, or valid, they use the argument about the different interpretations, even claiming some things wrong, based on interpretations. No one argues for an alternative.
That just goes back and forth about interpretations being right or wrong.
I'm not here for that.

You've yet to demonstrate any fault. You literally had to assert that species just "appeared" in the fossil record in order to avoid the obvious conclusion that they were the result of reproduction.

If your only way to dismiss an explanation is "magic", then you have no meaningful objection to the explanation.

I don't have to demonstrate any fault. They are already written down. I linked some. You ignored them.
You evidently, are the only one I hear singing the magic chorus. No one else said anything about magic.
You obviously seem to think the word creation means magic. I have an idea why that's the case, but it's probably best to say, I don't know why.
Creating things don't require magic, though.

You're talking jibberish. Do you or do you not understand that Darwin is not the last word on modern evolutionary theory?

Is this an effort to provoke.
I'm not going to tell you you are talking utter nonsense and thinking you are so intelligent. What I will say is keep up that attitude, and you can go talk to Deeje, and leave me out.
If you can't present an argument without ............ then I'm sorry. Count me out.

Another thing, you obviously don't seem to understand the point, I am making, and this is not the first time we have had this problem. So maybe try understanding what the other person is saying, rather than just trying to push your argument.
That doesn't result in good conversation.

Okay then. Do you have any examples of a complex organ which could not possibly has formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications?

Can you describe how the cell formed, please?

So you DO believe that they just magically appeared out of nowhere, like I said.

I think you are putting words in my mouth, which I did not say. I don't think I did that to you.
No. I DO NOT believe that anything just magically appeared out of nowhere.

 

[nPeace]

You emphasized the word "complex". Maybe I took that wrong out of the context you were using?

You yourself said it.

 

[nPeace]

Huh? That seems very relevant to the biology, don't you think?



Suppose we find a species we haven't seen before. How do we determine whether or not it is of the same kind as another species we already knew about?

I asked you to define species before. You didn't respond. Are there not problems associated with the word species, even in the scientific community?
I understand names are given to organisms. As far as I know we never had a problem with that, even from Genesis.
Don't we have names for all the frogs? What's so special about the word species?
I'm having a hard time figuring it out.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Great, so show us how the nature and forces that existed in the past on earth are measured. Should be easy if your claim is true.

Easy breezy. If evolution is true, we would find certain bits of evidence. If its there, it confirms it. If its not, then it's not. The fact that life progresses systematically through progressively older rock levels confirms evolution. The fact that we see adaptation through natural selection confirms evolution. The fact that we have observed speciation in our lifetime confirms evolution.

N, it makes godless guesses based on godless beliefs, which are imposed on any facts that happen along.

Actually science makes no claims about God at all. A scientist is free to be an atheist, agnostic, theist, polytheist, pantheist, whatever. 51% of scientists believe in God or some sort of higher power. Scientists and Belief

If the majority of the plate movement was in that former nature, then looking at some slow residual movements today in this nature is deceptive and totally inadequate to tell us about the past.

A distinction without significance. No difference in subduction/crust formation has happened since mankind's moral sentience evolved. Plate tectonics has gone on as usual and continues to go on as it has for billions of years.

Big deal! Evolving is a gift and trait from God given to life on earth, that was especially fast in the former nature, but which started with real men and animals that were created.

Evolution is punctuated, meaning that sometimes it goes considerably faster than other times, but it would be untrue to say that it was consistently faster before mankind evolved moral sentience. Nor did it start with men and animals that were created in tact. It started with reproducing complex molecules -- single cell organisms, aka pond scum. That's what the fossil evidence shows.

 

[nPeace]

Not at all the point that was made.
The point that was actually made, was that testimony by itself is among the weakest of evidence.

I recall being given two options, and being asked which was the best. I think my response was that it would depend on the circumstances, because both may require more evidence.
Maybe I didn't get the point, like you did.

 

[dad]

Easy breezy. If evolution is true, we would find certain bits of evidence. If its there, it confirms it. If its not, then it's not. The fact that life progresses systematically through progressively older rock levels confirms evolution.

Not at all. The record of death of creatures that could fossilize shows smaller creatures dying first and later bigger ones basically. The record would lose almost all meaning if MOST creatures alive on earth as well as man COULD not leave fossilized remains. All you would have in the fossil record then, would be those creatures who, for whatever reasons in that former nature COULD leave remains! Then, after the current nature started to exist (probably somewhere this side of the KT layer) we have a record of more and more animals and creatures that were now able also to leave remains! To view the record as one where everything descended from smaller creatures is truly absurd and religious twaddle.

The fact that we see adaptation through natural selection confirms evolution. The fact that we have observed speciation in our lifetime confirms evolution.

It confirms the God given trait of being able to evolve is true! So what!? NOTHING at all to do with the TOE rubbish.

Actually science makes no claims about God at all. A scientist is free to be an atheist, agnostic, theist, polytheist, pantheist, whatever. 51% of scientists believe in God or some sort of higher power. Scientists and Belief

Once they leave God out of their knowledge it matter not what they think or claim! They are deluded. They do not even know what spirit if any leads them. They will have have become fools.

A distinction without significance. No difference in subduction/crust formation has happened since mankind's moral sentience evolved. Plate tectonics has gone on as usual and continues to go on as it has for billions of years.

False since you do not know how long man has actually been here! Man was here for the ride when the continents separated!

Evolution is punctuated, meaning that sometimes it goes considerably faster than other times, but it would be untrue to say that it was consistently faster before mankind evolved moral sentience.

The basis for that claim would be laughable if you dared to post it.

Nor did it start with men and animals that were created in tact.

False, that is exactly how it started, with created animals and man.

It started with reproducing complex molecules -- single cell organisms, aka pond scum. That's what the fossil evidence shows.

In your religion, yes, we know.

 

[nPeace]

That's not an assumption. That's a fact. A demonstrable, testable, verifiable fact.
Assuming you acquire the know how on how to do it, YOU could sequence genomes and map the matches.

And it will result in the same nested hierarchy. It will even result in the same nested hierarchy if you map matches from the context of comparative anatomy instead of comparative genetics.
This tree will even match the geographic distribution of species in context of plate tectonics and geological history.

As has been explained to you many times, multiple independent lines of evidence, even coming from accross multiple independent scientific fields, ALL converge on this exact same answer.

This is not an opinion. It is a testable fact.

We factually share more ERV's, or other genetic markers, with chimps then we do with cats.
Just like you factually share more genetic markers with your close cousin then with your distant cousin.

This is exactly how relationships between individuals are inferred. Like when you do a paternity test.
Or to see if some person is your actual sibling or cousin.



You're going to have to be a bit less vague then that.
I'm pretty sure right out the gates that no sinlge one experiment is going to have as goal "demonstrate evolution". Typically a single experiment will be testing a single aspect of this HUGE theory.

So I suggest you do some reading and then, preferably in your own words, come back and state which exact experiment you speak off, what the purpose of the researches was and what results and conclusions were reached.




A population is a group of interbreeding individuals of a species.
If a population splits in two genetically isolated groups, we now have 2 groups of interbreeding individuals of a single species. This could happen if for example some natural disaster strikes, like a volcano or something or the creation of a river, splitting a population in two. Or part of a population migrates to other area's.

Due to this genetic isolation, genes aren't exchanged between the populations anymore.
Meaning that any mutations happening in population A, will stay in population A. They won't be introduced in population B, because there is no interbreeding going on between members of A with members of B.

If A and B end up dealing with different selection pressures, then A and B will gradually diverge from one another. To the point that members of A and B will no longer be able to interbreed. Now we have 2 new species. Both are sub-species of the ancestral population species.

If the ancestral species was X, then both A and B are "types" of X. Subspecies thereof.

This is why humans and chimps are both primates. We share a primate ancestor.
This is why humans and chimps and cats are all mammals. We share mammal ancestor.
This is why humans and chimps and cats and crockodiles are all vertebrates. We share a vertebrate ancestor.


See?

This is what the nested hierarchy is.
This is the explanatory power of evolution.

This is how we were able to derive from this model that there must have been a vertebrate with both fish and land animal features, living some 350 million years ago in shallow waters, swamps. Researchers pinpointed rock of that age which would have found themselves in such an environment and started digging. And lo an behold, they found exactly what they were looking for. Tiktaalik. A land walking fish. Or a fish that can walk on land. Whatever your preference is.

Can you even fathom the body of knowledge and explanatory power that was required to make this prediction?

I understand what you are saying about genome sequencing and mapping. However, there are other factors involved, that alter genes, so what is inferred from the sequencing, is still assumed.

You can of course, sequence the genes within a "species", and find a greater deal of similarities, but to assume that because organisms, or "species" may have a close match, that they must be related, is only based on the presumption that they are.

If we take away that supposition, that assumption varnishes, and we have creatures that - in all cases - have DNA, which are affected through mutations, and other factors, which alter their genes.

Regarding the fruit flies experiment...
Evidence for speciation
Diane Dodd examined the effects of geographic isolation and selection on fruit flies. She took fruit flies from a single population and divided them into separate populations living in different cages to simulate geographic isolation.

 

[Polymath257]

I asked you to define species before. You didn't respond. Are there not problems associated with the word species, even in the scientific community?

That is because there are no hard lines in life and that is because of evolution.

The most common definition of species *for populations* is whether they interbreed or not.

That becomes problematic when we are talking about populations that, for example, live at different times. And the basic difficulty is that populations *do* change over time.

That should not be a problem if the notion of Biblical kinds are valid. There would not be such fuzzy boundaries (which are expected in evolution because of the very natural of evolution).

I understand names are given to organisms. As far as I know we never had a problem with that, even from Genesis.
Don't we have names for all the frogs? What's so special about the word species?
I'm having a hard time figuring it out.

OK, so use kind. How do we determine if two populations of, say, frogs are of the same 'kind'? or are they *all* the same kind? What is the boundary of a kind?

 

[nPeace]

That is because there are no hard lines in life and that is because of evolution.

The most common definition of species *for populations* is whether they interbreed or not.

That becomes problematic when we are talking about populations that, for example, live at different times. And the basic difficulty is that populations *do* change over time.

That should not be a problem if the notion of Biblical kinds are valid. There would not be such fuzzy boundaries (which are expected in evolution because of the very natural of evolution).



OK, so use kind. How do we determine if two populations of, say, frogs are of the same 'kind'? or are they *all* the same kind? What is the boundary of a kind?

They are all a kind - the frog kind.
The boundary of a kind (of frog) is outside the frog kind.

 

[Polymath257]

They are all a kind - the frog kind.
The boundary of a kind (of frog) is outside the frog kind.

How about toads? Are they a separate kind or are they the same as the frog kind?

And are you saying the tremendous variability in frogs is acceptable in a kind, but the relatively minor variation between great apes and humans isn't?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha...sure l made up creation and that animals and man were created.....gong

I love it when dad publicly announces that he made a very foolish post.

dad, you should reread his post since he did not even come close to implying that. But then you are in running away mode again.

 

[nPeace]

How about toads? Are they a separate kind or are they the same as the frog kind?

Where did toads come from? Don't you refer to them as proto... frog?

 

[Polymath257]

Where did toads come from? Don't you refer to them as proto... frog?

No, I do not. Do you? And if so, why?

 

[Jose Fly]

what is inferred from the sequencing, is still assumed.

Good grief....

If something is "inferred from sequencing", then it cannot be merely "assumed". Sheesh.....I swear a satirist couldn't make this stuff up.

You can of course, sequence the genes within a "species", and find a greater deal of similarities, but to assume that because organisms, or "species" may have a close match, that they must be related, is only based on the presumption that they are.

If we take away that supposition, that assumption varnishes, and we have creatures that - in all cases - have DNA, which are affected through mutations, and other factors, which alter their genes.

If I'm ever on trial and the prosecution is citing DNA evidence, I hope I get a jury full of creationists. All my defense lawyer has to do is say to them, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, all the prosecution has shown with their supposed DNA 'matches' is that all creatures have DNA", and the all-creationist jury would agree and I'd walk out a free man!

 

[nPeace]

No, I do not. Do you? And if so, why?

I'm surprised.
No I don't. To me, they are all of the frog kind; The same as we have the little terrier, and the bull terrier.

Your people say this...
The Salientia (Latin salere (salio), "to jump") are a total group of amphibians that includes the order Anura, the frogs and toads, and various extinct proto-frogs that are more closely related to the frogs than they are to the Urodela, the salamanders and newts.

 

[Deeje]

OK, so you find two populations animals (or plants). How do you determine whether or not they are of the same 'kind'?

Genus. “a principal taxonomic category that ranks above species and below family, and is denoted by a capitalized Latin name”.

But I think it is important to understand that those for whom the Bible was written were not scientists and did not use anything except their own eyes to determine what plants or animals belonged to a certain “kind”. Science may not recognise the word as a scientific term, but what does it really matter in the big picture?
We can recognise canines, felines, insects, birds and various other “kinds” of creatures.

Bacteria and viruses are also “kinds” even though the creation account does not mention microscopic life, because it would be thousands of years before such things were even discovered. Yet the quarantine laws in the Bible acknowledged them and how they were transmitted. Right up until recent centuries physicians did not understand the need to even wash their hands between attending to patients.

We know how to determine if they are the same species (see if they interbreed).

That is not necessarily a good way to determine a “kind”. As mentioned the same “kinds” if artificially bred by man are invariably sterile. One generation and they cannot reproduce, nor would they even mate in their natural environments.

What test is there to determine if they are the same kind?

That appears to be a problem for science. We don’t actually care who is related to what.....why would we? Nature takes care of itself, just as it was created to do.

Can humans interbreed with apes?

Note that species are 'true to their taxonomy' in evolution: the whale that swims in the ocean is in the same taxonomy as that land animal with the same inner ear.

Since science sets the benchmark for all of its own assumptions, it really makes no difference to ‘believers’ what science thinks or assumes. Science is not our religion and the acclaimed scientists are not our gods. You can believe them but if you wish....evolutionary science to me is a load of rubbish, based on nothing but assumptions. There seems to be some desperation in their need to eliminate an Intelligent Designer. Why does it matter to you what we believe?

We choose to acknowledge what our own eyes and logic tell us.....and one of the monumental flaws in science (to us) is to deny the intelligence behind the designs so obvious in nature. Design to us denotes purpose, which requires an intelligent and purposeful designer and a reason for clever functionality. The complex components in nature are nothing short of genius, but science says that, because they can’t formulate a test to demonstrate the existence of a Creator, that he can’t be real. That is not our problem....do you understand this?

There are two kinds of people in the world.....believers and unbelievers. We choose what appeals to our own hearts. We are either spiritual...or we are not. We will never convince each other.

 

[nPeace]

@Polymath257 I just searched this out.
A frog is any member of a diverse and largely carnivorous group of short-bodied, tailless amphibians composing the order Anura (literally without tail in Ancient Greek). The oldest fossil "proto-frog" appeared in the early Triassic of Madagascar, but molecular clock dating suggests their origins may extend further back to the Permian, 265 million years ago. Frogs are widely distributed, ranging from the tropics to subarctic regions, but the greatest concentration of species diversity is in tropical rainforests. There are over 6,300 recorded species, accounting for around 88% of extant amphibian species. They are also one of the five most diverse vertebrate orders. Warty frog species tend to be called toads, but the distinction between frogs and toads is informal, not from taxonomy or evolutionary history.

What your people say.