The assumption of evolution can cause problems

[Nepenthe]

There has appeared a steady stream of 'missing links' to humans that come and go with surprising regularity. "Ida" was presented by The Guardian newspaper as: "Fossil Ida; Extraordinary find is 'Missing Link' in Human Evolution." Just days later,
UK science journal New Scientist said: "Ida is not a 'missing link' in human evolution.
There is considerable controversy surrounding 'Hobbit'. The point being, don't swallow the kool-aid. Examine the facts for yourself, and don't believe everything you hear, no matter what scientists may claim.

Well if the Guardian said it...! I mean the Guardian is a well known scholarly source of scientific information. :sarcastic

And New Scientist may be a "science journal" but only in that they write op-ed pieces about science. They are as scholarly and peer reviewed as someone's blog.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I see creationist are at it again......

 

[Me Myself]

There has appeared a steady stream of 'missing links' to humans that come and go with surprising regularity. "Ida" was presented by The Guardian newspaper as: "Fossil Ida; Extraordinary find is 'Missing Link' in Human Evolution." Just days later,
UK science journal New Scientist said: "Ida is not a 'missing link' in human evolution.
There is considerable controversy surrounding 'Hobbit'. The point being, don't swallow the kool-aid. Examine the facts for yourself, and don't believe everything you hear, no matter what scientists may claim.

You´ve been quoting the bible as if it were a reliable source of information. I wonder how much you know about every book of the bible and the changes that the bible has been through in history.

Besides, if one thing there is definite certanty is that the Earth is NOT young. No serious scientist will say it has less than some billions (around 4-5) years old.

Now there is still work being done regarding the specifics of evolution, that doesn´t mean evolution is false, and plenty of information already tells us how is it true.

Inteligent design by the other hand.... has nothing supporting it.

Nothing.

 

[shawn001]

There has appeared a steady stream of 'missing links' to humans that come and go with surprising regularity. "Ida" was presented by The Guardian newspaper as: "Fossil Ida; Extraordinary find is 'Missing Link' in Human Evolution." Just days later,
UK science journal New Scientist said: "Ida is not a 'missing link' in human evolution.
There is considerable controversy surrounding 'Hobbit'. The point being, don't swallow the kool-aid. Examine the facts for yourself, and don't believe everything you hear, no matter what scientists may claim.

Ida, was a small primate and I don't think you understand Ida. Ida is 47-million-year-old.

"
Dr Seiffert and his colleagues say that both Afradapis and Darwinius were in a sister group to the so-called "higher primates", which includes humans.

This [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]extinct[/COLOR][/COLOR] sister group, they say, was more closely related to lemurs and lorises.

"The suggestion that Ida was specifically related to the higher primates, namely monkeys apes and humans, was actually a minority view from the start. So, it came as a surprise to many of us who are studying primate palaeontology," said Dr Seiffert.

"Ida, which is a member of this genus called Darwinius, is in a fossil group called the Adapiforms which have traditionally been seen as more closely related to the lemurs and lorises - which live today in Madagascar, Africa and Asia - than to monkeys, apes and humans," he added."

"Ida" not missing link in human evolution, claims scientist

This in no way invalidates human evolutionas we have many fossil links, in fact it supports evolution. Ida was a part of the primate missing links.

"There is considerable controversy surrounding 'Hobbit'"

Yes and what would that be? The hobbit man is still a human ancestor.


"The point being, don't swallow the kool-aid. Examine the facts for yourself, and don't believe everything you hear, no matter what scientists may claim."

The facts are evolution is a scientific fact.

There have also been five mass exitintion events and life evolved back. The one before the dinosaurs killed off 95% of all life on earth.

Then came the dinosaurs and they got it by a meteor.

Then came us much much later.

Its a bigger picture and you are just NOT seeing and talking about the small picture.


So tell me after the permian extinction, when 95% of all life on earth died off, how did we get all the new lifew forms we have today? where did they come from?

Your also not going to tell me man walked with the dinosaurs I hope.

 

[JustWondering2]

Of coarse he will shawn! The Flintstones was a documentary Right?

 

[shawn001]

Of coarse he will shawn! The Flintstones was a documentary Right?

To some you would think.

 

[camanintx]

I have often referred interested persons to the documentary Expelled for examples of such conduct, which documentary, not surprisingly, is attacked by ToE adherents.

And we have repeatedly explained where Expelled fails. These people were not criticized for their beliefs but for how they acted on them. Should teachers be allowed to substitute their personal opinions for scientific theories?

 

[camanintx]

There has appeared a steady stream of 'missing links' to humans that come and go with surprising regularity. "Ida" was presented by The Guardian newspaper as: "Fossil Ida; Extraordinary find is 'Missing Link' in Human Evolution." Just days later,
UK science journal New Scientist said: "Ida is not a 'missing link' in human evolution.
There is considerable controversy surrounding 'Hobbit'. The point being, don't swallow the kool-aid. Examine the facts for yourself, and don't believe everything you hear, no matter what scientists may claim.

You need to learn the difference between a newspaper story, an editorial and the actual scientific papers upon which they are based. Nowhere did the archeologists who discovered Ida claim it was a "missing link".

 

[johnhanks]

There has appeared a steady stream of 'missing links' to humans that come and go with surprising regularity...

Evolutionary scientists don't tend to use the term 'missing link', knowing as they do that evolution works by a process of branching rather than progression along a linear chain. However, one 'link' that has come but not gone is Homo erectus. Whether or not any of the H. erectus populations known to us were ancestral to Homo sapiens is unlikely to be established with certainty, but this hardly matters: they provide massive evidence for the spread and diversification of evolving hominin populations between 1 and 2 million years b.p.

Creationists faced with fossil hominins are wont to flap their arms and splutter "it's just an ape", or "it's just a deformed human"; H. erectus had a posture and a cranial capacity no ape has ever matched, but a brain size nowhere near the human range (though later specimens come close).

So, rusra, in your own words, "examine the facts for yourself". Homo erectus is direct evidence that prior to modern humans there existed organisms which were not apes, but not quite human either. How does the bible account for them?

 

[Man of Faith]

Evolutionary scientists don't tend to use the term 'missing link', knowing as they do that evolution works by a process of branching rather than progression along a linear chain. However, one 'link' that has come but not gone is Homo erectus. Whether or not any of the H. erectus populations known to us were ancestral to Homo sapiens is unlikely to be established with certainty, but this hardly matters: they provide massive evidence for the spread and diversification of evolving hominin populations between 1 and 2 million years b.p.

Creationists faced with fossil hominins are wont to flap their arms and splutter "it's just an ape", or "it's just a deformed human"; H. erectus had a posture and a cranial capacity no ape has ever matched, but a brain size nowhere near the human range (though later specimens come close).

So, rusra, in your own words, "examine the facts for yourself". Homo erectus is direct evidence that prior to modern humans there existed organisms which were not apes, but not quite human either. How does the bible account for them?

Diversification in humans is allowed in the creation model. H. erectus specimens could be a separate human lineage from Asia that gave rise to the modern H. sapiens in that area. It took a while before Neanderthal forms were accepted by evolutionists as fully human and it could take a while for the H. erectus also. There are modern humans who display the same H. erectus and Neanderthal features.

The Bible doesn't limit the amount of change and adaptation to environments that humans or animals can experience. Whether it is from early childhood skull plasticity incidences, weather patterns, or dietary habits.

 

[johnhanks]

Diversification in humans is allowed in the creation model. H. erectus specimens could be a separate human lineage from Asia that gave rise to the modern H. sapiens in that area.

Erectus specimens "a separate human lineage"? Only if you stretch your definition of 'human' beyond absurdity. H. erectus brains average about 900 cm3, well below the bottom of the human range.

It took a while before Neanderthal forms were accepted by evolutionists as fully human and it could take a while for the H. erectus also. There are modern humans who display the same H. erectus and Neanderthal features.

As I said earlier, creationists try to deal with hominin fossils by claiming that they are extinct apes or aberrant humans; that's why I focused on H. erectus, which is clearly neither. Muddying the water by throwing in Neanderthals won't help your case: there are no modern humans anything like early and middle-period H. erectus.

Throw in the earlier Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, and evidence for evolutionary divergence of pre-human hominids over the last 2-3 million years becomes cast-iron.

 

[outhouse]

Diversification in humans is allowed in the creation model. H. erectus specimens could be a separate human lineage from Asia that gave rise to the modern H. sapiens in that area. It took a while before Neanderthal forms were accepted by evolutionists as fully human and it could take a while for the H. erectus also. There are modern humans who display the same H. erectus and Neanderthal features.

The Bible doesn't limit the amount of change and adaptation to environments that humans or animals can experience. Whether it is from early childhood skull plasticity incidences, weather patterns, or dietary habits.

I think your twisting reality to meet your personal beliefs due to a lack of education in anthropology. Much of your guessing has little to do with the real facts at hand.

 

[Man of Faith]

Erectus specimens "a separate human lineage"? Only if you stretch your definition of 'human' beyond absurdity. H. erectus brains average about 900 cm3, well below the bottom of the human range.
As I said earlier, creationists try to deal with hominin fossils by claiming that they are extinct apes or aberrant humans; that's why I focused on H. erectus, which is clearly neither. Muddying the water by throwing in Neanderthals won't help your case: there are no modern humans anything like early and middle-period H. erectus.

Throw in the earlier Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, and evidence for evolutionary divergence of pre-human hominids over the last 2-3 million years becomes cast-iron.

"the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes does overlap that of Homo erectus..." Creationist Arguments: Brain Sizes


On the left is a homo erectus and on the right is a modern Malaysian Native.

 

[painted wolf]

Did you read your source? It actually is against your side... for example pointing out how creationists used microcephalics to skew their numbers and how they gave numbers with no evidence to back them up.

Creationist Marvin Lubenow (1992) states that the lower limit of human cranial capacity is 700 cc, a much lower figure than anyone else. His source is Races, Types and Ethnic Groups by Stephen Molnar. Molnar says that "there are many persons with 700 to 800 cubic centimeters", but provides no source for this information, and none of his sources appear to do so either. In fact, one of his sources contradicts Molnar (and Lubenow). Tobias (1970) says that according to Dart, "apparently normal human beings have existed with brain-sizes in the 700's and 800's" (maybe Molnar's claim is a mis-statement of this), and that the smallest cranial capacity ever documented is 790 cc.

This strongly contradicts Molnar's claim that "many" modern humans have a cranial capacity below 800 cc, and Lubenow's derived claim that anything above 700 cc is a "normal" value. Instead, it appears from a variety of sources that values below 900 cc are exceptionally rare, and values below 800 cc virtually nonexistent.



Even if exceptional humans were found as low as 700 cc, it is still implausible for Lubenow to claim (p.162) that ER 1470, at 750-775 cc, is "well within the normal human range". (One might equally validly claim that an adult height of 122 cm (4'0") is well within the normal range on the grounds that some people are only 107 cm (3'6") tall.) Such cases, if they even occur, are obviously exceptionally rare, and the probability of finding a fossil human skull with such a small brain is essentially zero. It is far more probable that 1470 was a fairly typical member of its population. This is what we find: other habilis fossils, very similar to 1470, are even smaller, and well below Lubenow's lower limit of 700 cc.

Again this source is about why your argument is wrong...

As for your "modern Malaysian native" They look just like the rest of us.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

Did you read your source? It actually is against your side... for example pointing out how creationists used microcephalics to skew their numbers and how they gave numbers with no evidence to back them up.


Again this source is about why your argument is wrong...

As for your "modern Malaysian native" They look just like the rest of us.

wa:do

You could tell it was a cheap tactit on MoF's side.

hey lets just line up those protruding eyebrow ridge that will fool them



I wonder if he really think's science is that ignorant.

 

[shawn001]

Diversification in humans is allowed in the creation model. H. erectus specimens could be a separate human lineage from Asia that gave rise to the modern H. sapiens in that area. It took a while before Neanderthal forms were accepted by evolutionists as fully human and it could take a while for the H. erectus also. There are modern humans who display the same H. erectus and Neanderthal features.

The Bible doesn't limit the amount of change and adaptation to environments that humans or animals can experience. Whether it is from early childhood skull plasticity incidences, weather patterns, or dietary habits.

Where does

"The Bible doesn't limit the amount of change and adaptation to environments that humans or animals can experience. Whether it is from early childhood skull plasticity incidences, weather patterns, or dietary habits."

The bible talk about the above?

Your really missing how far along evolution has come and the MUCH bigger picture.

Again how did life come back in such biodiversity from the permian extinction that killed 95% of life on earth before the dinosaurs existed and then hominds?

 

[shawn001]

"the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes does overlap that of Homo erectus..." Creationist Arguments: Brain Sizes


On the left is a homo erectus and on the right is a modern Malaysian Native.

wow

perhaps you should read this site.


Smithsonian Institution human orgins program



Bigger Brains: Complex Brains for a Complex World

As early humans faced new environmental challenges and evolved bigger bodies, they evolved larger and more complex brains.
Large, complex brains can process and store a lot of information. That was a big advantage to early humans in their social interactions and encounters with unfamiliar habitats.
Over the course of human evolution, brain size tripled. The modern human brain is the largest and most complex of any primate.

Brain size increases slowly

From 6–2 million years ago
During this time period, early humans began to walk upright and make simple tools. Brain size increased, but only slightly.

Brain and body size increase

From 2 million–800,000 years ago
During this time period early humans spread around the globe, encountering many new environments on different continents. These challenges, along with an increase in body size, led to an increase in brain size.

Brain size increases rapidly

From 800,000–200,000 years ago
Human brain size evolved most rapidly during a time of dramatic climate change. Larger, more complex brains enabled early humans of this time period to interact with each other and with their surroundings in new and different ways. As the environment became more unpredictable, bigger brains helped our ancestors survive.


Endocasts of Homo erectus (left) and Homo sapiens (right) illustrate rapid increase in brain size. Images courtesy of James Di Loreto and Donald E. Hurlbert, Smithsonian Institution.

Brains | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[rusra02]

You´ve been quoting the bible as if it were a reliable source of information. I wonder how much you know about every book of the bible and the changes that the bible has been through in history.

Thousands of ancient scrolls support the Bible's fidelity and its accurate transmission.

Besides, if one thing there is definite certanty is that the Earth is NOT young. No serious scientist will say it has less than some billions (around 4-5) years old.

Agreed. Who is claiming otherwise? Not the Holy Scriptures.

Now there is still work being done regarding the specifics of evolution, that doesn´t mean evolution is false, and plenty of information already tells us how is it true.

There is plenty of propaganda that claims the ToE is the truth. Real evidence, not so much.

Inteligent design by the other hand.... has nothing supporting it.

Nothing.

And yet there''s all that pesky intelligence and engineering acumen everywhere we look in heaven and earth. After describing many of God's creations, Psalm 104 declares: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions." (verse 24) The evidence for Intelligent design is in the productions of God. A human producing a masterpiece is generally praised for doing so. Jehovah has filled the earth with his materpieces, but is not given the credit.

​

​

 

[Krok]

Jehovah has filled the earth with his materpieces, but is not given the credit.

Do you call those parasites that infest human eyes and turn children blind a masterpiece? If your god, you call "Jehovah", created those worms, he certainly is not good at all (I can't swear here). I would love to call him or her anything but "good" or "creating masterpieces".

 

[rusra02]

Evolutionary scientists don't tend to use the term 'missing link', knowing as they do that evolution works by a process of branching rather than progression along a linear chain. However, one 'link' that has come but not gone is Homo erectus. Whether or not any of the H. erectus populations known to us were ancestral to Homo sapiens is unlikely to be established with certainty, but this hardly matters: they provide massive evidence for the spread and diversification of evolving hominin populations between 1 and 2 million years b.p.

Creationists faced with fossil hominins are wont to flap their arms and splutter "it's just an ape", or "it's just a deformed human"; H. erectus had a posture and a cranial capacity no ape has ever matched, but a brain size nowhere near the human range (though later specimens come close).

So, rusra, in your own words, "examine the facts for yourself". Homo erectus is direct evidence that prior to modern humans there existed organisms which were not apes, but not quite human either. How does the bible account for them?

Cranial capacity, or brain size, is no reliable indicator of intelligence. "Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca's area, which governs speech in people." (Scientific American Mind 8/9 2008 p.72
As mentioned in a previous post, "science" is quick to view any discovery through its evolutionary-colored glasses that are, in fact, blinders. Thus the propensity to assign any new fossil "missing link" status.