What does the fossil record say?

[outhouse]

Genesis puts no age on the earth, it does however on humankind.

and it is a fictional account of mankind and no way near reality in any sense

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well done. Great research. Yes of course many precambrain and cambrian life forms are still with us today showing little in kind variation. I suppose if one is an evolutionist one must concede that there is something within the genome that has stopped these from changing into another kind over time.

Once again...Evolution is not about one thing evolving into something else (i.e. Cats becoming birds). As much as you distaste evolution you really come off as some one who really doesn't know much about it.

There is no evidence, other than theoretical, that one kind evolved into another kind at all. It is assummed, as evolution required this occurence to have taken place.

I agree considering there is no such thing as "kind" nor does evolution say (cats will evolve into birds). Additionally, you need to get an understanding as to what a scientific "theory" is.

So the evidence is that multicelled life suddenly appears in the fossil record. The dating is modeled on the presumptions of ancestry and millions of years of evolution. Many fossils have not survived today.

And your point? I don't see creationist bible thumpers thumbing their noses at these dating methods when trying to determine how old religious text are or determining the age of ruins that coencide with your "good book"....

The need to invent theories of accelerated evolution to explain the unexpected appears to be required to consolidare the evidence (fossils), in with Toe.

No one "needs" to invent anything. The evidence is testable but the creationist camp can't be bothered by trying to scientifically falsify the ToE. You're perfectly happy with taking existing data and reinterpreting some one elses efforts for your own sensationalism.

However as creationists we can see there is no need for a plethora of hypthesis to explain the evidence into a creationists concept. The evidence for creation speaks for itself, as evidence should.

I

You have nothing but a book which NONE of you, throughout your various creationist beliefs, agree upon. Right out the gate you're split into two camps, one believing in a "young" earth and the other believing in an old and everything in the middle is up for debate.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Creationists do not need to debate evolutionary researchers or evos. Those that support out of Africa as opposed to other models do a great job of discrediting each others work without us.

Was Israel the Birthplace of Modern Humans?
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2010) — It has long been believed that modern humans emerged from the continent of Africa 200,000 years ago. Now Tel Aviv University archaeologists have uncovered evidence that Homo sapiens roamed the land now called Israel as early as 400,000 years ago -- the earliest evidence for the existence of modern humans anywhere in the world.

The findings were discovered in the Qesem Cave, a pre-historic site located near Rosh Ha'ayin that was first excavated in 2000. Prof. Avi Gopher and Dr. Ran Barkai of Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology, who run the excavations, and Prof. Israel Hershkowitz of the university's Department of Anatomy and Anthropology and Sackler School of Medicine, together with an international team of scientists, performed a morphological analysis on eight human teeth found in the Qesem Cave.

This analysis, which included CT scans and X-rays, indicates that the size and shape of the teeth are very similar to those of modern humans. The teeth found in the Qesem Cave are very similar to other evidence of modern humans from Israel, dated to around 100,000 years ago, discovered in the Skhul Cave in the Carmel and Qafzeh Cave in the Lower Galilee near Nazareth. The results of the researchers' findings are being published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

Reading the past
Qesem Cave is dated to a period between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, and archaeologists working there believe that the findings indicate significant evolution in the behavior of ancient humans. This period of time was crucial in the history of humankind from cultural and biological perspectives. The teeth that are being studied indicate that these changes are apparently related to evolutionary changes taking place at that time.

Prof. Gopher and Dr. Barkai noted that the findings related to the culture of those who dwelled in the Qesem Cave -- including the systematic production of flint blades; the regular use of fire; evidence of hunting, cutting and sharing of animal meat; mining raw materials to produce flint tools from subsurface sources -- reinforce the hypothesis that this was, in fact, innovative and pioneering behavior that may correspond with the appearance of modern humans.

An unprecedented discovery
According to researchers, the discoveries made in the Qesem Cave may overturn the theory that modern humans originated on the continent of Africa. In recent years, archaeological evidence and human skeletons found in Spain and China also undermined this proposition, but the Qesem Cave findings because of their early age is an unprecedented discovery.

Excavations at Qesem Cave continue and the researchers hope to uncover additional finds that will enable them to confirm the findings published up to now and to enhance our understanding of the evolution of humankind -- especially the emergence of modern man.

Journal Reference:
Israel Hershkovitz, Patricia Smith, Rachel Sarig, Rolf Quam, Laura Rodríguez, Rebeca García, Juan Luis Arsuaga, Ran Barkai, Avi Gopher. Middle pleistocene dental remains from Qesem Cave (Israel). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2010; DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21446



So now homo sapiens are found 400,000ya in Israel. Did Ardi's mates swim over there? Maybe chimp man made a boat and that will save out of Africa theory.

Regardless, this research is in support of biblical accounts of the creation of mankind.

Again....what's the point? Who, but you, believes scientist are rocked by this discovery?

If the findings are true it does nothing to shock the well established foundation of Evolution.The article as well as the findings are a gleaming support FOR Evolution.

Was Israel the birthplace of modern humans?

"the findings indicate significant evolution in the behavior of ancient humans. This period of time was crucial in the history of humankind from cultural and biological perspectives. The teeth that are being studied indicate that these changes are apparently related to evolutionary changes taking place at that time."

Science is awesome....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So put up the refute. I have no doubt that there is a refute. What are are illustrating is that researchers rarely know what they are on about themselves.

Suck this one up!

'Missing Link' Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor as Claimed, Anthropologists Say

ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2010) — A fossil that was celebrated last year as a possible "missing link" between humans and early primates is actually a forebearer of modern-day lemurs and lorises, according to two papers by scientists at The University of Texas at Austin, Duke University and the University of Chicago.
online in the Journal of Human Evolution, four scientists present evidence that the 47-million-year-old Darwinius masillae is not a haplorhine primate like humans, apes and monkeys, as the 2009 research claimed.
They also note that the article on Darwinius published last year in the journal PLoS ONE ignores two decades of published research showing that similar fossils are actually strepsirrhines, the primate group that includes lemurs and lorises.
"Many lines of evidence indicate that Darwinius has nothing at all to do with human evolution," says Chris Kirk, associate professor of anthropology at The University of Texas at Austin. "Every year, scientists describe new fossils that contribute to our understanding of primate evolution. What's amazing about Darwinius is, despite the fact that it's nearly complete, it tells us very little that we didn't already know from fossils of closely related species."
His co-authors are anthropologists Blythe Williams and Richard Kay of Duke and evolutionary biologist Callum Ross of the University of Chicago. Williams, Kay and Kirk also collaborated on a related article about to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that reviews the early fossil record and anatomical features of anthropoids -- the primate group that includes monkeys, apes, and humans.
Last spring's much-publicized article on Darwinius was released in conjunction with a book, a History Channel documentary, and an exhibit in the American Museum of Natural History. At a news conference attended by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the authors unveiled the nearly complete fossil of a nine-month-old female primate that had been found at the site of Messel in Germany.
But other anthropologists were immediately skeptical of the conclusions and began writing the responses that are being published this month.
"Just because it's a complete and well-preserved fossil doesn't mean it's going to overthrow all our ideas," says Williams, the lead author. "There's this enormous body of literature that has built up over the years. The Darwinius research completely ignored that body of literature."
That literature centers on the evolution of primates, which include haplorhines (apes, monkeys, humans, tarsiers) and strepsirrhines (lemurs, lorises). The two groups split from each other nearly 70 million years ago.
The fossil group to which Darwinius belongs -- the adapiforms -- have been known since the early 1800s and includes dozens of primate species represented by thousands of fossils recovered in North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Some adapiforms, like North American Notharctus, are known from nearly complete skeletons like that of Darwinius. Most analyses of primate evolution over the past two decades have concluded that adapiforms are strepsirrhines, and not direct ancestors of modern humans.
The most recent such analysis, published last year in the journal Nature, concluded that Darwinius is an early strepsirrhine and a close relative of the 39-million-year- old primate Mahgarita stevensi from West Texas.
Nevertheless, the scientists who last year formally described Darwinius concluded that it was an early haplorhine, and even suggested that Darwinius and other adapiform fossils "could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved."
For example, they note that Darwinius has a short snout and a deep jaw -- two features that are found in monkeys, apes, and humans.
However, Kirk, Williams and their colleagues point out that short snouts and deep jaws are known to have evolved multiple times among primates, including several times within the lemur/loris lineage. They further argue that Darwinius lacks most of the key anatomical features that could demonstrate a close evolutionary relationship with living haplorhines (apes, monkeys, humans, and tarsiers).
For instance, haplorhines have a middle ear with two chambers and a plate of bone that shields the eyes from the chewing muscles.
"There is no evidence that Darwinius shared these features with living haplorhines," says Kirk. "And if you can't even make that case, you can forget about Darwinius being a close relative of humans or other anthropoids."

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by University of Texas at Austin, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.​

This is the state of Toe in general. I know, I know, I know....the mess is more proof of Toe. Good one!

It sure does benefit our position. This is how science is supposed to work. I thought you knew what the Scientific Method was....

 

[David M]

'Missing Link' Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor as Claimed, Anthropologists Say

Minor changes to the position of a species in the history of the diversity of life do not challenge the reason for the diversity of life.

ToE is not the classification of every single species that ever lived, its the reason why there is a need for such classification and predicts that such classifications will sometimes be difficult.

 

[Autodidact]

Once again, newhope has succeeded in demonstrating that evolution is science, while declaring her contempt for science and the scientific method. In other words, if you hate science, like newhope, you'll despise evolution.

 

[DeistPrimate]

Apparently there were fish during the cambrian, so this appears to be incorrect information, Also it appears that researchers are fairly confused about Aves. Modern birds form a clade, as a creationist would expect. There has recently been a huge revamp of Aves and some surprises. I have posted this research previously. Perhaps you have yet to find a cambrian bird.

Originally Posted by DeistPrimate
During the Cambrian though the representative of our own Phylum Chordata (the phylum of all the vertebrates we are familiar with) was a seasquirt-like animal, so yes there was a Chordate in the Cambrian but no Cambrian fishes, birds, etc..

There were no fish, birds, indeed no Chordates more advanced than a seasquirt, in the Cambrian. Any "research" you've posted to the contrary is just nonsense. According to the fossil record (back to the topic eh) the evolution of the fishes after the Cambrian followed transitions running from cartilaginous jawless forms through armored plated fish with no swim bladders on to more modern forms over a course of some 50 million years.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Genesis puts no age on the earth, it does however on humankind.

Does the fossil record in any way support a literal interpretation of Genesis, as in Young Earth Creationism?

 

[Danmac]

Does the fossil record in any way support a literal interpretation of Genesis, as in Young Earth Creationism?

It doesn't contradict the possibility.

 

[Danmac]

and it is a fictional account of mankind and no way near reality in any sense

Source please. Or are you the authority on the subject?

 

[Autodidact]

It doesn't contradict the possibility.

It does, however, completely contradict the actuality.

 

[LuisDantas]

Source please. Or are you the authority on the subject?

Google for the skeptics annotated Bible.

 

[outhouse]

Source please. Or are you the authority on the subject?

I know enough to be able to read allegorically they way jewish tradition says to read it.

I know the creation story is not accurate, as well as noahs flood. As well as the ages of people reported in genesis. There is very very little in the OT that is non fiction.

There are 4 authors of genesis and a redactor, the fables were not written down right away and the fabes have gone through 300-500 years minimum of oral tradition before two books were compiled into genesis.

The creation story is just that, a piece of fiction for what ancient man didnt know.


what do you kow about genesis and the fossil record??? HHHmm

 

[outhouse]

Google for the skeptics annotated Bible.

to give our bible thumping friends the benifit of the dought


You know my stance on the accuracy of genesis, I do find the annotations there to not be accurate and they lean one sided on interpretation.

Genesis is not historically accurate in any sense but its nice to find and know what the authors were really trying to say

 

[newhope101]

to bad the teeth have not been found to be homo sapiens.

this has all been covered in another thread and the media is blowing this out of porportion. Not the scientist


once again you dont know what your talking about

Again you state your opinion without the research to back it up. It is just what you do. Hence I do not bother replying to you most times.

So please put up the research as I am not wasting time refuting your unvalued opinions.

 

[outhouse]

Again you state your opinion without the research to back it up. It is just what you do. Hence I do not bother replying to you most times.

So please put up the research as I am not wasting time refuting your unvalued opinions.

you are not debatable at all. You do not learn, you do not take advise. You dont read what is posted.


That last post was to your benifit, your just not smart enough in my opinion to eat the food presented to you.

starve if you like, all you do is waiste good peoples time here

 

[newhope101]

Source please. Or are you the authority on the subject?

Absolutely..the only evidence we'll see in relation to fossil dating is their theoretical models based on the presumption of ancestry to begin with. Finalised by finding insertion values and population values, mutation rates that allow the myth to continue.

What the fossil records says is there are a bunch of variations in non human primates. There are a bunch of in-kind variations. There is no evidence of transition. Watch 'em put up Tiktaalic, or arch or the homo skulls that could be anything at all. Watch 'em requote LUCA or Mteve, watch 'em all put up all sorts of theoreticals, full of 'possibly' 'maybe' and 'likely' and use that as some sort of evidence.

The evidence, thus far, is mankind appeared fully formed. There were tetrapods around when Tikt landed, just as one would expect to find re creation. Aves, where modern birds form a clade, and lizards are cladistically disputed in relation to taxonomy. As for mammals in general they have no idea really, just more maybe, likely and HOPEFULLY.

 

[outhouse]

YOu have no real hope of ever finding knowledge or reality in my opinion.

You are truely lost when it comes to facts

 

[newhope101]

you are not debatable at all. You do not learn, you do not take advise. You dont read what is posted.


That last post was to your benifit, your just not smart enough in my opinion to eat the food presented to you.

starve if you like, all you do is waiste good peoples time here

and I'm still waiting for your research thay disputes my Istraeli finds. I guess I'll be waiting a long time. Your're big on talk and opinion..nothing more.

Once again Outhouse has given his opinion in place of research which is worthless.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It doesn't contradict the possibility.

It does not contradict the possibility of Space Aliens seeding the earth either.

One more time...

Does the fossil record in any way support a literal interpretation of Genesis, as in Young Earth Creationism?