Jump to content


Photo

Are Hominin Fossils Consistent With Creationism?


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 20 March 2010 - 09:07 PM

Sorry that the link didn’t work. The article is called “Systematic assessment of a maxilla of Homo from Hadar, Ethiopia”, so maybe you can track it down elsewhere (I just found it on Google Scholar). They compared the maxilla to several other fossils from Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo. The traits they compared were very specific measurements of the jaw proportions and size of the teeth.


I looked up the page and it did'nt give much of any details. Woods and Collard have done the largest comparison of the Species. They compared all of the H. habilis fossil material to modern human and have found a difference significant enough that H. habilis should'nt be classified in the genus Homo. They also concluded that the variation was too wide for it be specimens from only a single taxon.

Others researchers (Stringer, 1986; Chamberlain &
Wood, 1987; Lieberman et al., 1988; Wood, 1991,
1992; Rightmire, 1993; Lieberman et al., 1996; Prat,
1997, 2000) do not support the retention of a single
taxon. They argue that the degree of variation within
Homo habilis sensu lato is too large relative to what can
be justified for a single taxon.
Different parameters
have been studied: morphology, endocranial volume,
S@xual dimorphism, and degree and pattern of variation
of the cranio-facial measurements. This point of view
is the current consensus opinion, but it is important to
note that the specimens included in these species differ
according to the authors. A majority of the distinctive
traits are located on the face. For example, Homo
rudolfensis exhibits a greater absolute size of the brain
case, a face that is widest in its mid-part, complex roots
and large crowns, and a powerful masticatory apparatus.

(3) the species habilis and rudolfensis do not belong to
the genus Homo but to the genus Australopithecus.

For many years, the criteria used to allocate species
to Homo, and those proposed by Leakey and colleagues
to define the genus Homo (Leakey et al., 1964), have
been considered insufficient or inappropriate. In 1999,
Bernard Wood and Mark Collard proposed alternative
criteria for defining the genus Homo. Wood and
Collard (1999 a, B) suggested that the definition of the
genus should follow both the evolutionary systematic
method of classification and the cladistic criteria.

They tested whether or not the genus Homo (including
both Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis) is
monophyletic and adaptively coherent. For them, all
the species within genus Homo must share a functionally
coherent adaptive strategy with H. sapiens rather
than with other genera (e.g. Australopithecus). But the
species habilis and rudolfensis present an australopithlike
pattern rather than a modern human-like pattern for
body mass (relatively low), body shape (interpreted in
terms of thermoregulation as being better suited to a
relatively closed environment), locomotion (combination
of terrestrial bipedalism with proficient climbing),
morphology of the jaws and teeth, development and
brain size (Wood & Collard, 1999b)
. Moreover, the
genus Homo is monophyletic, in the spirit of Wood
and Collard, only if the species habilis and rudolfensis
are excluded. Therefore, they proposed that habilis
and rudolfensis should be placed in the genus
Australopithecus as Australopithecus habilis and
Australopithecus rudolfensis, respectively
(Wood & Collard, 1999 a, B).


Given the fact that AL-666-1 is within human variation,it can't belong to H. habilis. And as I linked to earlier, the fossil material is aligned with orangutans and not chimps or humans.

http://quaternaire.r...313.html?file=1




Enjoy.

#22 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 20 March 2010 - 09:14 PM

Where do hominins such as Homo erectus and Homo habilis fit into the Biblical world history? It is obvious that they were not humans, and yet we know (based on their brain size and the complex tools they made) they were quite intelligent. Much more intelligent than a chimp, with behaviours similar to our own. The Bible emphasizes that humans have been created in God’s image and are superior to all other creatures. It seems strange that there would have been animals so similar to humans if we’re supposed to be physically and psychologically unique.

View Post

Isabella, do you honestly think that any answer I give will sway your opinion. You question, which is the first symptom of doubt. The first thing Satan did in the garden is question God's word. So you can believe His word or believe a set of skulls from the past--which no person on earth has proof of what they were like, or what they were when they had flesh. It's your choice.

Evolutionists and creationists alike have trouble classifying them. Look at the similarity of a chimp and human skull, yet look at the gap between us. Our behavior, personality, appearance and intelligence is different.

So to look at skulls and question the power of God of which I am witness is ludicrous.

#23 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 22 March 2010 - 04:22 PM

I looked up the page and it did'nt give much of any details.

View Post

Well no, the abstract (assuming that’s what you looked at) doesn’t have the details, but the article itself had a very comprehensive comparison.

So you can believe His word or believe a set of skulls from the past--which no person on earth has proof of what they were like, or what they were when they had flesh.

View Post

We do know what they were like, at least to some extent. We can estimate intelligence based on the size, and using the bone structure we can reconstruct the facial features. The reconstructions are actually pretty accurate, since they’re based on muscle attachment sites on the bone. The end results look very different from modern humans.

Evolutionists and creationists alike have trouble classifying them. Look at the similarity of a chimp and human skull, yet look at the gap between us. Our behavior, personality, appearance and intelligence is different.

View Post

The differences between humans and chimps can be clearly seen in the size, bone morphology and teeth of our skulls. The similarities are only relative, in the sense that we look more like chimps than we look like elephants or dogs. But no scientist would make the mistake of classifying a chimp skull as human.

So to look at skulls and question the power of God of which I am witness is ludicrous.

View Post

This section of the forum is called Creation vs. Evolution, not Religion vs. Atheism. I’m not directly questioning “the power of God”, but rather your belief in intelligent design and a young earth as opposed to evolution and an old earth. The hominin fossils, in my opinion, are inconsistent with the creationist theory because they show that there was more than one species in the Homo genus.

#24 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 23 March 2010 - 06:14 PM

Well no, the abstract (assuming that’s what you looked at) doesn’t have the details, but the article itself had a very comprehensive comparison.


I did'nt see it and the link does'nt work at all now.

The hominin fossils, in my opinion, are inconsistent with the creationist theory because they show that there was more than one species in the Homo genus.


The fossils show human or apes aligned with orangutans or gorillas. A chimp fossil has never been found in the fossil record as far as i'm aware. And then their is the problem with orangutans migrating to Borneo and never evolved bi-pedalism, yet the fossils aligned with orangutans in Africa did. Would'nt the ones that traveled thousands of miles need the ability to walk? :D




Enjoy.

#25 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 23 March 2010 - 08:49 PM

Isabella,

A chimp fossil was found in 2005. Unfortunately, it was found in East Africa alongside Homo. That means the prediction that the common ancestor splitting apart and evolving indepently in geographiclly different areas is in need of revision.


According to the evolutionary paradigm, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. About 5 million years ago, this ancestral primate spawned two evolutionary lineages that led to humans and chimpanzees. Anthropologists consider the physical, geographical separation of hominids and proto-chimpanzees to be the "driving force" for the evolution of humans and chimpanzees. They postulate that the formation of the Rift Valley isolated the hominids in East Africa (a hot, dry savannah) from chimpanzees in Central and West Africa (with warm, wet jungles). The geographical isolation of hominids and chimps, presumably, sent these two lineages along different evolutionary trajectories.

Evolutionary biologists think that fossil hominids like "Lucy," Homo erectus, and Neanderthals document the emergence of humans. Yet, until recently paleoanthropologists had no corresponding fossils for the chimpanzee lineage.

Surprisingly, the first chimpanzee fossils were discovered not in West or Central Africa, but in East Africa, near Lake Baringo, Kenya. These fossils, consisting of three teeth, dated to 500,000 years in age--meaning that chimpanzees coexisted alongside hominids. The Rift Valley provided no geographical rift for separate evolutionary histories, and therefore foils a key prediction of the human evolutionary paradigm.

Sally McBrearty, one of the paleoanthropologists who uncovered the chimpanzee fossils, noted, "This means we need a better explanation of why and how chimps and humans went their separate evolutionary ways. The discovery that chimps were living in semi-arid conditions as well as in the jungles seems to blow apart the simplistic idea that it was the shift to the savannah that led to humans walking upright."


Source








Enjoy.

#26 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 March 2010 - 05:13 AM

well the answer is "of course not". The very fact that chimpanzees and gorillas exist - let alone other species OF extinct human - represents a huge barrier to YEC (as if it needs another one). God, for reasons only he knows, was not satisifed in having one human (Homo sapiens); he wanted whole generas of similarly intelligent, self-aware animals. Oh and with >90% genetic homology with humans too dont forget. Funny, i thought man was made from clay, and in god image. So why has he got so much in common with chimps?

Either way, god is a primate.

There has literally been nothing, in the entire universe, which makes LESS sense. God truly does move in mysterious ways. I wish my actions had such a prestigious capability to be seen has "mysterious", but alas. I mean God kills millions of people on a whim and floods the earth (something about sinning) and you worship him for it, i kill a person i will go to jail (or worse) and people will hate me for it, and i will hate myself for it. If mankind is so "sinful", i think that God's irratic moodswings might have something to do with it, dont you agree?

There is no mention of other human species (and chimpanzees) in the bible because they were simply not yet known. Middle-eastern Humans (aka GOD), with their enhanced perception of the world, seemed distinct from animals, and so did not think to write that "humans evolved".

Yet, a gradient of human species DID, and DOES exist. Human populations, given enough isolation, will evolve into seperate species. This would have happened if not for international, intercontinental travel (in one form or another), which has had a homogenising influence, however small, on the human genome. Consequently, there is no such thing as "race" (or subspecies), because homo sapiens has not diverged enough.

#27 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 24 March 2010 - 07:06 AM

well the answer is "of course not". The very fact that chimpanzees and gorillas exist - let alone other species OF extinct human - represents a huge barrier to YEC (as if it needs another one). God, for reasons only he knows, was not satisifed in having one human (Homo sapiens); he wanted whole generas of similarly intelligent, self-aware animals. Oh and with >90% genetic homology with humans too dont forget. Funny, i thought man was made from clay, and in god image. So why has he got so much in common with chimps?

Either way, god is a primate.

There has literally been nothing, in the entire universe, which makes LESS sense. God truly does move in mysterious ways. I wish my actions had such a prestigious capability to be seen has "mysterious", but alas. I mean God kills millions of people on a whim and floods the earth (something about sinning) and you worship him for it, i kill a person i will go to jail (or worse) and people will hate me for it, and i will hate myself for it. If mankind is so "sinful", i think that God's irratic moodswings might have something to do with it, dont you agree? 

There is no mention of other human species (and chimpanzees) in the bible because they were simply not yet known. Middle-eastern Humans (aka GOD), with their enhanced perception of the world, seemed distinct from animals, and so did not think to write that "humans evolved".

Yet, a gradient of human species DID, and DOES exist. Human populations, given enough isolation, will evolve into seperate species. This would have happened if not for international, intercontinental travel (in one form or another), which has had a homogenising influence, however small, on the human genome. Consequently, there is no such thing as "race" (or subspecies), because homo sapiens has not diverged enough.

View Post

You do realize that God made humans to live on earth and then in an afterlife, don't you McStone?

Except for this statement: "I mean God kills millions of people on a whim and floods the earth (something about sinning) and you worship him for it, i kill a person i will go to jail (or worse) and people will hate me for it, and i will hate myself for it.", which is explained immediately above, your post has no substance. And you should have already known the simple explanation immediately above.

But that's what we expect from the thinking that frequently results in the believing of evolution - little substance and large irrationality.

#28 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 March 2010 - 07:08 AM

Ah, I see. No evidence of human evolution so lets get even with God for it. I have'nt been that angry with him since he demanded me to 4 step my addiction to playboy magazine. LOL.

God judged the world because of sin, but sin is evil and anybody that does'nt understand that is truly lost.

#29 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 24 March 2010 - 07:21 AM

A chimp fossil was found in 2005. Unfortunately, it was found in East Africa alongside Homo. That means the prediction that the common ancestor splitting apart and evolving indepently in geographiclly different areas is in need of revision.

View Post

Ah, I see. No evidence of human evolution so lets get even with God for it.

View Post

It seems like you’re trying to switch the topic of discussion to proving that hominins are inconsistent with evolution. Suggesting that something cannot be explained by evolution does not automatically make creationism right.
I thought I was pretty clear in the original post of this thread:

I realize that there have been threads on this topic before, and I’d rather not get into the topic of “missing links”. I’m not here to argue that Homo erectus is our ancestor; I just want to know how it fits with creationism.

View Post



#30 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 24 March 2010 - 04:21 PM

[quote name='jason777' date='Mar 18 2010, 03:27 AM']
Homo etrectus was'nt human? I find it odd that evolutionists call fossils something that they can't be simply because of the assumption of evolution. The best example is calling Neanderthal a non-human species, yet the DNA is up to 99.9% identical to modern human (no more variation than any two people alive today).
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com

Jason,

Why can't they be non-human?

The reason paleontologists call them non-human is that the skulls and skeletons do not look like any modern human. Interestingly, the older remains look more different from humans than the more recent remains. For example, there is a clear trend in increasing brain size over time.

You're right that the similarity between humans and Neanderthals is high (99.5% to 99.9%) however, the genomes are distinct and your statement about no more variation than between any two people alive today is not correct. What was your source for this?

Bear in mind that Neanderthals looked like no human alive today. They had strong brow ridges, barrel chests and relatively short arms.

#31 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 March 2010 - 05:56 PM

Why can't they be non-human?

The reason paleontologists call them non-human is that the skulls and skeletons do not look like any modern human. Interestingly, the older remains look more different from humans than the more recent remains. For example, there is a clear trend in increasing brain size over time.


That is'nt true. The turkana boy would have been over 6 feet tall as an adult. And all the alledged cranial growth over time has been falsified by fossils found in a cave in Spain that span the cranial capacity of H. erectus and Neandertal. Placing skulls side by side in an order that reflects growth over time has been tested and proven wrong.

These remains have so much variation within one contemporaneous population that it demonstrates that all that "muddle in the middle," all those European fossil individuals that appeared to be so different, belong to one population-the Neanderthals. For instance, one of the Sima de los Huesos adult skulls is one of the smallest ever recovered from that time period, while another one is one of the largest. The physical variation found in this one assemblage of fossils encompasses all the other European archaic Homo Sapien fossils...

...The Sima de los Huesos fossil assemblage has powerful and profound implications for Creationists. Because of the relative isolation of the various areas of the ancient world and the slow means of transportation, this extreme variation within populations, such as what is seen at Sima de los Huesos, is exactly what one would expect.

Further, thanks to the extreme variation seen in the Sima de los Huesos fossil collection, the distinctions made by evolutionists between Homo erectus, early Homo sapiens, Neandertal, and anatomically modern Homo sapiens now fade into insignificance. (M. Lubenow - Bones of Contention / p.200-201)


Bear in mind that Neanderthals looked like no human alive today. They had strong brow ridges, barrel chests and relatively short arms.


Since their DNA is up to 99.9% identical, it proves that those differences are'nt genetic but pathological.




Enjoy.

#32 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 March 2010 - 04:37 PM

whats this? another human species?

http://www.nature.co...ature08976.html

doesnt actually get more up-to-date then that

#33 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 02 April 2010 - 05:17 AM

You mean those three traits together in the same individual?


I am not able to prove this but I am willing to guess that given 6billion people, and the possible variations from accidents, disease, nutrition, environmental hazard, etc., yes I could find acceptable specimens to fit that bill.

Yes, but in this case we have found skulls alongside the tools which is pretty good evidence that the people who made them were less intelligent than a modern human.


That is quite a leap of reasoning; the use of primitive tools equates lower intelligence? Again; there are cultures today which prefer primative tools. Mennonites, Munks in Tibet. Would you argue that they are less intelligent than you or me?

So why did their brains shrink? Learning how to live in a new environment requires intelligence, and a smart, resourceful person would have an advantage. There shouldn’t be a selective pressure towards a smaller brain unless they were severely malnourished... in which case there shouldn’t be a selective pressure for more robust skeletons.

View Post


I made no argument for wide spread brain shrinkage. I only propose the presence of smaller brains than the norm of today does not qualify as proof of wide spread small brains and lower intelligence in the past. Look at the population today, we don't all match up 100%

#34 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 26 April 2010 - 02:00 PM

I am not able to prove this but I am willing to guess that given 6billion people, and the possible variations from accidents, disease, nutrition, environmental hazard, etc., yes I could find acceptable specimens to fit that bill.

View Post

A normal human with unusual features (ie. smaller cranium, different facial morphology, shorter, thicker bones, ect) might exist somewhere in the world... but they’re certainly not common. Homo erectus fossils have been found in Africa, Asia and some parts of Europe. Fossil formation is a rare event in itself, and the chances are pretty slim that in all those locations only individuals with an uncommon disfiguration were fossilized.

That is quite a leap of reasoning; the use of primitive tools equates lower intelligence? Again; there are cultures today which prefer primative tools. Mennonites, Munks in Tibet. Would you argue that they are less intelligent than you or me?

View Post

It has to do with the way the tools are made. There are various techniques for making stone tools, and some require a higher level of intelligence than others. “Primitive tools” is broad category. The stone tools used by humans show evidence of planning and logic regardless of how simple they might appear.

Furthermore, humans have symbolic behaviour like religion and art. At Homo erectus sites, there are stone tools but no other evidence of culture. But when the fossils begin to look more like us and the cranium size increases, we begin to see all kinds of things: beads, cave paintings, carvings, purposeful burials, ect.

Even in the most primitive of cultures today, you’ll still see art in some form or another.

#35 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 April 2010 - 04:06 AM

Where do hominins such as Homo erectus and Homo habilis fit into the Biblical world history? It is obvious that they were not humans, and yet we know (based on their brain size and the complex tools they made) they were quite intelligent. Much more intelligent than a chimp, with behaviours similar to our own. The Bible emphasizes that humans have been created in God’s image and are superior to all other creatures. It seems strange that there would have been animals so similar to humans if we’re supposed to be physically and psychologically unique.

A common creationist argument I have seen regarding this issue suggests that the hominins were deformed or malnourished humans. I want to address this right from the start, because it is inconsistent with the evidence.

There is no disease or nutritional deficiency observed today that results in the features seen on the fossils. Homo erectus is small in size, which could indicate a poor diet. However it also has a much thicker cranium and huge brow ridges. Excess bone growth is not a symptom of malnutrition and never would have been. Similarly, Homo habilis has a sagittal crest for jaw muscle attachment and very large molars with thick enamel. Again, not consistent with poor diet or illness. There is also the issue of brain size, which (taken alongside the physical features) doesn’t fit with any known disease.

If it was a disease that no longer exists (or several diseases, I suppose, to account for the diversity of hominin fossils) then it must have been common pre-flood, hence the fossils in deep strata layers. In fact, it must have been so common that the majority of people had it, since we don’t find human fossils alongside Homo erectus fossils. It was my understanding that the pre-flood world was a much healthier environment where people had life spans of a few hundred years.

I realize that there have been threads on this topic before, and I’d rather not get into the topic of “missing links”. I’m not here to argue that Homo erectus is our ancestor; I just want to know how it fits with creationism.

View Post


These debate discussions about fossils and absolutes when it comes to story telling and insisting certain items are facts when indeed no one was back there in this ancient time period brings about nothing more than arguements for opposing philosophical worldviews. The criticism I have is levied equally at both the Creationist & Evolutionist sides. I think those who believe in the bible should merely use it as a touchstone for research and discussion and not go beyond what is written, but only to admit that anything they come up with in their research beyond what the Bible records is only speculation as well. The Bible itself focuses ONLY on the spiritual side of things (in actual fact that is the only reason it was written because of the rebellion in the beginning) and does at times interject points fealing with historicity into it's pages, but only for point of historical references as they deal with chronology of events.

I used the search mechanism of this forum and found one post that dealt closely with this subject, and sadly enough it was an atheist who refered to it when someone on the believing side should have. Here's the post by a username 'st_dissent' who brought up the subject of the biblical term 'Nephilim' and here is his post from some years past.

http://www.evolution...findpost&p=6110

"I’ve often wondered if Neanderthals seeded the beginnings of many mythological humanoid creatures that cultures have adhered to now and in the past. Neanderthals would have been shorter in stature than modern humans – but they were probably as tough as nails and really ugly by our standards (I know, I know I am being superficial – everyone’s beautiful in their own way *snicker*).

The word Nephilim means “fallen one” not “giant” and in the bible they were the sons of Anak. I believe that it is thought that some of the last surviving groups of Neanderthals existed in the Middle Eastern region – so you never know.

What I think is interesting about the Nephilim is that they are mentioned before the flood (Gen 6:4) and again after the flood (Numbers 13:33). How did they survive? Genesis 7:23 basically says that every living thing (perhaps excluding aquatic life) was destroyed unless on the ark with Noah."


Again, it's ashame it had to be an atheist that brought up this biblical point of a pre-flood living being who may well be a possiblity, but again it's only speculation and nothing engraved or set in stone.

'Nephilim' quite simply means "Fellers" or "those who cause others to fall". This word is the plural of the Hebrew word naphal, an example seen here is in 2 Kings 3:19 & 19:7.

I've got to run to a meeting real quick, but in a nutshell, these Nephilim were said to be the hybred offspring of fallen angels. There existance was only pre-flood. The reference in Numbers 13:33 was in referece to false reports given by unfaithful Israelite spies who returned with a bad report meant to instill fear in the people and cause rebeillion against Moses and nothing more.

My quick point is that perhaps some of these fossils of such hybreds could have been found, but this is only my wild speculation. Still it is interesting. ;)

#36 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 29 April 2010 - 11:23 AM

A normal human with unusual features (ie. smaller cranium, different facial morphology, shorter, thicker bones, ect) might exist somewhere in the world... but they’re certainly not common. Homo erectus fossils have been found in Africa, Asia and some parts of Europe. Fossil formation is a rare event in itself, and the chances are pretty slim that in all those locations only individuals with an uncommon disfiguration were fossilized.


Only the abnormal skeletons are of interest. Is an evolutionist, archeologist finding a normal (modern) skeleton, going to be interested in it? Only when they find abnormal, do they research further. Therefore abnormals are reported on and normal (modern) are ignored as irrelavent.

It has to do with the way the tools are made. There are various techniques for making stone tools, and some require a higher level of intelligence than others. “Primitive tools” is broad category. The stone tools used by humans show evidence of planning and logic regardless of how simple they might appear.


A family arrives in a new land with only what they could carry by hand, if that much. They begin making a new life. Are their first tools going to look the same as the tools they make a year later? Is every aspect of the society they left behind reflected in the pool of knowledge they now posess. Intellignece is not the only deciding factor.

Furthermore, humans have symbolic behaviour like religion and art. At Homo erectus sites, there are stone tools but no other evidence of culture. But when the fossils begin to look more like us and the cranium size increases, we begin to see all kinds of things: beads, cave paintings, carvings, purposeful burials, ect.


So cranium size indicates intelligence? A person with a size 5 hat cannot be as intelligent as a person with a size 9? That implies that the average woman must be less intelligent than the average man. Is that an argument you want to promote?

If true, then comparisons between cranial cavities of today indicate many specie should be more intlelligent than humans.

Even in the most primitive of cultures today, you’ll still see art in some form or another.

View Post

Back to the family that just arrived in a new land. They will begin painting and writing literature on day one? Or might they need some time to figure out how too with the new materials of the land? And might they need time to build a safe life prior to worrying about a family portrait?

It is the probable time required to restart the new and various civilizations (post flood) that is an excellent explaination of the similarity of foundations between different religions; same foundations remembered by different persons as best they could through the use of verbal histories until they had the renewed ability of printed langauge. The story of Babel and the tower includes new languages for each division of people. New ways to write each had to be created, possibly from scratch.

#37 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 04 May 2010 - 06:46 PM

Only the abnormal skeletons are of interest. Is an evolutionist, archeologist finding a normal (modern) skeleton, going to be interested in it? Only when they find abnormal, do they research further. Therefore abnormals are reported on and normal (modern) are ignored as irrelavent.

View Post

The thing is, they don’t find normal human skeletons at some of these sites. They only find the “abnormal” ones.

A family arrives in a new land with only what they could carry by hand, if that much. They begin making a new life. Are their first tools going to look the same as the tools they make a year later? Is every aspect of the society they left behind reflected in the pool of knowledge they now posess. Intellignece is not the only deciding factor.

View Post

The first tools they make will probably reflect the higher intelligence of a human, regardless of how simple the available materials are. Like I said, it’s all about the technique. The simplest stone tools are just chips hammered off a core. Even chimps are capable of this. With an increase in cranial volume comes a more sophisticated technique: rocks appear to be carefully chosen, and the way they are hammered has been planned in advance to ensure the chip is a certain size. The chips are further shaped into blades and points.

So cranium size indicates intelligence? A person with a size 5 hat cannot be as intelligent as a person with a size 9? That implies that the average woman must be less intelligent than the average man. Is that an argument you want to promote?

View Post

No, which is why other factors must be taken into account. First of all, brain size is only relevant when compared to body size. Elephants have larger brains than us, but that doesn’t mean that they’re more intelligent than humans. Their brain is larger because they’re larger animals.

It’s also important to look at associated behaviours, which is why anthropologists are so interested in the tools that they find with a skull. If something has a relatively small brain, yet appears to be making complex tools, clearly brain size alone is not enough information.

Back to the family that just arrived in a new land. They will begin painting and writing literature on day one? Or might they need some time to figure out how too with the new materials of the land? And might they need time to build a safe life prior to worrying about a family portrait?

View Post

When I said art, I was not referring to literature or painting. One of the oldest pieces of “art” is a rock with a zig-zag pattern carved into it. Symbolic behaviour takes on other forms as well, like intentional burials of the dead.

#38 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 May 2010 - 07:07 PM

A normal human with unusual features (ie. smaller cranium, different facial morphology, shorter, thicker bones, ect) might exist somewhere in the world... but they’re certainly not common. Homo erectus fossils have been found in Africa, Asia and some parts of Europe. Fossil formation is a rare event in itself, and the chances are pretty slim that in all those locations only individuals with an uncommon disfiguration were fossilized.

Only the abnormal skeletons are of interest. Is an evolutionist, archeologist finding a normal (modern) skeleton, going to be interested in it? Only when they find abnormal, do they research further. Therefore abnormals are reported on and normal (modern) are ignored as irrelavent.



Actually, they are classified as Cro-Magnon and they show normal skeletal growth because they got plenty of vitamin D from the fish they ate.

Cro-Magnon Fish Hooks
Posted Image

H. erectus was a Hunter/Gatherer that used the same type of chopping tool used by natives that live in the same location today.

Posted Image



Enjoy.

#39 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 10 February 2011 - 08:03 PM

You can look up neanderthal videos on the AiG website. Most of us 'creationists' in the U.S. understand molecules to people, miller experiments etc. as well, (we choose not to have faith that only the phyiscal exist - supernatural miracles, information, laws). Keep in mind we both have the same evidence, same earth.

Peace.

You mean those three traits together in the same individual?

Yes, but in this case we have found skulls alongside the tools which is pretty good evidence that the people who made them were less intelligent than a modern human.

So why did their brains shrink? Learning how to live in a new environment requires intelligence, and a smart, resourceful person would have an advantage. There shouldn’t be a selective pressure towards a smaller brain unless they were severely malnourished... in which case there shouldn’t be a selective pressure for more robust skeletons.

I’m really not too concerned about classification at the moment. We obviously disagree on how things should be classified, and it’ll be a waste of time to argue over which way is correct. Plus, we’ll end up going into the missing link topic, which (as I said in the original post) I wanted to avoid.

My point is that we have fossils which are clearly not apes, but differ from modern humans in several ways. A change in brain size is a pretty important difference.
Sorry that the link didn’t work. The article is called “Systematic assessment of a maxilla of Homo from Hadar, Ethiopia”, so maybe you can track it down elsewhere (I just found it on Google Scholar). They compared the maxilla to several other fossils from Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo. The traits they compared were very specific measurements of the jaw proportions and size of the teeth.

View Post



#40 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:14 PM

Isabella, here is the link if you haven't viewed it yet -- Did Neanderthal and Humans share a Common Gene Pool (2003): http://www.answersin...umans-gene-pool

Here is an article that has a specific answer to your question: http://www.answersin...n3/neanderthals
Bible believing creationists see neanderthals as human. The last post I wrote in a hurry...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users