[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[Jim Parker]

Most evolutionists will tell the story that both humans and apes evolved from a common ape-like ancestor, and not that humans evolved FROM apes or that we are apes (though that has become the ad populum narrative today).

Now secondly, we allegedly diverged from chimps x amount of MYA (usually assumed to be 7). They developed this historical narrative because in light of their hypothesis it is a logical conclusion, YET we have yet to find an actual example. But even if they were “genetically isolated” (thus genetically distinct), where one group allegedly evolved and the other did not, why would one not have evolved in so many millennia while the other allegedly evolved so much?


Next, all observable, demonstrable, isolated groups that adapt new traits, never (no not ever) become new types of creatures. Adaptive bacteria remain the same kind of bacteria. Humans that adapt new characteristics remain humans, and so on. None of them develop new suites of functioning genes which would be required to change their form so drastically.

When B. Wood and M. Collard in Science (“The human genus,” Science” 284 in 1999 (5411):65-71) did their study on alleged “human” ancestors they could not find a single human trait in either Habalis or Rudolfensis. All traits were only ape. In other words they looked like apes, walked like apes, had jaws and teeth like apes, and they even had the brains of (you guessed it) apes. So clearly these were a variety of Ape ad not in any way human OR semi-human.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck it is probably a duck not a parrot....

The earliest ergaster fossils (possibly an early but unsuccessful variety of human) lived around 1.9 mya and the earliest Chimps not till around 500,000 years ago so according to the fossils (if I may use the illogical logic of the EBs) Human kind pre-existed chimps by 1 million years thus chimps evolved from humans

Interesting.

 

[Barbarian]

The hypothesis is tht about 5 mya humans and chimps diverged from a common "ape-like" (actually unsuccessful variety of ape) ancestor...

"Unsuccessful" seems like an odd designation for a species lasting millions of years.

but the evidence (the actual data) shows that when chimps "suddenly appeared" in the fossil record

Like other forest vertebrates, the fossil record is sparse, and of course, in my lifetime, humans also "suddenly appeared" in the fossil record, and whales "suddenly appeared" in the fossil record, and tetrapods also "suddenly appeared" in the fossil record.. Until we started finding lots of transitionals for all of these. It's very dangerous to build your case on things we haven't yet found.

So the data and the hypothesis negate one another

Creationists used to make the same argument about humans and whales and tetrapods. And now, scientists have a great deal of fun quoting those foolish people. If you thought about it, I'm sure you can see the logical blunder creationists made back then. Learning from experience doesn't seem to be a creationist trait.

What should we trust? The fossil record, showing a very large number of transitional form from those rather apelike to those almost completely like modern humans. Genetics, which tells us that we and chimps share a common ancestor after diverging from everything else, and that our chromosome number is that of the other hominoids, except for a chromosome fusion, complete with remains of telomeres and centromere right where they would be, if a fusion happened. Anatomy, which shows common origin.

That sort of thing.

 

[Jim Parker]

And now, scientists have a great deal of fun quoting those foolish people.

Thus dis[playing a lack of character.

Learning from experience doesn't seem to be a creationist trait.

Kinda like the way liberals don't learn and think they cam make socialism work.

 

[Barbarian]

As for your pelvic examples each is distinct.....

Let's test that belief. Which of these are most different?

Which one is human, and how do you know?

yes the much later chimps IS most distinct

More important is why the chimp pelvis is so different. Two key reasons.

• Chimps are mostly quadrupedal, while humans, Australopithecines, and related genera are mostly bipedal.
• Humans and advanced hominins had larger brains at birth and a larger birth canal was needed.

As you learned, there is a gradual change in a number of features of the pelvis in the line that led to humans. Would you like me to show you that, again?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And now, scientists have a great deal of fun quoting those foolish people.

Thus dis[playing a lack of character.

More likely, immaturity. Scientists are notoriously fond of broad humor. And it doesn't come much broader than creationism. Have you not noticed the popularity of "The Far Side" with scientists?

(Barbarian notes the "we haven't found the fossils yet" argument has fallen apart repeatedly, as new fossils are found)

Barbarian observes:
Learning from experience doesn't seem to be a creationist trait.

Kinda like the way liberals don't learn and think they cam make socialism work.

Socialism and liberalism are not identical, just as racism and conservatism are not identical. We should be careful about conflating different things.

 

[brother Paul]

Socialism and liberalism are not identical, just as racism and conservatism are not identical. We should be careful about conflating different things

True some liberals are the most conservative "everybody should live as we legislate" people I have ever met, and most conservatives are not racist, and many socialists are not liberals.

 

[Barbarian]

Racists are generally conservative, but most conservatives are not racists. And yes, socialism is usually not liberal. Classic liberalism is the opposite of socialism.

 

[turnorburn]

Can you actually show us a comparison then? I've noticed that you really don't explain any of your claims, you usually just project, repeat yourself, then staple on a group you view as bad and make the argument that these bad people believe something similar so therefore its bad. I remember in 8th grade lit class learning about Propaganda. It always seems that the point of propaganda is to stop people from questioning and just accept what the person is saying.

Usually in the way of fear, threats, ostricization, gish gallops, poisoning the well, hasty generalizations, and many other fallacies.

So, do you want to start demonstrating your claims now?

Then answer me this.. what was creation like before sin entered? Add to that before and after Noah's flood?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Then answer me this..

So I mention some criticism that you tend to ignore questions and demands to back up your statements, then you ignore all those criticisms and just prove my entire point?

Good day sir.

 

[brother Paul]

Barbarian observes:
And now, scientists have a great deal of fun quoting those foolish people.



More likely, immaturity. Scientists are notoriously fond of broad humor. And it doesn't come much broader than creationism. Have you not noticed the popularity of "The Far Side" with scientists?

(Barbarian notes the "we haven't found the fossils yet" argument has fallen apart repeatedly, as new fossils are found)

Barbarian observes:
Learning from experience doesn't seem to be a creationist trait.



Socialism and liberalism are not identical, just as racism and conservatism are not identical. We should be careful about conflating different things.

And yet YOU claim to be a creationist. I guess hypocrite-ers are a transitional form!

 

[brother Paul]

...usually just project, repeat yourself, then staple on a group you view as bad and make the argument that these bad people believe something similar so therefore its bad. I remember in 8th grade lit class learning about Propaganda. It always seems that the point of propaganda is to stop people from questioning and just accept what the person is saying.

Hillarious! This part sounds just like Barb....that's a riot! Thanks....I so needed that...LOL....

By the way the point of propaganda is not to stop people from questioning it is to convince. It is nothing more then a professional approach to brainwashing the masses...tell the same story over and over, get a few alleged authorities to support it, use techniques like bandwagoning, stacking the deck, and so on coupled with changing the meaning of common terms, create euphemistic buzzwords, pick a scapegoat person or group, etc...on the end, after a few generations the victims cannot see they have been victimized because they believe the narrative they have been told and sold....their opinion has been successfully shaped (thought controlled...engineered using school rooms, movies, news media, radio, and so on)

 

[Barbarian]

And yet YOU claim to be a creationist.

Actually, I don't. "Creationist" has become a term for people who don't accept God's creation. Sort of the way "liberal" has in many ways become associated with things completely opposed by classic liberals. People who call themselves creationists are completely in denial about God's creation.

I guess hypocrite-ers are a transitional form!

Seems like it.

 

[Barbarian]

By the way the point of propaganda is not to stop people from questioning it is to convince. It is nothing more then a professional approach to brainwashing the masses...tell the same story over and over, get a few alleged authorities to support it,

Creationists love to quote-mine. Often the "authorities" in their lists of "scientists who doubt Darwin" have no credentials in biology at all.

use techniques like bandwagoning,

I'd love to have a nickel for every creationist who, (without presenting checkable numbers) declared that scientists are increasingly turning away from evolution.

stacking the deck

A great recent example, is the "polonium halo" scam, in which supposedly "primoridal granite" was actually intrusive rock that had melted and run into cracks in pre-existing sedimentary rock, and proponents ignored the fact that the halos were only found where radon could have been generated by uranium breakdown and moved along cracks to form the halos.

and so on coupled with changing the meaning of common terms,

Examples: "It's just a theory", "speciation isn't evolution", "evolution is about the Big Bang", and so on. Classic creationism.

create euphemistic buzzwords,

Examples: "It's not evolution; it's adaptation", "differential escape", etc.

pick a scapegoat person or group, etc...

Darwin, for example. Nothing seems to have been too crazy or too vicious that some creationist didn't accuse him of it. I doubt if one creationist in a thousand knows anything about Eugenie Scott, but reams of imaginative drivel have been written about her character.

on the end, after a few generations the victims cannot see they have been victimized because they believe the narrative they have been told and sold....their opinion has been successfully shaped (thought controlled...engineered using school rooms, movies, news media, radio, and so on)

Good point. Most creationists in America are completely unaware that most of their beliefs were invented by a Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess", whose visions were proselytized to evangelicals by an Adventist missionary.

 

[Barbarian]

Bunny trail closed now. Let's get back to business:

Let's test that belief. Which of these are most different?

Which one is human, and how do you know?

yes the much later chimps IS most distinct

More important is why the chimp pelvis is so different. Two key reasons.

• Chimps are mostly quadrupedal, while humans, Australopithecines, and related genera are mostly bipedal.
• Humans and advanced hominins had larger brains at birth and a larger birth canal was needed.

As you learned, there is a gradual change in a number of features of the pelvis in the line that led to humans. Would you like me to show you that, again?

 

[Milk-Drops]

.By the way the point of propaganda is not to stop people from questioning it is to convince. It is nothing more then a professional approach to brainwashing the masses...

Just like Answers in Genesis, The Creation Institute, and Ken Ham.

tell the same story over and over, get a few alleged authorities to support it, use techniques like bandwagoning, stacking the deck, and so on coupled with changing the meaning of common terms, create euphemistic buzzwords, pick a scapegoat person or group, etc...on the end, after a few generations the victims cannot see they have been victimized because they believe the narrative they have been told and sold....their opinion has been successfully shaped (thought controlled...engineered using school rooms, movies, news media, radio, and so on)

Yep, I feel bad for all those people who listen and give money to the people I mentioned above.

 

[brother Paul]

Just like Answers in Genesis, The Creation Institute, and Ken Ham.
Yep, I feel bad for all those people who listen and give money to the people I mentioned above.

I agree...and I feel bad for them as well!

 

[Cygnus]

Bunny trail closed now. Let's get back to business:

Let's test that belief. Which of these are most different?

Which one is human, and how do you know?



More important is why the chimp pelvis is so different. Two key reasons.

• Chimps are mostly quadrupedal, while humans, Australopithecines, and related genera are mostly bipedal.
• Humans and advanced hominins had larger brains at birth and a larger birth canal was needed.

As you learned, there is a gradual change in a number of features of the pelvis in the line that led to humans. Would you like me to show you that, again?

Your picture seems to support a common creator. Considering "Chimps are mostly quadrupedal"...I would expect to see some differences.
Have the differences been shown to have arrived via "gradual change"....no.

 

[brother Paul]

Your picture seems to support a common creator. Considering "Chimps are mostly quadrupedal"...I would expect to see some differences.
Have the differences been shown to have arrived via "gradual change"....no.

I agree...aside from the fact that the images only show similarity in design and in no way implicate the necessity of one becoming the other, the order is incorrectly displayed in this way on purpose to create the delusion of gradualism. The true order (if we read it left to right) would be 3, then 2, with 1 and 4 coming into being around the same time (and only that IF gradualism was the correct view)..

 

[brother Paul]

see http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/w...ssil-challenges-evolutionary-beliefs-1.672443

Allegedly pushes back chimp divergence 4 million years

 

[Barbarian]

No. It pushes the divergence between gorillas and the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees back about 2 million years. It says nothing at all about the time of divergence between chimpanzees and humans.

Learn about it here:
A new species of great ape from the late Miocene epoch in Ethiopia
Nature 448, 921-924 (23 August 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature06113; Received 18 June 2007; Accepted 25 July 2007

Not exactly news.