[_ Old Earth _] Alleged Homo Neladi

[brother Paul]

Hey man, I would love to read more about this, can you give me the sources of where you got these numbers?

Dating the tools at the site used by these humans was first established by Archaeologist Mark Roberts to be around 500,000 years old (see Mike Pitts book, Fairweather Eden: Life in Britain half a million years ago as revealed by the excavations at Boxgrove). It is Mark Roberts that points out the difficulty using various geochronometric techniques. Bowen and Sykes (see, How Old is Boxgrove Man, Nature, 1994:751) used the racemization dating method and came to around 400,000 years. But they also note the difficulties in dating this find. The same style tools and some bone fragments found in nearby towns dated much older (around 700,000) years.

Also, it is noted in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3566634/ that “The discovery of Acheulian hand-axes in primary context at Boxgrove, Sussex, dispelled any remaining doubt, although some of the geochronology at the site indicated an MIS 11 age (Bowen and Sykes, 1994), a view at odds with the mammalian biostratigraphy suggesting an MIS 13 age (Roberts, 1994; Roberts and Parfitt, 1999).

Start here (preferably Fairweather Eden...I believe it is still available free on Good Reads)

 

[brother Paul]

Deleted

 

[Corn Pop]

Evertything has something in common but are there own kind.

If the oldest known human is called a human and it never evolved because its a human. 2.8 million years of bs.

 

[Barbarian]

The reason we "see" macro evolution is because of presuppositions

Even AiG now admits that new species evolve. They can hardly deny it, since there are a good number of observed macroevolutionary events. ICR even admits the evolution of new genera and families of organisms.

and becasue we misinterpreted the simple common blue print God used for all the creatures.

There is no "blueprint." God is the Creator, not some limited little "designer."

It's really not complicated.

No, it isn't. And we shouldn't make up stories about it. "Designers" didn't make living things. Nor did God use "blueprints."

Adam was a real man who lived in real history.

Yep. And that's entirely consistent with evolutionary theory.

Even JESUS thought so.

I would think so. After all, He created evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

If the oldest known human is called a human and it never evolved because its a human. 2.8 million years of bs.

There have been a good number of humans. We're just the latest species.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Evolutionsts do the exact same thing. When discoveries are found that contradict evolution, you fellows spend allot of time trying to bury it and talk around or invent wild complicated (PE) theories to explain it away. When your convinced of something, you tend to see what you what to see. We all do it, even when you don't think you are doing it. Mirrors are interesting things, no?

The difference is that I can grab several article off of AiG and show how they are wrong at their base. Not because they claim God is real, but usually because the article would use outdated information, or leaves out big chunks of known information to get the conclusion it wants.

Its very hard to just make up a theory in the sciences because its going to be rigorously tested and investigated by other scientists in their field. Plus everything will be vetted by journals. Pop science magazines will sometimes pick up speculation, but they are not authorities. Especially not Nat Geo or Popular Science.

When I was in college I started off in Engineering with a Psychology Minor. I shifted to Biology as my Major and took a ton of classes and worked in the school lab doing various experiments. There is a lot of rigor at even that level. Believe me there are a lot of people that want to disprove your work, but if you are right or have the most evidence on your side, you will be vindicated.

Also, what has been buried by "evolutionists"?

That is a very poisonous statement to make about AIG.

The sad thing is that its true.

How many articles have you read of theirs? Have you read the technical journal ? I subscribe. I read them all.

I read several back when I was aspiring to be a Youth Pastor/ Pastor and wanted to have ammo to defend my faith against the "evolutionists"

Very technical and very fair considering. These guys are seeking truth-what ever it is. Just read a great one on origins of oil, he actually bent to your camp a little.

What camp? The biggest thing that makes me shake my head at AiG and other Sites of that nature is that it lumps several fields of science into "evolutionism" or doesn't try to knowledge people or groups, but instead reverts back to " Evolutionists". Its a very big Us vs Them Mentality that is why I call the site poisonous. I have worked with Christian and Muslim people when I was doing lab work and we never had any problems. Its mostly about recording data and expressing findings in papers and reports. There is very little chance for a person's personal philosophy to actually come in to the data. I think people forget is that a scientists can be interviewed and they can state their opinions and views, but that isn't science by itself.

A good example is my opinion of Richard Dawkins. I find his research to be very informative and interesting, but I find his personal writing and talks to be smug and off putting.

Very fair and and unbiased as one could be imo. They ask lots of hard questions. They are Christians, so it's only natural that they will look for answers that support their assumptions-just as you do. Poisonous? No. Attempting to find models that explain what we see, from a biblical perspective, yes. There is nothing wrong with that. Bad arguments and explanations according to who, you?

The problem is that AiG tends to cannibalize itself when it reaches a wall or reuse arguments that have been demonstrated to have flaws. Especially when it comes to dating methods, specieation, the word Kind, continental drift, phylogeny, and the theory of Evolution ( and various mechanics, which many articles forget to mention that there are several mechanics instead of just natural selection)

Meant to fill a void of knowledge? Well Ya, what else would we be doing?

I think the difference is that when I don't know something, I will say I don't know. AiG seems to play God of the Gaps with everything they don't know.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Hey man, I would love to read more about this, can you give me the sources of where you got these numbers?

Dating the tools at the site used by these humans was first established by Archaeologist Mark Roberts to be around 500,000 years old (see Mike Pitts book, Fairweather Eden: Life in Britain half a million years ago as revealed by the excavations at Boxgrove). It is Mark Roberts that points out the difficulty using various geochronometric techniques. Bowen and Sykes (see, How Old is Boxgrove Man, Nature, 1994:751) used the racemization dating method and came to around 400,000 years. But they also note the difficulties in dating this find. The same style tools and some bone fragments found in nearby towns dated much older (around 700,000) years.

Also, it is noted in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3566634/ that “The discovery of Acheulian hand-axes in primary context at Boxgrove, Sussex, dispelled any remaining doubt, although some of the geochronology at the site indicated an MIS 11 age (Bowen and Sykes, 1994), a view at odds with the mammalian biostratigraphy suggesting an MIS 13 age (Roberts, 1994; Roberts and Parfitt, 1999).

Start here (preferably Fairweather Eden...I believe it is still available free on Good Reads)

Ah, I see, the leg bone wasn't shown to have radically different dates, it was various tools that had different dates. I will look more deeply into the articles when I have some more time. Thank you for the find BP, I was and am genuinely interested. I'm not trying to debunk what you said, I was just wondering where you got all those dates from.

 

[brother Paul]

Very gracious of you MD...and I am not saying this is not a find of the century or that it is not a new species....my caution was about the presentation and separating the possible story from the actual data uncovered...

 

[Barbarian]

The interesting thing about the H. neladi find is that this very difficult-to-reach cave location had all these skeletons. Animals did not bring them there, because there is no sign of the bones being gnawed.

So someone brought bodies there and left them. Seems highly unlikely that several species of hominid would do that cooperatively. And yet, no modern human remains.

This is an interesting window into the behavior of pre-sapiens humans.

 

[Eugene]

Do you suppose DNA might be used to see if the remains found are from one family living in a cave thus eliminating the thought that all those people practiced selective burial?

 

[brother Paul]

The interesting thing about the H. neladi find is that this very difficult-to-reach cave location had all these skeletons. Animals did not bring them there, because there is no sign of the bones being gnawed.

So someone brought bodies there and left them. Seems highly unlikely that several species of hominid would do that cooperatively. And yet, no modern human remains.

This is an interesting window into the behavior of pre-sapiens humans.

Unless it was humans (Sapiens) who dumped them there....

 

[Paloma]

https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/homo-naledi-new-species-human-ancestor/

 

[Eugene]

Unless it was humans (Sapiens) who dumped them there....

Yeah, we're tired of these rotting chimp-a-copies all over the place; don't we have a dump on the edge of town?
Is there any possibility these bones evolved into birds later on some hundred billion years?

 

[Barbarian]

Seems rather odd for H. sapiens to carefully move the bodies of a different species of human through a very narrow and difficult cave passage, just to dispose of them. The cave is no more than 7" wide at the narrowest point, and the geology of the cave indicates that hasn't changed for a very, very long time.

Remember, these hominins were bipedal, like us. Even more so than the bipedal Australopithecines.

AiG inadvertently confirmed the transitional nature of this human species, by noting that it has both human-like and ape-like characteristics. It's very hard, perhaps impossible to distinguish between late Australopithecines and early Homo erectus. There's a bit of deception going on, as is usual for AiG. They say that the finger bones are curved as though that meant they couldn't be ancestral to humans. Their finger bones are curved. And so are all ape and human finger bones. Ours happen to be less curved than apes. Australopithecines and early humans had finger bones less curved than apes, and more curved than ours.

What would be really interesting would be a very subtle detail of hand anatomy. Australopithecines had almost all the mobility of modern human hands, except for one particular muscle that allows the thumb and little finger to come together. So far, all members of Homo have it, and only some advanced species of Australopithecus.

So that would be interesting. Hopefully, they have enough hand/wrist bones to find out.

New postcranial fossils of Australopithecus afarensis from Hadar, Ethiopia (1990-2007)
J Hum Evol. 2012 Jul;63(1):1-51.
Consideration of the functional anatomy of the new fossils supports the hypothesis that no functional or behavioral differences need to be invoked to explain the morphological variation between large and small A. afarensis individuals. Several specimens provide important new data about this species, including new vertebrae supporting the hypothesis that A. afarensis may have had a more human-like thoracic form than previously appreciated, with an invaginated thoracic vertebral column. A distal pollical phalanx confirms the presence of a human-like flexor pollicis longus muscle in A. afarensis.

 

[turnorburn]

7" or no 7" it doesn't change the fact that Adam was the first man everything else was a different flesh..

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Jesus does look like a monkey or an ape they found that out 2000 years ago..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

7" or no 7" it doesn't change the fact that Adam was the first man everything else was a different flesh..

If Adam happened to be H. erectus, or H. heidelbergensis, rather than H. sapiens, would you be offended?

 

[brother Paul]

Seems rather odd for H. sapiens to carefully move the bodies of a different species of human through a very narrow and difficult cave passage, just to dispose of them.

Unless the disposed were not a species of human but a unique species of ape (maybe their dinner)

The cave is no more than 7" wide at the narrowest point, and the geology of the cave indicates that hasn't changed for a very, very long time.

A fine trash disposal I would think....

Remember, these hominins were bipedal, like us. Even more so than the bipedal Australopithecines.

And why would it seem impossible for some varieties of Ape to be bipedal (not that we are sure it was like human bipedalism) which over time did not succeed (natural selection deleted them...though some today exhibit this feature to some degree)

I have not read the AiG article only four scientific ones....so my thoughts are not motivated by them

 

[Paloma]

From AiG.... >>>The fossils were harvested by a team of slender scientists and spelunkers who had to belly crawl 80 meters through a narrow tunnel, climb a rock wall, and then drop down a chute into the chamber where other spelunkers had reported finding bones. The bones seem to belong to at least 15 infants, juveniles, and adults of the same species—whatever it is.<<<

Just thinking here as I read the articles...perhaps one day long ago, a shrewdness of apes where walking through the jungle... When suddenly they encourtered a group of hunting male humans or hunting predators...seeing the apes, the chase was on! The apes ran for their lives (GEN9:2). They found a near by cave system and got all the family in, even the babies. The humans/predators pursued. The apes were forced deeper and deeper into the cave system as they heard the men coming. The cave was small, the apes went deeper without thinking. The men, being bigger could only get so far. The apes went deep in to the smallest areas... The men waited outside for a week or more as food was scare. The apes smelling or hearing the men never came out. While in the chamber, perhaps one baby or more ape died or were very injured, due to the roughness of the chase. The mother was devastated and would not leave its side. Then more died with out water. Or perhaps due to the darkness they never found the way out. You ever put a ring on but can't get it off? Perhaps the men blocked the entrance?

Just some ideas....

From the description, these are just a bunch of extint apes....

 

[brother Paul]

From AiG.... >>>The fossils were harvested by a team of slender scientists and spelunkers who had to belly crawl 80 meters through a narrow tunnel, climb a rock wall, and then drop down a chute into the chamber where other spelunkers had reported finding bones. The bones seem to belong to at least 15 infants, juveniles, and adults of the same species—whatever it is.<<<

Just thinking here as I read the articles...perhaps one day long ago, a shrewdness of apes where walking through the jungle... When suddenly they encourtered a group of hunting male humans or hunting predators...seeing the apes, the chase was on! The apes ran for their lives (GEN9:2). They found a near by cave system and got all the family in, even the babies. The humans/predators pursued. The apes were forced deeper and deeper into the cave system as they heard the men coming. The cave was small, the apes went deeper without thinking. The men, being bigger could only get so far. The apes went deep in to the smallest areas... The men waited outside for a week or more as food was scare. The apes smelling or hearing the men never came out. While in the chamber, perhaps one baby or more ape died or were very injured, due to the roughness of the chase. The mother was devastated and would not leave its side. Then more died with out water. Or perhaps due to the darkness they never found the way out. You ever put a ring on but can't get it off? Perhaps the men blocked the entrance?

Just some ideas....

From the description, these are just a bunch of extint apes....

An interesting and possible "could be" P....and why have they already concluded "more bipedal" there are only a few fragments of broken hip bones and the femurs (large thigh bones) are virtually straight (not much angle at all)....but watch what happens in some of the reconstructions...(they add a little plaster and cut away what THEY claim does not fit and viola')

 

[brother Paul]

If Adam happened to be H. erectus, or H. heidelbergensis, rather than H. sapiens, would you be offended?

I think in reality some being labelled Erectus and some alleged Heidelbergs (minus the added and unrelated African ape skull Bodo) are simply early less successful varieties of Sapien (like Neanderthal and Denisovans).