[_ Old Earth _] Denisovan/Neanderthal/Sapien sapiens

[brother Paul]

Ancient Denisovan lineage has been found in Western Europe going back 400,000 years. They are a variety of early Homo Sapien that had already begun mingling with Neanderthals (another variety of Homo Sapiens). Since they lived in close proximity, and socially and sexually mingled, calling them “a different species” would not be accurate. The toe bone found at Denisova, in Asia, show the socio-sexual blending occurred there as well. These two varieties of human being were blending there at least 130,000 years ago. By definition if they were different species they would most likely be somewhat geo-physically and definitely sexually separated (by choice if not by nature).


Therefore, these were not ape-men, nor even ape-ish people, they were Homo Sapiens. They were not “different species” of animal that cross bred. Likewise the idea that they emerged from Erectus or Heidelbergensis is entirely speculative. We do not know any such thing. The speculation is based on the fallacy that because something precedes another, the former must be the cause or source of the latter. Now I am not saying they were not related in the sense of one being the progenitor of the other…just that because one preceded the other does not necessitate this conclusion, and that we have no sure indicators only provisional or hypothesis based interpretation.


Now it is true that all varieties of Homo Sapien share DNA in common not shared with others, and it is also true that we also share DNA in common with other primates, all mammals, and yes even with fruit and other plants, however that does not necessitate lineage either. It only defines variety in form and function. Most of the DNA we have observed explains why we are physically what we are. Apparently Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the latter “Sapien sapiens” were NOT apes.


Despite hypothesis driven interpretations of the evidence, there is no evidence which actually demonstrates man came from ape-kind, only that we share similar characteristics. We share more physical characteristics with ape-kind than say with felines yet even with cats we share about 90% similarities in the genome (that being because we are living creatures who are mammalian). If the Paabo studies are accurate, and the presumptions are eliminated, a branch of what we call “modern humans” (the alleged Sapien Sapiens) may have in fact branched off and even migrated some 600,000 years ago as opposed to previous hypothesis based assumption of around 195,000 years ago. But is this number nothing more than a figure derived to explain away the shock to the out of Africa theory these new discoveries have caused?


Where Paabo believes their ancient ancestor was in fact erectus, others like Dr. Sarah Tishkoff believea this to merely be one explanation of the data, but not the only one. I tend to agree with her thought that it may or may not be the case. In my opinion, hominidae, pongidae, and hylobatae should remain separate, BECAUSE they are in fact, DIFFERENT species, and thus should not all blended under some man-made blanket term to support the accepted hypothesis. The differences in the skulls and locomotive anatomies are clearly distinct. There is no interest between humans and the alleged “other” Great Apes to form relationships or have sex and likewise no such interests form between any of the others.


Likewise as far as I see it, the evidence really does not show that these distinct groups of humans DIVERGED from one another at some given point, but rather that these three or more distinct varieties of humans MERGED at various times and places.


Dr. Montgomery Slatkin from the University of California, Berkeley, tells us, “We don’t know if interbreeding took place once, where a group of Neanderthals got mixed in with modern humans, and it didn’t happen again, or whether groups lived side by side, and there was interbreeding over a prolonged period…”, but the more important point is that “interbreeding” does not occur naturally between different “species”. As Webster puts it a species is simply “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.” The Cambridge/Oxford definition is “a set of animals or plants the members of which have similar characteristics to each other and which can breed with each other.”


So you see, what we really have here is simply different “varieties” of HUMANS:


a) coming in contact with one another,

b) being socially and physically attracted,

c) forming meaningful relationships,

d) mating, and

e) having offspring


This is very similar to what we see today in different varieties of human populations (say with long term interaction between Mongolian and Congolese PEOPLE). To speculate anything else is entirely hypothesis bias- based assumption and nothing more. It is one possible interpretation of the data but certainly not the only possibility.

 

[brother Paul]

These early humans:

1. Had a culture…. Mellars, P. The Neanderthal Legacy. An Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe, (Princeton University Press, 1996)
2. Made exceptional bone tools….Soressi, M. et al. Neandertals made the first specialized bone tools in Europe. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14186–14190 (2013)
3. Produced sophisticated Red and Black pigments for social use…Soressi, M. & d’Errico, F. Pigments, gravures, parures: les comportements controversés des Néandertaliens. In Les Néandertaliens, Biologie et Cultures (eds Vandermeersch B. et Maureille B. ) Doc. Préhist. 23, Paris, CTHS, 297–309 (2007)
4. Exhibit burial rites…Maureille, B. & Vandermeersch, B. Les sépultures néandertaliennes. In Les Néandertaliens, Biologie et Cultures (eds Vandermeersch, B. & Maureille, B. ) Doc. Préhist. 23, Paris: CTHS,311–322 (2007)
5. They built underground structures 175,000 years ago…”Early Neanderthal constructions deep in Bruniquel Cave in southwestern France”, Nature, 534, 111–114, (02 June 2016)
6. Had organized purposeful living spaces…..the new research found that Neanderthals butchered animals, made tools and gathered round the fire in different parts of their caves.
7. They even had man-made hearths for heating and cooking in the living spaces of their caves.

Julien Riel-Salvatore, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Colorado Denver (one of the lead researchers on and Italian find) tells us "There has been this idea that Neanderthals did not have an organized use of space, something that has always been attributed to humans," (Notice the Hypothesis based bias as if the Neanderthals or Denisovans were not “humans”)… "but we found that Neanderthals did not just throw their stuff everywhere but in fact were organized and purposeful when it came to domestic space…"! These findings, published in the Canadian Journal of Archaeology, are based on the excavations at Riparo Bombrini, (a rock shelter in northwest Italy). The evidence suggests different varieties of humans lived and socialized here even forming families.


.

 

[Barbarian]

I wish all creationists could admit that Neandertals and Denisovans are members of our own species. DNA evidence is compelling them to reassess their thinking, but some are still holding out. There's one glaring error in that post, though:

In my opinion, hominidae, pongidae, and hylobatae should remain separate, BECAUSE they are in fact, DIFFERENT species,

"Pongidae" describes a parphyletic group (a man-made classification containing parts of two different taxa). It includes the Ponginae (orangutans and their extinct relatives) and the Homininae (essentially other great apes) minus humans. Genetic and anatomical data put apes into two families; the Hylobatidae (gibbons and saimangs) and the Hominidae (humans chimpanzees, and gorillas). The taxa you mentioned are not "species", they are families, and one contains parts of two different real families, blended into a paraphyletic group.

and thus should not all blended under some man-made blanket term to support the accepted hypothesis.

That hypothesis goes back to Linnaeus, who originally put apes and humans in two different groups. However, he admitted that he did so out of concern for the reaction of religious authorities:

It matters little to me what name we use; but I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character — one that is according to generally accepted principles of classification — by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none, I wish somebody would indicate one to me, But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I should have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so,
Carol Linnaeus letter, 1747

 

[brother Paul]

Wow! You really like Linnaeus...

I have never read his work, maybe I will....

 

[Barbarian]

Wow! You really like Linnaeus...

He discovered (although he didn't realize it at the time) common descent. And he seems to have cared about the truth sufficiently well to have repented at shading the truth to avoid trouble with religious authorities.

I have never read his work, maybe I will....

Systema Naturae would be a good read. It is his classic of taxonomy; he pretty much established the discipline as a science.

He was most proud of his work as a botanist, so you might want to read some of that first.

 

[brother Paul]

I will check that out but about taxonomy....

Australian Entomologist/Taxonomist Christopher Taylor, “Is Taxonomy a Science?” 2008, informs us “the dividing line between the sciences and the humanities is not particularly clear, and there are some forms of research that do not fall clearly on one side of that divide. Taxonomy, the practice of classifying and characterizing organisms, has been described as one such practice.” He further reveals that the nomenclature (the naming assigned that defines groups), “is not a scientific process.”


N. Bonde in his 1977 article, “Cladistic classification as applied to vertebrates” in, Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution, (M. K. Hecht, P. C. Goody, & B. M. Hecht, eds.) pp. 741-804. Plenum Press: New York, tells us “An important aspect of any species definition whether in neontology or palaeontology is that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain species is an hypothesis (not a fact)".


Like when we attach a historical narrative to miniscule individual pieces of data we must always be careful (if truly objective) to NOT assume truth value to such hypothesis based opinions even if they are held to be accurate by many.


Dr. Brendon Hodkinson, Research Fellow at Janssen R&D working in Computational Biology, Bioinformatics, and Genomics says “Taxonomic units are all in some sense arbitrary. Although a group of organisms may form a "clade," whether we recognize that clade with a certain name is somewhat arbitrary. I personally like to think of taxonomic units being defined by specific innovations (morphological, molecular, ecological, etc.) that have changed the evolutionary trajectory of a group, but that rule is certainly not universally applied, and there could certainly be many alternative taxonomies even if such standards were applied…Taxonomy is a tool that we use to communicate ideas about organisms, so taxonomy is an absolutely necessary part of the pursuit of scientific truth, even if it is not "science" itself.”


Yet the story we are taught is that Taxonomy is the science of naming, describing and classifying organisms…using morphological, behavioral, genetic and biochemical observations, taxonomists identify, describe and arrange species into classifications, including those that are new to science.


In, Naming Nature, by Dr. Carol Kaesuk Yoon, she questions where the actual line is between objectivity and subjectivity. She says “I began to see that science was neither the best nor the only valid way to order and name the living world. Instead, I realized that the ordering and naming of life was and always had been, at its heart, something much more democratic, subversive to the dominion of science even, and much more interesting. I eventually came to see that science itself might be undermining the very thing it sought to perfect: humanity’s understanding of life.”

There are many intelligently designed systems of classifications (Freudian personality types, Astrological types, the Library systems, and so on) and they are all damn creative...but NOT the truth...just a reasonably accepted way of compartmentalizing data by each particular group of like minded peoples.

But of we are to assume the definition of a "species" held by most scientists these three are not different species, just different varieties, and all are humans. Can we at least agree on that?

 

[Barbarian]

It is true that taxonomy (which is a science, since it depends on evidence to verify hypotheses) can be arbitrary in naming groups. Since we now have genetic information, which is known to indicate lines of descent, since it can be verified by cases of known descent, lineages can be worked out by sequencing the DNA of related organisms. Not surprisingly, it shows surpisingly good agreement with the family tree of living things that Linnaeus first proposed.

So, you can classify species, tribes, genera, subfamilies, etc. but the operative fact is that humans and chimps are now known to have diverged from a common ancestor after that common ancestor diverged form other apes.

 

[brother Paul]

humans and chimps are now known to have diverged from a common ancestor after that common ancestor diverged form other apes.

diverged form or from? If from then apes came first then the common ancestor of chimps and humans from there (thus the common ancestor of humans and chimps is an ape)...is that what you are saying?

 

[brother Paul]

Primatologists like Richard Wrangham in his, Tree of Origin: What Primate behavior can tell us about Human Social Evolution, pp. 124–126, tells us that he believes the common ancestor was so chimp-like we should probably just call it Pan Prior. This is funny because even more than simply assuming we both evolved from apes (which implies Darwin was incorrect), in Wrangham’s theorized scenario we actually evolve out of a species that is mostly chimp-like which evolved from earlier apes.


So Darwin believed apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor (which logically would be neither or a unique species with the propensity to become both). But you and Wrangham ultimately believe in a version of “we evolved FROM apes” (as many posts imply). So either you are incorrect or Darwin is incorrect. Both are speculations allegedly based on evidence but only one can be true. So will you admit that you feel Darwin was wrong?


Unlike you however, Wrangham admits that we have no ACTUAL data, as yet, to be sure, only speculations inferred (I love the language that attempts to hide the sci fi part, i.e., the historical narrative attached).


But my issue is always the same…when some present the speculative part as truth (Wrangham is excluded from this group) this bothers me because I KNOW it is not being objective and that true critical thinking is not allowed on the part of opposers. So a person like me asks “Hmmm? Which speculation should we accept if any?” I know from this truth, that my speculations (like the OP, which has much support) are no less true than these other alternate speculations. But most of all NO ONE should insist or imply their speculations on the data are the truth (selectively excluding alternate speculations on the data) to innocently inquiring minds.

 

[Barbarian]

Primatologists like Richard Wrangham in his, Tree of Origin: What Primate behavior can tell us about Human Social Evolution, pp. 124–126, tells us that he believes the common ancestor was so chimp-like we should probably just call it Pan Prior.

That would be at odds with the genetic data, which shows that chimps evolved about as much as we did in their own direction. It would be astonishing if a species remained that constant over 5-10 million years (the possible range of time since human/chimp divergence occurred)

This is funny because even more than simply assuming we both evolved from apes (which implies Darwin was incorrect), in Wrangham’s theorized scenario we actually evolve out of a species that is mostly chimp-like which evolved from earlier apes.

It's an odd thing for him to say, and absent any explanation for a species to remain genetically the same for that length of time, I think I know why that hasn't gotten much support from primatologists.

So Darwin believed apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor (which logically would be neither or a unique species with the propensity to become both).

Got a checkable source for that?

But you and Wrangham ultimately believe in a version of “we evolved FROM apes” (as many posts imply).

As you learned, we are apes. Chimps and humans diverged only after the common ancestor of chimps and humans diverged from other apes.

So either you are incorrect or Darwin is incorrect.

Bad assumption, weird conclusion.

Both are speculations allegedly based on evidence

No "allegedly" about it. Would you like me to show you, again? BTW, Darwin was wrong about any number of things, but I'd like to see a checkable source for him saying what you claim he did.

Unlike you however, Wrangham admits that we have no ACTUAL data, as yet

No, that's wrong:
While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

If chimps were essentially identical to our common ancestor, this would be impossible, which I'm sure you would realize if you thought about it.

Perhaps some reflection on the difference between evidence and speculation would be in order for you.

 

[brother Paul]

I guess it depends on how one sees it, like the cladoclast Malte Ebach, John Hawkes believes “Humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World monkeys like baboons and New World monkeys like marmosets. All of us anthropoids. But humans aren’t monkeys.“

Now first it is largely due to a difference in language (how one defines terms, and there is disagreement there as well), and secondly to a difference in predisposed perspective.

Science writer and former editor for the Dana Foundation (specializing in Neuroscience) Ben Mauk also believes “Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though humans share a common ancestor with some primates, such as the African ape…The timeline of human evolution is long and controversial, with significant gaps. Experts do not agree on many of the start and end points of various species.”

Thus any of the standard charts outlining the such a process (some as a tree, others a bush, multi foundational sources, by clade, etc.,) are replete with their shares of estimates and presupposed assumptions.

Now s to perspective, an evolutionist might say that persistent bipedalism caused the difference in the pelvis, where I would say a different pelvis (by design) caused bi-pedalism (they did it because they were made to).

Bi-pedalism is a normal characteristic for humans (not apes). Now when the earth brought forth creatures after its own kind (nature's way) there were a couple of varieties of Ape that developed and/or had a pelvis somewhat more akin to a human’s pelvis, allowing for some bi-pedalism, but they were unsuccessful and their variety died off and became extinct. Likewise there were a few (actually only one we know of) varieties that had shoulder bones much like a human’s, but they also were unsuccessful and those ape-kind also died out and became extinct.

Nature, even though put in motion and ordered by God, was just incapable of producing God’s “mankind”. It strove through millions of years but alas it failed. Apes are to Arithmetic what Mankind is to Calculus! Both are math but Calculus is not Arithmetic.

 

[brother Paul]

Darwin thought, "I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other…it does not essentially differ from the term variety which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms." So in effect when speaking of his finches he rightly uses the term “species” as he would describe it, thus the long and short beaked finches are ever (even now) still nothing more than VARIETIES of finches (actually passerines).

Templeton later defined species as “the most inclusive group of organisms having the potential for genetic and/or demographic exchangeability.”

Later we see Nelson’s view of species and taxa supported by D. Otte and J.A. Endler, Speciation and its Consequences (Sunderland, Massachusetts, Sinauer Press, 1989)… speaking on what constitutes a species, tells us, “problems are insoluble, for they stem from a false assumption: that there is an empirical difference between species and the taxa such that species evolve through speciation of other species.... Evolution of taxa is not a phenomenon confined to the species level, except in neo-darwinian theory, which in this respect is simply false."

Mahr said “A biological species definition, based on the criteria of crossability or reproductive isolation, has theoretically fewer flaws than any other...Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups." (Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Sapien sapiens, would all mate with one another, but never with Apes because Apes and Humans are two different species). Thus Neanderthal, Denisovan, and Sapien sapiens are merely varieties of human, not different “species”.

 

[Barbarian]

I guess it depends on how one sees it,

No. Postmodernism is completely unable to comprehend that there is an objective reality.

like the cladoclast Malte Ebach, John Hawkes believes “Humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World monkeys like baboons and New World monkeys like marmosets. All of us anthropoids. But humans aren’t monkeys.“

Sloppy thinking, it seems. Monkeys and apes are not the same thing.

Now first it is largely due to a difference in language (how one defines terms, and there is disagreement there as well), and secondly to a difference in predisposed perspective.

No. Genetically, it is clearly a fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that diverged from other apes prior to the human/chimp split. It's not a matter of how you want it to be.

Science writer and former editor for the Dana Foundation (specializing in Neuroscience) Ben Mauk also believes “Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps.

More specifically, we are apes. And yes, we evolved from apes, just as Equus (modern horses) evolved from horses. We did not, of course evolve from gorillas or chimps. But genetics clearly shows that the common ancestor of humans and chimps had a common ancestor with gorillas.

,

Now s to perspective, an evolutionist might say that persistent bipedalism caused the difference in the pelvis, where I would say a different pelvis (by design) caused bi-pedalism (they did it because they were made to).

Let's look at the evidence. Bipedalism didn't pop out of nowhere, but evolved over time. We see the typical ape pelvis:

Although Australopithecines were bipedal, they still show transitional features, like a flatter pelvis, curved femur, curved digits and so on. our adaptations appeared over time, not suddenly.

Bi-pedalism is a normal characteristic for humans (not apes).

So Australopithecines are human, not apes?

You're sure about that? Notice Australopithecine skulls are transitional between those of today's African apes and those of humans. But they are clearly more like that of a chimpanzee than that of a modern human.

Now when the earth brought forth creatures after its own kind (nature's way)

Evolution, as documented by this and other evidence. Why is it so offensive to you that God did it the way He did?

there were a couple of varieties of Ape that developed and/or had a pelvis somewhat more akin to a human’s pelvis,

Turns out, that there are transitional forms for that, too:

Again, notice h

allowing for some bi-pedalism, but they were unsuccessful and their variety died off and became extinct.

It existed for about 1.5 milllion years. A very respectable time as mammals go. Anatomically modern humans have been around perhaps 200,000 years. So we shouldn't sneer at H. habilis.

Nature, even though put in motion and ordered by God, was just incapable of producing God’s “mankind”.

True, but not the way you think. God was quite capable making nature produce what He intended man's physical body to be. But of course nature could not give us an immortal soul, which is given directly by God.

It strove through millions of years but alas it failed. Apes are to Arithmetic what Mankind is to Calculus! Both are math but Calculus is not Arithmetic.

You cannot do calculus without arithmetic. So that makes some sense. Humans could not have been without earlier hominins.

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin thought, "I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other…it does not essentially differ from the term variety which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms." So in effect when speaking of his finches he rightly uses the term “species” as he would describe it, thus the long and short beaked finches are ever (even now) still nothing more than VARIETIES of finches (actually passerines).

You've described one of the most vexing problems for creationists. If creationism were true, then it would be an easy matter to define "species." But that's not the case, because species evolve over time.

Hence, closely related populations can still interbreed, but more distantly related ones are less successful, and at some point, they diverge so that there is complete isolation. Humans and Neandertals were able to interbreed, but given the relative lack of Neandertal genes in modern humans, it doesn't seem to have been very successful. Apparently, hybrids were either not common, or they had greatly reduced fertility.

 

[brother Paul]

No. Postmodernism is completely unable to comprehend that there is an objective reality.

Totally irrelevant and way off topic….

like the cladoclast Malte Ebach, John Hawkes believes “Humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World monkeys like baboons and New World monkeys like marmosets. All of us anthropoids. But humans aren’t monkeys.“

Sloppy thinking, it seems. Monkeys and apes are not the same thing.

Nice twist (is the dance beginning again?). They were not saying they were the same thing (did you make that up?). The point is, in this position we are neither.


No. Genetically, it is clearly a fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that diverged from other apes prior to the human/chimp split. It's not a matter of how you want it to be.

Well at least this is how they interpret what we see (it fits the hypothesis). However correlation does not equal cause.


More specifically, we are apes. And yes, we evolved from apes, just as Equus (modern horses) evolved from horses.

No…all apes have a common ape ancestor, and all humans have a common human ancestor.


No as for perspective, an evolutionist might say that persistent bipedalism caused the difference in the pelvis, where I would say a different pelvis (by design) caused bi-pedalism (they did it because they were made to).

Let's look at the evidence. Bipedalism didn't pop out of nowhere, but evolved over time.

Although Australopithecines were bipedal, they still show transitional features, like a flatter pelvis, curved femur, curved digits and so on. Our adaptations appeared over time, not suddenly.

No…three different unrelated creatures….not one can be represented as progenitor of the others (especially not Austra)


Bi-pedalism is a normal characteristic for humans (not apes).

So Australopithecines are human, not apes?


I explained that to you….this unsuccessful variety of ancient ape was one of nature’s failed attempts to make God’s human…

You're sure about that? Notice Australopithecine skulls are transitional between those of today's African apes and those of humans.

That artistic contrivance is a great propaganda device, only the oldest chimp we can really demonstrate is about 550,000 years ago and Australopithicus goes back millions so the TRUE sequence is Austral, Chimp (devolution), then Human…


Now when the earth brought forth creatures after its own kind (nature's way)

Evolution, as documented by this and other evidence. Why is it so offensive to you that God did it the way He did?

Apparently it does not (another attempt to do the twist?) as I have included this


there were a couple of varieties of Ape that developed and/or had a pelvis somewhat more akin to a human’s pelvis,

Turns out, that there are transitional forms for that, too

Yeah I saw how those artistic contrivances display the three creatures. Well done I must say but not transitional (are you trying to divert?)


allowing for some bi-pedalism, but they were unsuccessful and their variety died off and became extinct.

It existed for about 1.5 milllion years. A very respectable time as mammals go. Anatomically modern humans have been around perhaps 200,000 years. So we shouldn't sneer at H. habilis.


You indicated Erectus not Habalis (who was an ape)

Nature, even though put in motion and ordered by God, was just incapable of producing God’s “mankind”.

True, but not the way you think. God was quite capable making nature produce what He intended man's physical body to be. But of course nature could not give us an immortal soul, which is given directly by God.

Even our form was created directly by God, but MAYBE not apes (which He may have directly created the first models)…they may be the product of the earth bringing forth creatures after its kind


It strove through millions of years but alas it failed. Apes are to Arithmetic what Mankind is to Calculus! Both are math but Calculus is not Arithmetic.

You cannot do calculus without arithmetic. So that makes some sense. Humans could not have been without earlier hominins.

Hominins are a man-made classification to include then all under one umbrella (to fit the hypothesis)

 

[brother Paul]

You've described one of the most vexing problems for creationists. If creationism were true, then it would be an easy matter to define "species." But that's not the case, because species evolve over time.

Yes speciation is God's process which produces different varieties of the same creature...

Hence, closely related populations can still interbreed, but more distantly related ones are less successful, and at some point, they diverge so that there is complete isolation. Humans and Neandertals were able to interbreed, but given the relative lack of Neandertal genes in modern humans, it doesn't seem to have been very successful. Apparently, hybrids were either not common, or they had greatly reduced fertility.

Yes closely related populations of the same species! There is no lack of Neanderthal genes since they appear in almost the entire population (except some African lineages)…percentage wise we have a few percent specifically Neanderthal a few specifically Denisovan (more among South East Asians) and a few (though more) specifically African and then we all share the rest.

Yes Neanderthals were not a successful variety (Ice Ages and all) but there were no more hybrids than a Mongolian and a Pigmy would be racistly called a Hybrid….just two variant members of the same species having sex and producing offspring.

 

[brother Paul]

"Anthropology can now confidently report that Neandertals, Denisovans, and others labelled archaic are in fact an interbreeding part of the modern human lineage. We are the same species. There has been extensive admixture across modern humans for tens of thousands of years, and at least some admixture across several archaic groups. Neandertals, Denisovans, and other archaics may be the best example of a true human race or sub-species. They are also fully part of the human lineage, with almost all contemporary humans showing genetic admixture with archaics in our genetic signatures."

http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/denisovans-neandertals-human-races/

John Hawkes states “We know for a fact that some Neandertal genes are today very common – for example, one 100-kilobase region occurs at a frequency of 28 percent outside of Africa. Any assignment to a species is a hypothesis, provisional on finding new facts to refute it. For the moment the facts point to them being the same species as us.”

We all have some input from Neanderthal (more or less) though slight as should be expected since most of them died out in the ice age around 100,000 years ago. Some Denisovan (homo sapien Altai) but more so in Tibet, Southeast Asia, and Western Native Americans. Some specifically African genes unique to ancient Sapiens from there…the rest of our genes are shared between the three groups…Neands and Denis’s had most of the same genes we have today (though some are unique in each case). Of course their gene contributions in modern man are more distant (because THEY were more distant). Gene contributions from early Sapien sapiens are also distant (time does pass you know)…but nothing anatomically or genetically would transverse what we mean when we say “species”….

In the history the actual data shows different varieties of early humans (homo sapiens) socially interacting, becoming attracted, having sex, bearing offspring to the exclusion of having this social networking and sexual interaction with Apes (not that such a mating could produce offspring anyway as we KNOW it could not)…

 

[Barbarian]

I guess it depends on how one sees it,

Barbarian observes:
No. Postmodernism is completely unable to comprehend that there is an objective reality.

Totally irrelevant and way off topic….

Sorry, reality is not whatever we want it to be. That's just the way it is.

Obfuscation dance begins:

like the cladoclast Malte Ebach, John Hawkes believes “Humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World monkeys like baboons and New World monkeys like marmosets. All of us anthropoids. But humans aren’t monkeys.“

Barbarian chuckles:
Sloppy thinking, it seems. Monkeys and apes are not the same thing.

[quote[Nice twist[/quote]

Not as good as it might have seemed at the time. Suddenly we go from "humans and chimpanzees have a last common ancestor" to the suggestion that someone things humans are monkeys. If the argument depends on twisting what science has to say about the issue, that's a pretty good indication that the argument is bogus.

(is the dance beginning again?).

The obfuscation waltz. A creationist favorite.

They were not saying they were the same thing

Then why did they bring it up? Sorry, too late to erase the tape.

Barbarian observes:
No. Genetically, it is clearly a fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that diverged from other apes prior to the human/chimp split. It's not a matter of how you want it to be.

Well at least this is how they interpret what we see (it fits the hypothesis).

Theory. As you know, a hypothesis, once confirmed by subsequent evidence (like the genetic data) to the point that it's unreasonable to deny it, becomes a theory. And yes, we can check the meaning of the genetic data by comparing it in organisms of known descent. Even more devastating to creationists, there's never a case where species said to be distantly related across class boundaries show close genetic matches. So there's really no other possible way to deny it.

Barbarian observes:
More specifically, we are apes. And yes, we evolved from apes, just as Equus (modern horses) evolved from horses.

No…all apes have a common ape ancestor, and all humans have a common human ancestor.

As you learned, genetics has confirmed the hypothesis, made on the basis of anatomy, that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor, only after that ancestor had diverged from other apes. There's no way to get around it. Even creationists like Kurt Wise admit that it's strong evidence for evolution. He has faith that someday we'll find something to resolve the problem for creationism. But nothing seems likely at this point.

No as for perspective, an evolutionist might say that persistent bipedalism caused the difference in the pelvis, where I would say a different pelvis (by design) caused bi-pedalism (they did it because they were made to).

Barbarian observes:
Let's look at the evidence. Bipedalism didn't pop out of nowhere, but evolved over time.

Although Australopithecines were bipedal, they still show transitional features, like a flatter pelvis, curved femur, curved digits and so on. Our adaptations appeared over time, not suddenly.

No…three different unrelated creatures…

Not possible. Genetics shows chimps and humans to be the closest relative each has. And as you see, Australopithecines are intermediate, showing that humans evolved from more arboreal apes.

Bi-pedalism is a normal characteristic for humans (not apes).

Barbarian asks:
So Australopithecines are human, not apes?

I explained that to you….

You claimed that bipedalism was a normal characteristic of humans. So now it's a normal characteristic of humans, except when it isn't?

this unsuccessful variety of ancient ape

All the Australopithecine species I know about lived longer than our species has so far. So you might want to reconsider what "unsuccessful" means.

was one of nature’s failed attempts to make God’s human…

Nature isn't a conscious entity. It's God's tool in creation. And I'm thinking the notion that God goofed a few times before He got it right, is just not very good theology.

Barbarian asks:
You're sure about that? Notice Australopithecine skulls are transitional between those of today's African apes and those of humans.

That artistic contrivance is a great propaganda device

The facts are not in dispute. Pretty much every single characteristic in human skulls has a transitional form in Australopithecines. Would you like me to show you?

You indicated Erectus not Habalis (who was an ape)

Habilis. And it is so transitional between humans and Australopithecines that it would fit about equally well in either group. His enlarged brain and tool-making tend to get him put among Homo, rather than Australopithecus.

Barbarian observes:
True, but not the way you think. God was quite capable making nature produce what He intended man's physical body to be. But of course nature could not give us an immortal soul, which is given directly by God.

Even our form was created directly by God,

That belief is supported neither by scripture nor by evidence.

It strove through millions of years but alas it failed. Apes are to Arithmetic what Mankind is to Calculus! Both are math but Calculus is not Arithmetic

Barbarian observes:
You cannot do calculus without arithmetic. So that makes some sense. Humans could not have been without earlier hominins.

 

[Barbarian]

You've described one of the most vexing problems for creationists. If creationism were true, then it would be an easy matter to define "species." But that's not the case, because species evolve over time.

Yes speciation is God's process which produces different varieties of the same creature...

If that were the whole truth, then only YE creationism would be invalidated. But as YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, it is also impossible to make clear distinctions between higher taxa, such as arboreal apes and hominins.

Yes Neanderthals were not a successful variety (Ice Ages and all)

Their time was about twice our current time. So probably it would be presumptuous to call them "unsuccessful."

 

[brother Paul]

the statement "You claimed that bipedalism was a normal characteristic of humans. So now it's a normal characteristic of humans, except when it isn't?

Does not make any sense. It IS a normal characteristic of humans but that does not exclude other creatures who may exhibit or tend toward it. You seemed to be trying to make me say something I had not said.