[_ Old Earth _] Evolution, a theory for apes.

[cupid dave]

Common sense. How can you test universal common ancestry?

?
Wouldn't "common sense" suggest that science CONFIRMS what Genesis tells us, that before the flood out of Africa, we Modern men today were born out of a series of 22 links to the very first man, an Adam?


The common sense within the church today should prevail, and see that Science justifies the Bible by stating, indeed, there have been 22 now extinct humans in our evolution:

Book:

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-TwoSpecies of Extinct Humans

by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

 

[Adam]

?
Wouldn't "common sense" suggest that science CONFIRMS what Genesis tells us, that before the flood out of Africa, we Modern men today were born out of a series of 22 links to the very first man, an Adam?


The common sense within the church today should prevail, and see that Science justifies the Bible by stating, indeed, there have been 22 now extinct humans in our evolution:

Book:

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-TwoSpecies of Extinct Humans

by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

Why are you sourcing "The Last Man"?

You haven't provided any content from the book, and the list of 22 species is incomplete as I think you've been made aware that there are around 30 extinct humans discovered by the year 2012.

These images you provide have nothing to do with anthropology in any way.

If you are trying to sneak one by to validate pseudo-scripture ( 22 names in Genesis?) by attaching a source of authority that has nothing to do with it, you are committing a logical fallacy.

Not to mention it's plainly dishonest.

 

[cupid dave]

Why are you sourcing "The Last Man"?

You haven't provided any content from the book, and the list of 22 species is incomplete as I think you've been made aware that there are around 30 extinct humans discovered by the year 2012.

These images you provide have nothing to do with anthropology in any way.

If you are trying to sneak one by to validate pseudo-scripture ( 22 names in Genesis?) by attaching a source of authority that has nothing to do with it, you are committing a logical fallacy.

Not to mention it's plainly dishonest.

?

I reference what I posted to the very recent book by a group of eminent paleontologists which even in its title claims there have been only 22 candidates for the links fro first man thru those from whom we have ascended.

Though the scientists are still a little split on the actual list of our ancestors, and some claim more while others claim a few less, the Bible is firm in enumerating 22 begats which are long set in the stone of written down scripture.

There is much more in scripture to support the one-to-one correspond between paleontology and the Genesis genealogy.
Both of these dicipline, theology and paleontology claim that hybeeding occurred between different members of these ancesteral ape-men, as evidenced bythe genetics that recently found recessive Neanderthal genes in the world population of today.

 

[lordkalvan]

?

I reference what I posted to the very recent book by a group of eminent paleontologists which even in its title claims there have been only 22 candidates for the links fro first man thru those from whom we have ascended.

Though the scientists are still a little split on the actual list of our ancestors, and some claim more while others claim a few less, the Bible is firm in enumerating 22 begats which are long set in the stone of written down scripture.

There is much more in scripture to support the one-to-one correspond between paleontology and the Genesis genealogy.
Both of these dicipline, theology and paleontology claim that hybeeding occurred between different members of these ancesteral ape-men, as evidenced bythe genetics that recently found recessive Neanderthal genes in the world population of today.

From what I have read of your posts, you seem genuine and thoughtful in the ideas you have brought to bear, but from where I am standing there seems to be an almighty amount of post facto rationalisation and confirmation bias going on here. I think it makes little sense to try and retrofit Genesis to scientific understanding, simply because you immediately open yourself to the charge of cherry picking data to support your hypothesis, especially when dealing with a field as dynamic and uncertain as human ancestry, for example. If, on the other hand, you could point to substantive interpretations of Genesis that predate relevant scientific knowledge, but display an understanding of that knowledge, then I think your case would be much stronger.

 

[cupid dave]

From what I have read of your posts, you seem genuine and thoughtful in the ideas you have brought to bear, but from where I am standing there seems to be an almighty amount of post facto rationalisation and confirmation bias going on here. I think it makes little sense to try and retrofit Genesis to scientific understanding, simply because you immediately open yourself to the charge of cherry picking data to support your hypothesis, especially when dealing with a field as dynamic and uncertain as human ancestry, for example. If, on the other hand, you could point to substantive interpretations of Genesis that predate relevant scientific knowledge, but display an understanding of that knowledge, then I think your case would be much stronger.

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt in regard to my motives for expressing the ideas I post here.

I would ask you to hold the people's feet to the same fire as are my own in regard to their ancient medieval interpretations which have had the advantage of preceeding my own, simply because I was born well after them.

It occurs to me that I have the benefit of reading Genesis in this age, when so much knowledge is available to me and useful in a critical analysis of what is actually written.

What I have discovered from the people who respond to my posts is that they, indeed, do defer to previous interpretations by now long dead men.
It is only by that authority, the commentary and ideas of these men, that what I say to you in this age is dismissed without an honest intellectual consideration for what seems acadekmically and scientifically supported.

It is even that these people defer to myths, opposition to well known facts, wild metaphysical explanations, and reams of mere fiction suggested by esarlier bible readers as if truth was so vague and easily avoided that even matching the facts to Genesis can be debated.

In a word or two, you propose I show the previous writers to be less authoritative than myself if I propose anything other than what they have presented long ago.

That seems rather weak to me, if not a little irrational on its face.

 

[cupid dave]

Why are you sourcing "The Last Man"?

If you are trying to sneak one by to validate pseudo-scripture ( 22 names in Genesis?) by attaching a source of authority that has nothing to do with it, you are committing a logical fallacy.

Not to mention it's plainly dishonest.

There does seem to be a lack of intellectual honesty here.

I insist that it does not originate with my attention to reference what I post to established qualified scientific writers who support my comments.

That is the academically correct procedure in honest and intelligent discussions.

What seems somewhat dishonest is to insist that the reference used is ignored out of hand, rather than to admit that the publication of the recent book testifies to a general acceptance by the science editors for what is stated by authors whose credentials are appropriate to what the book concerns:

Editorial Reviews


From Publishers Weekly

Remarkable in scope and clarity, this stunning collaboration among scientists, scholars and artists reveals the vast panorama of hominid evolution. The project began when the Fossil Hominid Reconstruction and Research Team, led by anthropologist Sawyer and paleoartist Deak, began reconstructing fossilized skulls and skeletons, using meticulous procedures of forensic anatomical reconstruction to build three-dimensional models of contemporary humankind's known predecessors. Paleontological and anatomical data for each species were combined with anthropological and climatological research to produce this volume, covering 22 species and 7 million years. As chapters move chronologically from our most primitive antecedents, the poorly known "ape-men" of the African Sahel, through more well-known ancestors, such as the Australopithicines, Homo habilis and Neanderthals, the data grows in complexity and quantity; happily, fictional accounts of individual hominids draw readers into each new chapter. Illustrated with astonishingly life-like portraits of long-gone species, this volume also includes appendices that describe in detail how those portraits were achieved. Both inspiring and humbling, this look at humanity's ancestors-the worlds they inhabited, the challenges they faced and the legacies they left behind-is fascinating, informative, and deeply provocative.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

As paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall points out in his introduction to this marvelous new book on our ancestors, we Homo sapiens find ourselves in the unusual situation of being alone on the planet as the sole surviving hominid. For most of the history of the hominid lineage, the world was home to coexisting prehumans and humans. From paleontological and anthropological data previously available only in scientific publications, the authors have created an accessible field guide to our extinct cousins. Beginning each section with a short slice-of-life story about the species in question brings that hominid to life, with the supportive scientific evidence following. Skulls are often the most common or complete fossil evidence, so they are well described, along with other remains (bones and/or tools), fossil sites, other associated animals, the probable climate, and a discussion of the species' classification. Striking illustrations accompany the write-ups and breathe life into dry fossil bones. This very current book explains the science as it now stands and is a must-buy for all libraries. Nancy Bent
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

 

[Adam]

?

I reference what I posted to the very recent book by a group of eminent paleontologists which even in its title claims there have been only 22 candidates for the links fro first man thru those from whom we have ascended.

It doesn't claim that. The list is acknowledged as incomplete in the book. The book was on the fourth floor at the library of my alma mater when I attended. It is not "very recent."

Though the scientists are still a little split on the actual list of our ancestors, and some claim more while others claim a few less, the Bible is firm in enumerating 22 begats which are long set in the stone of written down scripture.

The bible is not firm on enumerating begats at 22. Try reading Matt 1. It gives 28. And that doesn't include the literally hundreds of begats found in the bible. I have a suspicion you haven't made it to Numbers yet.

In any event, scientists are a little split on the number of discovered extant species. However, they are in consensus that it is sevral mnore than 22.

There is much more in scripture to support the one-to-one correspond between paleontology and the Genesis genealogy.
Both of these dicipline, theology and paleontology claim that hybeeding occurred between different members of these ancesteral ape-men, as evidenced bythe genetics that recently found recessive Neanderthal genes in the world population of today.

The bible claims no such thing. And neither scripture or science line up with what you claim here.

....

 

[Adam]

There does seem to be a lack of intellectual honesty here.

I insist that it does not originate with my attention to reference what I post to established qualified scientific writers who support my comments.

That is the academically correct procedure in honest and intelligent discussions.

What seems somewhat dishonest is to insist that the reference used is ignored out of hand, rather than to admit that the publication of the recent book testifies to a general acceptance by the science editors for what is stated by authors whose credentials are appropriate to what the book concerns:

Editorial Reviews


From Publishers Weekly

Remarkable in scope and clarity, this stunning collaboration among scientists, scholars and artists reveals the vast panorama of hominid evolution. The project began when the Fossil Hominid Reconstruction and Research Team, led by anthropologist Sawyer and paleoartist Deak, began reconstructing fossilized skulls and skeletons, using meticulous procedures of forensic anatomical reconstruction to build three-dimensional models of contemporary humankind's known predecessors. Paleontological and anatomical data for each species were combined with anthropological and climatological research to produce this volume, covering 22 species and 7 million years. As chapters move chronologically from our most primitive antecedents, the poorly known "ape-men" of the African Sahel, through more well-known ancestors, such as the Australopithicines, Homo habilis and Neanderthals, the data grows in complexity and quantity; happily, fictional accounts of individual hominids draw readers into each new chapter. Illustrated with astonishingly life-like portraits of long-gone species, this volume also includes appendices that describe in detail how those portraits were achieved. Both inspiring and humbling, this look at humanity's ancestors-the worlds they inhabited, the challenges they faced and the legacies they left behind-is fascinating, informative, and deeply provocative.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

As paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall points out in his introduction to this marvelous new book on our ancestors, we Homo sapiens find ourselves in the unusual situation of being alone on the planet as the sole surviving hominid. For most of the history of the hominid lineage, the world was home to coexisting prehumans and humans. From paleontological and anthropological data previously available only in scientific publications, the authors have created an accessible field guide to our extinct cousins. Beginning each section with a short slice-of-life story about the species in question brings that hominid to life, with the supportive scientific evidence following. Skulls are often the most common or complete fossil evidence, so they are well described, along with other remains (bones and/or tools), fossil sites, other associated animals, the probable climate, and a discussion of the species' classification. Striking illustrations accompany the write-ups and breathe life into dry fossil bones. This very current book explains the science as it now stands and is a must-buy for all libraries. Nancy Bent
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

None of that wall of text you tried to overwhelm me with is relevant to the fact that you posted 2 graphics that have nothing to do with the book and then sourced the book as if they belong with the book.


I'm not saying that the book isn't relevant. I'm saying that the book isn't relevant to your graphics.

The fallacy is called "appeal to unrelated authority.'

 

[Adam]

from where I am standing there seems to be an almighty amount of post facto rationalisation and confirmation bias going on here.

I am drawing the exact same conclusion.

 

[cupid dave]

None of that wall of text you tried to overwhelm me with is relevant to the fact that you posted 2 graphics that have nothing to do with the book and then sourced the book as if they belong with the book.


I'm not saying that the book isn't relevant. I'm saying that the book isn't relevant to your graphics.

The fallacy is called "appeal to unrelated authority.'

?

If I follow your reasoning here, it is your position that science facts do not matter at all in regard to supporting what one thinks about the statements made in the Bible.

You consider it an appeal to authority to refer to scientists who support what I understand the Bible to be telling us.

I am left wondering what you think all those 22 "begats" means, and why a book from God himself would take up so much space, what with seemed to be rather wasted repetitious information, until we got the Flood and extinction of all all those other "kinds" of men.

How and by what other source will you support your own "take" on the genealogy???

 

[Adam]

?

If I follow your reasoning here, it is your position that science facts do not matter at all in regard to supporting what one thinks about the statements made in the Bible.

You consider it an appeal to authority to refer to scientists who support what I understand the Bible to be telling us.

I am left wondering what you think all those 22 "begats" means, and why a book from God himself would take up so much space, what with seemed to be rather wasted repetitious information, until we got the Flood and extinction of all all those other "kinds" of men.

How and by what other source will you support your own "take" on the genealogy???

I consider it an appeal to irrelevant aurthority because it is.

The images you have given are NOT SUPPORTED by that book.

From what I gather from the graphics is that you think that there are 22 names in the bible up to Shem? That's an arbitrary place to stop considering that Shem and his brothers all have children and they have children, on and on.

There aren't 22 enumerated names. There's hundreds.


And leaving out Abel you've miscounted. You are also missing several hominid species. And the relationships between hominids are not direct lineage in only 2 branches.

It doesn't even appear that you've read the book. Just taken the number 22 from the title and tried to find a way that it might fit the bible if you just ignore several MAJOR facts, such as the fact that the number is outdated since we have found several more species since 2006 when the book was compiled.

I don't think you care that there are over 30 species of hominids discovered by 2012 and that the book is out of date. You just want two lists of 22 so you can say "AHA! A match!"

Really they don't match at all.


BTW, those names are not wasted, useless or repetitive information. We get to see polygamy, musical instruments, metalworks, tent dwelling, keeping cattle, and all sorts of Sapien behavior, that our ancient cousins did not engage in before Seth was EVEN BORN.

Then after Seth was born, we hear of a man, not a species, but a single human who walked with God and was taken by him without dying. Yet you think Enoch was a species who went extinct.

I mean, you can spraypaint a rubix cube black and say that you've solved it, but it is obvious that you didn't.

 

[cupid dave]

From what I gather from the graphics is that you think that there are 22 names in the bible up to Shem?

That's an arbitrary place to stop considering that Shem and his brothers all have children and they have children, on and on.

There aren't 22 enumerated names. There's hundreds.

There are twenty-two (22) names before the flood that kills all other species, like Neanderthal.

These names are all associated with inordinately long claims in regard to the life span of these people.

This hints at the more reasonable assumption that the names are at least eponyms, or titles if not species, as we can see in clearly and explicitly stated in scripture:



Gen5:2:

2Maleand female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and calledTHEIR name "Adam," (a species?) in the day when THEYwere created.

 

[Adam]

There are twenty-two (22) names before the flood that kills all other species, like Neanderthal.

These names are all associated with inordinately long claims in regard to the life span of these people.

This hints at the more reasonable assumption that the names are at least eponyms, or titles if not species, as we can see in clearly and explicitly stated in scripture:



Gen5:2:

2Maleand female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and calledTHEIR name "Adam," (a species?) in the day when THEYwere created.

Actually, there are more than 22 names without even counting Noah's sons.

1 Adam
2 Eve
3 Cain
4 Abel
5 Seth
6 Enoch
7 Irad
8 Mehujael
9 Methusael
10 Lamech
11. Adah
12 Jubal
13 Jabal
14 Zillah
15 Tubal Cain
16 Naamah
17 Enos
18 Cainan
19 Mahalaleel
20 Jared
21 Enoch
22 Methusaleh
23 Lamech
24 Noah

Counting Noah's sons brings the number to 27.

I don't see "neanderthal" listed, however.

And as far as Gen 5:2 is concerned, you are completely ignoring WHO was created. Adam and Eve. You are reading something into the text that simply is not there.

 

[cupid dave]

Actually, there are more than 22 names without even counting Noah's sons.

1 Adam

2 Cain

3 Seth
4 Enoch
5 Irad
6 Mehujael
7 Methusael
8 Lamech

9 Jubal
10 Jabal

11 Tubal Cain

12 Enos
13 Cainan
14 Mahalaleel
15 Jared
16 Enoch
17 Methusaleh
18 Lamech
19 Noah
20 Japheth
21 Ham
22 Shem

Counting Noah's sons brings the number to 27.

I don't see "neanderthal" listed, however.

And as far as Gen 5:2 is concerned, you are completely ignoring WHO was created. Adam and Eve. You are reading something into the text that simply is not there.

My list doesn't include Abel, because he had no son, and it ignores the mothers of the children of the men listed as "begots."

But, in being so lame, you imply that this discussion is about convincing you, (which would be impossible, of course).

I see the discussion as being about the enumerating of the facts of Science.
And comparing them with the facts stated in the Genesis story.

The analogy between the two, science and genesis, can be dismissed by irrational people or Bible Bashers who prefer that Genesis NOT be supported by science.

 

[lordkalvan]

...The analogy between the two, sicnce and genesis, can be dismissed by irrational people oir Bible Bashers who prefer that Genesis NOT be supported by science.

Nope, it's just that that alleged support seems to depend on post hoc rationalisations, cherrypicking and confirmation bias.

 

[cupid dave]

Nope, it's just that that alleged support seems to depend on post hoc rationalisations, cherrypicking and confirmation bias.

Like what?

Did I cherry pick the science book which clear in its title insists that there have been 22 now extinct humans in our ascent from the missing link which the Bible names as Adam?

Did I cherry pick the 22 names of the MEN in the genealogy which fathered one another until the three racial stocks of Noah's sons appeared and specifically spread out across the whole world according to Genesis 10?


I merely have brought these two different sources about our origins together for you.

 

[lordkalvan]

Like what?

Did I cherry pick the science book which clear in its title insists that there have been 22 now extinct humans in our ascent from the missing link which the Bible names as Adam?

Did I cherry pick the 22 names of the MEN in the genealogy which fathered one another until the three racial stocks of Noah's sons appeared and specifically spread out across the whole world according to Genesis 10?


I merely have brought these two different sources about our origins together for you.

Um, essentially, yes, as Adam has pointed out. Your identification of 22 'extinct humans in our ascent' is, at best, dubious and at worst a misrepresentation. Depending on which source you wish to use, the number of directly ancestral species varies from 12 to 19, while others cite up to 23.

 

[cupid dave]

Um, essentially, yes, as Adam has pointed out. Your identification of 22 'extinct humans in our ascent' is, at best, dubious and at worst a misrepresentation. Depending on which source you wish to use, the number of directly ancestral species varies from 12 to 19, while others cite up to 23.[/QUOT]


So even you can see that Genesis is in the ball park of what scientists still argue about.

Genesis is in stone, and will not change the number from 22.
What we see today is eminent scientists who are in the same field of study, Paleontologists, have proposes in the 2007 book a current definitive arument for what Genesis says.


Now you think that te science is in doubt

 

[cupid dave]

Um, essentially, yes, as Adam has pointed out. Your identification of 22 'extinct humans in our ascent' is, at best, dubious and at worst a misrepresentation. Depending on which source you wish to use, the number of directly ancestral species varies from 12 to 19, while others cite up to 23.

Isn't it dubious" that Genesis will be wrong, since every scientists says there are between 12 and 23 now extinct humans in our ascent?

And isn't is pretty supportive that a whole staff of Paleontologists have together agreed on exactly 22 now extinct humans in the 2007 edition of the book they collectively contributed too?

I am dubioius that you would accept the analogy even if you could put your finger on a list that comes out next year saying Genesis is right.


The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans [Hardcover]

G. J. Sawyer (Author), Viktor Deak (Author), Esteban Sarmiento (Author), Richard Milner (Author), Ian Tattersallhttp://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Tw...m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ABGJDWD85JKZFZWTV3D#

Ian Tattersall (Introduction)
› Visit Amazon's Ian Tattersall Page
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
Are you an author? Learn about Author Central



(Introduction), Maeve Leakey (Afterword), Donald C. Johanson (Foreword)

Check outthe credentials of the seven contributors and see that these are the best of the best even now.

 

[Adam]

My list doesn't include Abel, because he had no son, and it ignores the mothers of the children of the men listed as "begots."


The analogy between the two, science and genesis, can be dismissed by irrational people or Bible Bashers who prefer that Genesis NOT be supported by science.

The analogy can be dismissed by perfectly rational people.

I would prefer that Geneis could be confirmed, but in the way that you describe, ou've ignored major facts and twisted the rest.

You even admit that these aren't species when you say that you've ignored the mothers of the children. You also say that you left out Abel because he had no children? Why, then, are you counting Jubal, Jabal and Tubal-Cain?


You ARE cherry-picking.