[_ Old Earth _] Human ascent from 22 kinds of now extinct peoples

[cupid dave]

The Theistic Evolutionists association the 22 names of man-kinds listed in Genesis 4 and 5 with those 22 discoveries by Modern Science who confirm the same number of species in their discipline. This infers that what the scriptures are telling us is true scientifically.

Here is the current list of various skeletons discovered.
Thoes marked in red represent the 22 types of man which currently appear to be directly in modern man's ascent out-of-Africa, and his flood of populations over all the world even to the tops of the moutains.


The list was presented by Adam, (no pun intended), because he found this comparison to convenient to Theistic Evolution Theology, so here it is examined in more detail.

This list is broken down into three parts because the post is too long:

28.Australopithecus africanus ……………………(Enos)
29.Australopithecusafarensis……………………..(Enoch)
30.Australopithecusgarhi………………………….(Mahalaleel)
31.Australopithecusaethiopicus…………………(Cainan)
32.Australopithecusrobustus……………………..(Mahujael)
33.Australopithecusboisei………………………….(Irad)
34.Ardipithecus ramidus………………………….(Cain)



35.Ardipithecus kadabba………………………… Ancient ancestor of ramidus. It has been described as a "probable chronospecies" (i.e. ancestor) of A. ramidus. A chronospecies describes a group of one species derived from the sequential development pattern which involves continual and uniform changes from an extinct ancestral form. Throughout this change, there is only one species in the lineage at anypoint in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronospecies






36.Kenyanthropus platyops……………………………….. no real consensus as to whether Kenyanthropus platyops is even distinct from the contemporary and much better known Australopithecusafarensis;…. There are also those who think it's similar to Homo rudolfensis below.

http://www.macroevolution.net/kenyanthropus-platyops.html


37.Sahelanthropus tchadensis………………………………….(Adam)


38. Orrorintugenensis …………………………………………… (Abel) Orrorin tugenensis is considered to be the second-oldest (after Sahelanthropus tchadensis, i.e.; Adam) known hominin ancestor that is possibly related to modern humans, and it is the only species classified in genus Orrorin. Orrorin is significant because it can be an early bipedal hominin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin

 

[cupid dave]

Second half of Adam's list:



9.Homo rhodesiensis…………………………… The validity of Homo rhodesiensisas a distinct type of hominid is not well accepted, and it has been variously suggested that the skull on which it is based should be assigned to one or the other of H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, H. sapiens, or H. heidelbergensis.

http://www.macroevolution.net/homo-rhodesiensis.html


10.Homo erectus…………………………………..(Methuselah)
11.Homo habilis…………………………………..(Enoch2)
12.Homo rudolfensis………………………………(Jared)
13.Homo floresiensis……………………………….(Tubal-cain)



14. Homo cepranensis : "Ceprano Man" has not been accepted as distinct from the contemporary and far better documented Homo erectus. And, in fact, there really seems to be no good reason to name a new hominid on the basis of a single, not particularly distinctive, fragment.)

http://www.macroevolution.net/homo-cepranensis.html

15.Homo yuanmouensis……………………. The Yuanmou fossil teeth are very similar to those of the1.6-million-year-old Turkana ‘boy’ skeleton from West Turkana, Kenya, usually assigned to H. erectus.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/asian-research/earliest-humans-china

16.Homo lantianensis…………………………… Scientists classify Lantian Man as a subspecies of Homo erectus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lantian_Man
17.Homo wushanensis…………………….. early member of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of Homo erectus

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=toolbar-instant&hl=en&ion=1&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4TSNO_enUS458US458#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=3&tok=G77PF9yq-H3PyrxoSubO_w&cp=16&gs_id=2&xhr=t&q=homo+erectus+wushanense&pf=p&tbo=d&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4TSNO_enUS458US458&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Homo+wushanensis&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=67039599a028a8df&bpcl=38897761&biw=1264&bih=577&ion=1&bs=1\

18.Homo pekinensis………………………….. early member of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of Homo erectus
19.Homo palaeojavanicus………………... early member of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of Homo erectus
20.Homo soloensis……………………………early member of anextinct species of humans, considered a subspeciesof Homo erectus
21.Homo tautavelensis……………………….. early member of an extinct species of humans, considered asubspecies of Homo erectus
22.Homo nankinensis………………………….earlymember of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of Homoerectus’

23.Denisova Hominin…………………………. Denisovans were a hybrid population of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis (or a related species such as H. heidelbergensis).
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2010/12/denisova-hominins-neanderthals.html

24.Red Deer Cave Species…………………………….. they might represent a very early and previously unknown
migration of modern humans out of Africa, a population who may not have contributed genetically to living people," Curnoe added.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/new-human-species-red-deer-cave_n_1345216.html


25.Australopithecus anamensis…………………(Seth)




26.Australopithecus sediba……………………………………… In a news article published with the initial descriptions in 2010, detractors of the idea that A. sediba might be ancestral to the genus Homo (e.g. Tim White and Ron Clarke) suggest that the fossils could be a late southern African branch of Australopithecus, co-existing with already existing members of the Homo genus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_sediba
27.Australopithecus bahrelghazali……………………………………………… searchers like William Kimbel to argue that this is not an exemplar of a separate
species, but "falls within the range of variation" of the Australopithecus afarensis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_bahrelghazali

 

[cupid dave]

The last group of candidates for those creatures in Modern Homo sapoiens; kune of ascent:

1.Homo sapiens………………………………………(Shem, Ham, Japheth)
2.Homo sapiensidaltu………………………………(Noah) Homo sapiens idaltu is an extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens that lived almost 160,000 years ago in PleistoceneAfrica.
Idaltu is from the Saho-Afar word meaning "elder or first born". (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
This is interesting since recent genetic studies show that all people living today are related to just one male who lived 40 thousand (nights and days) of years ago, when all other men went extinct.

This supplies the basis for understand Noah's Flood as a metaphor for a great population explosion Out-of-Africa not 40 days ago, but 40 millennia.
(Remember that the Hebrew word for "day," (yowm), does not mean 24 hours, but can represent any duration of time appropriate to the text of one's interpretation of a passage.)


3.Homo georgicus (For the present, about the only sure conclusion is that H. georgicus represents a new and interesting twig on the hominid bush.)
http://www.macroevolution.net/homo-georgicus.html

4.Homo ergaster……………………………………..(Methusael)

5.Homo gautengensis............... was recovered in 1977 and was argued to belong to the species “Homo habilis”. This type specimen has been discussed in some refereed publications as being synonymous with “A. africanus”,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_gautengensis

6.Homo antecessor………………………………(Lamech 2)
7.Homo heidelbergensis………………………….(Jabal)
8.Homo neanderthalensis…………………….(Jubal)

 

[cupid dave]

Using these Graphic Organizers to compare the two disciplines, Science and Theology, we see how Theistic Evolutionist understand the truth of scripture to be supported by the unfolding Truth revealed in science:

 

[cupid dave]

Hello...

Mr Adam...
I posted this for your attention since you went to a great dal of googling to try and avoid the one-to-one comparison between the rather strange genealogy in Genesis and an the very limited number of skeletons found by the Paleontologists who insist that 22 now extinct species were the links in our ascent 40 thousand years ago as the only men on the earth.

Do you now concede this is a surprising support on science for the same idea we find in genesis?

 

[Adam]

There is nothing for me to concede.


You are not telling the truth about "Paleontologists who insist that 22 now extinct species were the links in our ascent., etc..."

There are no paleontologist that insist any such thing. Within the framework of paleontology, such a statement would not even make sense.

 

[cupid dave]

There is nothing for me to concede.


You are not telling the truth about "Paleontologists who insist that 22 now extinct species were the links in our ascent., etc..."

There are no paleontologist that insist any such thing. Within the framework of paleontology, such a statement would not even make sense.

The FACTS insist that 22 is the best number at this moment in time.

Well, yeah,... I misspoke to an extent, in that the palontologists are not certain about the final list that will some day be decided upon. I meant to say the facts insist on 22 right now, for science, but is rather in stone for Genesis.

I meant that the book insists in its title on the number 22 extinct species.

Tthe paleontoplogists who wrote the book are merely summing up the present data and supporting that Genesis is in the same ball park.

But my point remains that science supports Theistic Evolution in claiming this analogy is the intent of the Genealogy, as opposed to denying the Bible as literally true here.

This is far and afield from your own lame attempt to list another dozen possible links in our ascent.

All these names you submitted in your weak attempt to denigrate the correlation of TE were rejected by the Paleontologists.

The all were not accepted as species in our ascent:



35. Ardipithecus kadabba………………………… Ancient ancestor oframidus. It has been described as a "probable chronospecies" (i.e. ancestor)of A. ramidus.A chronospecies describes a groupof one species derived from the sequential development pattern which involves continual and uniformchanges from an extinct ancestral form. Throughout this change, there is only one species in the lineage at anypoint in time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronospecies
36. Kenyanthropusplatyops……………………………….. no real consensus as towhether Kenyanthropus platyops is even distinct from the contemporary and muchbetter known Australopithecusafarensis;…. There are also those who think it'ssimilar to Homorudolfensis.
http://www.macroevolution.net/kenyanthropus-platyops.html



26.Australopithecus sediba……………………………………… In a news article published with theinitial descriptions in 2010, detractors of the idea that A. sedibamight be ancestral to the genus Homo (e.g. Tim White and Ron Clarke) suggest that the fossils could be a late southern African branch of Australopithecus,co-existing with already existingmembers of the Homo genus.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_sediba


27.Australopithecusbahrelghazali……………………………………………… searchers like William Kimbel to argue that Abel is not an exemplar of aseparate species, but "falls within the range ofvariation" of the Australopithecus afarensis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_bahrelghazali


18.Homo pekinensis………………………….. early member of anextinct species of humans, considered a subspeciesof Homo erectus
19.Homopalaeojavanicus………………... early member of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of Homo erectus
20.Homo soloensis……………………………early member of anextinct species of humans, considered a subspeciesof Homo erectus
21.Homotautavelensis……………………….. early member of an extinct species of humans, considered asubspecies of Homo erectus
22.Homo nankinensis………………………….earlymember of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of Homoerectus’
23.DenisovaHominin…………………………. Denisovans were a hybridpopulation of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis (or a related species such asH. heidelbergensis).
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2010/12/denisova-hominins-neanderthals.html

24.Red Deer CaveSpecies…………………………….. theymight represent a very early and previouslyunknown migration of modern humans out of Africa, a population who may not have contributed genetically toliving people," Curnoe added.
http://
14. Homo cepranensis ("Ceprano Man" hasnot been accepted as distinct from the contemporary and far better documented Homo erectus. And, in fact, there really seems to be no good reason to name anew hominid on the basis of a single, not particularly distinctive, fragment.)
http://www.macroevolution.net/homo-cepranensis.html

15.Homo yuanmouensis……………………. The Yuanmou fossil teeth are very similar to those of the1.6-million-year-old Turkana ‘boy’ skeleton from West Turkana, Kenya, usually assigned to H. erectus.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/asian-research/earliest-humans-china
16.Homo lantianensis…………………………… Scientists classify Lantian Man as a subspecies of Homo erectus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lantian_Man
17.Homowushanensis…………………….. early member of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of Homo erectus
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/new-human-species-red-deer-cave_n_1345216.html
9.Homo rhodesiensis…………………………… The validity of Homorhodesiensis as a distinct type of hominid is not well acceptedand it has been variously suggested that the skull on which it is based shouldbe assigned to one or the other of H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, H. sapiens, or H. heidelbergensis.
http://www.macroevolution.net/homo-rhodesiensis.html
5.Homo gautengensis............... was recovered in1977 and was argued to belong to the species “Homo habilis”. [2] The type specimen has been discussed insome refereed publications as being synonymous with “A. africanus”,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_gautengensis
3.Homo georgicus (For thepresent, about the only sure conclusion is that H. georgicus represents a new and interesting twig onthe hominid bush.)
http://www.macroevolution.net/homo-georgicus.html





AS OF TODAY, 22 IS THE BEST GUESS FOR THE LIST BY BOTH PALEONTOLOGY AND THEOLOGY.

 

[Adam]

The book does not include all the data.


We have already been over this.

"Books are just a report on data, they are not the data, itself."

"Most paleontologists focus on one specimen or one period. It's a concept called "specialization." Their individual works and papers make up vast libraries of content where information can be found that clearly demonstrate over 40 species and sub-species of hominids. That trumps a single volume of a partial list of hominids ten-thousand fold."

"They make no arguments for any particular number of species in the book. "


The book is 7 years old, we have identified other species since then, and the book only focuses on a partial list. It is not up to date and the other data we have today, going into 2013, confirms nearly twice as many species as your "best guess" meant to fulfill a numerological agenda.

 

[Adam]

Let me know when you wanrt me to begin explaining how blogs are not evidence that invalidate the legitimacy of the species I listed.

As quickly as you were to accuse me of doing a mad-dash to dig up this undeniable list of 38 species, it is certain that your attempt to debunk these species was more than rushed.

Agin, your qualm with "subspecies" has no bearing on the fact that these hominids are of a new category and are distinct from each other and the erectus predecessor, even though they are in "direct ascent."

 

[cupid dave]

You criticized the reference to the last book written on the subject of Human ancestors to Modern man by producing a list of other skeletons discovered, but none of which are accepted as in the line of direct ascent which BOTH Genesis and this Book, The Last Human agree on.

Be a man and say, "Well, you are referencing your hypothesis to actual facts as best we now know them to be.
Your Theistic Evolution Bible Interpretation (TEBI) is not just made up stuff."


TEBI: http://kofh2u.tripod.com/

 

[Adam]

Wrong, sir.

This is certainly not the last book written on the subject. And again, it lists species that are not in our direct line.

I don't understand what you mean by "Be a man."

I can clearly see that your "hypothesis" is in spite of facts. You aren't referencing facts. Your homemade "bible" IS just made up stuff.