[_ Old Earth _] More Garbage From Scientists

[cupid dave]

That is some backpedaling.

Either way, your interpretation does not conform with the now accepted 29 extinct species.

...source?

Do you have a source for the 29 accepted extinct species in leiu of the 22 now extinct species enumerated in The Last Human?

 

[Adam]

...source?

Do you have a source for the 29 accepted extinct species in leiu of the 22 now extinct species enumerated in The Last Human?

A source? Just one? No, sir, I do not.

What I do have is sources. Very many of them.

Here is just a taste. Below you will find some sources for only the subspecies of Homo erectus.

Homo erectus subspecies:

1. georgicus

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

1. Vekua, Abesalom; Lordkipanidze, David; Rightmire, G. Philip; Agusti, Jordi; Ferring, Reid; Maisuradze, Givi; Mouskhelishvili, Alexander; Nioradze, Medea et al (2002). "A new skull of early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia". Science 297 (5578): 85–9. doi:10.1126/science.1072953. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 12098694.
2. ↑ Wilford, John Noble (19 September 2007). "New Fossils Offer Glimpse of Human Ancestors". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/science/19cnd-fossil.html. Retrieved 9 September 2009.
3. ↑ Lordkipanidze, David; Tea Jashashvili, Abesalom Vekua, Marcia S. Ponce de León, Christoph P. E. Zollikofer, G. Philip Rightmire, Herman Pontzer, Reid Ferring, Oriol Oms, Martha Tappen, et al. (20 September 2007). "Postcranial evidence from early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia". Nature 449 (7160): 305–310. doi:10.1038/nature06134. PMID 17882214.
4. ↑ Rightmire, G. Philip; Van Arsdale, Adam P.; Lordkipanidze, David (June 2008). "Variation in the mandibles from Dmanisi, Georgia". Journal of Human Evolution 54 (6): 904–8. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.02.003. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 18394678

2. yuanmouensis

1. Pu, L; Fang, C; Hsing-Hua, M; Ching-Yu, P; Li-Sheng, H; Shih-Chiang, C (1977). "Preliminary study on the age of Yuanmou man by palaeomagnetic technique". Scientia Sinica 20 (5): 645–64. PMID 339347.
2. ^ Ciochon RL. (2009). The mystery ape of Pleistocene Asia. Nature. 459: 910-911. doi:10.1038/459910a. This piece in Nature is based on a contribution to the forthcoming book Out of Africa I: Who, When and Where? (eds, Fleagle, J. G. et al. Springer, 2009)
3. ^ Geoffrey G. Pope. Evidence on the Age of the Asian Hominidae Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (1983) 80:4988-92
4. ^ Qian F, Li Q, Wu P, Yuan S, Xing R, Chen H, and Zhang H (1991). Lower Pleistocene, Yuanmou Formation: Quaternary Geology and Paleoanthropology of Yuanmou, Yunnan, China. Beijing: Science Press, pp. 17-50
5. ^ Qian F, Li Q, Wu P, Yuan S, Xing R, Chen H, and Zhang H (1991). Lower Pleistocene, Yuanmou Formation: Quaternary Geology and Paleoanthropology of Yuanmou, Yunnan, China. Beijing: Science Press, pp. 17-50

3. lantianensis

Woo, J. (1964). "Mandible of Sinanthropus lantianensis". Current Anthropology 5 (2): 98–101. doi:10.1086/200457.
Woo, J. (1965). "Preliminary report on a skull of Sinanthropus lantianensis of Lantian, Shensi". Scientia Sinica 14 (7): 1032–1036. PMID 5829059.


Woo, J. (1966). "The skull of Lantian Man". Current Anthropology 7 (1): 83–86. doi:10.1086/200664.

• Woo, J. K. (1964). "A newly discovered mandible of the Sinanthropus type – Sinanthropus lantianensis". Scientia Sinica 13: 801–811. PMID 14170540.
• Aigner, J. S.; Laughlin, W. S. (1973). "The Dating of Lantian Man and His Significance for Analyzing trends in Human Evolution". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 39 (1): 97–110. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330390111. PMID 4351579.

continued...

 

[Adam]

4. wushanensis

1. ^ a b c d e f g h i Ciochon RL. (2009). "The mystery ape of Pleistocene Asia. Nature. 459: 910-911. doi:10.1038/459910a. This piece in Nature is based on a contribution to the forthcoming book" Out of Africa I: Who, When and Where? (eds, Fleagle, J. G. et al. Springer, 2009)
2. ^ a b c d e f g Huang, W; Ciochon, R; Gu, Y; Larick, R; Qiren, they smell F; Schwarcz, H; Yonge, C; de Vos, J et al. (1995). "Early Homo and associated artefacts from Asia". Nature 378 (6554): 275–8. doi:10.1038/378275a0. PMID 7477345.
3. ^ Hongjiang W.(2007 Nov 13) New human fossil find adds millennia to China's history. ChinaView
4. ^ Chinese Scientists Conclude Wushan Man Is Oldest Human Fossil In China November 13, 2007
5. ^ a b Culotta E. (1995). Asian Hominids Grow Older. Science, 270: (5239), 1116-1117. JSTOR 2889189
6. ^ Sautman B. (2001). Peking Man and the Politics of Paleoanthropological Nationalism in China. Journal of Asian Studies, 60: 95-124. JSTOR 2659506
7. ^ Jungers, WL; Larson, SG; Harcourt-Smith, W; Morwood, MJ; Sutikna, T; Due Awe, R; Djubiantono, T (2009). "Descriptions of the lower limb skeleton of Homo floresiensis.". Journal of Human Evolution 57 (5): 538–54. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.08.014. PMID 19062072.
8. ^ Ancient "Wushan Man" written into history textbook (11 December 2003) EedOrbit
9. ^ Schwartz, JH; Tattersall, I (1996). "Whose teeth?". Nature 381 (6579): 201–2. doi:10.1038/381201a0. PMID 8622760.
10. ^ Huang W P, Gu Y M, Ciochon R, et al. (1996). Reply to Whose teeth? Nature, 381: 202
11. ^ a b Etler DA, Crummett TL, and Wolpoff MH. (2001). "Longgupo: Early Homo Colonizer or Late Pliocene Lufengpithecus Survivor in South China?" Human Evolution 16: 1-12. doi:10.1007/BF02438918
12. ^ Etler DA. 2004. Homo erectus in East Asia: human ancestor or evolutionary dead end? Athena Review 4(1):37-50. Box 3: The earliest Chinese hominid: truth or consequences?
13. ^ Ciochon RL. Olsen JW. James J. (1990). Other origins : the search for the giant ape in human prehistory New York: Bantam Books ISBN 978-0-553-07081-1

5. pekinensis


Hooker, Jake. The Search for the Peking Man Archaeology magazine March/April 2006)

Jia, Lanpo, Huang, Weiwen. The Story of Peking Man: From Archaeology to Mystery. Oxford University Press, USA, 1990.

Schmalzer, Sigrid, The People's Peking Man: Popular Science and Human Identity in Twentieth-Century China. The University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Wu, R., and S. Lin. “Peking Man.” Scientific American 248, no. 6 (1983): 86-94.

6. palaeojavanicus

Yousuke Kaifu, Fachroel Aziz, and Hisao Baba. Hominid Mandibular Remains From Sangiran: 1952-1986 collection. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2005. Abstract Available: here
^ G. Krantz, S. Sartono, and D. Tyler. A New Meganthropus Mandible from Java. Human Evolution, 1995. Abstract Available in the 1995 Supplements of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
^ ^ D. Tyler. Taxonomic Status of "Meganthropus" Cranial Material. Abstract Available in the 1993 Supplements of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
^ ^ ^ A.C. Durband 2003 A re-examination of purported Meganthropus cranial fragments. Paper not yet published. Abstract available in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology supplements for 2003. Also available: [7]
^ ^ A. Kramer. 1994. A Critical Analysis of Southeast Asian Australopithecines. Journal of Human Evolution volume 26, number 1.
^ Russell Ciochon, John Olsenm and Jamie James, Other Origins: The Search for the Giant Ape in Human Prehistory. Bantam Books, 1990.
Bernard Heuvelmans. On the Track of Unknown Animals. Rupert Hart Davis, London, 1962.
Franz Weidenreich. Apes, Giants, and Men. University of Chicago Press, 1996.



continued....

 

[Adam]

7. soloensis

1. Ngandong (Emuseum@Minnesota State University, Mankato)
2. ^ Peter Brown: Recent human evolution in East Asia and Australasia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, Vol. 337, 235-242, 1992
3. ^http://www.columbia.edu/~rlh2/PartII.pdf
4. ^ Peter Brown: Recent human evolution in East Asia and Australasia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, Vol. 337, 235-242, 1992
5. ^ Kaifu, Y; Aziz, F; Indriati, E; Jacob, T; Kurniawan, I; Baba, H (Oct 2008). "Cranial morphology of Javanese Homo erectus: new evidence for continuous evolution, specialization, and terminal extinction". Journal of Human Evolution 55 (4): 551–80. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.05.002. ISSN0047-2484. PMID18635247.

8. tautavelensis

1. abc Wood, Bernard A.. Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of human evolution. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN1-4051-5510-8. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=440TmWXToLAC&pg=PT288. Retrieved January 2012.
2. ^ ab"The major phases of the discovery". Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication. http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/tautavel/en/hom_dec_pg.htm. Retrieved January 2012.
3. ^"Marcel de Serres" (in French). Tela Botanica et Réseau Ecole et Nature. 2006. http://www.collections.univ-montp2.fr/page:Marcel_de_Serres. Retrieved 2012-01-05. [dead link]
4. ^Boardman, John (1982). "1". The Cambridge ancient history: The prehistory of the Balkans; and the Middle East and the Aegean world, tenth to eighth centuries B.C.. 3. Cambridge University Press. p. 79. ISBN0-521-22496-9. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vXljf8JqmkoC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=Tayacian++Mousterian&source=bl&ots=QwljhuCqRu&sig=0Eb2tIdwcdR88LUt2hZnwZVmOig&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BucFT8aGOcLB8gPRt6mjAQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Tayacian%20%20Mousterian. Retrieved February 2012.
5. ^"The Arago Cave". Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication. http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/tautavel/site_version1996/en/fouilhis.htm. Retrieved January 2012.
6. ^"Arago Cave, Languedoc-Roussillon, France". Archaeology Travel. http://www.archaeology-travel.com/site/france/languedoc-roussillon/arago-cave/39/. Retrieved January 2012.
7. ^"The Tautavel Man". Ministère de la culture et de la communication. http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/tautavel/site_version1996/en/homme.htm. Retrieved January 2012.
8. ^ Ranzi, C.. "The Reconstruction of the Tautavel Man". Ministère de la culture et de la communication. http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/tautavel/site_version1996/en/homrecon.htm. Retrieved January 2012.
9. ^ ab Subsol, G.; Mafart, B.; Silvestre, A.; de Lumley, M.A. (2002). "3D Image Processing for the Study of the Evolution of the Shape of the Human Skull: Presentation of the Tools and Preliminary Results" (pdf). Three-Dimensional Imaging in Paleoanthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology. BAR International Series 1049. pp. 37–45. http://www.lirmm.fr/~subsol/BAR.0901.a.pdf. Retrieved February 2012.
10. ^ Ponce de León & Zollikofer 1999
11. ^ Mafart et al. 1999
12. ^ ab Chippindale, Christopher (9 Oct 1986). "At home with the first Europeans". New Scientist: 38–42. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_35Z2EMyzAkC&pg=PA42. Retrieved January 2012.
13. ^(Smithsonian museum)[Retrieved 2012-01-01]
14. ^ Seidler, H.; Falk, D.; Stringer, C.; Wilfing, H.; Müller, G. B.; Zur Nedden, D.; Weber, G. W.; Reicheis, W. et al. (1997). "A comparative study of stereolithographically modelled skulls of Petralona and Broken Hill: Implications for future studies of middle Pleistocene hominid evolution". Journal of Human Evolution 33 (6): 691–703. doi:10.1006/jhev.1997.0163. PMID9467776. edit
15. ^ Winfried Henke, Thorolf Hardt Handbook of paleoanthropology, Volume 1 Springer, 29 May 2007ISBN 3-540-32474-7 [Retrieved 2012-01-01]
16. ^Homme de Tautavel (Homo erectus) (in French) Hominidés.com [Retrieved 2012-01-01]

If you were unconvinced that I could back up my claims before, hopefully you now have a clear understanding that your burden of proof on your claim of 22 extinct species requires much more than pointing to the title of an outdated book.

However, if you wish for me to continue, providing insurmountible evidence for the other 28 species besides these 9, I will be happy to oblige.

 

[Adam]

Oops! Left out one.

nankinensis

http://www.paleoanthro.org/journal/content/PA200305023.pdf
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/29/1/27.abstract
http://www.uq.edu.au/research/index.html?page=4181&pid=0
http://wits.academia.edu/LynneSchep..._of_Homo_erectus_From_Hulu_Cave_Nanjing_China


So that's 10 species so far in just the erectus category.

 

[cupid dave]

LOL

You gave us information about different species that have been discovered that may be realted to man or not.

Where is a source which lists from the first human to the last????

Only the book I sourced does that for us up to this moment in time.


Give us something like these charts which try to show the linkages, one to the next:

 

[Adam]

LOL

You gave us information about different species that have been discovered that may be realted to man or not.

Where is a source which lists from the first human to the last????

Only the book I sourced does that for us up to this moment in time.


Give us something like these charts which try to show the linkages, one to the next:

No such book exists. Not even the one you keep referring to. The body of evidence for all the hominid species is external to books. Books are just a report on data, they are not the data, itself.

It is not necessary to show all the data in a single volume, nor is it wise.

A chart, again, is not a fact. It is a representation of relationship between some facts. A chart cannot be complete. It also is not necessary in order to verify data and is usually an oversimplification: a tool used to explain things to people who can't really grasp subject matter without a visual representation.

The fact that I don't have one does not undermine the data. The data exists, so one could be created if a person did not have a much better use for their time.


Regardless, I have more than managed to meet the burden of proof.

 

[cupid dave]

No such book exists. Not even the one you keep referring to. The body of evidence for all the hominid species is external to books. Books are just a report on data, they are not the data, itself.

It is not necessary to show all the data in a single volume, nor is it wise.

A chart, again, is not a fact. It is a representation of relationship between some facts. A chart cannot be complete. It also is not necessary in order to verify data and is usually an oversimplification: a tool used to explain things to people who can't really grasp subject matter without a visual representation.

The fact that I don't have one does not undermine the data. The data exists, so one could be created if a person did not have a much better use for their time.


Regardless, I have more than managed to meet the burden of proof.

There is no reason to keep talking to you since you are just adamant about maintaining your own interpretations of scripture in the face of so much support from the science community that confirms the truth to be found in scripture.

Wallow in ignorance if you will.

You fail here to produce a list from any team of Paleontologists while proposing that your own personal beliefs are more valid to use against Genesis as a factually supported commentary on Cosmic Evolution.

That is fine.
Take a rest and forget about Theistic Evolution.
It isn't for you or other medieval interpretators who remain self satisfied.

 

[Adam]

There is no reason to keep talking to you since you are just adamant about maintaining your own interpretations of scripture in the face of so much support from the science community that confirms the truth to be found in scripture.

Wallow in ignorance if you will.

You fail here to produce a list from any team of Paleontologists while proposing that your own personal beliefs are more valid to use against Genesis as a factually supported commentary on Cosmic Evolution.

That is fine.
Take a rest and forget about Theistic Evolution.
It isn't for you or other medieval interpretators who remain self satisfied.

I haven't given any interpretations of scripture, so your reasoning is faulty. I have hardly discussed the bible at all.

You enrire statement is a non sequitor.


As I have already said, there is no need for a list of hominids compiled by a team of paleontologists. That's not the purpose of scientific inquiry.

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.


As for your comment on "cosmic evolution," it isn't part of the discussion. Please do not call me ignorant when you do not even have a basic grasp of biological evolution to know that it does not include cosmology. Paleontologists do not engage professionally in cosmology.

Regarding theistic evolution, I happen to be one of many that abides by the interpretation. As I have already said, I am not a fundamentalist. I have no dedication to medieval interpretations. That is an ad hom and a strawman on your part.


And in all this, I have more than met the burden of proof for my claims. You have not.


If you wish to avoid the truth of that, fine. But don't put me into a category of some invisible group of fundamentalists that I obviously don't belong to, just so don't have to admit to yourself that you were wrong about the number of hominids we now have discovered.


Keep your self-delusions to yourself, please.

 

[cupid dave]

No such book exists.
Not even the one you keep referring to.


The body of evidence for all the hominid species is external to books.
Books are just a report on data, they are not the data, itself.

It is not necessary to show all the data in a single volume, nor is it wise.

A chart, again, is not a fact. It is a representation of relationship between some facts. A chart cannot be complete. It also is not necessary in order to verify data and is usually an oversimplification: a tool used to explain things to people who can't really grasp subject matter without a visual representation.

The fact that I don't have one does not undermine the data. The data exists, so one could be created if a person did not have a much better use for their time.


Regardless, I have more than managed to meet the burden of proof.

But even you would admit to the clear English in the Title of this book, "a guide to 22 extinct humans," written by a staff of well known peer reviewed palenotologists who are experts (whereas your opinion is not expert,... right)?

The point here is that Genesis also claims humans today are the ancestors of 22 kinds of men who died off too, during the great floos of modern man Out-of-Africa.
This analogy is my point and I use it to support my understanding of Genesis to be referring to this true event according to the best science of the moment.

If you have a better and more complete list of the now extinct humans in our ascent, please list the list and the paleontological sources certifying that definitive listing.

 

[Adam]

Yes, I am familiar with how you think you know the context of a book just by reading the title.

And I've already answered your "list" request several times, but here it is again since you can't seem to acknowledge that I have provided this list several times before:


1.Homo sapiens
2.Homo sapiensidaltu
3.Homo georgicus
4.Homo ergaster
5.Homo gautengensis
6.Homo antecessor
7.Homo heidelbergensis
8.Homo neanderthalensis
9.Homo rhodesiensis
10.Homo erectus
11.Homo habilis
12.Homo rudolfensis
13.Homo floresiensis
14. Homo cepranensis
15.Homo yuanmouensis
16.Homo lantianensis
17.Homo wushanensis
18.Homo pekinensis
19.Homo palaeojavanicus
20.Homo soloensis
21.Homo tautavelensis
22.Homo nankinensis
23.Denisova Hominin
24.Red Deer Cave Species

25.Australopithecus anamensis
26.Australopithecus sediba
27.Australopithecus bahrelghazali
28.Australopithecus africanus
29.Australopithecus afarensis
30.Australopithecus garhi
31.Australopithecus aethiopicus
32.Australopithecus robustus
33.Australopithecus boisei

34. Ardipithecus ramidus
35. Ardipithecus kadabba
36. Kenyanthropus platyops


37. Sahelanthropus tchadensis
38. Orrorin tugenensis



And here is the list of sources, yet again, the best science of the moment:

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44836&p=687563&viewfull=1#post687563

 

[cupid dave]

Yes, I am familiar with how you think you know the context of a book just by reading the title.

And I've already answered your "list" request several times, but here it is again since you can't seem to acknowledge that I have provided this list several times before:


1.Homo sapiens
2.Homo sapiensidaltu
3.Homo georgicus
4.Homo ergaster
5.Homo gautengensis
6.Homo antecessor
7.Homo heidelbergensis
8.Homo neanderthalensis
9.Homo rhodesiensis
10.Homo erectus
11.Homo habilis
12.Homo rudolfensis
13.Homo floresiensis
14. Homo cepranensis
15.Homo yuanmouensis
16.Homo lantianensis
17.Homo wushanensis
18.Homo pekinensis
19.Homo palaeojavanicus
20.Homo soloensis
21.Homo tautavelensis
22.Homo nankinensis
23.Denisova Hominin
24.Red Deer Cave Species

25.Australopithecus anamensis
26.Australopithecus sediba
27.Australopithecus bahrelghazali
28.Australopithecus africanus
29.Australopithecus afarensis
30.Australopithecus garhi
31.Australopithecus aethiopicus
32.Australopithecus robustus
33.Australopithecus boisei

34. Ardipithecus ramidus
35. Ardipithecus kadabba
36. Kenyanthropus platyops


37. Sahelanthropus tchadensis
38. Orrorin tugenensis



And here is the list of sources, yet again, the best science of the moment:

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44836&p=687563&viewfull=1#post687563

You know those are just lists of skeletons dug up but never connected in a line of ascent nor even verified as directly in the ascent to Modern Homo sapiens.

The latest definitive list of acceptanle links connected to one another in what is believed the actual ascent to us, today is the book I have referred you too.

 

[Adam]

Cupid Dave, the book you refer to includes species not related to sapiens in direct line.

Again, you demonstrate that you don't actually know anything about the book and are just using the title out of context to make unsupported claims.

 

[Adam]

If we are only discussing species that fall in the direct path between some unknown common ancestor and sapiens, then your book is disqualified, considering it contains mostly our cousins, contemporaries, and species from other genera ie: Australopethicus.

The species that we know of that are directly sapien predecessors are enumerated at about 14, not 22.

 

[cupid dave]

Yes, I am familiar with how you think you know the context of a book just by reading the title.

And I've already answered your "list" request several times, but here it is again since you can't seem to acknowledge that I have provided this list several times before:


1.Homo sapiens
2.Homo sapiensidaltu
3.Homo georgicus
4.Homo ergaster
5.Homo gautengensis
6.Homo antecessor
7.Homo heidelbergensis
8.Homo neanderthalensis
9.Homo rhodesiensis
10.Homo erectus
11.Homo habilis
12.Homo rudolfensis
13.Homo floresiensis
14. Homo cepranensis
15.Homo yuanmouensis
16.Homo lantianensis
17.Homo wushanensis
18.Homo pekinensis
19.Homo palaeojavanicus
20.Homo soloensis
21.Homo tautavelensis
22.Homo nankinensis
23.Denisova Hominin
24.Red Deer Cave Species

25.Australopithecus anamensis
26.Australopithecus sediba
27.Australopithecus bahrelghazali
28.Australopithecus africanus
29.Australopithecus afarensis
30.Australopithecus garhi
31.Australopithecus aethiopicus
32.Australopithecus robustus
33.Australopithecus boisei

34. Ardipithecus ramidus
35. Ardipithecus kadabba
36. Kenyanthropus platyops


37. Sahelanthropus tchadensis
38. Orrorin tugenensis



And here is the list of sources, yet again, the best science of the moment:

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44836&p=687563&viewfull=1#post687563

Research your list here and be honest.
Only these twenty-two species are considered in the line of man's ascent:



1.Homo sapiens………………………………………(Shem, Ham, Japheth)
2.Homosapiensidaltu………………………………(Noah) Homo sapiens idaltu is an extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens that lived almost 160,000 years ago in Pleistocene Africa.[1] Idaltu is from the Saho-Afar word meaning "elder or first born". (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
4.Homo ergaster……………………………………..(Methusael)
6.Homo antecessor………………………………(Lamech 2)
7.Homoheidelbergensis………………………….(Jabal)
8.Homo neanderthalensis…………………….(Jubal)
10.Homo erectus…………………………………..(Methuselah)
11.Homohabilis…………………………………..(Enoch2)
12.Homorudolfensis………………………………(Jared)
13.Homo floresiensis……………………………….(Tubal-cain)

25.Australopithecus anamensis…………………(Seth)
28.Australopithecus africanus ……………………(Enos)
29.Australopithecusafarensis……………………..(Enoch)
30.Australopithecusgarhi………………………….(Mahalaleel)
31.Australopithecusaethiopicus…………………(Cainan)
32.Australopithecusrobustus……………………..(Mahujael)
33.Australopithecusboisei………………………….(Irad)
34.Ardipithecus ramidus………………………….(Cain)
37. Sahelanthropus tchadensis………………………………….(Adam)
38. Orrorintugenensis …………………………………………… (Abel) Orrorin tugenensis is considered to be the second-oldest (afterSahelanthropus tchadensis) known hominin ancestor that is possibly relatedto 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]

The other species in your list are obviously the reult of a massive google which produced names of species not considered part of those in man;s ascentor or just duplicate references to othwr species using a different name as indicated in the analysis below:


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

5.Homo gautengensis............... was recovered in 1977 and was argued tobelong 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

9.Homo rhodesiensis…………………………… Thevalidity of Homo rhodesiensisas 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



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

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.Homopekinensis………………………….. early member of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of 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://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/new-human-species-red-deer-cave_n_1345216.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

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 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.Kenyanthropus platyops……………………………….. no realconsensus as to whether Kenyanthropus platyops is even distinct from thecontemporary and much better known Australopithecusafarensis;…. There are also those who think it'ssimilar to Homorudolfensis.
http://www.macroevolution.net/kenyanthropus-platyops.html

 

[Adam]

Research your list here and be honest.
Only these twenty-two species are considered in the line of man's ascent:



1.Homo sapiens………………………………………(Shem, Ham, Japheth)
2.Homosapiensidaltu………………………………(Noah) Homo sapiens idaltu is an extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens that lived almost 160,000 years ago in Pleistocene Africa.[1] Idaltu is from the Saho-Afar word meaning "elder or first born". (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
4.Homo ergaster……………………………………..(Methusael)
6.Homo antecessor………………………………(Lamech 2)
7.Homoheidelbergensis………………………….(Jabal)
8.Homo neanderthalensis…………………….(Jubal)
10.Homo erectus…………………………………..(Methuselah)
11.Homohabilis…………………………………..(Enoch2)
12.Homorudolfensis………………………………(Jared)
13.Homo floresiensis……………………………….(Tubal-cain)

25.Australopithecus anamensis…………………(Seth)
28.Australopithecus africanus ……………………(Enos)
29.Australopithecusafarensis……………………..(Enoch)
30.Australopithecusgarhi………………………….(Mahalaleel)
31.Australopithecusaethiopicus…………………(Cainan)
32.Australopithecusrobustus……………………..(Mahujael)
33.Australopithecusboisei………………………….(Irad)
34.Ardipithecus ramidus………………………….(Cain)
37. Sahelanthropus tchadensis………………………………….(Adam)
38. Orrorintugenensis …………………………………………… (Abel) Orrorin tugenensis is considered to be the second-oldest (afterSahelanthropus tchadensis) known hominin ancestor that is possibly relatedto 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

No, those are not all in a direct line. Only H. antecessor, H. erectus. H. ergaster, H. habilis, A. garhi, A. africanus A. afarensis, Au. anamensis, Ar. ramidus, Orrorin and tchadensis are in our direct line.

 

[Adam]

The other species in your list are obviously the reult of a massive google which produced names of species not considered part of those in man;s ascentor or just duplicate references to othwr species using a different name as indicated in the analysis below:


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

5.Homo gautengensis............... was recovered in 1977 and was argued tobelong 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

9.Homo rhodesiensis…………………………… Thevalidity of Homo rhodesiensisas 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



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

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.Homopekinensis………………………….. early member of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of 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://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/new-human-species-red-deer-cave_n_1345216.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

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 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.Kenyanthropus platyops……………………………….. no realconsensus as to whether Kenyanthropus platyops is even distinct from thecontemporary and much better known Australopithecusafarensis;…. There are also those who think it'ssimilar to Homorudolfensis.
http://www.macroevolution.net/kenyanthropus-platyops.html

If you have a problem counting subspecies as distinct species I have news for you...

direct lineages are subspecies, so if you aren't going to count these as seperate species, you can't count any of the species in "man's ascent" as a seperate species either.

 

[cupid dave]

Really, Adam...

You quickly googled all the long list of skeletons that paleontologists have dug up in a failed attempt to discredit Theistic Evolutionists, who are scientists that researched this whole interpretation.

Here, above, it is clear you have jumped in, pretending to be highly educated in the Geology and the Paleontology but merely googling a few sites.

That was your attempt to oppose, at every step, anything that I have posted.

Be a gentleman and just admit that the paleontology and the genealogy DOES match up and correspond, strange as it might be to christians like you with archaic and medieval interpretations to the contrary.

You don't have accept these "coincidences" if you want to see them as that.
But they do exist.

 

[Adam]

Save the ad homs for someone else. You asked for a list of species. You got it. Now you want to discredit these very real and well documented species by making statements against me?

Good luck with that.

There are no coincidences. There are no segregated 22 individuals in the bible. The fossils that have been designated as many more than 22 species cannot be ignored, regardless if you ad hom me with being a person who just used google to find these species (which is a legitimate resource, btw, providing that you use credible sources. Much more valid than making things up). But I have been aware of these species for quite some time. A person who was not aware of them would not know how to search for them on google. You have to know what you are looking for.

You can't discredit the evidence by accusing me of having an archaic mindset, either. The fact is, I don't have an archaic view. My veiws are quite in step with modern thought, especially in the realm of theistic evolution.


It happens to be your views that are antiquated. Your "6 geological eras"? That isn't a scientific position, it is a theological one, held by Edwin Huston in 1901 and before him it was presented in Martin Payne's book, Physiology of the Soul and Instinct. Before that, Hugh Miller in the 1840s .

So don't pretend that what you are claiming is novel or has never been considered.


The idea has been presented, considered and found to be incorrect.

Yet people like you with antiquated, 1800s theology won't consider modern science but rely on the ramblings of self-taught and self imposed geological nitwits whose old and widely disproved ideas have no place in the 21st century.