The Hominid Thread

[Elfboy]

is anyone else interested in human evolution and early hominid species? personally I find them fascinating

 

[OrionzRevenge]

^^^ I am.
Below is prolly the biggest news in that area of study for quite some time.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110718085329.htm

The Neanderthal sequence was present in peoples across all continents, except for sub-Saharan Africa, and including Australia.

"There is little doubt that this haplotype is present because of mating with our ancestors and Neanderthals. This is a very nice result, and further analysis may help determine more details," says Dr. Nick Patterson, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University, a major researcher in human ancestry who was not involved in this study.

 

[ThatGirl]

I am fascinated by it. I am even more fascinated by how much people think they have "evolved".

 

[Elfboy]

^^^ I am.
Below is prolly the biggest news in that area of study for quite some time.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110718085329.htm

yes, along with this
http://rokus01.wordpress.com/2010/0...d-the-mystery-of-the-mtdna-phylogenetic-tree/

 

[Mole]

Jesus the hominid

Yes, I am fascinated because Jesus was a hominid. Yes, Jesus was a hominid of the species homo sapiens.

But did Jesus die for his own species of hominid or did he die for all the species of hominid?

And if Jesus did die for all hominids, why didn't he mention them by name?

And going deeper, did God reveal himself in the Bible just to us, or to all hominids? And why does the Bible say not a word about all the other species of hominid?

 

[OrionzRevenge]

...

And going deeper, did God reveal himself in the Bible just to us, or to all hominids? And why does the Bible say not a word about all the other species of hominid?

Yes, that is quite the puzzle is it not?

On the one hand we have men writing down words starting 3400 years ago that they affirm to us were divinely dictated. (and yet, many of the themes resemble older mythologies such as the Assyrian stories of Gilgamesh)

And on the other hand (Starting with Leonardo Da Vinci) we have 500 years of scientific thought and analysis of physical evidence that stands in contradiction to that ancient collection of written words.

Hmmmm?

The possibility that just jumps right out at ya is that...well, maybe
Just maybe
Those writers of old didn't have a pipeline to Omnipotent Knowledge.
I mean, we have to consider the possibility don't we?

 

[Sanctus Iacobus]

I also find evolution fascinating in the sense that it is a falsifiable notion which we continue to perpetuate. The evidence the theory stemmed from has all been debunked, and now it continues on loose ends. Of these loose ends, none amount to a level of evidence typically needed to create a theory of anything.

 

[OrionzRevenge]

I also find evolution fascinating in the sense that it is a falsifiable notion which we continue to perpetuate. The evidence the theory stemmed from has all been debunked, and now it continues on loose ends. Of these loose ends, none amount to a level of evidence typically needed to create a theory of anything.

Gee, I'm sorry. I thought this was the Science/Technology Sub-Forum. I mean, had I known this was the UFO, 9/11 Truthers, Sasquatch, Mythologies Sub-Forum I would never have attempted to derail the musings thereof.

I 'spose we should just simply disregard the thousands of people with a decade of higher learning and the millions of man-hours of careful scientific analysis and tedious measurement in favor of a handful guys with a BA in religious studies.

'course, we can't ignore the millions of Dinosaur Bones unearthed all over the planet. so we'll have to agree that humans were able to cobble together Civilizations, Temples, Pyramids, and even a handful of guys built a ship that measured: 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high ---- While dodging T.Rexes and V. Raptors

And we'll have to accept that while the writers of old were waxing fondly, as to how "the Lion laid down with the Lamb", they never once thought to write: "OBTW Joe was eaten by a T.Rex last week...I sure hope they miss the boat."



And we'll have to learn to accept the IDer's Irreducible Complexity 'Truth' about such things as the Eye.

Even though science is constantly telling us how reducible these things are over the course of time.

Scientific American July 2011

Biologists have recently made significant advances in tracing the origin of the eye—by studying how it forms in developing embryos and by comparing eye structure and genes across species to reconstruct when key traits arose. The results indicate that our kind of eye—the type common across vertebrates—took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms around 600 million years ago to an optically and neurologically sophisticated organ by 500 million years ago.
...
The pineal gland modulates circadian rhythms, and in non-mammalian vertebrates it contains photoreceptor cells that connect directly to output neurons.

And we'll have to overlook the fact that the construction of the vertebrate eye dose appear to be an Ad Lib effort without any Intelligence demonstrated in the Design.

Fact is: The Retina of our eye is built Ass-Backwards.

>>The Rod & Cone Photoreceptors are in the rear away from the lens.
>>Then you have the nerve connections above that obstructing the light path
>>Then you have these nerves gathering in bundles and you have blood vessels obstructing the light path even worse
>>THEN the Intelligent Designer had to drill a hole for these Nerve Bundles and Blood Vessels to exit the inside of the Retina.

I guess the IDer was smoking Dope that day.

Your next visit to the Doctor, ask him/her to let you look in their eye with the Ophthalmoscope and you can see for yourself what happens when the IDer has a Bad hair day.

View of Retina Through an Ophthalmoscope

That Hole that the IDer had to drill in the eye is now a blind-spot. And you can prove to yourself that it is there with a neat little experiment.


Shut your right eye and look at the "O" with your left eye while noting the "X" in the corner of your vision.

Move your head closer and further from the screen and you will find the blind-spot where the "X" disappears. (About 2 feet away from screen)


.............X............................... O

Now look at the "X" with your right eye (left eye closed) while noting the "O" in the corner of your vision.

Also while looking up into a blue sky note the hundreds of little fireflies that dart zig-zag across your vision. This is actually red blood cells navigating the tiny blood vessels in front of your rod & cone photo receptors.

Interestingly, the Octopus Eye is made correctly with the rods & cones in front near the lens and evolutionist try to tell us that it is just happenstance because evolution is mindlessly making tweaks that improve a species chances to survive.

But we know Better.
We know that Octopi are God's Chosen People.
And he made them in his image.

 

[Quinlan]

Don't dis Sasquatch man, 'specially in a Hominid thread!

 

[OrionzRevenge]

^^^Hey, I'm not trying to be Messn' with Sasquatch.

 

[Mole]

A Loving Father

The possibility that just jumps right out at ya is that...well, maybe
Just maybe
Those writers of old didn't have a pipeline to Omnipotent Knowledge.
I mean, we have to consider the possibility don't we?

It's possible, of course, but on the other hand we all long for an omnipotent father who loves us. And desire holds the trump card. We want to believe in Dad. We don't want to believe God is dead; we want to believe God is Dad.

Of course as child rearing practices improve, from the sacrificial, to the abusing, to the authoritarian, to the helping, the reality of a loving father enters the realms of possibility too.

 

[Aquarelle]

^^^ I am.
Below is prolly the biggest news in that area of study for quite some time.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110718085329.htm

Yes! Totally fascinating that apparently early humans and Neanderthals mated! I think that's totally cool. We're all part Neanderthal!

 

[Elfboy]

Yes! Totally fascinating that apparently early humans and Neanderthals mated! I think that's totally cool. We're all part Neanderthal!

so that's where my big nose and pointy skull cap came from

 

[Sanctus Iacobus]

...

None of this supports the theory of evolution... that humans have worse eyesight than an Octopus? Didn't we supposedly evolve from water-dwelling creatures?

It is also not sufficient evidence against intelligent design. There is lots of sufficient evidence against evolution, though, which is what I stated.


The theory of evolution requires a couple elements to be valid: existence itself spontaneously appeared, planetary systems formed and organized, life formed and organized from non-life, this new life reproduced itself (for whatever reason), and these reproductions diversified themselves.

All of this is fine, it is of course made up but like any theory we have to consider it as plausible unless there is direct evidence against it. Because evolution is made up, we can't really come up with evidence against it, however, the theory requires millions+ years in order to be plausible, and this is something we can prove is untrue. Also, the hard evidence for evolution rests on bones in sedimentary layers and dating techniques, all of which can and have been proven untrue.

First, the evidence for the million+ year old age of the earth has been debunked leaving no direct evidence to support the theory any more than the Atheist's beloved parody, the flying spaghetti monster. Carbon dating and radon dating have been thoroughly debunked. Remember all those dinosaur bones? The entire timeline of dinosaur evolution is dependent on sedimentation levels, which have been debunked in many cases where trees of a single age were found standing through all of the levels. Of course, a gigantic flood would explain this dispersion easily. The evidence against the million+ year old age of the earth is growing, and unlike radon and carbon dating, has proven reliable and consistent.

As far as the million+ years it would take to evolve life, the oldest living organisms on the earth are bristle cone pine and the great barrier reef, both less than 5,000 years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine#Oldest_living_organisms) this aligns with the ~6,000 year age estimates from the Bible, it does not, however, allow enough time for evolution to be possible at the scale evolution believers claim.

Of course, evolutionists will say, they are not around because they've been evolved from. This is not supported by evidence, as none of the earlier organisms have been found... 1 or 2 monkey skeletons were enough, I guess, to say we have evolved. Never mind the 2-5% difference (I have seen both) in the genome, when 2% of is the entire gene strand itself, and that is still millions of pairs, and that altering as little of 3 of these can kill you. No, it's fine, 1 or 2 monkey skeletons totally prove it. http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892

The Sahara desert goes through a consistent, measurable process of desertification, which (ruling out unmeasurable guesses and theories) "began" 4,000 years ago, although it is more likely this is due to the great flood. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/390097.stm)

The earth's magnetic field decreases (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-it-true-that-the-stren) Although we've made up this theory that the field reverses, which explains why at the current rate the earth would not be only about 6,000 years old instead of millions+. Unfortunately for that theory, the strength of the field and reversal would make the world unlivable, thus cutting the timeline required for evolution of life short by all but about 25,000 years.

There are other examples, such as ocean salinity levels (this one is questionable, imo), world population patterns, mitochondrion mutation, even the erosion of Niagra falls (which by measurable rates ought to be gone already) which easily align with a 6,000 y/o world age and ~2,000BC world flood.

Oh, and dinosaurs (and dragons) are in the Bible. It's fallacy to say they would write about dinosaurs much, only because dinosaurs are extinct and if we were in that time we'd certainly find it so novel that not doing so would seem crazy. It's actually described more thoroughly than many other animals. The Bible is not the only place were creatures like this are described. They don't call them dinosaurs, more like "behemoth", "leviathan", or "dragon"... dinosaur was coined in the early 1800s.

 

[Mole]

The Sequenced Genome

None of this supports the theory of evolution...

The biggest problem for you is the sequencing of the genome, which we do swiftly every day. And the sequenced genome shows we are all part of the same tree of life, each with the four letter alphabet of DNA.

And the genome arranges itself over three and half billion years into the evolutionary family. We can now measure with digital precision exactly where on the evolutionary tree any species lies.

So to the reasonable mind, evolution is an established fact.

 

[Sanctus Iacobus]

The biggest problem for you is the sequencing of the genome, which we do swiftly every day. And the sequenced genome shows we are all part of the same tree of life, each with the four letter alphabet of DNA.

And the genome arranges itself over three and half billion years into the evolutionary family. We can now measure with digital precision exactly where on the evolutionary tree any species lies.

So to the reasonable mind, evolution is an established fact.

This is not evidence of evolution, though. If anything, the DNA correlation illustrates a single designer, not genetic diversification which would be a byproduct of the evolutionary process.

 

[Mole]

This is not evidence of evolution, though. If anything, the DNA correlation illustrates a single designer, not genetic diversification which would be a byproduct of the evolutionary process.

Pehaps we have a misunderstanding. Evolution does not know how life began. It may well be that God began life, but once it began we know species evolved into species.

We knew this more than one hundred and fifty years ago with, "The Origin of Species", and since then it has been confirmed by the sequencing of the genome.

So there is no reason you can't believe that God created life and let it evolve through the species.

 

[OrionzRevenge]

Because evolution is made up, we can't really come up with evidence against it, however, the theory requires millions+ years in order to be plausible, and this is something we can prove is untrue. Also, the hard evidence for evolution rests on bones in sedimentary layers and dating techniques, all of which can and have been proven untrue.

First, the evidence for the million+ year old age of the earth has been debunked leaving no direct evidence to support the theory any more than the Atheist's beloved parody, the flying spaghetti monster. Carbon dating and radon dating have been thoroughly debunked. Remember all those dinosaur bones? The entire timeline of dinosaur evolution is dependent on sedimentation levels, which have been debunked in many cases where trees of a single age were found standing through all of the levels. Of course, a gigantic flood would explain this dispersion easily. The evidence against the million+ year old age of the earth is growing, and unlike radon and carbon dating, has proven reliable and consistent.

The time frame is actually about 4 billion years for a solid planet and 3.8 billion years for the origins of life.

Since you haven't provided sources or even notions as to the nature of the 'evidence' that debunks evolution or Earth's longevity, I can't respond further.

As far as the million+ years it would take to evolve life, the oldest living organisms on the earth are bristle cone pine and the great barrier reef, both less than 5,000 years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristle...ving_organisms) this aligns with the ~6,000 year age estimates from the Bible, it does not, however, allow enough time for evolution to be possible at the scale evolution believers claim.

If we lived where there were no Bristle Cones or Coral Reefs, but we knew of a Turtle that lived 150 years, would it then be reasonable for us to assume that the age of the planet was 150 years????

Of course, evolutionists will say, they are not around because they've been evolved from. This is not supported by evidence, as none of the earlier organisms have been found... 1 or 2 monkey skeletons were enough, I guess, to say we have evolved. Never mind the 2-5% difference (I have seen both) in the genome, when 2% of is the entire gene strand itself, and that is still millions of pairs, and that altering as little of 3 of these can kill you. No, it's fine, 1 or 2 monkey skeletons totally prove it. http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892

To suggest that a mechanism for evolution (Natural Selection) is not a reality is to be willfully ignorant of what humans have been able to achieve in a few hundred years employing an Absolute Selection.

The Sahara desert goes through a consistent, measurable process of desertification, which (ruling out unmeasurable guesses and theories) "began" 4,000 years ago, although it is more likely this is due to the great flood. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/390097.stm)

Humans these days are greatly concerned about the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice caps and the desertification of lush regions within our lifetimes.
None of this was caused by a supernatural power but rather super stupid humans.

The earth's magnetic field decreases (http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...that-the-stren) Although we've made up this theory that the field reverses, which explains why at the current rate the earth would not be only about 6,000 years old instead of millions+. Unfortunately for that theory, the strength of the field and reversal would make the world unlivable, thus cutting the timeline required for evolution of life short by all but about 25,000 years.

It is a VERY reasonable notion that the Earth's magnetic fields could flip.
Fact is, before the advent of GPS, when we relied on magnetic compasses to do accurate navigation and cartography, they had to publish yearly charts so that you could compensate for an enormous amount of drift.

Ask an old sailor.

...even the erosion of Niagara Falls (which by measurable rates ought to be gone already) which easily align with a 6,000 y/o world age and ~2,000BC world flood.

I 'spose this is to infer that if a solid Earth were 4 billion yeas old, and IF nothing ever changed, THEN the falls would have long eroded away.
But the very fact that the falls DO erode points to the flaw in this supposition.
In 4 billion years continents have came and gone,
The Ice sheets rolled back the last time about 10,000 years ago and the basins that became the great lakes slowly filled from the melt.
Only once full did the lakes start spilling into the Atlantic
...and that's when the clock starts on that.

Oh, and dinosaurs (and dragons) are in the Bible. It's fallacy to say they would write about dinosaurs much, only because dinosaurs are extinct and if we were in that time we'd certainly find it so novel that not doing so would seem crazy. It's actually described more thoroughly than many other animals. The Bible is not the only place were creatures like this are described. They don't call them dinosaurs, more like "behemoth", "leviathan", or "dragon"... dinosaur was coined in the early 1800s.

Oh, come on dude!

Humans living in caves painting with their fingers by the torch light were able to depict animals that we can easily recognize.

As a primitive tribal band, the ancient Jews were able to accurately record the histories of their conquest and defeats. And there were advanced civilizations in the Nile Delta, the Fertile Crescent, and China that were much more capable of record keeping and artistic expression.

Are you trying to tell me in all of 1500 years of effort that never once is there an accurate description or visual depiction of the creatures from the fossil record???

That no one ever depicted a dragon that could have actually flown supported by a full-body flight membrane similar to a bat???

Or when the writer of Genesis wanted to show God's dominion over the animals that he chose the puny-ass Lion when he could have made a more powerful demonstration of God's dominion by saying "And the T. Rex laid down with the Lamb"????

If you want to cling to every word of scripture hook, line, and sinker, then that's you.
But there is no reason to bring it to the SCIENCE sub-forum and shit on a thread where people want to apply critical thought.

 

[Sanctus Iacobus]

If we lived where there were no Bristle Cones or Coral Reefs, but we knew of a Turtle that lived 150 years, would it then be reasonable for us to assume that the age of the planet was 150 years????

Not really, but it would be a better indication than carbon or radon dating, which is entirely inconsistent.

To suggest that a mechanism for evolution (Natural Selection) is not a reality is to be willfully ignorant of what humans have been able to achieve in a few hundred years employing an Absolute Selection.

http://www.dogbreed4u.com/sites/dogbreed4u.com/files/content-images/large-dog-breeds.jpg

http://soupscoop.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tomatoes.jpg

Natural selection and evolution are not the same thing. That would be like saying, because we engineered all the best design features of previous models into our latest car that it will one day turn into a jet airplane. You can say different types of dogs prove evolution, but dogs will never be able to mate with horses, because they are not the same type. So how do we have all these different types of animals that can't reproduce outside of their type if they have a common origin as Darwin claims? It seems like they're awfully similar, as if they came from the same origin, and yet they are different types. How can this be? A common designer doesn't make sense, it's probably that they came from an amoeboid. Yeah.

The funny thing about the theory of evolution is that it would say the dogs and tomatoes are related. But no, of course this is not the case, and all we have seen is a given type developing into sub-types, which is in the Bible and, IMO, suggests a common designer.

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind."

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind."

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

So as we can see, having different types of dogs coming from dogs is normal, and it is not an example of evolution or proof of the theory of evolution. Now, if we could prove the whale turned into a dog, we'd have a start. But even then, that's still life to life. Evolution requires life from non-life, so it's more like that dog came from a rock. I mean, why not? They both contain carbon.

I know this sounds ridiculous, but don't blame me, it's evolution.

Humans these days are greatly concerned about the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice caps and the desertification of lush regions within our lifetimes.
None of this was caused by a supernatural power but rather super stupid humans

Desertification is caused by wind, which occurs naturally.

It is a VERY reasonable notion that the Earth's magnetic fields could flip.
Fact is, before the advent of GPS, when we relied on magnetic compasses to do accurate navigation and cartography, they had to publish yearly charts so that you could compensate for an enormous amount of drift.
http://mtnspirit.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/pole-drift.jpg

Ask an old sailor.

Not at all the same thing. The last pole shift supposedly occurred 780,000 years ago... what you have there is it drifting laterally nearly 15 degrees in only 200 years, which would go around in about 2,400 years at that rate. At the average statistical rate of 10km/year, it would take 2,000 years. So how come it hasn't flipped since supposedly 780,000 years? The reason: it never has. The poles may move around but they don't flip, and because they don't flip the original rate of demagnification is accurate, thus cutting the evolutionary time scale way to short to be even remotely plausible.

Embracing the obscure and unlikely in order to explain away the obvious is not the path to finding the truth, and it certainly shouldn't be called science.

I 'spose this is to infer that if a solid Earth were 4 billion yeas old, and IF nothing ever changed, THEN the falls would have long eroded away.
But the very fact that the falls DO erode points to the flaw in this supposition.
In 4 billion years continents have came and gone,
The Ice sheets rolled back the last time about 10,000 years ago and the basins that became the great lakes slowly filled from the melt.
Only once full did the lakes start spilling into the Atlantic
...and that's when the clock starts on that.

I have done some more research on this and found that it was actually a claim to support the evolutionary time scale which was later removed because it supported the creationist time scale in the manner that it was presented, so I will concede this as it was never actually a point presented pro-ID.

Oh, come on dude!

Humans living in caves painting with their fingers by the torch light were able to depict animals that we can easily recognize.

As a primitive tribal band, the ancient Jews were able to accurately record the histories of their conquest and defeats. And there were advanced civilizations in the Nile Delta, the Fertile Crescent, and China that were much more capable of record keeping and artistic expression.

Are you trying to tell me in all of 1500 years of effort that never once is there an accurate description or visual depiction of the creatures from the fossil record???

That no one ever depicted a dragon that could have actually flown supported by a full-body flight membrane similar to a bat???

I never said they didn't, the matter at hand here is the timeline, and none of those drawings mean a thing.

Who says dragons flied? It's irrelevant. The issue is that the evolutionary time scale requires that dinosaurs came before humans, and this is because it's one of the symptoms you'd have if the sedimentary layer dating were real. It's irrelevant because we know they are not. If anything, as soon as the sedimentary layer dating was debunked, it should then be accepted that "scientifically" (if you could have ever called it that) it was more likely that the two occurred at the same time. But that makes things awfully uncomfortable for evolutionists, so we skipped that.

Or when the writer of Genesis wanted to show God's dominion over the animals that he chose the puny-ass Lion when he could have made a more powerful demonstration of God's dominion by saying "And the T. Rex laid down with the Lamb"????

Those animals were used, I believe (because this is deviating from the topic quite a bit, this is just my personal opinion), to depict character traits. It is both literal, and an illustration to the heart of what the world became after the fall of man.

there is no reason to bring it to the SCIENCE sub-forum and shit on a thread where people want to apply critical thought.

There's no reason to believe in evolution either, except that the undeniable existence of a Creator makes evolutionists squirm in their seat. It has nothing to do with critical thought.

 

[Quinlan]

You can say different types of dogs prove evolution, but dogs will never be able to mate with horses, because they are not the same type.

What does dogs mating with horses have to do with evolution?

So how do we have all these different types of animals that can't reproduce outside of their type if they have a common origin as Darwin claims? It seems like they're awfully similar, as if they came from the same origin, and yet they are different types. How can this be? A common designer doesn't make sense, it's probably that they came from an amoeboid. Yeah.

Why should common origin = being able to reproduce? They have diverged a lot from their common origin. Different "types" have evolved to fill different niches.

The funny thing about the theory of evolution is that it would say the dogs and tomatoes are related. But no, of course this is not the case, and all we have seen is a given type developing into sub-types, which is in the Bible and, IMO, suggests a common designer.

"Types" and "kinds" are arbitrary designations.