Human Evolution

[NotReady]

Scientist A says human evolution is a fact. He proposes hominid B as the youngest human ancestor, a creature who is clearly not human but which A claims evolved into us.

How did A determine that B is our daddy? By placing him in line through morphology (cranium,jaw,teeth similarities mostly).

Enter the following article:
The Unreliability of Hominid Phylogenetic Analysis Challenges The Human Evolutionary Paradigm (http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#hominid_phylogenetic)

which discusses a research paper:

How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses? (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/5003)

a critique of phylogenies constructed using cladistics.

From the research article:

[ QUOTE ]

The results of the parsimony and bootstrap tests indicate that cladistic analyses based on standard craniodental characters cannot be relied on to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships of the hominoids, papionins, and, by extension, the fossil hominins. More problematically, the tests suggest that such analyses can strongly support phylogenetic hypotheses that are misleading.


[/ QUOTE ]

So why should I believe you guys, huh?

[Nielsio]

What is your alternative theory to the evolution of the human animal?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What is your alternative theory to the evolution of the human animal?


[/ QUOTE ]

Wait and see.

I'm still collating.

Insufficient data.

Does not compute.

All of the above.

[Nielsio]

If you look around you, don't you see a change happening in genetic make-up?


If you look at the bone structure of whales, birds, fish, humans, don't you think there are obvious similarities?


Where do you think 'species' come from? When the planet just formed there were no dinosaurs, and then there were dinosaurs. How did that happen? And there were no huminoids, only rats and stuff. And then there were humanoids. How did that happen?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Where do you think 'species' come from?...How did that happen?


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you mean where did everything come from?

Ok, just a wild guess:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
f you look at the bone structure of whales, birds, fish, humans, don't you think there are obvious similarities?

[/ QUOTE ]

The better conclusion here is that it appears there is a Common Designer.

[Bill Haywood]

NotReady, explain how that article disproves evolution.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady, explain how that article disproves evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]


It doesn't disprove it. But if the method used for assigning transitional fossils is questionable I don't see how evolution can be more than a hypothesis.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Where do you think 'species' come from?...How did that happen?


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you mean where did everything come from?

Ok, just a wild guess:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't understand what that means. Can you explain? What is this 'god' and how does this 'creating' work, exactly?

[agent_fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Where do you think 'species' come from?...How did that happen?


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you mean where did everything come from?

Ok, just a wild guess:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't understand what that means. Can you explain? What is this 'god' and how does this 'creating' work, exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]
magic, ldo

[carlo]

What is your alternative theory to the evolution of the human animal?

[ QUOTE ]
From lightly woven and easily attainable thoughts like this, Bergson produces an idea of evolution that had been expressed previously in a profound mode of thought by W. H. Preuss in his book, Spirit and Matter (1882). Preuss also held that man has not developed from the other natural beings but is, from the beginning the fundamental entity, which had first to eject his preliminary stages into the other living beings before he could give himself the form appropriate for him on earth. We read in the above-mentioned book:

The time should have come . . . to establish a theory of origin of organic species that is not based solely on one-sidedly proclaimed theorems from descriptive natural science, but is also in agreement with the other natural laws that are at the same time the laws of human thinking. What is necessary is a theory that is free from all hypothesizing and that rests solely on strict conclusions from natural scientific observations in the widest sense of the word; a theory that saves the concept of the species according to the actual possibility, but at the same time adapts Darwin's concept of evolution to its own field and tries to make it fruitful. The center of this new theory is man, the species unique on our planet: [censored] sapiens. It is strange that the older observers began with the objects of nature and then went astray to such an extent that they did not find the way that leads to the human being. This aim had been attained by Darwin only in an insufficient and unsatisfactory way as he sought the ancestor of the lord of creation among the animals, while the naturalist should begin with himself as a human being in order to proceed through the entire realm of existence and of thinking and to return finally to humanity. . . . It was not by accident that the human nature resulted from the entire terrestrial evolution, but by necessity. Man is the aim of all telluric processes and every other form that occurs beside him has borrowed its traits from him. Man is the first-born being of the entire cosmos. . . . When his germinating state (man in his potentiality) had come into being, the remaining organic substance no longer had the power to produce further human possibilities. What developed thereafter became animal or plan. . . .

Such a view attempts to recognize man as placed on his ground by the development of modern world conception, that is to say, outside nature, in order to find something in such a knowledge of man that throws light on the world surrounding him. In the little known thinker from Elsfleth, W. H. Preuss, the ardent wish arises to gain a knowledge of the world at once through an insight into man. His forceful and significant ideas are immediately directed to the human being. He sees how this being struggles its way into existence. What it must leave behind on its way, what it must slough off, remains as nature with its entities on a lower stage of evolution surrounding man as his environment. The way toward the riddles of the world in modern philosophy must go through an investigation of the human entity manifested in the self-conscious ego. This becomes apparent through the development of this philosophy. The more one tries to enter into its striving and its search, the more one becomes aware of the fact that this search aims at such experiences in the human soul that do not only produce an insight into the human soul itself, but also kindles a light by means of which a certain knowledge concerning the world outside man can be secured. In looking at the views of Hegel and related thinkers, more recent philosophers came to doubt that there could be the power in the life of thought to spread its light beyond the realm of the soul itself. The element of thought seemed not strong enough to engender an activity that could explain the being and the meaning of the world. By contrast, the natural scientific mode of conception demanded a penetration into the core of the soul that rested on a firmer ground than thought can supply.


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

"Riddles of Philosophy" by Rudolph Steiner

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

how does this 'creating' work, exactly?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll ask Him and get back to you. He probably will want to know if you still blindly accept human evolution, without question, without proof. What should I tell Him?

[m_the0ry]

You were so close, NR.

You for a moment saw that science warmly embraces dissent when the dissent itself is scientific.

Why did you invest your argument in the first link? Does the research paper not stand alone and without crutches?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What is your alternative theory to the evolution of the human animal?


[/ QUOTE ]

Wait and see.

I'm still collating.

Insufficient data.

Does not compute.

All of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it ironic that this pretty much what an atheist would say about a god?

It's true that there definitely are gaps in the fossil records and we can't nail down exactly when one species evolves into a new species. But when looked at in the overall big picture, evolution really is a given and sooner or later, EVERYONE is gonna have to come around to that fact.

Even putting DNA and genomes aside, visual evidence is all around us. I have nipples and an appendix I don't use. Some birds have feathers they no longer use. Some snakes have remnants of legs they no longer use. Some same type animals have evolved in different colors and sizes to adapt to their environment. Etc., etc., etc.

I really don't understand why evolution is so hard to accept. Even as a layman (who admittedly) doesn't understand all the technical aspects, it makes perfect sense to me. Unlike religion, there is certainly no reason to doubt the experts.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

how does this 'creating' work, exactly?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll ask Him and get back to you. He probably will want to know if you still blindly accept human evolution, without question, without proof. What should I tell Him?

[/ QUOTE ]


So you don't know then. I thought you had an alternative theory?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand why evolution is so hard to accept.


[/ QUOTE ]

I completely accept some forms of evolution - who doesn't? I require something besides myth and speculation for other aspects - anyone who doesn't is dreaming. And if that proof ever arrives, I will accept it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So you don't know then. I thought you had an alternative theory?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sitting with rapt attention at the feet of the great priests of science, eagerly awaiting for their ex cathedra explanation of our apish ancestry. Surely they can show us our daddy?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You for a moment saw that science warmly embraces dissent when the dissent itself is scientific.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no reason to believe that paper has been warmly embraced by the evolutionary community. Perhaps it has. It clearly hasn't been warmly embraced here.

I used the first link to direct Christians to a site that is worthwhile, to give others who didn't want the technical language of the original paper some indication of its meaning in layman's language, and to help state the thesis for debate with anyone who cares to actually debate.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you don't know then. I thought you had an alternative theory?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sitting with rapt attention at the feet of the great priests of science, eagerly awaiting for their ex cathedra explanation of our apish ancestry. Surely they can show us our daddy?

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, nevermind then.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Scientist A says human evolution is a fact. He proposes hominid B as the youngest human ancestor, a creature who is clearly not human but which A claims evolved into us.

How did A determine that B is our daddy? By placing him in line through morphology (cranium,jaw,teeth similarities mostly).



[/ QUOTE ]

How do you determine who’s your daddy? You can examine the fossil record and notice similarities, or you can use the Eddie Murphy method and take DNA tests. One can construct a phylogenetic tree using molecular information that matches amazingly well with observed morphological information.

Indeed, this is one of many ways to trivially disprove the theory of evolution. If independent molecular evidence did not match with the fossil record, evolution would be disproved.


link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_consilience)

link (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr05.html)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If independent molecular evidence did not match with the fossil record, evolution would be disproved.


[/ QUOTE ]

From what I could see neither of those links deal with the fossil record, though I did just skim.

You are free to believe that DNA evidence proves common descent. I think it is also consistent with creation. But nothing in those two links, as far as I could tell, have anything to do with establishing man's primate ancestry.

Forgot to mention, DNA has shown Neanderthals are not in man's evolutonary lineage.

[luckyme]

Let's see if I can follow creationist logic -

Scientist A triangulates the distance to the moon and comes up 250,000 miles.
Scientist B uses a laser to set the distance at 259,005 miles.
Therefore the moon doesn't revolve around the earth.

Ok, think I got it. luckyme

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
You are free to believe that DNA evidence proves common descent. I think it is also consistent with creation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Saying God did it, explains any possible result. God must have felt like confusing us the day he decided to make all possible evidence of his creations match with the theory of common decent.

[ QUOTE ]
Forgot to mention, DNA has shown Neanderthals are not in man's evolutonary lineage.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn’t aware that we evolved from Neanderthal man.


[ QUOTE ]
From what I could see neither of those links deal with the fossil record, though I did just skim.


[/ QUOTE ]

Link #1 discusses the striking similarity between morphological evidence and molecular evidence. Morphological evidence equals fossil evidence.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Let's see if I can follow creationist logic -


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see if I can follow evolutionist logic -

Scientist A says method B works and supports my pet theory.

Scientist C does a scientific test of method B and finds it doesn't work but yields invalid results.

Therefore my pet theory must be true otherwise it might be in trouble and then I would have to see if I have any little grey cells left.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let's see if I can follow creationist logic -


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see if I can follow evolutionist logic -

Scientist A says method B works and supports my pet theory.

Scientist C does a scientific test of method B and finds it doesn't work but yields invalid results.

Therefore my pet theory must be true otherwise it might be in trouble and then I would have to see if I have any little grey cells left.

[/ QUOTE ]

did you read any of the background material to the links you posted .. go ahead, give it a try.

luckyme

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

God must have felt like confusing us the day he decided to make all possible evidence of his creations match with the theory of common decent.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never get confused about Who did it when I open the Bible. The confusion only comes when I read some "scientific" mythology about common descent with no evidence.

[ QUOTE ]

I wasn’t aware that we evolved from Neanderthal man.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely sure but I think he was once placed in our tree. But the real point is that he got kicked out, not because of morphology, but DNA.

[ QUOTE ]

Link #1 discusses the striking similarity between morphological evidence and molecular evidence. Morphological evidence equals fossil evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct - the invalid morphological method. To be useful the article would have to tell us how those morphological cladograms match the molecular cladograms of hominids. I guess they forgot to include them.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

did you read any of the background material to the links you posted .. go ahead, give it a try.


[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a hint - I'm not going to live forever.

[kerowo]

Here is a picture to take back to your He Man Evolution Haters club to look at instead of cutting and pasting from the playbook.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/ur-noze-i-haz-it.jpg

Don't worry, he doesn't really have your nose.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Don't worry, he doesn't really have your nose.


[/ QUOTE ]

I will add your towel to my collection.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand why evolution is so hard to accept.


[/ QUOTE ]

I completely accept some forms of evolution - who doesn't? I require something besides myth and speculation for other aspects - anyone who doesn't is dreaming. And if that proof ever arrives, I will accept it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you accept some forms of evolution, just not the human form?

Evolution is like math. It's universal. What works for plants and trees, works for microbes, bacteria and germs. What works for whales, works for humans. Evolution is how all biological life works. If we ever discover aliens, we can fully expect evolution to be working its magic on their planet as well.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution is like math. It's universal.


[/ QUOTE ]

The word evolution is one of those amorphous terms that are almost useless. Evolution = change. Who denies change? Evolution = 1 single cell animal becoming man. Just a little different. Even YECs accept micro.

I named the thread Human Evolution. I do question that. I don't say I can disprove it. It might even be true. But prove it. How? How do you determine hominid X became us? Morphologically I think Neanderthal may be the closest to us, could be wrong. But he has been excluded as our ancestor. So who is it and how do you know? Please observe:

I did not say human evolution didn't occur.
I did not say h. erectus isn't our ancestor.
I did not say h. habilis isn't our ancestor.

What I said was - who is our ancestor and how do you know? Apparently you can't legitimately say through morphology. That's my one and only point. If that point is established, of course certain implications follow. But that, for now, is the point.

[bunny]

Is your conclusion that the article provides evidence that evolution is not responsible for speciation? Because that doesnt seem to be the point of the article. The article said that relying on cranio-dental evidence to generate phylogenies yielded results inconsistent with molecular phylogenies. It's not my field, but it seemed to me that:

a) They are suggesting that there are other factors affecting the cranio-dental structure which change the resulting phylogenies. They suggest some possible approaches to address this problem:
[ QUOTE ]
One strategy is to devise techniques for analyzing hominin craniodental morphology that are more sensitive to any phylogenetic signal than the methods presently in use (51, 52). Another approach is to develop rigorous comparative methods for discriminating between phylogenetically informative and phylogenetically misleading craniodental similarities.

[/ QUOTE ]
b) They are not disputing that evolution is the source of different species, rather that cranio-dental analysis is not a fruitful way to determine phylogenies. Their research is based on molecularly derived phylogenies built on accepting the theory of evolution, then showing that the methods under investigation do not correlate well with the (presumed) accurate molecular phylogenies.
[ QUOTE ]
Last, we suggest that more attention should be paid to nonmorphological lines of evidence that may have a bearing on hominin phylogenetic relationships, such as the temporal distribution of the species (61).

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are arguing that two different methods yield inconsistent results, therefore the theory of evolution must be incorrect then I dont think the conclusion follows. The authors themselves point out a number of reasons for why their observations might occur, assuming evolution to be true. All it means is that if the theory of evolution is true and if molecular phylogenies are accurate, then the process of constructing phylogenies through the analysis of cranio-dental data needs to be refined.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Evolution is like math. It's universal.


[/ QUOTE ]

The word evolution is one of those amorphous terms that are almost useless. Evolution = change. Who denies change? Evolution = 1 single cell animal becoming man. Just a little different. Even YECs accept micro.

I named the thread Human Evolution. I do question that. I don't say I can disprove it. It might even be true. But prove it. How? How do you determine hominid X became us? Morphologically I think Neanderthal may be the closest to us, could be wrong. But he has been excluded as our ancestor. So who is it and how do you know? Please observe:

I did not say human evolution didn't occur.
I did not say h. erectus isn't our ancestor.
I did not say h. habilis isn't our ancestor.

What I said was - who is our ancestor and how do you know? Apparently you can't legitimately say through morphology. That's my one and only point. If that point is established, of course certain implications follow. But that, for now, is the point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the article suggest you cant say through morphology yet. It seems to me that the authors would probably answer your question "How do you know?" by saying "Through molecular evidence."

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady, explain how that article disproves evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]


It doesn't disprove it. But if the method used for assigning transitional fossils is questionable I don't see how evolution can be more than a hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain that. How is evolution rendered a hypothesis, rather than fact? Spell it out. My conditioning makes it hard to understand.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
How did A determine that B is our daddy? By placing him in line through morphology (cranium,jaw,teeth similarities mostly).

[/ QUOTE ]

While morphology is not an exact science, evidence like this is pretty overwhelming. Note that these are found in chronological order, and there's no reason they should be unless common descent is true:

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/5742/hominids2bigeo9.jpg

Note the changes in the skull to accommodate a larger brain; the jawbone changed too which is not shown here.

Legend:



* (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
* (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
* (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
* (D) [censored] habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
* (E) [censored] habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
* (F) [censored] rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
* (G) [censored] erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
* (H) [censored] ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
* (I) [censored] heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
* (J) [censored] sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
* (K) [censored] sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
* (L) [censored] sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
* (M) [censored] sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
* (N) [censored] sapiens sapiens, modern

[kerowo]

Because you can't actually change NR's mind on this and despite it being more accurate and on topic, I still like my picture better.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
So why should I believe you guys, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://sydlexia.com/imagesandstuff/spring/troll.jpg

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Is your conclusion that the article provides evidence that evolution is not responsible for speciation?


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]

All it means is that if the theory of evolution is true and if molecular phylogenies are accurate, then the process of constructing phylogenies through the analysis of cranio-dental data needs to be refined.


[/ QUOTE ]

It would also mean that all phylogenies so far constructed by morphology only are questionable.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

. It seems to me that the authors would probably answer your question "How do you know?" by saying "Through molecular evidence."


[/ QUOTE ]

I did a quick google. It appears there are severe limits to how far back molecular evidence from fossils is available. 60Ky appears likely except in unusual circumstances (amber encasement, perhaps).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Explain that. How is evolution rendered a hypothesis, rather than fact? Spell it out. My conditioning makes it hard to understand.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hypothesize evolution. You say prove it. I say X looks like Y so Y evolved from X. Scientist A says that's a no go. What is left is a hypothesis.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

While morphology is not an exact science, evidence like this is pretty overwhelming.


[/ QUOTE ]

You pretty much prove my case. Australopithicines are no longer considered human ancestors. Not sure but I think habilis is also questionable.

In any event, you're simply denying the validity of the research article in my OP.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Explain that. How is evolution rendered a hypothesis, rather than fact? Spell it out. My conditioning makes it hard to understand.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hypothesize evolution. You say prove it. I say X looks like Y so Y evolved from X. Scientist A says that's a no go. What is left is a hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe to keep everyone happy they should call it the theory of evolution.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe to keep everyone happy they should call it the theory of evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]


Somebody shoulda told Sagan.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Explain that. How is evolution rendered a hypothesis, rather than fact? Spell it out. My conditioning makes it hard to understand.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hypothesize evolution. You say prove it. I say X looks like Y so Y evolved from X. Scientist A says that's a no go. What is left is a hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, I seem to remember more words in the texts I've read. Padding no doubt.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe to keep everyone happy they should call it the theory of evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody shoulda told Sagan.

[/ QUOTE ]
The theory of good morning heartache?

chez

[Peter666]

None of this "evidence" stands merit. Skull -A- could just as easily be the skull of this dude: http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d83/satanschoice/beetlejuice.jpg

We are assuming that the skulls above are being shown in chronological order, but it does not account for the variance that is present within a species in the same time period like my example shows. Evolutionary scientists may be taking skulls of a certain shape from a certain time period to suit their hypothesis, just like I could take Beetlejuice's skull, put it at the end of your chart, and thus claim the human species is devolving.

[Subfallen]

Evolution is an evolving, and definitely incomplete, theory. It is also the only plausible theory to explain biological diversity. "In the beginning God created" is not a theory. It does not explain anything---it does not predict anything---in short, it does not mean anything.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

"In the beginning God created" is not a theory. It does not explain anything---it does not predict anything---in short, it does not mean anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son"

explains everything, means everything.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"In the beginning God created" is not a theory. It does not explain anything---it does not predict anything---in short, it does not mean anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son"

explains everything, means everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought they charged those roman engineering students who hung the chariot off the bridge with writing that.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All it means is that if the theory of evolution is true and if molecular phylogenies are accurate, then the process of constructing phylogenies through the analysis of cranio-dental data needs to be refined.

[/ QUOTE ]
It would also mean that all phylogenies so far constructed by morphology only are questionable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, although I would think of them as works in progress - as the morphological techniques are refined (as alluded to in the paper) then I would expect them to get better.

It still seems that this area provides evidence (even if second order evidence) supporting the theory of evolution. This would be especially true if the morphological techniques can indeed be refined in a sensible way (ie not just making them fit the data, but with explanations as to why some morphological traits are phylogenetically informative and others are phylogenetically misleading). After all, if evolution is bogus, isnt the whole concept of a phylogeny meaningless? I struggle to see how research grounded in evolutionary theory can cast doubt that evolution is false unless it predicts inconsistent results. This study isnt in that category imo - it is providing (or at least beginning to provide) an explanation for why two research programs which should be converging yield inconsistent conclusions.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It still seems that this area provides evidence (even if second order evidence) supporting the theory of evolution


[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean morphology, I don't see how.

[ QUOTE ]

After all, if evolution is bogus, isnt the whole concept of a phylogeny meaningless?


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, evolution is a tricky word. I'm mostly talking about human evolution, and to a lesser extent, common descent. But biological change is a fact, and no doubt within certain limits morphology and phylogeny would be useful.

Some months ago I was beginning to move in the direction of theistic evolution. So I wanted to verify evolution before beginning to think in those terms. That lead me down several different roads which produced certain results, such as the Cambrian explosion and this concerning human evolution. I can still accept theistic evolution - it has a certain elegance and I believe can be reconciled with Genesis. But I just don't see the fossil evidence supporting human evolution especially. Maybe it will someday. It won't be a big deal to me. But if it doesn't, it should be a big deal to atheists who look on evolution as providing them with a satisfied mind.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It still seems that this area provides evidence (even if second order evidence) supporting the theory of evolution


[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean morphology, I don't see how.

[/ QUOTE ]
No I meant phylogeny - it seems to me that the whole thing "hangs together" if evolution is true and this paper certainly accepts evolution as a fact. I would find it evidence of evolution if, after this paper, morphological phylogenists (?) looked at their procedures and assumptions and ruled some out (for plausible biological reasons - perhaps jaw size is affected by diet/other environmental factors for example) as phylogenetically misleading. If the new improved morphological approach yielded a strong correlation with the molecular wouldnt that fit in with the theory of evolution's claims? (Obviously, I'm not talking about only including those traits which strengthen the correlation).


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

After all, if evolution is bogus, isnt the whole concept of a phylogeny meaningless?


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, evolution is a tricky word. I'm mostly talking about human evolution, and to a lesser extent, common descent. But biological change is a fact, and no doubt within certain limits morphology and phylogeny would be useful.

Some months ago I was beginning to move in the direction of theistic evolution. So I wanted to verify evolution before beginning to think in those terms. That lead me down several different roads which produced certain results, such as the Cambrian explosion and this concerning human evolution. I can still accept theistic evolution - it has a certain elegance and I believe can be reconciled with Genesis. But I just don't see the fossil evidence supporting human evolution especially. Maybe it will someday. It won't be a big deal to me. But if it doesn't, it should be a big deal to atheists who look on evolution as providing them with a satisfied mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
As you know I find theistic evolution very satisfying and I agree with you that if the fossil record doesnt support human evolution that should alarm someone relying on evolution to explain the origin of humans. However, I dont think this article casts any substantial doubt on that theory.

If there is a scientist who has used morphological techniques exclusively to derive a history of human ancestry then I think this research should cause him a great deal of concern - it suggests he is probably wrong. However, I dont think there is any one thing which has pushed the scientific community to accept evolution as the source of the human species. Rather I think it is the neat way it all fits together (and here you have pointed out one of the untidy bits - but the researchers you cited have already provided several options for tidying things up).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If the new improved morphological approach yielded a strong correlation with the molecular wouldnt that fit in with the theory of evolution's claims?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would expect that new morphological methods would be subjected to the same kind of testing, or any methods for that matter since molecular would serve as a control - and here I can go no further because I don't know the methods. I was looking at cladistics when I came across this but never found a detailed procedure, though it does get very technical.

[ QUOTE ]

As you know I find theistic evolution very satisfying


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know that - I thought you were an atheist.

[ QUOTE ]

if the fossil record doesnt support human evolution that should alarm someone relying on evolution to explain the origin of humans. However, I dont think this article casts any substantial doubt on that theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

What I think may happen is we find we can never validate or invalidate human evolution scientifically, not unlike my ideas on the Cambrian problem. If morphology won't do it the only other method I see is DNA. Currently that can't do much for the grand scale of things. It does keep me in the progressive creationist camp though.


[ QUOTE ]

If there is a scientist who has used morphological techniques exclusively to derive a history of human ancestry then I think this research should cause him a great deal of concern - it suggests he is probably wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't even put it that strong. I would say his history is unproven.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

While morphology is not an exact science, evidence like this is pretty overwhelming.


[/ QUOTE ]

You pretty much prove my case. Australopithicines are no longer considered human ancestors. Not sure but I think habilis is also questionable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. The point is not that they're human ancestors - Neanderthals apparently aren't human ancestors either. The point is that there are multiple intermediate forms between chimps and humans, that have larger brains and more human like jaws than any other primate currently existing. The other point is that the chronology of these skulls indicate a progression - we've never found full sized human brains before a certain date.

[ QUOTE ]
In any event, you're simply denying the validity of the research article in my OP.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not denying it. I agree with most of its points. However, both you and the author extrapolate it too broadly. If a lineage or classification is uncertain, it doesn't throw chimp->human development into doubt. The existence of these multiple intermediate forms, whether or not they are human ancestors, shows very strong evidence that chimp to human-like development has occurred.

There will never be evidence sufficient to convince a die hard believer. We could find an exquisite set of intermediate forms, and prove beyond any shadow of a doubt a direct lineage, and creationists would claim that they were merely "big brained apes", and that humans were either created separately or infused with the spark of consciousness, and could not have come about through natural means.

You have to view this debate in a historical perspective to understand what makes sense and which theory is the overwhelming favorite. Here's the state of the hypothetical debate 300 odd years ago:

Theory 1: God created the Earth 6000 years ago, and created all species, created man specially, who then ate the apple in the garden of eden, was banished, did evil stuff, so God flooded the world, and then Noah and his family bred all that we see today.

Theory 2: All development on earth is consistent with the laws of physics and the philosophy of naturalism. This necessarily means that all the complexity of life must have arisen from simpler forms without a guiding hand.

300 years ago, Theory 1 (or some variant) was a slam dunk to be true. It fit with the observed nature of man and beast, it explained the variety on earth, and it made sense.

Then, we discovered geology, and fossils, and radioactive dating techniques, and cosmology. So Darwin proposed the Origin of Species. Theory 1 was still a favorite to be true. There was no intermediate skull between apes and humans, between reptiles and mammals, between cows and whales. There was no understood mechanism for change. The theory was very much falsifiable.

And then the cow-whale skeletons were found. And the ape-human intermediates. And an exquisite set of reptile-mammal intermediates. With the emerging evidence of plate tectonics, it was discovered that evolution and species drift fit exactly with the geological history of the earth. Isolated places like Australia and the Galapagos were major vindications of Theory 2, as were the distributions of families on various continents. Then, DNA was discovered, and all the molecular evidence fit statistically with the phylogenic tree, to an absurb degree. There is no reason that should be the case, btw. Even junk DNA contained an amount of drift relative to the time since a family/genus/species split from its common ancestor.

What became a few dots in 1700 grew into tens of thousands of dots by the start of 2000. And they overwhelming fit a picture that was proposed by the proponents of theory 2 and in direct contradiction of the predictions of Theory 1.

But in the year 2007, NotReady cites a paper that claiming that he's wary of evolution, since morphology isn't completely accurate in establishing lineages. And my simian brain sends an involuntary chuckle command to my belly.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As you know I find theistic evolution very satisfying


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know that - I thought you were an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I vacillate between ardent atheism and mild theism. Currently I'm back in the theist camp. However, irrespective of the current state of affairs of my personal beliefs, I can see no inherent contradiction between theism and evolution. I've always found evolution a much cleverer way to create life than God just snapping his fingers and shazam there it is. Random mutations from our perspective hardly have to be random from his.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If there is a scientist who has used morphological techniques exclusively to derive a history of human ancestry then I think this research should cause him a great deal of concern - it suggests he is probably wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't even put it that strong. I would say his history is unproven.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the article suggested that morphological techniques were actually likely to produce phylogenies which were incorrect, not just randomly uncorrelated with molecular phylogenies.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Random mutations from our perspective hardly have to be random from his.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't this the same as saying that God directed evolution (i.e. creationism). I'll send you some pliers for the splinters.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The point is not that they're human ancestors - Neanderthals apparently aren't human ancestors either. The point is that there are multiple intermediate forms between chimps and humans, that have larger brains and more human like jaws than any other primate currently existing


[/ QUOTE ]

What would be the relevance of that if they're not human ancestors? That there must be other hominids that are human ancestors? It may be some evidence but it seems extremely minor, and could work against human evolution.

[ QUOTE ]

The existence of these multiple intermediate forms, whether or not they are human ancestors, shows very strong evidence that chimp to human-like development has occurred.


[/ QUOTE ]

We can't even be sure any of the forms are intermediate, though. And even if we could, they would have nothing to do with human evolution, requiring you to assume what you're trying to prove, that human evolution occurred.

[ QUOTE ]

There will never be evidence sufficient to convince a die hard believer.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but what's the use of that argument? We could dig up every square inch of earth that exists, never find any more hominids than now exist, and the die hard will say, "Fossils are hard to form".

[ QUOTE ]

But in the year 2007, NotReady cites a paper that claiming that he's wary of evolution, since morphology isn't completely accurate in establishing lineages. And my simian brain sends an involuntary chuckle command to my belly.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to comment on all that other stuff - that's why I made the thread on human evolution. And why should I care what amuses a simian?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Currently I'm back in the theist camp.


[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome back.

[ QUOTE ]

I've always found evolution a much cleverer way to create life than God just snapping his fingers and shazam there it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

When I was considering theistic evolution it occurred to me how incredible it would be for all this to come about the way God intended through mostly natural law. I'm more interested in this whole question because it's all a hindrance to the atheist - in these days, with science on the highest pedestal, the science question shouldn't be ignored. I think in earlier times these type questions were just a matter of curiosity, not of any great importance. They are important today because people think they are. So Christians should make an effort to get it right.

[ QUOTE ]

I think the article suggested that morphological techniques were actually likely to produce phylogenies which were incorrect, not just randomly uncorrelated with molecular phylogenies.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just a nice guy. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Random mutations from our perspective hardly have to be random from his.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't this the same as saying that God directed evolution (i.e. creationism). I'll send you some pliers for the splinters.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only in the sense that a theist claims that all natural laws exist at God's behest and by his continued effort. Not many creationists would agree that at some point the only life was microbiological (which I believe and dont think is contradicted by theism).

I'm afraid the splinter reference was lost on me. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
f you look at the bone structure of whales, birds, fish, humans, don't you think there are obvious similarities?

[/ QUOTE ]

The better conclusion here is that it appears there is a Common Designer.

[/ QUOTE ]

A corollary is the the designer is very incompetent.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let's see if I can follow creationist logic -


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see if I can follow evolutionist logic -

Scientist A says method B works and supports my pet theory.

Scientist C does a scientific test of method B and finds it doesn't work but yields invalid results.

Therefore my pet theory must be true otherwise it might be in trouble and then I would have to see if I have any little grey cells left.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is brutally bad logic. I know that you don't care since faith can plug any holes you can't, but wow.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Random mutations from our perspective hardly have to be random from his.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't this the same as saying that God directed evolution (i.e. creationism). I'll send you some pliers for the splinters.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only in the sense that a theist claims that all natural laws exist at God's behest and by his continued effort.

[/ QUOTE ]
But that doesn't matter unless God actually intervenes to nudge evolution where he wants it. The heart of the question is whether the indifferent laws of physics, by themselves, can cause the evolution of a cell to a human, or in this case an ape to a human. NotReady so desperately wants to find a flaw so his God can be involved in the process somehow. It's far more sexy and comforting to have him actively creating the human brain than creating infinite universes in which life can emerge and flourish from indifferent laws.

Which side of the fence are you on there?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
f you look at the bone structure of whales, birds, fish, humans, don't you think there are obvious similarities?

[/ QUOTE ]

The better conclusion here is that it appears there is a Common Designer.

[/ QUOTE ]

A corollary is the the designer is very incompetent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus he was kind enough to throw in a bunch of useless extra parts.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Explain that. How is evolution rendered a hypothesis, rather than fact? Spell it out. My conditioning makes it hard to understand.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hypothesize evolution. You say prove it. I say X looks like Y so Y evolved from X. Scientist A says that's a no go. What is left is a hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good god what shallow, pedantic word games.

You say the earth revolves around the sun. I say it looks like it's the other way around. Ergo, your claim is rendered a mere hypothesis.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You say the earth revolves around the sun. I say it looks like it's the other way around. Ergo, your claim is rendered a mere hypothesis


[/ QUOTE ]

You said you wanted it spelled out. Then you complained about having it spelled out. Then you gave an invalid analogy (hint: you left out the scientist part).

[Duke]

I'd like to enter NotReady into a "greatest troll in the history of the internet" contest. Even if he's being serious, there is no difference between the result and that of a pure troll.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to enter NotReady into a "greatest troll in the history of the internet" contest. Even if he's being serious, there is no difference between the result and that of a pure troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I second the motion.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
You said you wanted it spelled out. Then you complained about having it spelled out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You provided three short sentences, barely more than headlines, to prove that variance between morphology and DNA cladistics are disproof of evolution.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you think slogans suffice for spelling out scientific argumentation. Frankly, I can't even tell if you understand the article you provided.

[ QUOTE ]
I can still accept theistic evolution - it has a certain elegance and I believe can be reconciled with Genesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. Just stop calling yourself scientific, please, if everything has to be vetted by Genesis. That just is not science.

Why didn't one of the regulars warn me that the scrambler causes motion sickness? I guess the little troll doll tried...

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to enter NotReady into a "greatest troll in the history of the internet" contest. Even if he's being serious, there is no difference between the result and that of a pure troll.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know it's utterly useless to respond to trolls like you and that you and the other trolls on this trollish site love it when people like me respond to trolls like you but I'm going to give you a lesson, anyway,troll.

To be a troll your motive must be to provoke and anger people. The reason I posted about human evolution is that recently I was attacked by another troll like you concerning the existence of Adam and Eve. That troll implied that I was deluded by a fairy tale because evolution has shown that Adam and Eve could not have existed. So this thread was a response to that troll, to you(troll), and to all the other trolls like you.

Get it, troll?

Ok, troll away.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
To be a troll your motive must be to provoke and anger people.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that you have been provoking and angering people completely by accident?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Ah. Just stop calling yourself scientific, please, if everything has to be vetted by Genesis. That just is not science.

Why didn't one of the regulars warn me that the scrambler causes motion sickness? I guess the little troll doll tried...


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try explaining this in a way that a troll like you can understand. You must be a troll because only a troll would keep posting such simplistic nonsense.

I don't claim, troll, that the research disproves evolution. Did you get that part, troll? Good, I will continue. Please pay attention, troll.

What I said was that if, troll, you say, troll, that method X proves, troll, concept Y, troll, and then, troll, a, troll, scientist, troll, shows, troll, that, troll, method, troll, X, troll, is, troll, invalid, troll, then, troll, what, troll, is, troll, left, troll, is, (troll) ,an, troll, hypothesis, troll. (troll). Se(troll)e, troll,? (troll)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that you have been provoking and angering people completely by accident?


[/ QUOTE ]


I would explain it to you, troll, but you aren't capable of understanding it. You've been a troll too long and are too immersed in your trollish ways.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">The reason I posted about human evolution is that recently I was attacked by another troll like you concerning the existence of Adam and Eve. </font>

Was this me? I never claimed you to be a troll and I'm not sure why you would label me as such. We disagree. We think the other is (very) wrong. But I don't see that as trolling.

If fact, I've applauded you for not backing away from tough questions like a Siegfriedandroy would. I usually enjoy the exchanges and even found our most recent one enlightening. If there is any animosity between us, it must be emanating from you. And to think, a Christian! (although I do admit to getting frustrated at times).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Was this me?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. My keyboard was stuck on the word troll. I wasn't thinking of you, so if I offended you, I apologize.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

The reason I posted about human evolution is that recently I was attacked by another troll like you concerning the existence of Adam and Eve.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Kierkegaard's treatment of original sin (The Concept of Anxiety; Copenhagen, 1844), he says, "...With regard to the descent of the race from one pair. Nature does not favor a meaningless superfluity. Therefore, if we assume that the race descended from several pairs, there would be a moment when nature had a meaningless superfluity. As soon as the relationship of generation is posited, no man is superfluous, because every individual is himself and the race."

I think this is pretty close to orthodoxy---that is, Adam and Eve literally existed as the first beings whose basic nature was spiritual. (Spirituality representing the synthesis of a psychical/physical duality.)

Now, I'm still waiting for some sort of explanation---ANY explanation---of why oral tradition and the historical record are so incompatible with the Genesis description of this first human couple's experience. BluffThis! told me I was stupid for asking, and NotReady, ldo, ignored me. So...I'm almost starting to think that Christians don't have a standard treatment of this embarrassing dilemma.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I'm still waiting for some sort of explanation---ANY explanation---of why oral tradition and the historical record are so incompatible with the Genesis description of this first human couple's experience. BluffThis! told me I was stupid for asking, and NotReady, ldo, ignored me. So...I'm almost starting to think that Christians don't have a standard treatment of this embarrassing dilemma.


[/ QUOTE ]

Certifiably me, not being smart.Could you clarify the "oral tradition" and "historical record" views?

Thanx in advance

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So...I'm almost starting to think that Christians don't have a standard treatment of this embarrassing dilemma.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not clear what you think is the dilemma. I'd rather not try to guess so you need to be more specific.

[Subfallen]

For starters, here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=977303 3&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Main=9773033&amp;Words=%26quot%3Boral%2 6quot%3B+Subfallen&amp;topic=&amp;Search=true#Post9773033) . There are additional problems I see, but would at least like to have the very obvious ones in the linked post explained.


Won't be online again until tonight, but will be interested to hear more then.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

For starters, here . There are additional problems I see, but would at least like to have the very obvious ones in the linked post explained.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never seen this as a problem so I haven't thought about it. Off the top of my head the question occurs to me:

What is the oral tradition of human origin?

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For starters, here . There are additional problems I see, but would at least like to have the very obvious ones in the linked post explained.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never seen this as a problem so I haven't thought about it. Off the top of my head the question occurs to me:

What is the oral tradition of human origin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pick your poison. One of the first things people did when they formed big groups with big brains was start telling stories about how their group came into existence. The idea that there is any truth in any of them seems pretty far fetched.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Pick your poison. One of the first things people did when they formed big groups with big brains was start telling stories about how their group came into existence. The idea that there is any truth in any of them seems pretty far fetched.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what's the position? The Adam and Eve story is in the oral tradition or The Adam and Eve story isn't in the oral tradition?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Random mutations from our perspective hardly have to be random from his.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't this the same as saying that God directed evolution (i.e. creationism). I'll send you some pliers for the splinters.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only in the sense that a theist claims that all natural laws exist at God's behest and by his continued effort.

[/ QUOTE ]
But that doesn't matter unless God actually intervenes to nudge evolution where he wants it. The heart of the question is whether the indifferent laws of physics, by themselves, can cause the evolution of a cell to a human, or in this case an ape to a human. NotReady so desperately wants to find a flaw so his God can be involved in the process somehow. It's far more sexy and comforting to have him actively creating the human brain than creating infinite universes in which life can emerge and flourish from indifferent laws.

Which side of the fence are you on there?

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe indifferent laws of physics could lead to intelligent life. I also believe that if God exists and made humans specifically, for whatever purpose, then he did it through evolution. I dont think the question of is it random or did God make it happen that way is a scientific one. (Although parsimony would lead me to go with random if I didnt believe in God.)

My point was that I dont think a rational christian has much choice except to claim that God guided evolution from behind the scenes.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Pick your poison. One of the first things people did when they formed big groups with big brains was start telling stories about how their group came into existence. The idea that there is any truth in any of them seems pretty far fetched.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what's the position? The Adam and Eve story is in the oral tradition or The Adam and Eve story isn't in the oral tradition?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if Adam and Eve is oral tradition, but I would bet it evolved from an earlier oral tradition.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know if Adam and Eve is oral tradition, but I would bet it evolved from an earlier oral tradition.


[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't that answer Sub's question?

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't know if Adam and Eve is oral tradition, but I would bet it evolved from an earlier oral tradition.


[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't that answer Sub's question?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question?
[ QUOTE ]

Now, I'm still waiting for some sort of explanation---ANY explanation---of why oral tradition and the historical record are so incompatible with the Genesis description of this first human couple's experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

The story in genesis is oral tradition, written down. The historical record doesn't gibe with oral tradition because it is based on actual events not the stories early humans told to explain things they didn't understand.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The historical record


[/ QUOTE ]

Which one? We could save a lot of time if you guys would specify a little more.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The historical record


[/ QUOTE ]

Which one? We could save a lot of time if you guys would specify a little more.

[/ QUOTE ]

The stuff historians write, where they look at original source documents and make a guess at what happened in the past. I don't count bibles in that list any more than I would Twelfth Night.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The stuff historians write,


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm supposed to be embarrassed because Gibbon didn't write about Adam and Eve?

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]


What I said was that if, troll, you say, troll, that method X proves, troll, concept Y, troll, and then, troll, a, troll, scientist, troll, shows, troll, that, troll, method, troll, X, troll, is, troll, invalid, troll, then, troll, what, troll, is, troll, left, troll, is, (troll) ,an, troll, hypothesis, troll. (troll). Se(troll)e, troll,? (troll)

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the arguments x and y that prove it, not the frigging sentence diagram.

You haven't the foggiest idea what your article says, do you? I don't believe you can put in your own words why the variance between morphology and claddistics charts disproves evolution. I challenge you to explain it.

Do a good enough job so that other creationists who read this can then use your argument. Can you finish a reasoned explanation without breaking into a chant?

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The stuff historians write,


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm supposed to be embarrassed because Gibbon didn't write about Adam and Eve?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know who Gibbon is and I'm not trying to embarrass you. I'm saying that the historical record is what is generally accepted, which is not based on religious beliefs.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know who Gibbon is and I'm not trying to embarrass you. I'm saying that the historical record is what is generally accepted, which is not based on religious beliefs.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what this subthread is about.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The historical record


[/ QUOTE ]

Which one? We could save a lot of time if you guys would specify a little more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it's nearly impossible to get a straight answer from Christians on when the Fall supposedly happened...so it's hard to nail down the exact deviations from science's history of mankind. But my question doesn't need specific dates to be understood.

Moses(?) is purported to have written Genesis via divine inspiration in ~1200BC(?), right? And archeology has established an agriculture-based Sumerian civilization at least 9500BC, right? So the Fall must have happened before 10000BC at least.

So now, simple question, why did Moses need divine inspiration to "remember" the circumstances of mankind's beginnings? How could such extreme, unique circumstances have possibly been forgotten so quickly? Especially since Adam lived nearly a millennium; and his children roughly the same.

If Adam and his children were beings of intelligence analogous to modern man, wouldn't they recognize the profound importance of teaching everyone the truth of reality: there is one triune God who began the world as a Paradise now lost? Wouldn't every new generation be intimately acquainted with this theology? Of course.

But instead, archeology reveals a Sumerian civilization, an Egyptian civilization, an Indus civilization, etc., all with religions NOTHING LIKE monotheism centering on a triune God and mythologies NOTHING LIKE the Fall. Why??

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But instead, archeology reveals a Sumerian civilization, an Egyptian civilization, an Indus civilization, etc., all with religions NOTHING LIKE monotheism centering on a triune God and mythologies NOTHING LIKE the Fall. Why?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is odd because one of the objections to the Bible as the word of God is that Moses was just repeating common myth. You might also consider the flood and Babylon. I think the subject will tend to get very complicated so I recommend a new thread.

I have a similar question, which may also require a new thread. Modern man is supposed to be 250Ky old right? So how come there's no writing before 3500-5000 B.C.? What took him so long?

[kerowo]

Depends on what they wrote on. Most paper isn't very durable, especially when durability isn't one of it's requirements. Animal skins are more resiliant as are clay tablets but maybe everyone didn't know that back in the day.

Also, a society needs to be pretty advanced before there is enough time in the day to figure writing out. Hunter/gatherers don't really have the resources to have lots of their members sitting around thinking [censored] up.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But instead, archeology reveals a Sumerian civilization, an Egyptian civilization, an Indus civilization, etc., all with religions NOTHING LIKE monotheism centering on a triune God and mythologies NOTHING LIKE the Fall. Why?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is odd because one of the objections to the Bible as the word of God is that Moses was just repeating common myth. You might also consider the flood and Babylon. I think the subject will tend to get very complicated so I recommend a new thread.

I have a similar question, which may also require a new thread. Modern man is supposed to be 250Ky old right? So how come there's no writing before 3500-5000 B.C.? What took him so long?

[/ QUOTE ]

And rap music.. where was that?
oh, never mind. our natives seem to have been into it all along.

luckyme

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the subject will tend to get very complicated so I recommend a new thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was really just curious if there is a standard response that I hadn't heard before.

It's just weird that the image of Adam "walking with God" doesn't resonate more strongly with Christians. I mean, I've never heard a young-earth creationist sadly pondering why the footprints of divinity faded so quickly. Personally, if I believed that walking with God is the consummation of human existence, I would take pause at why Adam's heavenly strolls were less memorable than, say, Egyptian myths about Osiris, which at least a few people still knew about in 2000BC.

[ QUOTE ]
Modern man is supposed to be 250Ky old right? So how come there's no writing before 3500-5000 B.C.? What took him so long?

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken language had to evolve first...