Why you are fat and the chimp isn’t

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 5, 2015

Human evolution, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

As a genus, humans, from Homo sapiens (that’s us) to our extinct ancestors Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus, are wanderers. Over the vast majority of our history, which spans hundreds of thousands of years, we have roved from place to place, inhabiting a wide range of habitats. We moved with the seasons, we moved to find food, we moved — perhaps — just to move. Our adaptability was our key adaptation, an evolutionary leg-up on the competition. The ability to store fat was vital to this lifestyle. Body fat cushions internal organs, but it also serves as a repository of energy that can be readily broken down and used to power muscles. Humans might fatten up at one environment, then move on to another. When food was scarce, we could count on our fat to sustain us, at least temporarily.

Chimpanzees, on the other hand, are localized to specific environments where food is often plentiful, primarily the forests of West and Central Africa. Fatty stores of energy aren’t required, but strength to climb food-bearing trees is. Natural selection favored brawn, causing chimps to shed fat as unnecessary weight.

Clever idea. But thoughts from readers?

(Who would want to be a chimp just to be thin?)

See also: Why human evolution did not go the way analysts would have predicted

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

By examining all the evidence on both sides. I would think a sane person would have to come to the conclusion that any theory as persistent as darwinism, which has managed to survive 200 years of evidence produced to nullify it, has a supernatural power behind it. It is Darwin’s religious conviction, and the fanatics who propagate it have no more respect for fact or truth than a Spanish inquisitor engaged in a heretic hunt. Darwinism is not a scientific theory let alone fact. It is a religious conviction. Now after my Rant :-) Here's something from Gerald Schroeders web site. I'm not sure what I think about it. Adam was the first of the Homo-Sapiens. Adam was the first human, the first Homo sapiens with the soul of a human, the neshama. That is the creation listed in Genesis 1:27. Adam was not the first Homo sapiens. Maimonides in The Guide for the Perplexed (part 1 chapter 7) described animals co-existing with Adam that were identical to humans in shape and intelligence, but because they lacked the neshama, they were animals. The Guide for the Perplexed was published in the year 1190, seven centuries before Darwin and long before any evidence was popular relative to fossils of cave men and women. So from where did these ancients get the knowledge of the pre-Adam hominids? They learned it, correctly we discover, from the subtle wording of the biblical text. Those animals in human shape and intelligence would be the “adam” listed in Genesis 1:26, when God says “Let us make Adam.” But in the next verse God creates “the Adam,” the Adam, a specific being [a nuance in the Hebrew text first pointed out to me by Peggy Ketz and totally missed in the English translations!]. The Mishna in the section, Keli’im, discusses “masters of the field” that were animals but so identical to humans that when they died one could not tell them apart from a dead human. Masters of the field implies farming – a skill that predates the Adam by at least 2000 years according to pollen studies in the border area between Israel and Syria. Nahmanides (year 1250; the major kabalistic commentator on the Torah), in his long discussion of Genesis 2:7, details the flow of life that led to the Adam, the first human. He closes his comments there with the statement that when this spirituality was infused into the living being, that being changed to “another kind of man.” Not changed to man but another kind of man, a homo sapiens / hominid became spiritually human. The error in the term “cavemen” is in the “men.” They were not men or women. Though they had human shape and intelligence, they lacked the neshama, the human spirit infused by God. Cave men or women were never a theological problem for the ancient commentators. And they did not need a museum exhibit to tell them so. It is science that has once again come to confirm the age-old wisdom of the Torah! (For a detailed discussion of the ancient sources cited here, see the two relevant chapters in my second book, The Science of God.) http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=79#h5reverendspy_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

daveS, my position is simple. Darwinists don't have the fossils, nor a mechanism to make their case. In fact, as far as the science itself is concerned, neo-Darwinism is falsified as to being a true description of reality. You trying to dredge up unresolved theological issues on evidence which you yourself find questionable is of distant secondary importance to the actual science at hand. But alas, Darwinism was based on bad theology, not science, at the beginning, and continues, as you and Zach clearly demonstrate, to be based on bad theology, not science, to this day. i.e. you resolutely ignore what the empirical science is saying, to focus solely on what you perceive to be Theological problems.,,, here is a related post on the (faulty) theological, not mathematical, foundation that undergirds Darwinian thought
As shocking as it may seem to some people, neo-Darwinism is more properly defined as a religion rather than as a science. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pants-in-knot-creationism-in-louisiana-schools/#comment-567588
bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, you do know that the questionable fossils that you are saying confirmed a prediction of Darwinism also overturned 4 of 5 other fossils that were held, for decades, to be proof of human evolution? I would call that a major step backwards in confirming your prediction! Why is evidence only looked at in one way by you guys? By the way, did you see Dr. Hunter's new paper of the failed predictions of Darwinism? Absolutely devastating!bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

are you saying aboriginals were not created by God and are sub-human? daves: “no” then you answered your own question: “So are all the genuine Homo fossils we find offspring of Adam and Eve? Some of which have very small brains and heavy brow ridges?”
Ok. The idea of Adam and Eve being what some call Homo erectus is new to me.daveS_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: no Well, that's the difference between you and scientists. Verified predictions are an important component of the scientific method. The discovery of forms intermediate between humans and other apes is strongly supportive of common descent. bornagain77: one line of evidence relies on imagination to make its case The discovery of predicted fossils, "hard" evidence, is not imagination.Zachriel_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

are you saying aboriginals were not created by God and are sub-human? daves: "no" then you answered your own question: “So are all the genuine Homo fossils we find offspring of Adam and Eve? Some of which have very small brains and heavy brow ridges?”bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Zach, no, doesn't the gross inadequacy of unguided material processes to generate functional information give you pause. hint, one line of evidence relies on imagination to make its case, the other line relies on experiment. Guess which one is scientific and which one is pseudo-science.bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

daveS, are you saying aboriginals were not created by God and are sub-human?
No.daveS_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

daveS, are you saying aboriginals were not created by God and are sub-human?bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: So you admit that you have no examples of unguided Darwinian processes generating even 500 bits of functional information and that unguided Darwinian processes are thus grossly inadequate even IF (capital IF) common descent were true? Common descent provides the historical framework to discuss mechanisms. Doesn't the predicted existence of non-sapiens hominins give you pause?Zachriel_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

BA77
So ‘could be transitional’ is conclusive in your book?
The fossil was discovered less than 2 years ago and its significance and relation to other Homo specimens is still being debated. It appears that many experts regard it as important. Therefore I don't believe it has been shown to be inconclusive, contrary to your assertion in #49.
“I just have no way of deciding where on the chimp-human axis this fossil lies.” But you wouldn’t call it inconclusive?
Right. Why all the interest in comparing it to chimps anyway?
In regards to fossils, I have no ‘credibility’ either. But I was asking you to provide a empirical basis for your extraordinary claims for Darwinian processes, not your subjective personal opinion of fossils which you apparently find inconclusive but conclusive at the same time. Without such a empirical demonstration that Darwinian processes can generate non-trivial levels of functional information (i.e. 500 bit threshold), Darwinian claims as to how we originated are ‘not even wrong’, they are absurd!
Yes, fine. Now do you agree with Luskin that all members of the Homo genus were/are human (excluding habilis)? Are they all offspring of Adam and Eve?daveS_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

daveS: "So are all the genuine Homo fossils we find offspring of Adam and Eve? Some of which have very small brains and heavy brow ridges?" Hmmmm, Australian Aboriginal with prominent brow ridge - picture http://mmmgroup2.altervista.org/aborig2.jpg Aboriginal peoples Excerpt: Because Aboriginals have slightly larger eyebrow protrusions, a more downwardly slanted jaw and a smaller brain volume than Western peoples, they were thought to be living examples of transitional species. In order to produce proofs of evolution, evolutionist paleontologists together with fossil hunters who accepted the same theory dug up Aboriginal graves and took skulls back to evolutionist museums in the West. Then they offered these skulls to Western institutions and schools distributing them as the most solid proof of evolution. Later, when there were no graves left, they started shooting Aboriginals in the attempt to find proof for their theory. The skulls were taken, the bullet holes filled in and, after chemical processes were used to make the skulls look old, they were sold to museums. This inhuman treatment was legitimated in the name of the theory of evolution. For example, in 1890, James Bernard, chairman of the Royal Society of Tasmania wrote: “the process of extermination is an axiom of the law of evolution and survival of the fittest.” Therefore, he concluded, there was no reason to suppose that “there had been any culpable neglect” in the murder and dispossession of the Aboriginal Australian.5 http://harunyahya.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16234/aboriginal-peoples daveS, are you saying aboriginals were not created by God and are sub-human?bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Zach, "The claim concerns common descent, not darwinian processes." So you admit that you have no examples of unguided Darwinian processes generating even 500 bits of functional information and that unguided Darwinian processes are thus grossly inadequate even IF (capital IF) common descent were true? Thanks Zach, much appreciated!bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

Like Q, I have absolutely no problem with animals that look like humans. There is a common misconception about what "image" is in the Judeo-Christian context. One thing I would like to highlight is that there are a lot of species that are complex around when fossilization occurred but not now. Think of the dinosaurs - they had to be complex to have vascular and nervous (and the rest) systems to support such a vast size. My point? I think variety was quite different many years ago when these fossils were laid. Most of these fossils are never going to be links from chimp to human - they are just different varieties of non-human primate. In fact, if you believe in rapid speciation (or variety within a kind ) and you imagine there was a point where only one of each "kind" survived a catastrophic event then the variety to occur following mating would be potentially very different. Hence why we see different variety in the fossil record - nothing to do with transitional stages, simply variety.Dr JDD_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: But I was asking you to provide a empirical basis for your extraordinary claims for Darwinian processes. The claim concerns common descent, not darwinian processes. The skull is a piece of evidence to be evaluated. If it represents a plausible cousin, a branch on the family tree, then it supports common descent. The more such branches found, the more strongly common descent is supported.Zachriel_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

BA77,
I’m sorry, I may have jumped the gun on Casey’s position. I just re-read his article from 2012 on skull sizes where he states this in the ‘entire’ conclusion, (instead of just the excerpt I had originally extracted from the conclusion)
No problem. Yeah, it seems Homo = human according to Luskin, with Homo habilis banished to the australopithecines. So are all the genuine Homo fossils we find offspring of Adam and Eve? Some of which have very small brains and heavy brow ridges?daveS_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

"It could be transitional between humans and some other Homo species, so I wouldn’t call it inconclusive." So 'could be transitional' is conclusive in your book? "I just have no way of deciding where on the chimp-human axis this fossil lies." But you wouldn't call it inconclusive? "As I’ve stated, I’m a poorly-informed layperson when it comes to this stuff. Even if I were to accomplish the above task, it wouldn’t enhance my credibility on Homo fossils in the slightest." In regards to fossils, I have no 'credibility' either. But I was asking you to provide a empirical basis for your extraordinary claims for Darwinian processes. I was not asking for your subjective personal opinion on fossils which you apparently find inconclusive but conclusive at the same time. (i.e. you admit that you really don't know what the fossils are or even where they go, but you are sure they must go somewhere on the imaginary tree that is in your head.) Without such a empirical demonstration that Darwinian processes can generate non-trivial levels of functional information (i.e. 500 bit threshold), Darwinian claims as to how we originated are 'not even wrong', they are absurd!bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

BA77,
You already know that I think transitions between forms by unguided Darwinian processes are completely impossible, so why in blue blazes are you asking me to speculate on such a dubious fossil that you yourself find inconclusive?
I was just clarifying that I don't know if the fossil is transitional between humans and chimps (I don't even know if that's relevant here). It could be transitional between humans and some other Homo species, so I wouldn't call it inconclusive.
But quantify it you must because you have already decided that common decent must be true? It must be true even though you have no viable mechanism and the overall fossil record is, overwhelmingly, a pattern of sudden appearance and stasis? Well quantify away if you must!
I was responding to your post asserting that I had already decided the fossil was more human than chimp; I just have no way of deciding where on the chimp-human axis this fossil lies.
While your at it, how about generating 500 bits of functional information by unguided material processes, so as to have a semblance of experimental credibility to stand on?
:-) As I've stated, I'm a poorly-informed layperson when it comes to this stuff. Even if I were to accomplish the above task, it wouldn't enhance my credibility on Homo fossils in the slightest.daveS_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: You already know that I think transitions between forms by unguided Darwinian processes are completely impossible, so why in blue blazes are you asking me to speculate on such a dubious fossil that you yourself find inconclusive? Because such organisms represent plausible cousin species on the line of transition, something predicted by common descent, but not by special creation.Zachriel_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

I'm sorry, I may have jumped the gun on Casey's position. I just re-read his article from 2012 on skull sizes where he states this in the 'entire' conclusion, (instead of just the excerpt I had originally extracted from the conclusion)
Conclusion This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we've seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. And the earliest forms of Homo -- Homo erectus -- had an average skull size, and even a range of skull sizes, that are essentially within the range of modern human genetic variation. Citing smaller skull-sizes doesn't change the fact that skull-size is of uncertain importance for determining intelligence. The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group. If a few skulls of intermediate size is enough to convince McBride that humans shared a common ancestor with apes, so be it. But for me it's insufficient--especially when there are so many other traits (possibly including skull size) which appear abruptly in a unique Homo body plan. My Chapter 3 in Science and Human Origins cites a wealth of scientific articles, books, and papers backing up my arguments -- most of which are ignored by McBride. The lesson, I think, is that the gap in brain-size between Homo and the australopithecines will not be bridged by one-dimensional thinking. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/read_your_refer_1063841.html
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

I didn’t see that he states whether the skull is human or not. Same on the second reading. So apparently he doesn’t come down on one side or the other?
I would think that the whole 'So we’re left right back where we started: lots of disagreements, a big mystery and big gaps in the fossil record. What else is new?' would clearly, with the 'big gap' quip, put him in the non-human camp.
I don’t know if it’s transitional between humans and chimpanzees. That’s about it.
You already know that I think transitions between forms by unguided Darwinian processes are completely impossible, so why in blue blazes are you asking me to speculate on such a dubious fossil that you yourself find inconclusive?
I don’t know how to quantify that. The brain size might be closer to chimpanzees than humans.
But quantify it you must because you have already decided that common decent must be true? It must be true even though you have no viable mechanism and the overall fossil record is, overwhelmingly, a pattern of sudden appearance and stasis? Well quantify away if you must! While your at it, how about generating 500 bits of functional information by unguided material processes, so as to have a semblance of experimental credibility to stand on?
No, that’s the opposite of what I said. I referred specifically to their difficulty in placing the skull.
You dropped the 'you' from there. Moreover, I have no need to put fossils in branching tree patterns and I'm perfectly content to let the species exist unconnected to anything else. You on the other hand, as an atheist, are compelled to try to find a tree pattern.
Does any prominent ID researcher take a position on the human/nonhuman question?
recycle
Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride’s Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His – Casey Luskin – August 31, 2012 Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we’ve seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,, The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/read_your_refer_1063841.html
bornagain77_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

I agree with bornagain77 that the evidence is insufficient. The variation in hominid skulls is well known, however the brain case volume is just over a third that of a human, so it doesn't look good for Dmanisi finishing grade school, but you never know. Take a look at this 7 foot sweetheart--look at his profiles. https://www.google.com/search?q=nikolai+valuev+images&biw=1473&bih=729&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=DXlyVdqVMZfboASE3IGoCg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ I'm not at all "uncomfortable" with other animal bodies being similar to our animal bodies. however, our mental and moral capacity is light-years ahead of any other hominid. I'm not sure how you would judge this Dmanisi. -QQuerius_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

Read the article.
I didn't see that he states whether the skull is human or not. Same on the second reading. So apparently he doesn't come down on one side or the other?
So you don’t know, but you do know. How convenient a waffle.
I don't know if it's transitional between humans and chimpanzees. That's about it.
You already have your mind made up that it is more human than chimp.
I don't know how to quantify that. The brain size might be closer to chimpanzees than humans.
HMMM, I’m not the one trying to place the fossil in a common descent pattern, you and the experts are! Moreover, many of the experts admit that they can’t comfortably place the fossil in a common descent pattern. You, apparently, disagree with those experts.
No, that's the opposite of what I said. I referred specifically to their difficulty in placing the skull.
Moreover, phylogenetic trees presuppose common descent.
Yes, my error (see my previous post). Does any prominent ID researcher take a position on the human/nonhuman question?daveS_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

daveS,
"Does he take a position on whether the skull is homo sapiens or not?"
Read the article.
"I don’t know. It just looks clearly not human and not chimpanzee (the fact that it’s not chimpanzee is probably irrelevant. I was just looking at some pictures of skulls and noticed the obvious differences)"
So you don't know, but you do know. How convenient a waffle.
"Ok. So what is it: human or not?"
You already have your mind made up that it is more human than chimp. And I already told you that I'm not going to speculate on such a questionable fossil with such scant data.
"The fact that you and the experts are having a hard time placing this fossil? If there were truly few or no transitions, wouldn’t these scientists have an easier time constructing phylogenetic trees?"
HMMM, I'm not the one trying to place the fossil in a common descent pattern, you and the experts are! Moreover, some of the experts admitted that they can't comfortably place the fossil(s) in a common descent pattern. You, apparently, disagree with those experts. Moreover, phylogenetic trees presuppose common descent. The reason why phylogenetic trees are not easily reconstructed is because the presupposition of common descent is wrong:
Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php
bornagain77_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

Correction: Without common descent, it's probably harder to construct phylogenetic trees, since they wouldn't exist. :P But it should be easier to distinguish between humans and non-humans, presumably.daveS_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Casey’s opinion, which I referenced before, is here:
Does he take a position on whether the skull is homo sapiens or not?
You think the fossil is definitely transitional between chimps and humans?
I don't know. It just looks clearly not human and not chimpanzee (the fact that it's not chimpanzee is probably irrelevant. I was just looking at some pictures of skulls and noticed the obvious differences)
For what its worth, my ‘speculation’ is that it is not transitional:
Ok. So what is it: human or not?
Perhaps you can present some other compelling evidence to make your case that common descent is true?
The fact that you and the experts are having a hard time placing this fossil? If there were truly few or no transitions, wouldn't these scientists have an easier time constructing phylogenetic trees?daveS_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

Casey's opinion, which I referenced before, is here: Skull "Rewrites" Story of Human Evolution -- Again Casey Luskin October 22, 2013 Excerpt: "There is a big gap in the fossil record," Zollikofer told NBC News. "I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don't know." So we're left right back where we started: lots of disagreements, a big mystery and big gaps in the fossil record. What else is new? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/skull_rewrites_078221.html Moreover, I find it interesting that this find overturned the Darwinian narrative that had been in place for decades and you think it is ID proponents which are questioning common descent? UHHH excuse me, it was the evidence itself which overturned the Darwinian narrative, not ID proponents! Or is common descent never questioned in your mind even if the evidence itself undermines it? You think the fossil is definitely transitional between chimps and humans? For what its worth, my 'speculation' is that it is not transitional: "There is a big gap in the fossil record," Zollikofer told NBC News. "I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don't know." Perhaps you can present some other compelling empirical evidence to make your case that common descent is true instead of just speculative evidence? How about just changing one bacteria into another bacteria or is that just too much evidence to ask for? If so, why? And since you can't provide even that mediocre level of confirming evidence, why are you so eager to accept common descent on such questionable fossils. Questionable fossils which, by the way, overturned the meta-narrative of common descent that was in place for humans?bornagain77_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

BA77,
“Eh? Not getting your meaning.” Apparently not or you would not have said such a thing in the first place. I made my case from what can be known for certain from the evidence. And what can be known for certain from the best evidence is that Darwinists are far, far, short from making their case. Casey Luskin did an extensive study on the ‘skull’ issue and found:
Well, does Casey Luskin think the Dmanisi skull is human?
Thus, considering such shenanigans that Darwinists are prone to with the fossil evidence, for me to give a solid opinion on a fossil picture, I would certainly have to have a lot more data to go on than just a picture on the internet.
Ok.
Which, come to think of it, you have not even stated your personal opinion on the matter and have only falsely pretended as if my own opinion on the issue would matter to you personally.
I did say in my post #26 that the skull was clearly not human and not chimpanzee. And it's not specifically your opinion that I think is significant. Rather, it's how critics of common descent deal with all these uncomfortably humanlike primates from the past.daveS_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

ppolish,
I’m not familiar with the Dmanisi skull. But it’s a member of a monkey tribe, an ape tribe, or a human tribe. Pick one. Doubt if it’s human sapien. But I’m making s guess. Did not Google.
Thanks for the clarification.daveS_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

"Eh? Not getting your meaning." Apparently not or you would not have said such a thing in the first place. I made my case from what can be known for certain from the evidence. And what can be known for certain from the best evidence is that Darwinists are far, far, short from making their case. Casey Luskin did an extensive study on the 'skull' issue and found:
Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride's Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His - Casey Luskin - August 31, 2012 Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we've seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,, The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/read_your_refer_1063841.html McBride Misstates My Arguments in Science and Human Origins - Casey Luskin September 5, 2012 Excerpt: At the end of the day, I leave this exchange more confident than before that the evidence supports the abrupt appearance of our genus Homo. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/mcbride_misstat063931.html
Of related note, it is interesting to note how biased some Darwinists have been in the past with 'skull' evidence
“Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Mans_Earliest_Direct_Ancestors_Looked_More_Apelike_Than_Previously_Believed.asp "One famous fossil skull, discovered in 1972 in northern Kenya, changed its appearance dramatically depending on how the upper jaw was connected to the rest of the cranium. Roger Lewin recounts an occasion when paleoanthropologists Alan Walker, Michael Day, and Richard Leakey were studying the two sections of skull 1470. According to Lewin, Walker said: You could hold the [upper jaw] forward, and give it a long face, or you could tuck it in, making the face short…. How you held it really depended on your preconceptions. It was very interesting watching what people did with it. Lewin reports that Leakey recalled the incident, too: Yes. If you held it one way, it looked like one thing; if you held it another, it looked like something else." Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, Second Edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997), p 160 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/human-evolution-skull-1470-it-turns-out-has-a-multiple-personality-disorder/ Smithsonian Evolution Storytelling - Sept. 18, 2014 Excerpt: Discovered in 1924 in South Africa, models of the skull have long since been duplicated for natural history museums as evidence for human evolution worldwide, including the Smithsonian. Found near Taung, South Africa, the lynchpin skull was tagged with the common name of Taung Child because of the fossil’s estimated age of 3 years, then, later named Australopithecus africanus meaning the “southern ape from Africa.” Hollow’s new high-resolution CT scan images, however, undermine the long-held pre-Homo fossil status of the skull.,,, In the words of ScienceDaily, the Taung skull was once “South Africa’s premier hominin… the first and best example of early hominin brain evolution.”,, The evidence undermines the the long-held pre-Homo status of the skull. In an article published in the John Hopkins News-Letter entitled “Taung child’s skull compared to human’s,” writer Elli Tian points to the glaring problem for human evolution – “The evolution of our species, and what makes us human, is much more complicated than we’ve assumed in the past.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2014/09/smithsonian-evolution-storytelling/
Thus, considering such shenanigans that Darwinists are prone to with the fossil evidence, for me to give a solid opinion on a fossil picture, I would certainly have to have a lot more data to go on than just a picture on the internet. In other words, I'm no better than you in stating my personal opinion on the fossils which overturned the Darwinian narrative.
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray – OCT. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.,,, If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human evolutionary tree and spell the end for names such as H rudolfensis, H gautengensis, H ergaster and possibly H habilis. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution
Which, come to think of it, you have not even stated your own personal opinion on the matter and have only falsely pretended as if my own opinion on the issue would matter to you personally. Of course my opinion does not matter to you because, if it did matter to you, you would have abandoned your atheistic position long ago.bornagain77_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply