News2 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kiera. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
meredith, mention of the M25 is a little sarcasm, isn't it? If the first human just appeared, it would well have been there, or Skegness, or the Oluduvai Gorge. And if time just began when God snapped his fingers... well, that's what scientists appear to believe now too; not God but a big bang which likewise came from nowhere they can explain. As Clanad says, there are still many mysteries out there.
so because we cannot fully explain everything that's the green light to believe anything............?
We cannot yet explain how the universe as we see it emerged from a singularity, therefore...............................it's ok to posit that there is an intelligent being who decided that the universe should come to be and that life on earth should just pop up, fully formed.
The M25 is not sarcasm, I'm pointing out the total ABSURDITY of suggesting a hypothesis which posits that we went from no life, to FULL life, in an instant.
Scientists seek the truth, not just any answers, and makes claims which are falsifiable. Believers do not. Thus.........*belief*.
We cannot yet explain how the universe as we see it emerged from a singularity, therefore...............................it's ok to posit that there is an intelligent being who decided that the universe should come to be and that life on earth should just pop up, fully formed.
The M25 is not sarcasm, I'm pointing out the total ABSURDITY of suggesting a hypothesis which posits that we went from no life, to FULL life, in an instant.
Scientists seek the truth, not just any answers, and makes claims which are falsifiable. Believers do not. Thus.........*belief*.
You really get your self worked up over this, don't you meredith101? In all the several posts you've submitted, there's not been one fact or attempt to make a point for me to consider 'changing my mind'. I've responded to each request with what I thought was well presented, factual information supporting a position. At no time did I ask or expect that your or anyone else's position would change and offered no sarcasm or hostile response. If you'd care to engage in a discussion rather than a name calling contest, I'd be happy to do so.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis...
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis...
-- answer removed --
May I ask exactly what it is you want identified or explained re: the example of Homo habilis? The species lived around 1.6 to 2.1 mya, probable origin is Olduvai Gorge, however the relative completeness of the example may be KNM-ER 1813 which originated in Kenya. If so, there's a lot of discussion re: the actual species; some argue for australopithecine. while others view it as a different species of Homo entirely... The entire species is still a matter of discussion among palentologists, with some opting for inclusion of all examples in Homo rudolfensis. while others believe it coexisted with another species Homo erectus. This co-existence, also probably seen in Neanderthal and modern humans was thought to be impossible but a few years ago. However, Svante P��bo of the Max Planck Institute, has concluded. after a 1997 study, that Homo neanderthalensis shares no genetic link to H. sapiens.
This quite surprising to many scientists "..Comparing Neanderthal to human and chimpanzee genomes showed that at multiple locations the Neanderthal DNA sequences matched chimpanzee DNA but not human.
Neanderthals aren't related to humans but it looks like they were an extinct member of the great ape family. I wonder if bigfoot/yeti are the last of the neanderthals..."(Source: Science Daily, November 16, 2006). So... what do you make of this?
This quite surprising to many scientists "..Comparing Neanderthal to human and chimpanzee genomes showed that at multiple locations the Neanderthal DNA sequences matched chimpanzee DNA but not human.
Neanderthals aren't related to humans but it looks like they were an extinct member of the great ape family. I wonder if bigfoot/yeti are the last of the neanderthals..."(Source: Science Daily, November 16, 2006). So... what do you make of this?
I agree, naomi, but where you're dealing with not only objective fact but subjective distortions in thinking some people will see it as personal attack, that's just tough. If we're discussing black holes, there is no need to discuss subjective distortions, but here, there is. If you want a nice discussion where everyone tries to please everyone else at the expense of truth, I suggest you try your local C of E coffee morning. That my M25 comment comes across as sarcasm is evidence itself of the absurdity of suggesting that humans, like all other animals, just popped up somewhere on earth, out of nowhere.
Clanad, humans share a significant genetic overlap with cabbages. We share a greater genetic overlap with elephants. We share an even greater genetic overlap with chimpanzees. How high do you think our genetic overlap with 'Homo Habilis' is? How high do you think our genetic overlap with 'Homo Neanderthalis' is?
You write, and I quote
""""..Comparing Neanderthal to human and chimpanzee genomes showed that at multiple locations the Neanderthal DNA sequences matched chimpanzee DNA but not human.
Neanderthals aren't related to humans""""
So, are you suggesting that the DNA overlap between humans and neanderthals is LESS than that of chimps (you assert that they are UNRELATED). Unrelated????? We are related to MICE by DNA and certain physical traits. But when it comes to Neanderthals, who:
look very like us
have a larger brain than us
share a huge proportion of our DNA
use tools (requiring advanced intellect)
walk upright, just like us
You say we are UNRELATED?
As for Homo Habilis, I want you to tell me:
-Its SPECIES, and how/why this relates to modern humans
-Did it use tools? Does this tool use indicate any advanced cerebral function, and if so, how would this genetic lineage relate to modern humans?
-Is it possible that this creature was an
Clanad, humans share a significant genetic overlap with cabbages. We share a greater genetic overlap with elephants. We share an even greater genetic overlap with chimpanzees. How high do you think our genetic overlap with 'Homo Habilis' is? How high do you think our genetic overlap with 'Homo Neanderthalis' is?
You write, and I quote
""""..Comparing Neanderthal to human and chimpanzee genomes showed that at multiple locations the Neanderthal DNA sequences matched chimpanzee DNA but not human.
Neanderthals aren't related to humans""""
So, are you suggesting that the DNA overlap between humans and neanderthals is LESS than that of chimps (you assert that they are UNRELATED). Unrelated????? We are related to MICE by DNA and certain physical traits. But when it comes to Neanderthals, who:
look very like us
have a larger brain than us
share a huge proportion of our DNA
use tools (requiring advanced intellect)
walk upright, just like us
You say we are UNRELATED?
As for Homo Habilis, I want you to tell me:
-Its SPECIES, and how/why this relates to modern humans
-Did it use tools? Does this tool use indicate any advanced cerebral function, and if so, how would this genetic lineage relate to modern humans?
-Is it possible that this creature was an
Hold it... Holdit! It wasn't me that said Neanderthalis and humans weren't related, but a reknown anthropologist! Or didn't you take note of the reference included?
Somehow, in all of these discussions, evolutionists either miss or obscure the main points and will/can not address them. The point, again, is that a few years ago it was unthinkable in anthropological circles to posit co-habitation by unrelated but similar species, without the inevitable mixing. But just a thing has been shown to be true in the case of Neanderthal/H.sapiens sapiens.
As for H. habilis:
Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).
Stern and Sussman write in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (60:279-313): "... but in all other respects it falls either outside the range of modern human variation (Tardieu, 1979) or barely within it (our analysis). (Discussion of knee joints in australopithecine fossils). Additionally, The paper by Stern and Sussman also mentions that the hands and feet of Australopithecus afarensis are not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have the long curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. Notwithstanding, the St. Louis Zoo features a life-size statue of Lucy with perfectly formed human hands and feet.
Contd.
Somehow, in all of these discussions, evolutionists either miss or obscure the main points and will/can not address them. The point, again, is that a few years ago it was unthinkable in anthropological circles to posit co-habitation by unrelated but similar species, without the inevitable mixing. But just a thing has been shown to be true in the case of Neanderthal/H.sapiens sapiens.
As for H. habilis:
Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).
Stern and Sussman write in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (60:279-313): "... but in all other respects it falls either outside the range of modern human variation (Tardieu, 1979) or barely within it (our analysis). (Discussion of knee joints in australopithecine fossils). Additionally, The paper by Stern and Sussman also mentions that the hands and feet of Australopithecus afarensis are not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have the long curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. Notwithstanding, the St. Louis Zoo features a life-size statue of Lucy with perfectly formed human hands and feet.
Contd.
Contd.
Dr. Chas. Oxnard (USC) writes "Although most studies emphasize the similarity of the australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore that these creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (A. africanus--"Homo habilis," "Homo africanus") was almost directly ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions." He further concludes, "Finally, the quite independent information from the fossil finds of more recent years seems to indicate absolutely that these australopithecines of half to 2 million years and from sites such as Olduvai and Sterkfontein are not on a human pathway." In Oxnard's opinion, australopithecines were neither like humans or apes but more like Pongo, the orangutan...even more "distant" from man, than a gorilla... "to the extent that resemblances exist with living forms they tend to be with the orangutan" (U. of Chicago Magazine, Winter, 1974, pp. 11-12).
None of these references could, by any stretch of the imagination, be accused of being Creationist. So... point is, your argument/disagreement isn't with me, it's with the consistent disagreement within the scientific community as to the origin of man.
I could provide you with references for all the subsequent questions you ask re: H. habilis, but there would, then, cascade yet another avalance of questions, the hope being that my inability to answer, adequate to your criteria, even one would somehow prove my position untenable. Rather, you do the homework and answer your own questions. See if, after the research, you come awayas seemingly confident as you are now.
By the way, here's agood place to start: http://www.msu.edu/~robin400/habilis.html , with nary a word from a Creationists lips... promise!
Dr. Chas. Oxnard (USC) writes "Although most studies emphasize the similarity of the australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore that these creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (A. africanus--"Homo habilis," "Homo africanus") was almost directly ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions." He further concludes, "Finally, the quite independent information from the fossil finds of more recent years seems to indicate absolutely that these australopithecines of half to 2 million years and from sites such as Olduvai and Sterkfontein are not on a human pathway." In Oxnard's opinion, australopithecines were neither like humans or apes but more like Pongo, the orangutan...even more "distant" from man, than a gorilla... "to the extent that resemblances exist with living forms they tend to be with the orangutan" (U. of Chicago Magazine, Winter, 1974, pp. 11-12).
None of these references could, by any stretch of the imagination, be accused of being Creationist. So... point is, your argument/disagreement isn't with me, it's with the consistent disagreement within the scientific community as to the origin of man.
I could provide you with references for all the subsequent questions you ask re: H. habilis, but there would, then, cascade yet another avalance of questions, the hope being that my inability to answer, adequate to your criteria, even one would somehow prove my position untenable. Rather, you do the homework and answer your own questions. See if, after the research, you come awayas seemingly confident as you are now.
By the way, here's agood place to start: http://www.msu.edu/~robin400/habilis.html , with nary a word from a Creationists lips... promise!
