Origin of Man and Woman

No, no, no! What is found is a fossil here and a few fossils there. One cannot go from place to place and see the very same geologic layers stacked up. And where there are a huge jumble of fossils the answer is always the same. The bones and fossils of many previously dead animals just were eroded from their original positions and were all mixed together... Evolutionists ALWAYS have a dogmatic answer...

 

Between Australopithecus afarensis and Homo erectus? I would say all three of those, but I am not exactly an expert in the field.

But I would suggest something like Australopithecus garhi (OH-62) => Homo rudolfensis (KNM-ER 1470 & KNM-ER 3228 ) => Homo ergaster => Homo erectus.

But that is only my uneducated guess. There is some thought that the line may have gone through Homo habilis instead of Homo rudolfensis.

As for your other question... I would have to say somewhere in between. Humans have lost much of the hair as they evolved a better cooling system. As the number of sweat glands increased, individuals with less hair would have been selected for because the extra hair interfered with cooling. I would take a wild guess that early Homo was much less hairy than a chimp but a little more hairy than a modern man. But I do not know for sure.

Now, which of the following were fully human and which were non-human apes? And why?

Homo neanderthalensis
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo erectus
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis

 

Your asking for an evolutionist for "a story" -- I have accused them of many things - but never of failing to have enough "storys to tell".

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. You missed the point. Gould is trying to "explain the LACK" of transitional forms NOT a FLURRY of transitional forms.

You "ignore" the data that does not please your doctrines of evolutionism.

But the fact remains - the great LACK that Gould was trying to deal with is predicted by the Bible model that GOD provides -

God -1, humanism - 0.

Indeed Gould must feel pretty stupid - "admitting" to having to "explain" the very LACK that creaitonists have been touting to evolutionist all along.

Prior to Gould - most evolutionists "refused to admit" the "problem" that Gould would later attempt to "explain away".

But Gould's "solution" merely "officially admitted the problem".

And Gould has to ask WHY a Bible believing Christian would want to quote him???

I hope he is not asking the question out of stupidity - or maybe it is the "anti-knowledge" that some atheists claim is at the core of evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan

Do you not understand what I am saying? Or Gould for that matter? You do not get many fossil transitions at the species level recorded in the fossil record because most change takes place in small groups over short (in geologic terms) periods of time. You would not expect a "flurry" of transitional forms at the species level. That is what PE is trying to explain to us. When you only have a small group changing, and when the change is taking place quickly, and fossils do not form very often to begin with, then you do not expect to have finely graded transitions recorded in abundance at the species level. You deleted the most important part of Gould's quote, the part about there being abundant transitionals above the species level. I even gave you a reference to a paper detailing transitionals at the species level to show you that we do have them.

 

UTEOTW:

FAITH IN WHAT AS EXPLAINED WHERE?

 

UTEOTW - do you not get what the response to that is?

Gould is NOT OBSERVING smooth transition from one species to the next IN the fossile record happening in a flurry of transitions over a few 100,000 years - rather he is missing it ALTOGETHER and seeks to "explain away the data".

An explanation that is NOT based on OBSERVING the rapid changes - but merely speculating them.

And that is "proof" UTEOTW?

What kind of "proof" would you call it?

Instead of "observing" a cochroach forming in the fossil record - he only observes a cochroach.

Instead of "observing" a squid forming in the fossil record - he only finds a squid.

Instead of "observing" a compound eye forming step by step - he only finds a compound eye fully functional.

Instead of "observing" the eye of the squid forming - he only sees the eye of the squid.

He is explaining what he does NOT see and pretending that it DID exist. He is trying to "solve the problem" that evolutionists HAD been denying until his views became popular. Are you sure you want to tie your religion to that kind of "bad science"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

We have transitional series at the species level. I gave you a reference to one such series. We just do not have many because of the nature of the fossil record. Would you care to object and argue that fossilization is not rare and actually happens frequently? You seem to be ignoring that it is widely agrred that we have abundant transitions above the species level.

 

Let me make something clear. Most of the YEC groups seem to be saying these days that "kinds" are above the level of species. For instance that there is a "canine kind" that gave rise to dogs and wolves and foxes and so on. So, they should be expecting to see transitions at the species level also. We do not see this often because of the rarity of fossilization. So they have little to document these changes.

But they insist at higher levels, everything is created "kinds." They insist that there are no transitions between "kinds." Yet this is exactly where our evidence is[/] abundant. There are plenty of transitions above the species level where YECers say there should not be any.

 

The first part of this thread was very interesting to read. Principally a large number of folks agreeing with each other.

Some creationists who believe that creation did not take place by means of God-directed evolution have read Darwin. There have been some amendments to Darwin's theory to account for advances in the science of genetics, from the work of Mendel on. Genetic alleles and mutations are seen by evolutionists as the source of genetic variation to allow for evolution over time.

UTEOTW is doing an excellent job refuting unscientific approaches to the age of the earth and life on earth. My own background is in the biological sciences, and I will offer to add explanation if more should be needed.