Some of the Genetic Evidence for the Evolution of Man

You forgot to address the ERV challenge in today's posts, Gup.

 

Does AIG not have a FAQ or article that deals with how humans got their specific set of shared ERVs? Is that why you cannot answer?

By the same token, can you not find anywhere in that article you quoted where they actually did what you claimed they did; offer up an alternate explanation for the cited work's data?

 

Maybe one day you will find a FAQ on AIG or ICR onm this...

I guess we will not ever hear an answer from you in the interim.

 

Anything?

The ERV can be summarized by looking at these two posts.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/6.html#000086 [go to the bottom of the post]
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/7.html#000098 [and the first part of this post]

The AIG article problems are here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/7.html#000091
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/7.html#000095
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/7.html#000098 [the last two sections of this post]

Of the links above, all but one are on this page. The very first link is on the previous page. I'm waiting...

 

So you will continue to claim that you can provide a better explanation to the molecular and genetic data but when presented with the opportunity to do so, you hide.

Not surprising. If I were YE, I, too, would hide if asked to support my assertions.

 

"The problem with your molecular and genetic "data" regarding human evolution from African apes is that less than 2% of the population knows what you are talking about and less than 1% cares so it is not necessary for creationists to "hide" if asked to support their assertions about the "genetics" of human evolution."

Wow, so because the population cannot understand science, YEers do not have to address the science. That is a stunning admission there.

"Since the human fossil record falsifies any assertion by geneticists that some African apes evolved into African people once upon a time in ancient Africa, according to Lubenow."

Then tell us how he addresses the issues raised. Provide us some concrete, testable answers. Gup apparently is unable to support his assertions. Let's see if you can do better.

 

Details, my friend. Give us some detailed claims. Vague references to something someone might have said in some book does not count. If he makes good points, then give us a specific example complete with references and all and we will see if it can stand up to scrutiny. I have provided many references back to the original literature in this thread. Gup did a couple of copy and paste jobs from AIG that referenced literature. Just when you looked up their references they did not say what AIG claims! Typical YE deceit. Lie when you cannot make a factual point because "less than 2% of the population knows what you are talking about and less than 1% cares."

You will not provide any details and the logic he uses would not stand up. Travelsong is correct in all he has said about why. No need to repeat it.

Here, go read some critiques of Lubenow that are out there. (Why do I bang my head against a wall asking YEers to read something that might upset their little protected comfort area? If they would read the real science they would have a hard time remaining honest YEers.)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lubenow_cg.html
"So reliant is he on this misunderstanding as a potent dragon-killer, that he drags out one dragon after another to be slain by it."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html
"Lubenow continually resorts to the argument that overlaps between species falsify human evolution. Once it is realized that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, Lubenow's book loses much of its force."

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001039.html

Oh....

Still paging Gup to support his claims that all this can be better explained in a YE pardigm.

 

Did you read any of the brief critiques of Lubenow? Opinions?

"This thread is more about human evolution than anything else though."

How about addressing some of the issues raised in a substantial manner, then? Or is that asking too much?

"The Dmanisi skulls are interesting especially after viewing the John Gurche reconstructions..."

They are more than interesting. They are yet another transitional fossil, in this case transitional between two other human ancestors.

"How can there be any doubt in anyone's mind that some 4.5 foot Georgians with small brains from 1.7 Mya are the missing links between people and apes that evolutionists were searching for during the last century?"

Sarcasm, I am sure.

But the discovery of H. georgicus is important because they straddle the line between H. hablis and H. erectus. For years, many YEers had arbitrarily and capriciously drawn a line where they defined H. erectus and later as variants on fully human and they defined H. hablis and earlier as fully non-human ape. (Some YEers arbitrarily drew the line at slightly different point.) Now we have a series of fossils which are clearly intermediate between the two. So what are they?

Your "source" Lubenow (see the quote in my last post) was forced in his revised book to list some H. georgicus finds as H. erectus and some as H. hablis. And he did not even both to give any support for why he split the individual fossils for a single species into two separate groups, one human and one not in his opinion. He did not even mention them at all in the text of his revised book.

I also question your use of the phrase "missing link." I guess any fossil species that we have yet to find could be called a "missing link." However, we currently have plenty of transitional fossils to show that evolution is responsible for the current diversity of life on earth, including humans. Filling in the details only cements the science ever more firmly. And that ignores all of the other evidence for evolution.

 

"I am familiar with them."

So, no comments on the criticisms?

"How did those little guys with 7-800cc brain capacity end up in Georgia 1.7 Mya while 5.5 foot and medium-size brained Homo erectus Turkana Boy was getting buried 1.6 Mya in Kenya?"

You are making the same fatal mistake that undermines Lubenow's entire book. Evolution does not normally proceed in a fashion of A to B to C to D. Populations split with smaller groups evolving. This means that the times that different species were present overlap. For example, recent studies in Java have shown that the H. erectus species persisted until only about 50,000 years ago. H. neanderthalensis and H. florensis died out even more recently.

With this, you can see that common ancestor of both H. geogicus and H. ergaster (Another mistake of yours here. The Turkana Boy, KNM WT 15000, is generally classified as H. ergaster and not erectus as you claimed. http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html ) would likely have lived sometime between 1.8 and 2.5 millions of years ago. This leaves plenty of time for the divergence to have occurred and for some part of the H. georgicus population to have migrated to Georgia. A further complication of your complaint comes from the ongoing discussion about whether H. hablis or H. rudolfensis is the actual ancestor of the later species of Homo. So we could be dealing with two completely different populations and lines of evolution who only tie back at the end of the Australopithecines. In any case, yours is not a real challenge to the theory of evolution.

"They could be cross between some 4.5 foot Indonesians and African pygmies too since H. erectus and habilis seem to have suddenly appeared on the scene in Africa about 2 Mya simultaneously."

Two problems here.

The first is that there are clear anatomical differences that can be used to show that neither H. hablis nor H. erectus are modern humans. We can explore that more fully if necessary.

Second, you should really check your dates. The oldest H. erectus fossils are in the range of 1.0 1.6 million years ago with 1.6 million years ago being the age at which they are believed to have split from the H. ergaster species. The oldest H. hablis fossils are about 2 million years old.

"This is what evolutionists have been doing for 100 years since the whole notion and creation of separate and different human species by evolutionists is arbitrary to begin with seeing how difficult it is to conduct scientific tests on the possible interfertility of fossils."

Thre is controversy within the scientific community about where to draw species and even genus lines simply because the fossil record is complete enough that it sometimes becomes arbitrary to decide where to draw the line. The two ends of a chain may be undisputedly different species but who decides where in the middle to draw that line? What about the inevitable side branches? How different do they have to be to be classified as a new species?

YEers on the other hand arbitrarily declare some species as just humans and others as just apes without any factual reasons to do so. Even more interestingly, different YEers will draw that line in different places such that you get an interesting dichotomy where one YEers declares a given fossil as nothing more than an ape while another declares it as just a race of fully modern humans. In your case, your source Lubenow takes memebers of the same species and declares some fully human and some fully ape. That really is an interesting trick! It should raise huge caution flags to anyone reading his material. Care to defend it?

"I guess after studying paleoanthropogical techniques for 35 years and keeping track of all the supposedly evolutionary finds of fossil ape-men in the fossil record during the past century, Lubenow can't help doing himself what so-called evolutionary scientists have been doing so long themselves."

Evasive, non-answer.

"With so many "missing links" being found these days, the whole chain may soon be missing."

What does that mean? Another evasive, non-answer.

But it really must be troubling to try and maintain an honest YE position with the constant stream of transitionals being produced.

"Lubenow couln't find any transitional fossils in the record of fossilzed human skulls and bones to date."

Then he is in the minority, then. Most scientists who have studied the issue have no problem seeing the transistions. What does he make of the fossil evidence? I assume he did not even address the molecular and genetic data.

"He shows how there is only the same evidence of human variety and diversity in the fossil record as still exists in the human race today in even greater variety and diversity."

Hmmm. Which of your neighbors have the brow ridges? The occipital bun? All of the other anatomic traits found in various ancestors but not in modern humans?

"Yes, I love how artists and other reconstructive engineers fill in the fleshy details of evolution from a few scraps of bones or a heap of human skulls. Quite a science."

One which you apparently do not understand if you think that is how it is done.

 

You are making two mistakes which undermine your whole argument.

The first has already been stated but obviously must be repeated.

If you look at observations of speciation events in modern times and if you look at the pattern of speciation events in the fossil record, you see that they generally occur when some portion of a population becomes isolated from the rest and they diverge. In modern times, you have seen this with various species of plants and animals. In the fossil record, you see this, also. Staying on topic with the human fossils, you see that throughout most of human evolution that there have been multiple species on the planet ata given time. Some of these are cases where ancestors and descendents overlap in time and some of these are cases of side branches that eventually completely died out.

The second fatal mistake you are making is suggesting that various fossils with significant anatomical differences should not be grouped into different species. You keep making the assertion that we cannot know for sure that they were different species because we cannot do hybridization testing. But you ignore the significant fact that the various species of human ancestors can be grouped by very specfic anatomical differences. Each group has specific characteristics shared with each other but changed in other species. You assert that brain size is the only one that matters and then choose a huge range of brain sizes to split all of the various fossils into just two groups for your own convenience. You then ignore traits such as the presence and size of brow ridges, the presence of an occibital bun, the lack or presence of a chin, facial prognathism, the shape of the dental arcades, size of canine teeth, size and shape of long bones and patterns in the crests of molars to name just a few.

But even if you cast this wide net and declare them all the same species, it still does not matter. There is still a record of change in humans that clearly shows evolution. Even if the various species were interfertile, the major changes in morphology with time are still there. Use all the semantics you want, they are still there.

"Evasive answer, seeing how no transitionals have ever been discovered or 'produced.'"

Eusthenopteron, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Proterogyrinus, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis, Protorosaurus, Prolacerta, Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus, Clepsydrops, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Procynosuchus, Thrinaxodon, Diademodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Adelobasileus, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Steropodon, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops, Deinonychus, Oviraptor, Lisboasaurus, Archeopteryx, Protoavis, Sinornis, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Protocetes, Indocetus, Prozeuglodon, Eocetus, Dorudon, Agorophius, Aetiocetus... Just to name a very small example of some transitionals.