First off, you’re starting off badly right out the gate with calling it ‘Darwinian’. It shows you still haven’t understood that evolution has moved on from pure Darwinism, and you’re taking your points from out of date creationist sources.
Also, it shows that you have in your mind that proponents of evolutionary theory have in mind something like the ‘March of progress’ image, an image that no one actually studying anthropological evolution holds to in the slightest. You need to do better actually studying what they are actually putting forward.
And last, You seem to have done some quote mining in your post. You’ve done this in the past too regarding human evolution, and I remember showing you how your taking statement out of context from the actual research paper changed the actual point of the paper.
The theory of evolution is based on Darwinism. Darwinism is the foundation of evolution. Yes, it has deviated and is more orbiting than it was 150 years ago, but the core is the same.
Darwin didn't know about DNA. Current knowledge about evolution is based on chemistry. If you really want to argue against evolution, you should figure out how DNA can replicate without mistakes.
The fossil record doesn't really matter when you consider the facts about how life propagates through DNA. There are always little mistakes when DNA gets copied, and those mistakes accumulate over time to change phenotypes. It's impossible to stop evolution.
It is not a ‘deviation’ any more than our current atomic model, the quantum mechanical model, is a ‘deviation’ from the Bohr atomic model. Current evolutionary theory encompasses multiple observed mechanisms. A good faith discussion requires you to acknowledge that and not keep trying to bring it back to ‘Darwinism’ since it isn’t called that.
How about that ‘March of progress’ misunderstanding or addressing the quote mining?
Does the theory of evolution include natural selection, as well as genetic variations in biological populations and inheritance occurring among them? All of this is Darwinism. Hell, it's all about descent with modification, it's literally Darwinism.
Are you just this damn determined to not acknowledge the main point? It is not literally Darwinism. You have already been corrected on this. Darwinism is a specific thing. Modern evolutionary synthesis has multiple components, with Darwinian mechanisms merely being a part. Again, a good faith discussion would mean you’d use the actual terms people actually use. You’d rightly require the same in return if you put your beliefs up for scrutiny.
How about that March of progress misunderstanding or the quote mining?
Again, [Darwinism is the core of the theory](https://gcsciencestudies.commons.gc.cuny.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/1012/files/2017/01/Screen-Shot-2017-01-26-at-9.24.51-AM-1024x601.png). Yes, today's theory has more components, that's clear. But the basic assumption is still that species evolve according to the principle of descent through modification, which leads to common ancestry. The point is based on Darwinism.
The fact that darwin did not include genetics, and EES deals a LOT with genetics is proof it is NOT darwinian. Your attempt to strawman evolution is noted and appropriately derided for the duplicitous attempt at willful misrepresentation it is.
People descend from fish, so they are fish. Ergo, EES is Darwinism because it descends from Darwinism.
(My comment isn't really about EES. This convo just reminded me of what I think is a stupid and unhelpful common statement that humans are fish.)
You’re using an incomplete term to refer to the whole thing. I can’t believe you’re being so stubborn about this. Your original post made clear that you weren’t criticizing ‘Darwinism’, you were conflating Darwinism and modern evolutionary theory as the same thing. You called them ‘literally’ the same thing. They are not and it’s time you learned this. This part of the conversation is over.
Now, about that March of progress misunderstanding and the quote mining.
>Does the theory of evolution include .... as well as genetic variations in biological populations and inheritance occurring among them?
Darwin didn't know squat about genetics. He died 50 years before genetics were incorporated into evolutionary biology. Any theory of evolution that deals with genetics is not 'Darwinian'.
Yes, Darwin got natural selection and inheritance with modification correct. But, he wasn't the first on the latter and he wasn't alone on the former.
>The theory of evolution is based on Darwinism.
Thats like saying Nuclear reactions are based on Issac Newton's work because it involves actions and reactions.... Except not even then because it ignores Wallace completely.
The foundation of evolution is [consilience.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience)
It's a wonderful day to learn about the ramifications of [truth's unitary nature!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_science)
Let us assume for a moment that Darwin’s conception of evolution was flawed. If you concede that evolutionary theory today has moved beyond Darwin, why would rebuttal of Darwin’s ideas impact modern theory? You would need to show which parts Darwin’s findings are still held in modern evolutionary theory and that they are incorrect, which is just discussing modern theory with extra steps, so why invoke Darwin at all?
That question aside none of what you have presented so far is even sourced, and that’s not even getting into how you reached some of your conclusions such as “humans have always been humans” and “apes have always been apes”. These statements could be accepted in a kind of tautological sense. Humans are humans and apes are apes, but humans are also apes. What you’re doing is trying to distinguish between quadrilaterals and squares.
The Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, George's Lemaitre. Should it be referred to as Catholicism? Or maybe as Lemaitreism? Maybe we should refer to Christianity as Judaism, or Canaanitism, or Zoroastrianism.
Or we can acknowledge that things... *ahem*... evolve. And refer to the modern understanding rather than link it to 150 year old ideas that are greatly outdated and barely kept the fundamentals.
Suppose I could give you a perfect and continuous day-by-day and year-by-year fossil accounting of an entire taxonomic *phylum* of life, consisting of over 275,000 distinct fossil species, going back to the mid-Jurassic and more?
>I have compiled this assessment through careful research from several critics and tested it against the assumptions of Darwinian proponents.
I see zero citations to support this claim.
Is your thesis that Homo sapiens did not evolve? What is your hypothesis for how we got here? Do you believe that a powerful magical being made a man out of clay, the man came to life, and then the being cut out his rib and made a woman? If not, then what?
A "dead end" that is a keystone in how we observe biology work and is a required baseline for how modern agriculture works?
I wish all dead ends were so productive.
The way you phrased it is both humorous and accurate so it works for me. In a race for the truth eventually some are so close to the finish line that those constantly getting lost in the already falsified bullshit can’t see the ones that are successful progressing anymore as though they hit a dead end but really they’ve already come to or crossed the finish line and those who are still failing keep going around in circles.
Finish lines look like dead ends for those who can’t admit they’ve already lost the race. The analogy works the way you meant it (ideas already 99.99999% correct don’t really change much like they hit a dead end but they’ve already crossed the finish line) and it works in a more literal sense as with a more literal race like cars and horses going around in circles keep moving but they’re not really accomplishing much while the winners are waiting at the finish line just in case the others decide to finally show up. Their failure to move off the finish line looks like a dead end to those who won’t admit they’ve already lost.
I thought it was particularly clever, sitting on a park bench, stoned out of my mind, watching my tiny dog fight another tiny dog in the summer heat.
For the record, I've never posted here sober. Ever. Creationists are just that bad at arguing.
Yea, sometimes some of the most profound ideas come from people who are high on drugs or otherwise impaired by them (stoned, drunk, etc). It’s like they lose focus on the natural world mostly and they are able to think about the few remaining ideas still in their mind in unique ways. It has helped a lot of song writers write songs, it has helped a lot of book writers write books, it has helped people invent completely asinine ideas, it has helped people invent very clever ideas, and sometimes it has even helped artists with their paintings (I don’t think Van Gough or Picasso drew or painted anything perfectly sober and if they did I’d be even more amazed) or with whatever else they were thinking about doing like whatever the fuck Paul Reubens aka PeeWee Herman was thinking when he made PeeWee’s Playhouse or dressed the way he did to masterbate twice in front of a live audience.
Let me get this. You question the precise path of hominid evolution, therefore the foundational theory of all of modern Biology is wrong. Also you have absolutely no alternative to propose. You're not advocating for some kind of religious myth explanation?
>It is a fact that different features are more pronounced in different regions. For example, you could tell the difference between an Inuit and an African pygmy or an Australian aborigine.
You could, but the differences are basically negligible, especially once you're just dealing with bones. Most human "races" are mere strains, nothing more -- you'd need expert analysis to tell the three groups apart. Inversely, a Neandethal skull is *clearly* not the skull of a human being just at first glance. [Here's a link](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Sapiens_neanderthal_comparison.jpg). These are clearly not the same species.
At most, neanderthals would be a human subspecies (note, this is a far bigger claim then the "minor differences in colour and face shape" that we mistakenly call races -- this is the difference between a dog and a wolf), and that would be enough to support human evolution, as it would be proof humans could undergo the process of speciation.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? I'm just saying that there are variations among us humans, but we're all one species. That's perfectly normal. What evolutionists do is they create their own species from that, sometimes even to create intermediate forms.
No. What you’ve been doing is likening the differences between species to the differences between human “races.” That is literally what phrenology is about - trying to find biological justifications for race. Race is a social construct, not biological.
Phrenologists used images just like the one you linked in an attempt to show different “types” of humans. This has all been debunked long ago. Yes individual humans have differences, but we are all extraordinarily genetically similar.
I am referring to accepted scientific facts that there are groups with natural variations in skull shape, influenced by geographic factors. This has nothing to do with phrenology. Phrenology is a disproven theory that claimed that personality could be determined from skull shape. That is not my point. My point is comparable to the different colors of a flower being determined by different alleles. Similarly, there are natural variations in skull shape in humans, caused by geographic influences. This has nothing to do with phrenology.
The variance in human skulls is so small there is no case for classifying humans by them. That is why phrenology is a pseudoscience. It is literally the attempt to classify humans by things such as skull shape.
The difference between human skulls and other species in the genus homo is significant enough for them to be classified as such.
How "significant" do they have to be? Who decides this? It could be also, as I said, that they all are the same species with some variations due to geographical adaptations, like we see in many other species. If there were no australian aporigines today and we would only know them from the fossil recird, Evolutionists would dsay they are another species. The evidence for evolutionary transitions is based on circular reasoning: It is evidence for evolution because I defined it as evidence for evolution!
The small amount of variation within *Homo sapiens sapiens* is spread throughout the population with most of the variation still in Africa where our species originated 300,000 to 400,000 years ago. It should also be noted that prior to about 10,000 years ago, no matter where *Homo sapiens sapiens* lived, our subspecies had “brown” skin and now that there are 64+ different skin tones we find, once again, the vast majority of those also exist in Africa from the white tribes to the black ones to every shade of brown in between. We keep seeing this trend where everyone whose ancestors have been outside of Africa for at least 7000 years have a shared set of common ancestors roughly 70,000 years ago and if we include the rest of the population then our “first ancestors” predate the existence of our species unless we arbitrarily decided to focus on sex chromosome haplotypes and then it’s around 200,000 years ago for the first of each with the estimates being around 165,000-195,000 years ago for the Y chromosome MRCA and around 200,000-250,000 years ago for the mtDNA MRCA. And, yet again, they are from Africa.
When we look at even more diverse species, like *Homo erectus*, it makes our ideas suggesting modern humans contain multiple races that much more absurd. If races existed they’d exist in *Homo erectus* where sometimes the distinct groups are classified as whole different species like *Homo heidelbergensis,* *Homo sapiens,* *Homo rhodesiensis,* *Homo ergaster,* *Homo denisova,* *Homo bodoensis,* *Homo neanderthalensis,* and so on. They were clearly human, they were clearly our ancestors, we are clearly part of the same group. Some of these descendant subsets are ancestors of ours, some are merely cousins, but *Homo erectus,* excluding Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans, have existed from 2.1 million years ago until roughly 100,000 years ago. It is not all that uncommon for descendant subsets to exist *at the same time* as the larger group they split off from.
And that’s precisely the case with *Homo habilis* and *Homo erectus* in the 2.1-1.6 million years ago range but *Homo habilis* showed up first and some argue that it should actually be classified as *Australopithecus* the “Pan-Human” clade and that’s fine too because the exact same situation is the case with *Australopithecus* and *Homo* where the latter is just a descendant subset of the former. Our ability to confirm relationships with proteins and DNA is no longer very useful for times preceding the emergence of *Homo within Australopithecus* but Australopithecus, even then, still made stone tools, they still formed communities, they still had similar feet to modern humans, they were obligate bipeds like modern humans, and we can trace our ancestry using technology and anatomy which would lead back to *Kenyanthropus platyops* or *Australopithecus afarensis* ~3.5 million years ago and some studies indicate that maybe the first was misidentified as being anything but either *afarensis* or *africanus* simply because it so badly damaged before they dug it up. If it is *africanus* that also leads back to *afarensis* and that blends right into *anamensis,* the “first” Australopithecine.
And then some people go further and classify Ardipithecus, Orrorin, and Sahelanthropus as Australopithecine as well but then it becomes a synonym for *Hominina* and that makes the term *Australopithecine* unnecessary so I generally reserve that term for the descendants of *Australopithecus anamenis* (or a very close cousin to the exact same species).
We actually do not cherry pick any of the fossils. We see a branching family tree with the human fossils found so far with some branching off toward Paranthropus, some branching off towards Homo, and some still considered Australopithecus like that *Australopithecus sediba* that a famous YEC decided was nothing but a mere human. Sure. All of Australopithecus *could be* considered human if you wish and it wouldn’t hurt my feelings any. They’re *also* apes.
I don’t care if Duane Gish says Homo erectus is 100% non-human ape one year or 100% non-ape human a decade later or if some other person did the same with Homo habilis or if Todd Wood says Australopithecus is human and AiG says Australopithecus is gorilla. Their claims are completely false or irrelevant except for in the case where they prove that they know humans are evolved apes. You should know that too.
“Who decides this?”
Ummm taxonomists, evolutionary biologists, archaeologists, anthropologists - scientists and professionals who dedicate their lives to studying this subject and actually know the evidence and data. NOT redditors with half-baked ideas based on racist “nu uh” arguments.
If we found skeletal remains of aborigines today without living context for them we absolutely would NOT classify them as a different species. How can you not understand that this is idea is exactly what scientific racism is? The idea that humans can be subdivided into different biological races has long since been debunked and is a complete pseudoscience.
The evidence for evolution is actually based on mountains and mountains of data that shows that organisms change over time. This is just flat out undeniable. Are you different genetically from your parents? Were they different from their parents? There you go that’s evidence right there.
Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. Over many many generations, the change in allele frequencies can lead to phenotype changes that are significant enough to classify organisms into different species.
The fossil record shows a clear transition between many different animal species. We have also witnessed evolution in other species within the span of human history as well as within human lifetimes as we have seen it happen in lab settings.
Look at a crop like corn. It evolved from a similar plant called teosinte based on selection pressure to have larger, sweeter, and more seeds. Boom evolution.
I would like for you to look at T. rex skulls. They have even more diversity than humans, in just the like 10 skulls we have. Yet as of now there is still only two recognized species. Your statements screams “my information is only from creationist sources”.
No, because all those skulls are basically identical, as opposed to the Neanderthal skull, which is clearly the skull of a different species.
The neanderthal skull is 150% the size of the human skull, it's shaped like an eggplant, the eyes take up a third of its face, it has no cheekbones, and the jaw is shaped like a gorilla's. Meanwhile, the biggest difference between skulls of different human races is "somewhat rounder skullcap" or "slightly more heartshaped nasal cavity"
Like, racial differences and the differences between a human and a neanderthal are clearly not comparable, as you can see by comparing the collection of human skulls to the neanderthal one. Thanks for proving my point I guess?
These fossils come from *dated* rocks. We know which fossils are older than which. Putting them out of order just to make it look good is something you can test and call their bluff. You know, science. 🧪🕚📊
>“*I will give up my belief in evolution if someone finds a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian.*” - John Haldane
You have it kinda backwards. We see this change in species over time in the rock. How else do we explain the fossil record? We did not go looking for fossils to explain evolution - we came up with evolution to explain the fossils.
How do you explain the early hominid fossil record?
>Homo habilis had a relatively small brain, about 510 to 600 cc, which is more in the range of Australopithecines. The skull shape also has some primitive features that are more reminiscent of Australopithecus.
>American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker expressed doubt that "the average pathologist can tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human."
Walker was specifically talking about the post-cranial skeleton of Turkana boy here.
What’s interesting is that Turkana and other *ergaster* specimens have brain case sizes ranging from 600 to 900 cc — only slightly larger than *habilis* but literally half the size of Neanderthals and modern humans.
*Ergaster* skulls also display all of the “primitive features” reminiscent of australopithecines that you mentioned, like a lack of chin and sloped forehead. So by your own admission *erectus* has transitional characteristics.
>The difference between them is no greater than that between different human populations such as Inuit, Africans or Europeans.
This is… just false. Neanderthals lie significantly outside extant human genetic variation; humans have very low genetic diversity (99.9% similarlity) while Neanderthals are about 99.7% similar.
>These differences were even more pronounced in the past. Depending on which race you come from, you can tell this from your anatomical structure.
Please give me some insight on how you know any of this.
There’s a few key things you’ve missed or misunderstood here.
First off, you are the one perpetuating racist views on genetics. There is no such thing as biological race. This idea has been debunked for decades. Relating the taxonomic differences between ancient fossils to the differences between human races perpetuates the outdated and false idea that there is a genetic base to race.
Second thing, humans ARE apes. Ape is a taxonomic family that includes humans and the rest of the species that you’ve mentioned.
On the topic of taxonomy, it is a human made system to organize the animals we find. Any distinction between two species is up to human judgement. Often two different species are extremely similar, but people smarter than both of us have decided there are reasons to make distinctions between them. The key here is that species can be extremely similar because of… evolution!
Evolution is a slow moving machine and there is not a distinct point at which one species turns into another. Organisms simply change slightly over time. That’s essentially what evolution is.
And guess what, that’s what the fossil record shows! There is nothing wishful about this. You have given absolutely no argument as to why your claim about this being wishful thinking. Evolutionary biologists didn’t just “pick out” fossils to make this argument. The fossil record shows apes changing slowly over time from something with significant differences from modern day hominids to modern day hominids.
>I have compiled this assessment through careful research from several critics and tested it against the assumptions of Darwinian proponents.
I want to read the scientific paper. And the comments of the peer reviewers.
Welp submit your findings for peer review rather than posting on Reddit. You won't change much here. If you've got something real publish it, submit it for review by actual expert, not us laypeople.
In your careful research you got everything wrong? How did you manage that one? About the only time you were right is when you said a species of human (Homo habilis) is an ape, since all humans are apes.
You're just saying stuff with no arguments. The fact that creationists disagree on which fossil hominins are human vs ape is the perfect example demonstrating them as transitional.
The fine details of whether particular bones in specimens have traits is of interest to bioanthropologists but not to the creationist vs evolution discussion. You're in over your head. Back up and just [look at the fossils](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/oece2y/7_million_years_of_human_evolution/) and realise it's a fact.
Knows stuff?.. keeps deleting videos and republishing them because they contain serious errors and also being torn apart in debates, like against Bechly.
Oh dear, I knew you got this horseshit straight from Bechly. Get your life together, you're following a bunch of clowns.
Nobody will even debate her anymore. They've literally given up.
I would love for this guy to actually show ‘how’ Erica lost. Willing to bet he can’t come up with any substantive scientific points that he won over her, which is all that matters.
I remember reading that article actually! On EN? I do remember there being a lot of whining but don’t remember off the top of my head what there was of substance.
Yup, it was basically just a standard hitpiece. A long list of nonsense designed solely to serve as a thing creationists can point to and say "see, that's already been debunked!!" without even a thought to its validity.
‘Keeps’ deleting videos and republishing them? Like…the singular time that she did so? And then was completely open and honest when she did and hid nothing about it?
Also, you just gonna completely run away from addressing my earlier questions, hu?
Yeah I think it was literally that she gave too much leeway to her opponent and assumed they knew more than they actually did. Her ‘mistake’ was that she had to go back since she found out part of her argument was based on a piece of information that was put forward as true and even THAT was wrong.
That's dumb... also, nobody assumes that Australopithecus evolved into Homo Habilis... that's not what science says, science says that australopithecus and homo habilis have a common ancestor, that's all.
And your classification as apes or human is also wrong, human IS ape... all human species are ape.
I believe the current consensus is that *a* species of Australopithecus evolved into Homo habilis. However there were a number of Australopithecus species alive, and obviously not all of them evolved into the genus Homo.
No, science rarely says X evolved into Y, science just says that X and Y has a common ancestor. Australopithecus isn't said to have evolved into homo habilis.
The evidence indicates that *Homo* is a subset of *Australopithecus* so, yes, *a* species of Australopithecus is one of the ancestors of genus Homo. Generally the most popular idea goes something like this:
Australopithecus anamensis -> Australopithecus afarensis -> ? -> Homo habilis -> Homo erectus -> Homo sapiens
That question mark could be replaced with Australopithecus africanus, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus garhi, some species of Australopithecus not yet found, or a combination of all of these. Whatever the case, the series shown above does indeed include Australopithecus afarensis evolving into Homo habilis, just not immediately from one to the next. Also it’s a branching family tree so there are multiple candidates for what should be in that question mark space simply because they were so similar that any of them *could* be what belongs there (including something never found yet) and we are still related to all of the ones that don’t belong in there as a descendant subset of Australopithecus ourselves, since those are simply our cousins instead of our ancestors.
You are confusing Austrolopithecus, the genus, Austrolopothecus afarensis, the species, and Lucy, the individual.
We definitely evolved from the Austrolopothecus genus, there just weren't any other genera at the time we could have evolved.
We likely evolved from the Austrolopothecus afarensis species since that is the only known candidate species at the time. But we could potentially have evolved from another, unknown Austrolopothecus species living at the same time, it is hard to say for sure.
We almost certainly didn't evolve from Lucy, the individual, just from probability alone.
What i was refering to, maybe awkwardly since english is not my language, is that science doesn't say "X evolved into Y" because they almost never can be 100% sure that species X is the direct ancestor to species Y. Instead they say "X and Y have a common ancestor" which is true even if X evolved into Y, just like i have a common ancestor with my father, which is my grandfather (and my grandmother, and every acestors of them).
I also remember, long time ago, a paleontologist specifically saying that Australopithecus wasn't an ancestor to mankind, but as i said it was a long time ago, and maybe they corrected this since.
Science says that when the position is justified. It just usually can't be justified.
For example we can say with total confidence that polar bears evolved from brown bears. We can even tell exactly what population they evolved from. Because the conclusion is justified from the evidence.
On the other hand we can't say exactly what species of boneless fish jawed fish evolved from. We don't have enough detail in the fossil record to justify a conclusion, mostly because we don't even know all the boneless fish species that existed at the time.
This is a case where the evidence is sufficient to justify the conclusion at the genus and likely species level. The fossil record gives us a very good idea of what genera were present at the time to justify a reasonably firm conclusion, and enough detail about what species were around that we can be pretty confident at that level too.
Note something that this and polar bears had in common: they happened pretty recently. Our level of detail drops as we go further back in time, so it becomes harder to draw these sorts of conclusions.
Having experienced them over a long time, Burak has the specific apologist slant of someone who listens/reads mostly Muslim creationists. Sticking to much older evidentiary arguments than most Christians, and a much heavier focus on speaking to philosophy and meta arguments.
>Burak has the specific apologist slant of someone who listens/reads mostly Muslim creationists.
Yeah, the Muslim apologists have a distinct vibe, even when they don't tell you who they are: they lack the YEC timeline, as the Quran does not have a parallel for Genesis.
As a result, their arguments tend to be less explicit, for better or worse: they trend away from the mathematical arguments that a short timeline suggest and so are forced to rely on more nebulous arguments of comparison or philosophy.
I find Muslim apologists to be far more arrogant than Christian ones. They think they own science because their culture did technically invent it 1000 years ago. Too bad they threw it all away.
Their arguments do come off particularly 'Greek': they often build a model based on some observations, and the model is seemingly coherent, but there's no attempt to check the model against reality.
For Greeks, the ultimate example was centrifugal motion: they thought the stone, when released, would travel out, not parallel, because they felt the tug on the rope. The Greeks wound up getting most of motion completely wrong, which is particularly interesting, because most of the arguments regarding the prime mover originally used their understanding of motion, and despite the fact that the definitions completely changed, the argument has not.
The Muslims trend towards finding miraculous scientific knowledge in the Quran, then interpreting reality to fit. Mind you, much of the medical knowledge in the Quran corresponds to the understand of Galen the Physician, one of the great medical minds of the 2nd century AD. As a Greek, he got a lot *completely wrong*, but right enough to be medically useful in the vacuum of the truth, hence why his knowledge often got incorporated into the Quran without a second thought.
Look, I don't care about Christianity at all, I'm not a Christian. I know that this is a typical defensive reaction of evolutionists when they receive criticism. If you have nothing to contribute, then you're in the wrong place.
>If you have nothing to contribute, then you're in the wrong place.
You've given nothing of substance and are merely asserting that you're right.
There's no mention of autapomorphies. You don't mention any that would make what you see as humans, human and you fail to mention those of apes that are present in humans and explain why they should be disregarded.
You've also failed to quote any source your basing your "research" on.
You're entire post is worthless and you should head your own advice. You're clearly in the wrong place here.
All your bloviating is useless.
We know, genetically, that we are related to chimps with a certainty that exceeds paternity tests by many orders of magnitude.
I know that you think the evaluation of fossils is just subjective interpretation.
I dont care. Fossilization could *not even be a thing* and we would still know we share common ancestors with apes. Even if every bone ever disintegrated upon death.
>Homo habilis is a very vague fossil with a lot of controversy. It has limbs that have nothing to do with humans. He used them to climb trees - something humans don't do. Initial descriptions of an opposable thumb and the associated precision grip and bipedalism are still being questioned today.
Could you explain exactly what these differences are and why you believe they have nothing to do with humans? It sounds like you're suggesting every human ancestor necessarily shared the traits we see in modern humans, but mosaic and increasingly basal traits are something we expect to see as we look back in time at our family tree.
Also, while the extent of the opposability and dexterity of homo habilis' thumb may be in question, that doesn't seem to be the case for its bipedalism. The foramen magnum being located at the base of the skull rather than the back (like modern chimpanzees) makes that a pretty open and shut case, I'd say. I'd be happy to take a look at some academic sources claiming otherwise though.
I can climb trees. Chimpanzees can go bipedal. Pretty sure I would crush a chimp in a foot race, chimp would crush me in a climbing race. Due to morphology, we could expect homo habilis' performance to be somewhere in between my performance and a chimps. Dare I say "intermediate"? Hmmm. Maybe H. habilis was...nah, couldn't be.
>It is a fact that different features are more pronounced in different regions. For example, you could tell the difference between an Inuit and an African pygmy or an Australian aborigine. These differences were even more pronounced in the past. Depending on which race you come from, you can tell this from your anatomical structure. This is perfectly normal.
"I am racist! It's ok, though: I used to be even *more* racist!"
Explain how these differences were \_more\_ pronounced in the past, if all humans share a common ancestor (which, you know, is the correct interpretation, but is also one your position absolutely requires). Where did these differences come from, and how were they maintained?
Honestly, "there are far more ancient lineages of hominids than just the ones that we descended from" isn't anything like the slam dunk you seem to think it is. It's...literally correct: all lineages diverge, but most branches eventually go extinct. Sometimes lineages interbreed with closely related lineages before this happens, exactly as we know happened with the denisovans and neanderthals. This doesn't make those lineages any less denisovan or neanderthal, nor any less extinct.
how about you use sources that support evolution to actually understand evolution and THEN look for creationist (or similar sources) to see if something is wrong. i wouldnt try to learn about creationism from "evolutionists" id go to creationist, to see what they really have to say and make sure im not fighting strawmen. you did not do such thing. and pretty much 99% of creationist also have this mistake. learn what you actually are arguing against first.
Okay here's what we have. We have a collection of fossils. The oldest ones don't look as much like modern humans, but as we look at fossils from the very same areas that lived closer and closer to the modern day, we see a clear progression of traits towards the form of modern humans. Our explanation for this is evolution, a process that we already know happens, as we can see it happen in the lab.
What is the problem with our explanation and do you have a better one? Science isn't about being 100% certain about everything. We only care about coming up with the best explanation. If you can't identify any SPECIFIC problems with our explanation, and if you can't offer any better explanation that accounts for all this evidence, then our explanation is still the best one. And we all know you don't have an explanation that accounts for this evidence. You would much rather just pretend the evidence doesn't exist.
Like most theists, you are only interested in human evolution for some reason.
Neither you nor I have a Ph.d level of knowledge on this subject. I do understand that hominid evolution is a complex and I think not entirely resolved question. I'll just point out that you seem to think that you know more than the world's biologists and anthropologists, which seems extremely unlikely, don't you think?
>Today, only 120 of ape species exist.
Where? Is there some unexplored part of the Congo that has quadruple the Hominoid species diversity of the rest of the world combined?
LOL Whut?
So a few things...
1. Either we have fossils that support the theory of transitions or we don't. We do.
2. Why do Creationists always love to run their mouths about how we don't have enough fossils to point out transitions when we clearly do....it's almost as if a gaggle of buffoons who insist on trying to pretend that a their interpretation of a collection of often contradictory, always wrong, Bronze Aged folk tales and mythology handed down from genocidal desert savages isn't a better commentary on Science than actual Science....oh wait.
3. OP, please feel free to use this somehow smoking gun regarding the cherry picking of fossils to finally explain how the Bible got it right when it asserted that bats are birds, and Whales are fish.....along with why exactly do air breathing "fish" who have hair(sparse as it is), excrete milk to feed their offspring, and have mammalian wrist and finger bones inside their flippers, and are genetically far more closely related to horses, cows, and Bison, than they are to fish that breath via extracting oxygen thru their gills.....
>You can also debate this with me live on the (unofficial) Discord server of DebateEvolution. Write to me and we will make an appointment
Drop the invite link. Are you scared because you know you'll get swarmed with people smarter than you?
I am confused on how we would find fossils that support evolutionary transition by any other means than evolutionary transition having taken place. There is a pattern in the strata of earth crust where the further down you go the simpler the organisms found. It stands to reason that the strata will layer from older to newer so this is pretty solid evidence that life evolved over millions of years from simple organisms to what we have today. Evolution is a working theory. It has been used to make predictions about the evolution of certain extinct species that later findings verified. I find it strange that people who claim evolution is wrong rarely ever put forward another option, well... Aside from magic.
Excellent insight. The fossils are noy biological evidence for anything except what they are. Any claims of progression are cherry picking. In fact back in the day they just didn't have the imagination to see there was a greater diversity in biology and the fossilization came from a few events and simply captured that diversity.
the fossils are silent on thier parents and kids.
All of biology is silent on your weird claims of how genetics doesn’t matter but for some reason now you’re complaining? You don’t seem to mind since you don’t have any sources to back up your claims.
Oh yeah. The fossil record is excellent evidence for human evolution.
First off, you’re starting off badly right out the gate with calling it ‘Darwinian’. It shows you still haven’t understood that evolution has moved on from pure Darwinism, and you’re taking your points from out of date creationist sources. Also, it shows that you have in your mind that proponents of evolutionary theory have in mind something like the ‘March of progress’ image, an image that no one actually studying anthropological evolution holds to in the slightest. You need to do better actually studying what they are actually putting forward. And last, You seem to have done some quote mining in your post. You’ve done this in the past too regarding human evolution, and I remember showing you how your taking statement out of context from the actual research paper changed the actual point of the paper.
The theory of evolution is based on Darwinism. Darwinism is the foundation of evolution. Yes, it has deviated and is more orbiting than it was 150 years ago, but the core is the same.
Darwin didn't know about DNA. Current knowledge about evolution is based on chemistry. If you really want to argue against evolution, you should figure out how DNA can replicate without mistakes. The fossil record doesn't really matter when you consider the facts about how life propagates through DNA. There are always little mistakes when DNA gets copied, and those mistakes accumulate over time to change phenotypes. It's impossible to stop evolution.
It is not a ‘deviation’ any more than our current atomic model, the quantum mechanical model, is a ‘deviation’ from the Bohr atomic model. Current evolutionary theory encompasses multiple observed mechanisms. A good faith discussion requires you to acknowledge that and not keep trying to bring it back to ‘Darwinism’ since it isn’t called that. How about that ‘March of progress’ misunderstanding or addressing the quote mining?
Does the theory of evolution include natural selection, as well as genetic variations in biological populations and inheritance occurring among them? All of this is Darwinism. Hell, it's all about descent with modification, it's literally Darwinism.
Are you just this damn determined to not acknowledge the main point? It is not literally Darwinism. You have already been corrected on this. Darwinism is a specific thing. Modern evolutionary synthesis has multiple components, with Darwinian mechanisms merely being a part. Again, a good faith discussion would mean you’d use the actual terms people actually use. You’d rightly require the same in return if you put your beliefs up for scrutiny. How about that March of progress misunderstanding or the quote mining?
Again, [Darwinism is the core of the theory](https://gcsciencestudies.commons.gc.cuny.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/1012/files/2017/01/Screen-Shot-2017-01-26-at-9.24.51-AM-1024x601.png). Yes, today's theory has more components, that's clear. But the basic assumption is still that species evolve according to the principle of descent through modification, which leads to common ancestry. The point is based on Darwinism.
The fact that darwin did not include genetics, and EES deals a LOT with genetics is proof it is NOT darwinian. Your attempt to strawman evolution is noted and appropriately derided for the duplicitous attempt at willful misrepresentation it is.
If humans are fish, then EES is still a form of Darwinism.
I'd really like you to explain your rationale for this ludicrous claim.
People descend from fish, so they are fish. Ergo, EES is Darwinism because it descends from Darwinism. (My comment isn't really about EES. This convo just reminded me of what I think is a stupid and unhelpful common statement that humans are fish.)
You’re using an incomplete term to refer to the whole thing. I can’t believe you’re being so stubborn about this. Your original post made clear that you weren’t criticizing ‘Darwinism’, you were conflating Darwinism and modern evolutionary theory as the same thing. You called them ‘literally’ the same thing. They are not and it’s time you learned this. This part of the conversation is over. Now, about that March of progress misunderstanding and the quote mining.
Darwin knew that inheritance happened, but not what caused it. Understanding that aspect of things has changed evolution a lot.
>Does the theory of evolution include .... as well as genetic variations in biological populations and inheritance occurring among them? Darwin didn't know squat about genetics. He died 50 years before genetics were incorporated into evolutionary biology. Any theory of evolution that deals with genetics is not 'Darwinian'. Yes, Darwin got natural selection and inheritance with modification correct. But, he wasn't the first on the latter and he wasn't alone on the former.
>The theory of evolution is based on Darwinism. Thats like saying Nuclear reactions are based on Issac Newton's work because it involves actions and reactions.... Except not even then because it ignores Wallace completely.
True, we would never have developed nuclear reactors if he had not won independence for the Scots.
The foundation of evolution is [consilience.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience) It's a wonderful day to learn about the ramifications of [truth's unitary nature!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_science)
Let us assume for a moment that Darwin’s conception of evolution was flawed. If you concede that evolutionary theory today has moved beyond Darwin, why would rebuttal of Darwin’s ideas impact modern theory? You would need to show which parts Darwin’s findings are still held in modern evolutionary theory and that they are incorrect, which is just discussing modern theory with extra steps, so why invoke Darwin at all? That question aside none of what you have presented so far is even sourced, and that’s not even getting into how you reached some of your conclusions such as “humans have always been humans” and “apes have always been apes”. These statements could be accepted in a kind of tautological sense. Humans are humans and apes are apes, but humans are also apes. What you’re doing is trying to distinguish between quadrilaterals and squares.
The Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, George's Lemaitre. Should it be referred to as Catholicism? Or maybe as Lemaitreism? Maybe we should refer to Christianity as Judaism, or Canaanitism, or Zoroastrianism. Or we can acknowledge that things... *ahem*... evolve. And refer to the modern understanding rather than link it to 150 year old ideas that are greatly outdated and barely kept the fundamentals.
Suppose I could give you a perfect and continuous day-by-day and year-by-year fossil accounting of an entire taxonomic *phylum* of life, consisting of over 275,000 distinct fossil species, going back to the mid-Jurassic and more?
u/BurakSama1 will not engage with foraminiferan or diatomaceous heresies!
"They're tiny, so they don't count!" -YECs, probably
*crickets* u/BurakSama1, why are you ignoring this?
Oh, he doesn’t want that dirty evidence. He just wants to come here and pontificate.
Just because I'm fascinated to know, what phylum are you talking about?
Foraminifera. Have fun!
u/BurakSama1 Fella skedaddled. Come back mister.
?
>I have compiled this assessment through careful research from several critics and tested it against the assumptions of Darwinian proponents. I see zero citations to support this claim.
Is your thesis that Homo sapiens did not evolve? What is your hypothesis for how we got here? Do you believe that a powerful magical being made a man out of clay, the man came to life, and then the being cut out his rib and made a woman? If not, then what?
I don't know for sure, biologists should look for new approaches. The Darwinian interpretation is definitely a dead end.
A "dead end" that is a keystone in how we observe biology work and is a required baseline for how modern agriculture works? I wish all dead ends were so productive.
Finish lines look a lot like dead ends to people who don't want to admit they lost the race.
I want to steal that so bad.
I'm pretty sure it's original to me, in so much as I don't remember anyone saying it before, but go wild. There's probably a cleaner way to phrase it.
The way you phrased it is both humorous and accurate so it works for me. In a race for the truth eventually some are so close to the finish line that those constantly getting lost in the already falsified bullshit can’t see the ones that are successful progressing anymore as though they hit a dead end but really they’ve already come to or crossed the finish line and those who are still failing keep going around in circles. Finish lines look like dead ends for those who can’t admit they’ve already lost the race. The analogy works the way you meant it (ideas already 99.99999% correct don’t really change much like they hit a dead end but they’ve already crossed the finish line) and it works in a more literal sense as with a more literal race like cars and horses going around in circles keep moving but they’re not really accomplishing much while the winners are waiting at the finish line just in case the others decide to finally show up. Their failure to move off the finish line looks like a dead end to those who won’t admit they’ve already lost.
I thought it was particularly clever, sitting on a park bench, stoned out of my mind, watching my tiny dog fight another tiny dog in the summer heat. For the record, I've never posted here sober. Ever. Creationists are just that bad at arguing.
Yea, sometimes some of the most profound ideas come from people who are high on drugs or otherwise impaired by them (stoned, drunk, etc). It’s like they lose focus on the natural world mostly and they are able to think about the few remaining ideas still in their mind in unique ways. It has helped a lot of song writers write songs, it has helped a lot of book writers write books, it has helped people invent completely asinine ideas, it has helped people invent very clever ideas, and sometimes it has even helped artists with their paintings (I don’t think Van Gough or Picasso drew or painted anything perfectly sober and if they did I’d be even more amazed) or with whatever else they were thinking about doing like whatever the fuck Paul Reubens aka PeeWee Herman was thinking when he made PeeWee’s Playhouse or dressed the way he did to masterbate twice in front of a live audience.
I mean, it's that, or just a generalized substance abuse problem.
Could be that too
Another phrasing could be “it’s easy to think you’re ahead when you’re in last place”.
Nah, we need to maintain the 'dead-end' element. That's a key component.
Let me get this. You question the precise path of hominid evolution, therefore the foundational theory of all of modern Biology is wrong. Also you have absolutely no alternative to propose. You're not advocating for some kind of religious myth explanation?
>It is a fact that different features are more pronounced in different regions. For example, you could tell the difference between an Inuit and an African pygmy or an Australian aborigine. You could, but the differences are basically negligible, especially once you're just dealing with bones. Most human "races" are mere strains, nothing more -- you'd need expert analysis to tell the three groups apart. Inversely, a Neandethal skull is *clearly* not the skull of a human being just at first glance. [Here's a link](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Sapiens_neanderthal_comparison.jpg). These are clearly not the same species. At most, neanderthals would be a human subspecies (note, this is a far bigger claim then the "minor differences in colour and face shape" that we mistakenly call races -- this is the difference between a dog and a wolf), and that would be enough to support human evolution, as it would be proof humans could undergo the process of speciation.
Whould you say the same about [this skulls](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0d484fcf6caa54f224267cce24c5d504.webp)?
So, you’re invoking phrenology, which is an explicitly racist and debunked pseudoscience.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? I'm just saying that there are variations among us humans, but we're all one species. That's perfectly normal. What evolutionists do is they create their own species from that, sometimes even to create intermediate forms.
No. What you’ve been doing is likening the differences between species to the differences between human “races.” That is literally what phrenology is about - trying to find biological justifications for race. Race is a social construct, not biological. Phrenologists used images just like the one you linked in an attempt to show different “types” of humans. This has all been debunked long ago. Yes individual humans have differences, but we are all extraordinarily genetically similar.
I am referring to accepted scientific facts that there are groups with natural variations in skull shape, influenced by geographic factors. This has nothing to do with phrenology. Phrenology is a disproven theory that claimed that personality could be determined from skull shape. That is not my point. My point is comparable to the different colors of a flower being determined by different alleles. Similarly, there are natural variations in skull shape in humans, caused by geographic influences. This has nothing to do with phrenology.
The variance in human skulls is so small there is no case for classifying humans by them. That is why phrenology is a pseudoscience. It is literally the attempt to classify humans by things such as skull shape. The difference between human skulls and other species in the genus homo is significant enough for them to be classified as such.
How "significant" do they have to be? Who decides this? It could be also, as I said, that they all are the same species with some variations due to geographical adaptations, like we see in many other species. If there were no australian aporigines today and we would only know them from the fossil recird, Evolutionists would dsay they are another species. The evidence for evolutionary transitions is based on circular reasoning: It is evidence for evolution because I defined it as evidence for evolution!
The small amount of variation within *Homo sapiens sapiens* is spread throughout the population with most of the variation still in Africa where our species originated 300,000 to 400,000 years ago. It should also be noted that prior to about 10,000 years ago, no matter where *Homo sapiens sapiens* lived, our subspecies had “brown” skin and now that there are 64+ different skin tones we find, once again, the vast majority of those also exist in Africa from the white tribes to the black ones to every shade of brown in between. We keep seeing this trend where everyone whose ancestors have been outside of Africa for at least 7000 years have a shared set of common ancestors roughly 70,000 years ago and if we include the rest of the population then our “first ancestors” predate the existence of our species unless we arbitrarily decided to focus on sex chromosome haplotypes and then it’s around 200,000 years ago for the first of each with the estimates being around 165,000-195,000 years ago for the Y chromosome MRCA and around 200,000-250,000 years ago for the mtDNA MRCA. And, yet again, they are from Africa. When we look at even more diverse species, like *Homo erectus*, it makes our ideas suggesting modern humans contain multiple races that much more absurd. If races existed they’d exist in *Homo erectus* where sometimes the distinct groups are classified as whole different species like *Homo heidelbergensis,* *Homo sapiens,* *Homo rhodesiensis,* *Homo ergaster,* *Homo denisova,* *Homo bodoensis,* *Homo neanderthalensis,* and so on. They were clearly human, they were clearly our ancestors, we are clearly part of the same group. Some of these descendant subsets are ancestors of ours, some are merely cousins, but *Homo erectus,* excluding Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans, have existed from 2.1 million years ago until roughly 100,000 years ago. It is not all that uncommon for descendant subsets to exist *at the same time* as the larger group they split off from. And that’s precisely the case with *Homo habilis* and *Homo erectus* in the 2.1-1.6 million years ago range but *Homo habilis* showed up first and some argue that it should actually be classified as *Australopithecus* the “Pan-Human” clade and that’s fine too because the exact same situation is the case with *Australopithecus* and *Homo* where the latter is just a descendant subset of the former. Our ability to confirm relationships with proteins and DNA is no longer very useful for times preceding the emergence of *Homo within Australopithecus* but Australopithecus, even then, still made stone tools, they still formed communities, they still had similar feet to modern humans, they were obligate bipeds like modern humans, and we can trace our ancestry using technology and anatomy which would lead back to *Kenyanthropus platyops* or *Australopithecus afarensis* ~3.5 million years ago and some studies indicate that maybe the first was misidentified as being anything but either *afarensis* or *africanus* simply because it so badly damaged before they dug it up. If it is *africanus* that also leads back to *afarensis* and that blends right into *anamensis,* the “first” Australopithecine. And then some people go further and classify Ardipithecus, Orrorin, and Sahelanthropus as Australopithecine as well but then it becomes a synonym for *Hominina* and that makes the term *Australopithecine* unnecessary so I generally reserve that term for the descendants of *Australopithecus anamenis* (or a very close cousin to the exact same species). We actually do not cherry pick any of the fossils. We see a branching family tree with the human fossils found so far with some branching off toward Paranthropus, some branching off towards Homo, and some still considered Australopithecus like that *Australopithecus sediba* that a famous YEC decided was nothing but a mere human. Sure. All of Australopithecus *could be* considered human if you wish and it wouldn’t hurt my feelings any. They’re *also* apes. I don’t care if Duane Gish says Homo erectus is 100% non-human ape one year or 100% non-ape human a decade later or if some other person did the same with Homo habilis or if Todd Wood says Australopithecus is human and AiG says Australopithecus is gorilla. Their claims are completely false or irrelevant except for in the case where they prove that they know humans are evolved apes. You should know that too.
“Who decides this?” Ummm taxonomists, evolutionary biologists, archaeologists, anthropologists - scientists and professionals who dedicate their lives to studying this subject and actually know the evidence and data. NOT redditors with half-baked ideas based on racist “nu uh” arguments. If we found skeletal remains of aborigines today without living context for them we absolutely would NOT classify them as a different species. How can you not understand that this is idea is exactly what scientific racism is? The idea that humans can be subdivided into different biological races has long since been debunked and is a complete pseudoscience. The evidence for evolution is actually based on mountains and mountains of data that shows that organisms change over time. This is just flat out undeniable. Are you different genetically from your parents? Were they different from their parents? There you go that’s evidence right there. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. Over many many generations, the change in allele frequencies can lead to phenotype changes that are significant enough to classify organisms into different species. The fossil record shows a clear transition between many different animal species. We have also witnessed evolution in other species within the span of human history as well as within human lifetimes as we have seen it happen in lab settings. Look at a crop like corn. It evolved from a similar plant called teosinte based on selection pressure to have larger, sweeter, and more seeds. Boom evolution.
I would like for you to look at T. rex skulls. They have even more diversity than humans, in just the like 10 skulls we have. Yet as of now there is still only two recognized species. Your statements screams “my information is only from creationist sources”.
No, because all those skulls are basically identical, as opposed to the Neanderthal skull, which is clearly the skull of a different species. The neanderthal skull is 150% the size of the human skull, it's shaped like an eggplant, the eyes take up a third of its face, it has no cheekbones, and the jaw is shaped like a gorilla's. Meanwhile, the biggest difference between skulls of different human races is "somewhat rounder skullcap" or "slightly more heartshaped nasal cavity" Like, racial differences and the differences between a human and a neanderthal are clearly not comparable, as you can see by comparing the collection of human skulls to the neanderthal one. Thanks for proving my point I guess?
Notice how they are all head on views so you can’t tell how they all have a similar shape compared to the clearly different Neanderthal skull
No.
A sample size of one. How compelling.
These fossils come from *dated* rocks. We know which fossils are older than which. Putting them out of order just to make it look good is something you can test and call their bluff. You know, science. 🧪🕚📊 >“*I will give up my belief in evolution if someone finds a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian.*” - John Haldane You have it kinda backwards. We see this change in species over time in the rock. How else do we explain the fossil record? We did not go looking for fossils to explain evolution - we came up with evolution to explain the fossils. How do you explain the early hominid fossil record?
>Homo habilis had a relatively small brain, about 510 to 600 cc, which is more in the range of Australopithecines. The skull shape also has some primitive features that are more reminiscent of Australopithecus. >American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker expressed doubt that "the average pathologist can tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Walker was specifically talking about the post-cranial skeleton of Turkana boy here. What’s interesting is that Turkana and other *ergaster* specimens have brain case sizes ranging from 600 to 900 cc — only slightly larger than *habilis* but literally half the size of Neanderthals and modern humans. *Ergaster* skulls also display all of the “primitive features” reminiscent of australopithecines that you mentioned, like a lack of chin and sloped forehead. So by your own admission *erectus* has transitional characteristics. >The difference between them is no greater than that between different human populations such as Inuit, Africans or Europeans. This is… just false. Neanderthals lie significantly outside extant human genetic variation; humans have very low genetic diversity (99.9% similarlity) while Neanderthals are about 99.7% similar.
>These differences were even more pronounced in the past. Depending on which race you come from, you can tell this from your anatomical structure. Please give me some insight on how you know any of this.
Their grand pappy told them from under their very pointy white hood.
I don't think you actually know anything about comparative anatomy.
There’s a few key things you’ve missed or misunderstood here. First off, you are the one perpetuating racist views on genetics. There is no such thing as biological race. This idea has been debunked for decades. Relating the taxonomic differences between ancient fossils to the differences between human races perpetuates the outdated and false idea that there is a genetic base to race. Second thing, humans ARE apes. Ape is a taxonomic family that includes humans and the rest of the species that you’ve mentioned. On the topic of taxonomy, it is a human made system to organize the animals we find. Any distinction between two species is up to human judgement. Often two different species are extremely similar, but people smarter than both of us have decided there are reasons to make distinctions between them. The key here is that species can be extremely similar because of… evolution! Evolution is a slow moving machine and there is not a distinct point at which one species turns into another. Organisms simply change slightly over time. That’s essentially what evolution is. And guess what, that’s what the fossil record shows! There is nothing wishful about this. You have given absolutely no argument as to why your claim about this being wishful thinking. Evolutionary biologists didn’t just “pick out” fossils to make this argument. The fossil record shows apes changing slowly over time from something with significant differences from modern day hominids to modern day hominids.
>I have compiled this assessment through careful research from several critics and tested it against the assumptions of Darwinian proponents. I want to read the scientific paper. And the comments of the peer reviewers.
Welp submit your findings for peer review rather than posting on Reddit. You won't change much here. If you've got something real publish it, submit it for review by actual expert, not us laypeople.
In your careful research you got everything wrong? How did you manage that one? About the only time you were right is when you said a species of human (Homo habilis) is an ape, since all humans are apes.
You're just saying stuff with no arguments. The fact that creationists disagree on which fossil hominins are human vs ape is the perfect example demonstrating them as transitional. The fine details of whether particular bones in specimens have traits is of interest to bioanthropologists but not to the creationist vs evolution discussion. You're in over your head. Back up and just [look at the fossils](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/oece2y/7_million_years_of_human_evolution/) and realise it's a fact.
Source is gutsick gibbon 😂
Yeah, someone who actually knows stuff lmao
Knows stuff?.. keeps deleting videos and republishing them because they contain serious errors and also being torn apart in debates, like against Bechly.
Oh dear, I knew you got this horseshit straight from Bechly. Get your life together, you're following a bunch of clowns. Nobody will even debate her anymore. They've literally given up.
I would love for this guy to actually show ‘how’ Erica lost. Willing to bet he can’t come up with any substantive scientific points that he won over her, which is all that matters.
Bechly wrote a DI article saying he won, therefore he won. Simple!
I remember reading that article actually! On EN? I do remember there being a lot of whining but don’t remember off the top of my head what there was of substance.
Yup, it was basically just a standard hitpiece. A long list of nonsense designed solely to serve as a thing creationists can point to and say "see, that's already been debunked!!" without even a thought to its validity.
‘Keeps’ deleting videos and republishing them? Like…the singular time that she did so? And then was completely open and honest when she did and hid nothing about it? Also, you just gonna completely run away from addressing my earlier questions, hu?
Isn't the thing she needed to delete/republish for something which made her case even stronger?
Yeah I think it was literally that she gave too much leeway to her opponent and assumed they knew more than they actually did. Her ‘mistake’ was that she had to go back since she found out part of her argument was based on a piece of information that was put forward as true and even THAT was wrong.
That's dumb... also, nobody assumes that Australopithecus evolved into Homo Habilis... that's not what science says, science says that australopithecus and homo habilis have a common ancestor, that's all. And your classification as apes or human is also wrong, human IS ape... all human species are ape.
I believe the current consensus is that *a* species of Australopithecus evolved into Homo habilis. However there were a number of Australopithecus species alive, and obviously not all of them evolved into the genus Homo.
No, science rarely says X evolved into Y, science just says that X and Y has a common ancestor. Australopithecus isn't said to have evolved into homo habilis.
It definitely did. It's pretty well known.
No, it's very likely, but that's not how species are classified in a philogenetic tree.
The evidence indicates that *Homo* is a subset of *Australopithecus* so, yes, *a* species of Australopithecus is one of the ancestors of genus Homo. Generally the most popular idea goes something like this: Australopithecus anamensis -> Australopithecus afarensis -> ? -> Homo habilis -> Homo erectus -> Homo sapiens That question mark could be replaced with Australopithecus africanus, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus garhi, some species of Australopithecus not yet found, or a combination of all of these. Whatever the case, the series shown above does indeed include Australopithecus afarensis evolving into Homo habilis, just not immediately from one to the next. Also it’s a branching family tree so there are multiple candidates for what should be in that question mark space simply because they were so similar that any of them *could* be what belongs there (including something never found yet) and we are still related to all of the ones that don’t belong in there as a descendant subset of Australopithecus ourselves, since those are simply our cousins instead of our ancestors.
You are confusing Austrolopithecus, the genus, Austrolopothecus afarensis, the species, and Lucy, the individual. We definitely evolved from the Austrolopothecus genus, there just weren't any other genera at the time we could have evolved. We likely evolved from the Austrolopothecus afarensis species since that is the only known candidate species at the time. But we could potentially have evolved from another, unknown Austrolopothecus species living at the same time, it is hard to say for sure. We almost certainly didn't evolve from Lucy, the individual, just from probability alone.
What i was refering to, maybe awkwardly since english is not my language, is that science doesn't say "X evolved into Y" because they almost never can be 100% sure that species X is the direct ancestor to species Y. Instead they say "X and Y have a common ancestor" which is true even if X evolved into Y, just like i have a common ancestor with my father, which is my grandfather (and my grandmother, and every acestors of them). I also remember, long time ago, a paleontologist specifically saying that Australopithecus wasn't an ancestor to mankind, but as i said it was a long time ago, and maybe they corrected this since.
Science says that when the position is justified. It just usually can't be justified. For example we can say with total confidence that polar bears evolved from brown bears. We can even tell exactly what population they evolved from. Because the conclusion is justified from the evidence. On the other hand we can't say exactly what species of boneless fish jawed fish evolved from. We don't have enough detail in the fossil record to justify a conclusion, mostly because we don't even know all the boneless fish species that existed at the time. This is a case where the evidence is sufficient to justify the conclusion at the genus and likely species level. The fossil record gives us a very good idea of what genera were present at the time to justify a reasonably firm conclusion, and enough detail about what species were around that we can be pretty confident at that level too. Note something that this and polar bears had in common: they happened pretty recently. Our level of detail drops as we go further back in time, so it becomes harder to draw these sorts of conclusions.
[удалено]
Having experienced them over a long time, Burak has the specific apologist slant of someone who listens/reads mostly Muslim creationists. Sticking to much older evidentiary arguments than most Christians, and a much heavier focus on speaking to philosophy and meta arguments.
>Burak has the specific apologist slant of someone who listens/reads mostly Muslim creationists. Yeah, the Muslim apologists have a distinct vibe, even when they don't tell you who they are: they lack the YEC timeline, as the Quran does not have a parallel for Genesis. As a result, their arguments tend to be less explicit, for better or worse: they trend away from the mathematical arguments that a short timeline suggest and so are forced to rely on more nebulous arguments of comparison or philosophy.
I find Muslim apologists to be far more arrogant than Christian ones. They think they own science because their culture did technically invent it 1000 years ago. Too bad they threw it all away.
Their arguments do come off particularly 'Greek': they often build a model based on some observations, and the model is seemingly coherent, but there's no attempt to check the model against reality. For Greeks, the ultimate example was centrifugal motion: they thought the stone, when released, would travel out, not parallel, because they felt the tug on the rope. The Greeks wound up getting most of motion completely wrong, which is particularly interesting, because most of the arguments regarding the prime mover originally used their understanding of motion, and despite the fact that the definitions completely changed, the argument has not. The Muslims trend towards finding miraculous scientific knowledge in the Quran, then interpreting reality to fit. Mind you, much of the medical knowledge in the Quran corresponds to the understand of Galen the Physician, one of the great medical minds of the 2nd century AD. As a Greek, he got a lot *completely wrong*, but right enough to be medically useful in the vacuum of the truth, hence why his knowledge often got incorporated into the Quran without a second thought.
We shouldn't conflate Christians and creationists. Not all Christians are creationists, and not all creationists are Christians.
🤦
That was my reaction to your post, glad you’re on the same page as everyone else.
Look, I don't care about Christianity at all, I'm not a Christian. I know that this is a typical defensive reaction of evolutionists when they receive criticism. If you have nothing to contribute, then you're in the wrong place.
>If you have nothing to contribute, then you're in the wrong place. You've given nothing of substance and are merely asserting that you're right. There's no mention of autapomorphies. You don't mention any that would make what you see as humans, human and you fail to mention those of apes that are present in humans and explain why they should be disregarded. You've also failed to quote any source your basing your "research" on. You're entire post is worthless and you should head your own advice. You're clearly in the wrong place here.
All your bloviating is useless. We know, genetically, that we are related to chimps with a certainty that exceeds paternity tests by many orders of magnitude. I know that you think the evaluation of fossils is just subjective interpretation. I dont care. Fossilization could *not even be a thing* and we would still know we share common ancestors with apes. Even if every bone ever disintegrated upon death.
>Homo habilis is a very vague fossil with a lot of controversy. It has limbs that have nothing to do with humans. He used them to climb trees - something humans don't do. Initial descriptions of an opposable thumb and the associated precision grip and bipedalism are still being questioned today. Could you explain exactly what these differences are and why you believe they have nothing to do with humans? It sounds like you're suggesting every human ancestor necessarily shared the traits we see in modern humans, but mosaic and increasingly basal traits are something we expect to see as we look back in time at our family tree. Also, while the extent of the opposability and dexterity of homo habilis' thumb may be in question, that doesn't seem to be the case for its bipedalism. The foramen magnum being located at the base of the skull rather than the back (like modern chimpanzees) makes that a pretty open and shut case, I'd say. I'd be happy to take a look at some academic sources claiming otherwise though.
I can climb trees. Chimpanzees can go bipedal. Pretty sure I would crush a chimp in a foot race, chimp would crush me in a climbing race. Due to morphology, we could expect homo habilis' performance to be somewhere in between my performance and a chimps. Dare I say "intermediate"? Hmmm. Maybe H. habilis was...nah, couldn't be.
Dude thinks evolution is only for humans. Dude also doesn’t understand how difficult fossilization is.
Did you use AI to write this?
>It is a fact that different features are more pronounced in different regions. For example, you could tell the difference between an Inuit and an African pygmy or an Australian aborigine. These differences were even more pronounced in the past. Depending on which race you come from, you can tell this from your anatomical structure. This is perfectly normal. "I am racist! It's ok, though: I used to be even *more* racist!" Explain how these differences were \_more\_ pronounced in the past, if all humans share a common ancestor (which, you know, is the correct interpretation, but is also one your position absolutely requires). Where did these differences come from, and how were they maintained? Honestly, "there are far more ancient lineages of hominids than just the ones that we descended from" isn't anything like the slam dunk you seem to think it is. It's...literally correct: all lineages diverge, but most branches eventually go extinct. Sometimes lineages interbreed with closely related lineages before this happens, exactly as we know happened with the denisovans and neanderthals. This doesn't make those lineages any less denisovan or neanderthal, nor any less extinct.
There were a lot of ape species, but then all of history is a lot of time. Right now is very, very, very little time.
how about you use sources that support evolution to actually understand evolution and THEN look for creationist (or similar sources) to see if something is wrong. i wouldnt try to learn about creationism from "evolutionists" id go to creationist, to see what they really have to say and make sure im not fighting strawmen. you did not do such thing. and pretty much 99% of creationist also have this mistake. learn what you actually are arguing against first.
Okay here's what we have. We have a collection of fossils. The oldest ones don't look as much like modern humans, but as we look at fossils from the very same areas that lived closer and closer to the modern day, we see a clear progression of traits towards the form of modern humans. Our explanation for this is evolution, a process that we already know happens, as we can see it happen in the lab. What is the problem with our explanation and do you have a better one? Science isn't about being 100% certain about everything. We only care about coming up with the best explanation. If you can't identify any SPECIFIC problems with our explanation, and if you can't offer any better explanation that accounts for all this evidence, then our explanation is still the best one. And we all know you don't have an explanation that accounts for this evidence. You would much rather just pretend the evidence doesn't exist.
Go find the fossils that haven't been selectively picked. Prove us wrong.
Like most theists, you are only interested in human evolution for some reason. Neither you nor I have a Ph.d level of knowledge on this subject. I do understand that hominid evolution is a complex and I think not entirely resolved question. I'll just point out that you seem to think that you know more than the world's biologists and anthropologists, which seems extremely unlikely, don't you think?
>Today, only 120 of ape species exist. Where? Is there some unexplored part of the Congo that has quadruple the Hominoid species diversity of the rest of the world combined?
LOL Whut? So a few things... 1. Either we have fossils that support the theory of transitions or we don't. We do. 2. Why do Creationists always love to run their mouths about how we don't have enough fossils to point out transitions when we clearly do....it's almost as if a gaggle of buffoons who insist on trying to pretend that a their interpretation of a collection of often contradictory, always wrong, Bronze Aged folk tales and mythology handed down from genocidal desert savages isn't a better commentary on Science than actual Science....oh wait. 3. OP, please feel free to use this somehow smoking gun regarding the cherry picking of fossils to finally explain how the Bible got it right when it asserted that bats are birds, and Whales are fish.....along with why exactly do air breathing "fish" who have hair(sparse as it is), excrete milk to feed their offspring, and have mammalian wrist and finger bones inside their flippers, and are genetically far more closely related to horses, cows, and Bison, than they are to fish that breath via extracting oxygen thru their gills.....
>You can also debate this with me live on the (unofficial) Discord server of DebateEvolution. Write to me and we will make an appointment Drop the invite link. Are you scared because you know you'll get swarmed with people smarter than you?
Calm down https://discord.com/invite/QsMpP9U
I sent the link and still no response...
I am confused on how we would find fossils that support evolutionary transition by any other means than evolutionary transition having taken place. There is a pattern in the strata of earth crust where the further down you go the simpler the organisms found. It stands to reason that the strata will layer from older to newer so this is pretty solid evidence that life evolved over millions of years from simple organisms to what we have today. Evolution is a working theory. It has been used to make predictions about the evolution of certain extinct species that later findings verified. I find it strange that people who claim evolution is wrong rarely ever put forward another option, well... Aside from magic.
Excellent insight. The fossils are noy biological evidence for anything except what they are. Any claims of progression are cherry picking. In fact back in the day they just didn't have the imagination to see there was a greater diversity in biology and the fossilization came from a few events and simply captured that diversity. the fossils are silent on thier parents and kids.
>Claims of progression are cherry picking Based on vibes?
All of biology is silent on your weird claims of how genetics doesn’t matter but for some reason now you’re complaining? You don’t seem to mind since you don’t have any sources to back up your claims. Oh yeah. The fossil record is excellent evidence for human evolution.