Law0 min ago
Is this something else for Creationists to think about?
47 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Thank you. I'm certainly refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.
Tell you what... I'll try being smarter if you try being nicer...
By the way, National Geographic Daily News apparently doesn't seem to share your enthusiasm :
""Nothing Extraordinary" About Mystery Humans
The team's suggestion that the Red Deer Cave people are somehow evolutionarily unique is receiving a skeptical reception from other scientists.
Physical anthropologist Erik Trinkaus described the findings as "an unfortunate overinterpretation and misinterpretation of robust early modern humans, probably with affinities to modern Melanesians"—indigenous peoples of Pacific islands stretching from New Guinea to Fiji (map).
"There is nothing extraordinary" about the newly announced fossil human, added Trinkaus, of Washington University in St. Louis, via email.
Philipp Gunz, of Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, isn't convinced by the study team's interpretation either.
"I would be surprised if it really was a new human group that was previously undiscovered," said, Gunz, also a physical anthropologist."
Tell you what... I'll try being smarter if you try being nicer...
By the way, National Geographic Daily News apparently doesn't seem to share your enthusiasm :
""Nothing Extraordinary" About Mystery Humans
The team's suggestion that the Red Deer Cave people are somehow evolutionarily unique is receiving a skeptical reception from other scientists.
Physical anthropologist Erik Trinkaus described the findings as "an unfortunate overinterpretation and misinterpretation of robust early modern humans, probably with affinities to modern Melanesians"—indigenous peoples of Pacific islands stretching from New Guinea to Fiji (map).
"There is nothing extraordinary" about the newly announced fossil human, added Trinkaus, of Washington University in St. Louis, via email.
Philipp Gunz, of Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, isn't convinced by the study team's interpretation either.
"I would be surprised if it really was a new human group that was previously undiscovered," said, Gunz, also a physical anthropologist."
Clandad
First, I notice with interest that you have chosen not to answer my question posted at 2am on Friday, 16th March 2012 - “Just to clarify, where do you stand on creationism and evolution?”.
Second, your question, “... how do you account for their [Cro-Magnon] sudden appearance in Europe (nearly all of Europe)... ” is particularly frivolous. You appear to be making the claim that there is no way that this species could have possibly made its way from East Africa to Europe in the established time-frame. You use the word 'suddenly' to illustrate your point. I fail to see how a species emerging from Africa approximately 35,000 years ago (or even as far back as 45,000 years ago, as you state) can be accurately described as 'suddenly' being found in a cave in the Dordogne region of France 28,000 years ago. I think it's fair to conclude that it is not particularly unusual to find that a bipedal, mobile species could and has migrated a distance of 4,000 miles in several thousand years.
You also seem to place a great deal of weight upon, “... [Cro-Magnon had] no trail to (or from) anywhere?...”. As I posted earlier, fossilised remains of any species are exceptionally rare. It's actually quite extraordinary, given the odds of fossilisation, that we have the physical evidence we do. You seem to think that this represents a flaw in evolutionary theory. You are mistaken in this belief. It is only in the last couple of hundred years that anyone has even been looking for fossilised evidence of previous life on this planet. Prior to this, no one even thought that previous species had become extinct, let alone preserved in rocks for us to discover. Your contention that the evolutionary history of modern man is flawed due to the fossil record is, quite frankly, lamentable. It would seem that, despite your obvious intelligence, you have been corralled into a theological cul-de-sac by your religion.
I simply fail to understand you incredulity in this theory and once again, I ask what your position is on the issue of evolution and creationism.
First, I notice with interest that you have chosen not to answer my question posted at 2am on Friday, 16th March 2012 - “Just to clarify, where do you stand on creationism and evolution?”.
Second, your question, “... how do you account for their [Cro-Magnon] sudden appearance in Europe (nearly all of Europe)... ” is particularly frivolous. You appear to be making the claim that there is no way that this species could have possibly made its way from East Africa to Europe in the established time-frame. You use the word 'suddenly' to illustrate your point. I fail to see how a species emerging from Africa approximately 35,000 years ago (or even as far back as 45,000 years ago, as you state) can be accurately described as 'suddenly' being found in a cave in the Dordogne region of France 28,000 years ago. I think it's fair to conclude that it is not particularly unusual to find that a bipedal, mobile species could and has migrated a distance of 4,000 miles in several thousand years.
You also seem to place a great deal of weight upon, “... [Cro-Magnon had] no trail to (or from) anywhere?...”. As I posted earlier, fossilised remains of any species are exceptionally rare. It's actually quite extraordinary, given the odds of fossilisation, that we have the physical evidence we do. You seem to think that this represents a flaw in evolutionary theory. You are mistaken in this belief. It is only in the last couple of hundred years that anyone has even been looking for fossilised evidence of previous life on this planet. Prior to this, no one even thought that previous species had become extinct, let alone preserved in rocks for us to discover. Your contention that the evolutionary history of modern man is flawed due to the fossil record is, quite frankly, lamentable. It would seem that, despite your obvious intelligence, you have been corralled into a theological cul-de-sac by your religion.
I simply fail to understand you incredulity in this theory and once again, I ask what your position is on the issue of evolution and creationism.
How about I'm nicer if you attempt to stop lying?
It's fascinating that you attempt to make capital out of my claim that it's an interesting and exciting find by quoting a couple of people saying, "Nah, it's not interesting" from an article that is considerably more balanced (the study team themselves being hesitant to commit themselves to declaring it a new species until the DNA work is done) and which actually bears the strapline "Chinese fossils hint at "new evolutionary line"—depending who you ask." Talk about confirmation bias!
We should also note that not one of those scientists thinks there is anything to upset evolutionary theory. Even if the Red Deer Cave people turn out to be modern humans, the best you've managed is to have a pop at some bloke on a website for saying it's exciting.
It must be so satisfying being a creationist.
It's fascinating that you attempt to make capital out of my claim that it's an interesting and exciting find by quoting a couple of people saying, "Nah, it's not interesting" from an article that is considerably more balanced (the study team themselves being hesitant to commit themselves to declaring it a new species until the DNA work is done) and which actually bears the strapline "Chinese fossils hint at "new evolutionary line"—depending who you ask." Talk about confirmation bias!
We should also note that not one of those scientists thinks there is anything to upset evolutionary theory. Even if the Red Deer Cave people turn out to be modern humans, the best you've managed is to have a pop at some bloke on a website for saying it's exciting.
It must be so satisfying being a creationist.
Only in the parralell universe known as "Wally's World" can one be accused of lying by simply quoting acredited, credentialed researchers from their published, peer reviewed research papers as well as equally as competent researchers giving an 'anti' view in a news report.
Often time, in this section of AB alone, I see posts decrying the lack of response from those of various faiths... perhaps this exchange can give an inkling as to why. Disagreement as to views is always welcome, but for some reason, that soon degenerates into ad hominum attacks.
Fact is, none of us... including Wally, can do anything but attempt to interpret the various scientific data available. I'll gladly step up and state that my intrepretations are influenced by my worldview... just as I'm sure most other's are. The one thing to remember, however, is for every well researched, published paper by those that devote their lives to such work, alternate views are readily available, equally as well researched, etc.
My CV would not include the depth of knowledge concerning the current point of discussion derived from such dedicated life's work and it may well work out at some point that a preponderence of evidence supports a view that I don't hold at present... at which point I will say..."so be it..."
It is a little creepy though that Wally can be absent for months on end and one posting in this Section and this Section only rings his klaxson... But then, that's just my view...
Birdie... I'll get back to you, but duty calls...
Often time, in this section of AB alone, I see posts decrying the lack of response from those of various faiths... perhaps this exchange can give an inkling as to why. Disagreement as to views is always welcome, but for some reason, that soon degenerates into ad hominum attacks.
Fact is, none of us... including Wally, can do anything but attempt to interpret the various scientific data available. I'll gladly step up and state that my intrepretations are influenced by my worldview... just as I'm sure most other's are. The one thing to remember, however, is for every well researched, published paper by those that devote their lives to such work, alternate views are readily available, equally as well researched, etc.
My CV would not include the depth of knowledge concerning the current point of discussion derived from such dedicated life's work and it may well work out at some point that a preponderence of evidence supports a view that I don't hold at present... at which point I will say..."so be it..."
It is a little creepy though that Wally can be absent for months on end and one posting in this Section and this Section only rings his klaxson... But then, that's just my view...
Birdie... I'll get back to you, but duty calls...
You're accused of lying because you have a well-established history on this website of falsely presenting established science in order to attempt to back up your religious convictions. It's not that you're a creationist, it's that you dishonestly represent the other side's position. I'm paying you a back handed compliment; I think you're clever enough that you need not resort to this, yet you do.
In this instance, you used a quote by Gould and implied that it made it impossible that the Red Deer Cave people could exist if evolution were true, despite the fact that you know very well why this claim is gibberish.
Are you going to claim you're unaware of the notion of common descent?
Didn't think so. It is, after all, Evolution 101.
I find it amusing that you whine about ad homs and then call me creepy.
In this instance, you used a quote by Gould and implied that it made it impossible that the Red Deer Cave people could exist if evolution were true, despite the fact that you know very well why this claim is gibberish.
Are you going to claim you're unaware of the notion of common descent?
Didn't think so. It is, after all, Evolution 101.
I find it amusing that you whine about ad homs and then call me creepy.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.