News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Homo Naledi Versus Creationism

Started by stromboli, October 05, 2015, 12:40:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

stromboli

http://www.evoanth.net/2015/10/05/homo-naledi-disproves-creationism/

QuoteHomo naledi is an important new fossil from Africa that is a huge boon to our understanding of human evolution. It helps provide solid evidence for many hypotheses about our ancestors.

Creationism has a lot of flaws. It’s kind of racist, deceptive, and sometimes downright ignorant. But at it’s core the main problem is that it just isn’t science. Science is the most reliable way we have to test ideas and figure out if they’re accurate. Without this tool, creationists can’t determine if one of their ideas is more accurate than another. Which is where Homo naledi comes in. Without any way to actually figure out which of their ideas about the fossil is right a creationist civil war has erupted on the subject.

And the results are hilarious.


The two basic sides are whether this find is just a human, or just an ape. After all, there’s no way it could be some transition between the two. Creation Ministries International espouses the most common view: that since Homo naledi is part of the Homo family; it’s just human and nothing special.

But why label the remains Homo naledi if there is so much indication that these may have been ordinary humans with some unique anatomical variations just as there are variations today between different people groups but all descended from the first two people created by Godâ€"Adam and Eve?

. . .

Indeed, H. naledi has been described as having features “similar to early Homo species including Homo erectus, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis” . . . Scientists such as Wolpoff as far back as 2001 argued that these should really all be included under H. sapiens, human beings.

Of course; they’re not ignorant of the fact that this idea disagrees with some creationists. As such they’re careful to not close the door completely on the interpretation that it’s actually an ape; promising to re-evaluate their position at a later date. And by re-evaluate, I strongly suspect they just mean “copy whatever other creationists say.” Which is something the Institute for Creation Research has already done.

They also started out claiming that Homo naledi was just another human.

Their human feet and skulls, plus ritualistic burial, show that Homo nalediâ€"if this name stands the test of timeâ€"was likely just another human variety.
But 5 days later a little footnote was posted at the bottom of the page


Update: Upon closer examination, the skeletal remains given the name Homo naledi show a host of primate characteristics, and evolutionists have pointed out shortcomings with the ritualistic burial interpretation.

What’s particularly interesting is that there’s no citation for this new information. No specific evolutionary criticism of the ritual burial, or which primate traits convinced them. Which is a shame, because the timing coincides with the publication of an Answers in Genesis piece on the subject â€" after the ICRs initial post but before their update. This takes the opposite position, arguing that Homo naledi was actually just an ape.

the extremely small braincaseâ€"assuming the composite reconstruction is accurateâ€"and the sloped ape-like face, the jaw, the shoulder, the curved fingers and toes, the rib cage, and flared pelvis all are consistent with an australopithecine variant
Clearly, the creationist narrative is in disarray. Some can’t even agree that all the fossils found belong to the same species, let alone decide if it was ape or human. At the end of the day this is because all they have is a narrative; not science.
If they problems they were finding with this fossil were real, surely they would all be arriving at the same conclusion? But they aren’t so they won’t.

This sort of disagreement undermines any scrap of credibility creationists might have left. As such, it can’t be allowed to continue. Over the next few weeks I suspect we’ll see creationists falling into lockstep as one narrative becomes dominant. After all, we’ve already seen the ICR do a complete 180 on the subject. But hopefully, dear reader, you’ll agree. By then the damage will have been done.

The term transitional fossil has been used to death, but Homo Naledi is significant because of the completeness of the find- some 15 total fossils. And it cannot clearly be considered human and more than likely has to be considered an interim phase in evolution. I love science, I truly do.

BY THE WAY- I think someone posted an article on Homo Naledi earlier, but I didn't see it. Apologies if that is the case.

Gawdzilla Sama

We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

popsthebuilder

Quote from: stromboli on October 05, 2015, 12:40:17 PM
http://www.evoanth.net/2015/10/05/homo-naledi-disproves-creationism/

The term transitional fossil has been used to death, but Homo Naledi is significant because of the completeness of the find- some 15 total fossils. And it cannot clearly be considered human and more than likely has to be considered an interim phase in evolution. I love science, I truly do.

BY THE WAY- I think someone posted an article on Homo Naledi earlier, but I didn't see it. Apologies if that is the case.
How many bones...15?


Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


jonb

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 09, 2015, 11:08:06 PM
How many bones...15?


Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You did not even bother to look at the link and the first image in it let alone read it!



Are you so stupid that you think the picture only shows 15 bones, because you can't count that many or is it that your intention to post was that you wanted to prove that creationists do not study the evidence?

Either way you have proved any arguments that come from you are coming from an evidently witless pillock.

(The fossils of probably 15 individuals)

Termin

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 09, 2015, 11:08:06 PM
How many bones...15?


Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Are you a Young earth creationist by any chance ?

Please say yes :)
Termin 1:1

Evolution is probably the slowest biological process on planet earth, the only one that comes close is the understanding of it by creationists.

jonb

Quote from: Termin on October 09, 2015, 11:37:18 PM
Are you a Young earth creationist by any chance ?

Please say yes :)

Termin; I think this particular christard threw himself into the ring for the entertainment of the crowd. He's already half dead anyway, at least mentally, it would be a mercy to finish it off.


popsthebuilder

Quote from: Termin on October 09, 2015, 11:37:18 PM
Are you a Young earth creationist by any chance ?

Please say yes :)
That was funny. Please don't think I'm dense. Strong? Yes. Dumb? No.

You could say their is and always was a "watchmaker", sometimes he steps in big time to adjust the time.

Evolution and creation are one and the same if you observe everything as being started at one point by the will of God the creator.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


popsthebuilder

Quote from: jonb on October 09, 2015, 11:49:59 PM
Termin; I think this particular christard threw himself into the ring for the entertainment of the crowd. He's already half dead anyway, at least mentally, it would be a mercy to finish it off.


I assure you I have but just begun.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


jonb

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 09, 2015, 11:51:28 PM
I assure you I have but just begun.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

No we have already seen that you fell on your own sword, its just a question of how long you take staggering about.

popsthebuilder

Quote from: jonb on October 09, 2015, 11:54:17 PM
No we have already seen that you fell on your own sword, its just a question of how long you take staggering about.
Not even bleeding, when did I stab myself?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


jonb

When you proved that either you could not count fifteen or that you do not look at the evidence, that's terminal for anybody that even wants to pretend they have a credible argument.

Hijiri Byakuren

I wonder how long it will be before the moderators throw this one into purgatory. :lol:


Secretly a Warsie.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

jonb

He seems to have the map of how to get there, the big question is-
can he read it?

popsthebuilder

Quote from: jonb on October 09, 2015, 11:59:59 PM
When you proved that either you could not count fifteen or that you do not look at the evidence, that's terminal for anybody that even wants to pretend they have a credible argument.
Nope. I agree with evolution to an extent and creation to an extent. They work quite well together if one actually looks at the ramifications of the cohesion of the two. Why can't you agree that some form of creation is plausible as everything can not start from nothing in itself.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


jonb

#14
If you can't count and/or you don't even look at the evidence placed in front of you before you spout off about it what credibility have you?

It does not matter what your views are for or against you have rendered them worthless.