Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways
The New York Times (Science Times) ^ | August 19, 2003 | NICHOLAS WADE

Posted on 08/19/2003 5:41:06 AM PDT by Pharmboy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 last
To: Sam Cree
Sorry! Should have sourced that figure.

For anyone wanting to read the web article from the beginning, click here.

L and M are a neanderthal and a Cro-magnon, respectively.

101 posted on 08/19/2003 7:05:32 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
"Well, "M" looks a little like James Carville."

Yeah, has about as much hair!

102 posted on 08/19/2003 7:36:35 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Thanks.

So, if I am reading this right, Cro Magnon man was a "modern" man.
103 posted on 08/19/2003 7:42:07 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
btw, now that you posted the picture, I see what they meant, talking about "long" faces on that other thread, and the relative shortness of ours.
104 posted on 08/19/2003 7:44:49 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Another silly thread where people who should know better argue with creationists. They aren't going to change their limited view of the world why bother educating them?
105 posted on 08/19/2003 7:51:18 PM PDT by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Cro-magnon is basically modern and is grouped within H. sapiens. The fossils show a more robust appearance than the typical modern skull, but they're within easy striking distance.
106 posted on 08/19/2003 7:57:24 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Yup. Some real pooch muzzles on that figure there.
107 posted on 08/19/2003 7:58:23 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Yeah, I see that the cheekbones are very prominent on that Cro Magnon skull.
108 posted on 08/19/2003 8:05:10 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Background on that Cro-magnon find. (Doesn't get any prettier close up.)
109 posted on 08/19/2003 8:08:48 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Little Ray; Maria S
It is up to me to do the disclaimer on Mr. Retro's post #95.

M and N in that set are humans. L, K, and J are Neandertals which DNA tests have shown are not the ancestors of modern humans. That takes us back to I, Homo Egaster, which went extinct long before M and N ever show up in the fossil record (about 40 something thousand years ago). Those dots do not connect.

A-I homininds look as much like the great ape they just discovered in the Congo as they do a human. It does not follow that N and M descended from them.
110 posted on 08/19/2003 8:17:42 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Those dots do not connect.

You mean like, "Where are the transitionals?" Nothing will ever connect the dots for you.

When Darwin wrote, you know how much of that figure had been observed? "A" and "N." So long after he's dead we find B through M ordered correctly in the sediments. I keep asking, was he right or was he the luckiest charlatan of all time?

Out for the night.

111 posted on 08/19/2003 8:24:35 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: SLB
Well, my take on this article is this. The pictures at the top are captioned to show conventional wisdom, not stated as fact, also the webbing comment is refering to a theory that has benn around for a few decades, that our ancestors were in a tight spot, and lived in the water for a while (many generations)--the evidence supporting this theory is webbing, lack of body hair and fatty "blubber" layer under the skin. They obviously left the semi-aquatic lifestyle long ago. And nowhere here does it try to say you were evolved from a frog.
112 posted on 08/19/2003 8:44:25 PM PDT by Unassuaged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Of course, they would never consider that we humans were originally without "fur" and that we were designed that way by a Creator Who in the end is going to have the Last Laugh!

So far, there's only one piece of evidence supporting this - the Bible (and Koran). But there are literally thousands of pieces of evidence - common genes and mutations and other genetic material - supporting the idea that we share a common ancestor with the (other) great apes.

Just the Bible and Koran. No other religion has anything much like Genesis.

113 posted on 08/19/2003 8:56:36 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
So far, there's only one piece of evidence supporting this - the Bible (and Koran)

The evidence we have is exactly the same evidence that evolutionists have. Fossils are fossils are fossils. The difference is, we have a different worldview. We accept the fact of the existence of God, and His creative acts. The history of those acts is recorded in the Bible, that is true. But that does not automatically negate our interpretation of the facts.

I teach my students that truth claims are only true ir they comport with reality. Your truth claim of lot's of evidence for evolution just won't stand up to what is actually being discovered. The incredible complexity of even the smallest cell, chock full of information, defies an evolutionary explanation. The smallest known cell contains 482 genes and 540,00 base pairs in its DNA, and it doesn't have enough genetic information to live on its on - it is a parasite. So where did all the information for the first stand alone living cell come from? Evolutionist cannot answer that question...and yet that is the most basic question that can be asked.

Respectfully
LiteKeeper

114 posted on 08/19/2003 9:11:43 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Fossils are fossils are fossils.

I never mentioned fossils - just the shared dna.

Your truth claim of lot's of evidence for evolution just won't stand up to what is actually being discovered

Check this out: Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Especially the chart in section 4.7 Is there a non-evolutionary explanation for this?

[abiogenesis] Evolutionist cannot answer that question...

That's a far cry from "never will anwser that question". The genetic code was only discovered 50 years ago. do you think it's realistic to expect its origins to already have been figured out? It's being researched RNA World Lots of intriguing hypotheses and theorizing, not a whole lot of solid results yet. I'm very curious what we will find under the ice on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

115 posted on 08/19/2003 9:27:57 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Crap like this gives science and especially evoutionary theory a bad name. The louse theory is speculative enough, but to confound it with sexual dimorphism makes it read like a 3rd-rate science fiction fantasy. It's a shitty job, but I guess someone's got to make science interesting, relevant and captivating to the masses.
116 posted on 08/19/2003 10:52:26 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I stand corrected; however my point was that we did not evolve from modern apes. Some people think we evolved from chimps and gorillas and this obviously not the case. We share a distant common ancestor and from that point our species have diverged.
To go with your skulls, it is interesting to note that an infant chimp looks much more human than an adult chimp.
117 posted on 08/20/2003 6:25:08 AM PDT by Little Ray (When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: e_engineer
ROTF!!! I missed that thread! Thanks for the link. I needed a giggle :)
118 posted on 08/20/2003 6:28:57 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: paws_and_whiskers
LOL! I immediately thought of this guy!
119 posted on 08/20/2003 6:32:02 AM PDT by Snowy (My golden retriever can lick your honor student)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Might as well mention, regarding your other claims, that A and I (or B and I for that matter) don't look the same to me, nor do I and J look unbreachably different. There is nothing magical in your arbitrary lumpings.

Furthermore, different creationists (or even the same creationist at different times) produce different arbitrary lumpings from the same data. The game, of course, is to say that everything HERE is "An ape! Just an ape!" but everything THERE is "A man! Just a man!" So where is the line drawn?

All over the map.

Creationist Classifications of Hominid Fossils
Specimen Cuozzo
(1998)
Gish
(1985)
Mehlert
(1996)
Bowden
(1981)
Menton
(1988)
Taylor
(1992)
Gish
(1979)
Baker
(1976)
Taylor
and Van
Bebber
(1995)
Taylor
(1996)
Lubenow
(1992)
ER 1813 ER 1813
(510 cc)
Ape Ape Ape Ape Ape Ape
Java Man Java
(940 cc)
Ape Ape Human Ape Ape Human
Peking Man Peking
(915-
1225 cc)
Ape Ape Human Ape Human Human
ER 1470 ER 1470
(750 cc)
Ape Ape Ape Human Human Human
ER 3733 ER 3733
(850 cc)
Ape Human Human Human Human Human
WT 15000 WT 15000
(880 cc)
Ape Human Human Human Human Human

120 posted on 08/20/2003 7:11:04 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
To go with your skulls, it is interesting to note that an infant chimp looks much more human than an adult chimp.

Yes. I think this is taken to be what they call an "infantilism" or a "juvenilism"--I forget exactly--in human evolution. We've evolved to retain some baby-ape look throughout our lives.

121 posted on 08/20/2003 7:13:33 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Neoteny.
122 posted on 08/20/2003 7:51:05 AM PDT by forsnax5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: forsnax5
I'm taking medicaton and it's under control.
123 posted on 08/20/2003 7:57:20 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
I never cease to be amused at the speculations of 'scientists'.
124 posted on 08/20/2003 7:59:29 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
"Another silly thread where people who should know better argue with creationists. They aren't going to change their limited view of the world why bother educating them?"

So you believe that whales and walruses lost their fur so they could swim faster?

Again, I never cease to be amazed at the speculations of 'scientists.'

125 posted on 08/20/2003 8:01:11 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
"That's a far cry from "never will anwser that question".

And do you have faith that man will some day answer that question?

126 posted on 08/20/2003 8:04:12 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: katana
"If they really want to find ancient homo sapiens, they need to look near ancient shorelines, which because of changes in sea levels are now far off shore."

As I have stated a few times here, tooting my own horn shamelessly, I am designing an exhibition on paleontology in the Southern California area. I am a designer, not a scientist, but from what I have learned not all the ancient coastlines are under water now. A lot of fossils have been found in Orange County that are up to 100 million years old, and they are mostly marine creatures. In fact, the coast line was around where Riverside is now! Of course, there were no humans here then so no evidence of early man is found.

127 posted on 08/20/2003 8:26:15 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
"Maria: dogs evolved from wolves and wolves still exist. OKAY?"

I read recently that dogs and wolves are genetically identical. Selective breeding and domestication have changed dogs over the last 50,000 years or however long it's been.

128 posted on 08/20/2003 8:34:39 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
Not exactly identical, but close enough to interbreed; genetic studies take it back to the derivation about 15,000 years ago--in Asia (Asian wolves).
129 posted on 08/20/2003 9:21:53 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Brazil wax.

What on earth.... ?

Golly, you know, I'm really out of my depth when I try to go to these Very Important Threads that you intellectuals frequent. I'm more used to those brainless, trivial Laci Peterson murder threads.

130 posted on 08/20/2003 9:28:38 AM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
I know I was over generalizing, and should have known that a freeper would catch me.

I guess tectonic uplift on the West Coast explains what you're seeing, but I wonder where the shorelines were within the past few million years, i.e. in the probable timeframe of human evolution. My favorite class in college (and one I actually paid attention in) was Geology and I've always been skeptical about "accepted" doctrines of how, when, and where the human species developed.

Your project sounds very interesting. Where will it be housed?

131 posted on 08/20/2003 9:29:51 AM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Wake up I don't discourse with you people. The comment was menat to be to Vade in any case I clicked the worng person to respond to.

Believe what silliness you want it doesn't make it true.
132 posted on 08/20/2003 11:15:16 AM PDT by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: forsnax5
Neoteny.

I think the word I really wanted was "paedomorphism."

133 posted on 08/20/2003 12:34:42 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I think the word I really wanted was "paedomorphism."

An excellent word.

How do you feel about "gerontomorphism?"

:)

134 posted on 08/20/2003 2:12:31 PM PDT by forsnax5 (Is that gerontomorphism I see in the mirror there?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: forsnax5
How do you feel about "gerontomorphism?"

My personal experiences with it so far are not good.

135 posted on 08/20/2003 2:13:13 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
[research into abiogenesis]

And do you have faith that man will some day answer that question?

Seems likely, though I have no way of guessing how soon. Remember, the genetic code was only discovered 50 years ago - give'em a little time.

136 posted on 08/20/2003 7:27:33 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
You asked if Darwin was right or was he the luckiest charlatan of all time.

I don't think Darwin was a charlatan. He honestly believed what he was saying, and he discovered an important partial truth. His special theory of evolution was mostly right, though recent studies of those same finches might cast doubt on some of the finer points of that.

His general theory was an unsound extrapolation of data, and even evos like yourself now doubt classical darwinian evolution as a total explanation for biotic diversity. That is because the fossil record, while containing some things that could be considered to have a stream of transitionals, contains too many cases of sudden appearence of new forms. That is why Punctuated Equilibrium was advanced as an explanation.

So in conclusion, Darwin was neither totally right, nor that lucky, nor a charlatan. He was a good natrualist who discovered a parital truth and took it too far.
137 posted on 08/21/2003 7:22:41 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
As far as "creationists" lumping the same fossils in different groups, I will make a deal with you. Don't try to pin me with the baggage from anyone claiming to be a creationist, especially YECs whose interpretations of the evidence I do not share, and I will not pin you with the baggage of all those historical characters who were big on evolution in their personal philosophy.

Since some of those people were the bloodiest tyrants in history, I am sure you can concede that this is a more than fair offer on my part. You are no more responsible for their positions than I am for that of Gish or some other YEC. OK?

I will defend MY positions, or that of a creationist in which I have some measure of trust, like Dr. Hugh Ross and F. Rana. They would say all of those critters were big-brained hominids, but it takes more than that to make a human. They would argue that the archeology and DNA results rule out all of those critters from being human.

Further, all who have read the book "Bones of Contention" know that evolutionists have the exact same problem. There are arguments over classification ("lumpers" and "splitters").
138 posted on 08/21/2003 7:35:37 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
I would assume the result was due because wearing fur was not politically correct.

Red

139 posted on 08/21/2003 7:44:20 PM PDT by Conservative4Ever (life is but a dream...Sha Boom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


140 posted on 04/21/2006 9:56:45 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

this is science. where are these suppositions?


141 posted on 10/30/2007 7:06:05 PM PDT by ktan87
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Dogs are the result of selective breeding. Dogs and wolves freely interbreed even after many, many years of isolation and man’s best attempts to shape them into vastly different types of animals. I think you chose a very bad example.


142 posted on 10/30/2007 7:19:56 PM PDT by 3Lean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: blam

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


143 posted on 05/04/2009 1:10:19 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson