Is this something else for Creationists to think about?

[naomi24]

http://www.guardian.c...-people-species-human

[vetuste_ennemi]

Thanks for your clarification, Clanad. I didn't understand it. Brain fade on my part. Still, you've got me interested in Gould and I'll do some reading up on the PE topic.
I love the way you rise to a challenge so effortlessly: a further post from you will demand an octosyllabic word. Somehow don't think that's going to be a problem.
The moniker? Intimations of mortality, Clanad.

[naomi24]

With regard to the use of multi-syllabic words, if they are not in common usage, the message isn’t being conveyed – hence the effort is wasted. As I’ve frequently told a friend of mine here – and he knows who he is - if you want people to understand what you’re saying then speak plain English. The first rule of good communication – in my opinion.

[keyplus90]

The scientists present at answer bank know more than the scientists in the real world. That is the reason that few pixels here make claims that real human don’t. What a courage and liberty internet has given to few.

By the way would I be considered creationist as well or only Christians have the pleasure?

[naomi24]

Keyplus, //By the way would I be considered creationist as well or only Christians have the pleasure? //

The question doesn't specify religious preferences. If you hold creationist views, then you are very welcome to express them.

[jomifl]

Clanad, perhaps it is not punctuated equilibrium but insufficient fossil finding. It may be that the very fossil that will fill the gaps in our knowledge may never be found by humans, but after a few million years of erosion and evolution something may find it.

[Clanad]

So, naomi24, is the fact that you may not have an understanding of the communication invalidate its factualness? Somehow I don't think so.

Jomfil... so you would like to invoke the god of the fossil gap? Fact is, the fossil record is as complete as it needs be to have any grasp of its meaning related to the origins of species.

If, as you suppose, the fossil record is incomplete and, therefore unreliable in determining facts related to long extinct species, then the entire framework of evolution truly is at risk. Darwin himself admited: "We have seen in the last chapter that whole groups of species sometimes falsely appear to have abruptly developed; and I have attempted to give an explanation of this fact, which if true would be fatal to my views." (Source: 'The Origin of Species', New York: The New American Library, 1958, p. 316).

Additionally, to relegate to the nugatory the evidence of the fossil record soon arrives at reductio ad absurdum, in that not only Darwin, but the legions of anthropologists, geologist, paleontologist and other students of past history are cast upon the dust pile and all of their tomes are invalid. I'm not sure you intend to go there... are you?

(You can be the one to inform my now aged Geology Professor, Dr. Samuel H. "Doc" Knight that he's just a well spoken haruspex and that his internationally published "Geology of the Rocky Mountains" (still used as college level references) are mere drivel)

[FredPuli43]

You were doing so well , Clanad, until you stopped speaking English ( 'I'm not sure you intend to go there'). I understood you up to that moment. That's a benefit of the classical education that all we Britons have, of course.

[ludwig]

// to relegate to the nugatory the evidence of the fossil record soon arrives at reductio ad absurdum //

That's just what I was thinking.

[Clanad]

So, Fred, is there not a sub-course in drivel for a fully rounded education?

[birdie1971]

Clandad - “... it appears the information surrounding the Yunnan Province fossilized remains presents as much stress for evolutionists as it does creationists in that any population living for centuries if not millenia in proximity to 'modern' h. sapiens-sapiens calls into question exactly how the evolutionary theory fits...”

No it doesn't. Your statement is inaccurate. It doesn't present a problem for the theory of evolution at all. We know that since Cro-Magnon (35,000 years ago), upright walking humanoids have gone through many stages of evolution. All except what we now describe as Homo sapiens have died out. However, several species of 'humans' have coexisted together – it is a well established fact that Neanderthals were coincident with modern man. The 'Red Deer Man' is most likely another evolutionary offshoot that became extinct like Neanderthal. I expect that given time, we'll find even more evolutionary dead ends in the 'human' lineage.

None of this contradicts evolutionary theory.

[birdie1971]

Clanad - “... If, as you [jomifl] suppose, the fossil record is incomplete and, therefore unreliable in determining facts related to long extinct species...”

You've made a massive leap there. Just because the fossil record is incomplete does not make it, “unreliable in determining facts related to long extinct species”. We have a plethora of data stretching back millennia that categorically indicates that species evolve from one to another. There are gaps in the record but the trend has been unequivocally established.

The fossil record is incomplete. Only about one bone in a billion ever becomes a fossil:

“... the complete fossil legacy of all the Americans alive today—, that'’s 270 million people with 206 bones each—, will only be about fifty bones, one quarter of a complete skeleton. That’'s not to say of course that any of these bones will actually be found. Bearing in mind that they can be buried anywhere within an area of slightly over 3.6 million square miles, little of which will ever be turned over, much less examined, it would be something of a miracle if they were. Fossils are in every sense vanishingly rare. Most of what has lived on Earth has left behind no record at all. It has been estimated that less than one species in ten thousand has made it into the fossil record...” [Bill Bryson, - A Short History of Nearly Everything]

[birdie1971]

Clanad - “... The problem is made more complicated by a distortion of creationism by the 'Young Earth Creationists'...”

Just to clarify, where do you stand on creationism and evolution? Reading your posts it's apparent that you don't seem to subscribe to the idea of a 'young' earth (ie. one that is only 14,000 years old or less) so what do you believe to be the truth?

[Clanad]

Hmmm... "You've made a massive leap there. Just because the fossil record is incomplete does not make it, “unreliable in determining facts related to long extinct species”. We have a plethora of data stretching back millennia that categorically indicates that species evolve from one to another. There are gaps in the record but the trend has been unequivocally established."

Seems you've made exactly the same point I did... thank you!


It's truly fortuitious to this discussion that you raise the issue of Cro-Magnon (they lived from about 45,000 to 10,000 years ago in the Upper Paleolithic period of the Pleistocene epoch). Do you contend then, that they were "out of Africa" having evolved in Africa or the Levant and then moved to Europe? If so, how do you account for their sudden appearance in Europe (nearly all of Europe) with no trail to (or from) anywhere? To what do you attribute their strikingly different lifestyles (including the first art and use of advanced tools) of which there were no previous examples?

[birdie1971]

As I'm about to retire for the night, I shall respond more fully to your post tomorrow. I would be grateful if you could respond to my last post - “Just to clarify, where do you stand on creationism and evolution?”

Thanks in advance.

[naomi24]

Clanad, make no mistake, I understand what you’ve written. I was simply pointing out - in response to Vetuste’s apparent amusement - that when writers abandon themselves to the mire of erudite brilliance that is their own literary genius, the message, for many readers, vanishes without trace.

[WaldoMcFroog]

The sad thing is that Clanad is bright enough to know that the argument he's trying to claim proceeds from Gould etc's line that "stochastically defined events that produced modern man could only happen once" is pure, refined bum gravy.

It's a wordy way of rephrasing the old canard "if man came from monkeys, how come there's still monkeys?"

It is exactly as stupid than that, and Clanad knows full well why it's a pathetic argument. That he continues to make it suggests much about his honesty in such debates.

[Clanad]

Naomi24, did the responses message directed particularly to you (and birdie1971) vanish without a trace? Apparently not. However, your mixing of metaphors, such as "...mire of erudite brilliance..." produces a kind of gruntleness that's refreshing.

Welcome back from the long winter's nap, WF... your contributions are always luculent, of course, even if somewhat borborygmus.

While Gould is only one of the various scientists I've come to appreciate, this link is interesting in its extensiveness... all peer reviewed, of course and includes the prolific volumes of books he authored:

http://www.stephenjay...org/bibliography.html

Say what you will, the man was passionate and knowledgeable in his field.

Perhaps you'd like to add a list of papers and/or books for which you're responsible?

[naomi24]

Clanad, //produces a kind of gruntleness that's refreshing. //

Jolly good. That was the intention - and we (as 'they' say) aim to please.

[WaldoMcFroog]

My dispute is not with Gould's point that , but your ridiculous application of it, as per the more common, but equally stupid, creationist claim of, "If man evolved from monkeys" etc etc.

It appears you would like us to consider Red Deer Cave people have evolved in complete isolation from modern humans and to conclude that this is so utterly unlikely (which it would be, and where I agree with Gould's point) that ergo evolution must be bunk.

The claim that the evolution of modern human beings could not possibly arise on more than one occasion does not preclude that other species of humans existed, having evolved from a common ancestor. No one with any understanding of evolution would suggest otherwise.

If you are claiming this is the case, it suggests that you are even more ignorant about evolution that I have ever suspected you to be.

Of course, you're not that ignorant and know full well that while this find is hugely interesting and exciting, it does little to challenge evolutionary theory and fits with it perfectly well. You're just dishonest and a liar for Jesus.

Incidentally, I agree with Naomi; your attempts to appear clever by using obscure words (or should I say "your sesquipedalian hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophilia"?) merely makes you seem pretentious. It certainly doesn't help you communicate your point to others, which is rather the point of words, no?

Like I said, pure bum gravy.

[jomifl]

Clanad, If the fossil record is complete why have recent finds of hominid fossils caused such a stir? My impression is that hominid fossils are comparatively rare and subject to a lot of 'interpretation' and 'reconstruction'. I think we may have a few more surprises before the lineage of the hominids is clear. There were probably a lot of hominids who inhabited regions where remains just did not get fossilised so we will never know what they were like.